|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44367 Posts
On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: ![[image loading]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/INTERACTIVE-US-federal-deficit-over-time-EDIT-MAY5-2025-1747665363.png) Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. ![[image loading]](https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/NationalDebt_2025-June-6_v01_KA_1749245291019_hpEmbed_1x1_992.jpg) I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it.
You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it?
|
|
|
On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it?
Because, just like Introvert who will ignore when called out for lying, the only way for him to spin this lie is to "counter" my numbers with his numbers, same with Intro saying that Democrats are just as bad.
In both cases, they lie or ignore facts and move on to, as you can see from the latest Intro post, shitting on Democrats because they literally don't do anything else.
|
I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding.
Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment.
|
On October 08 2026 01:40 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? Because, just like Introvert who will ignore when called out for lying, the only way for him to spin this lie is to "counter" my numbers with his numbers, same with Intro saying that Democrats are just as bad. In both cases, they lie or ignore facts and move on to, as you can see from the latest Intro post, shitting on Democrats because they literally don't do anything else.
I can only reply to so many things during the work day but iirc federal revenue continued to increase even after inflation with both tax cuts, if not immediately then shortly thereafter. Recessions make it tricky. Spending was and remains the problem. And again, the plans dems currently propose could not in fact be paid for with the taxes they claim to support. So how this helps for the future who knows.
On October 08 2026 01:41 dyhb wrote:
I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding.
Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment.
You could be like Newsom and when California voters keep voting for the death penalty you judt refuse to carry it out anyways. How's that for a middle finger?
|
On October 08 2026 01:41 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding. Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment.
I think Balkanization is probably among the more likely/less terrifying futures we're heading toward. Still plenty of room for that to be horrifying, but there are a lot of very bleak and very likely alternatives out there.
|
On October 08 2026 01:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:40 Jankisa wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? Because, just like Introvert who will ignore when called out for lying, the only way for him to spin this lie is to "counter" my numbers with his numbers, same with Intro saying that Democrats are just as bad. In both cases, they lie or ignore facts and move on to, as you can see from the latest Intro post, shitting on Democrats because they literally don't do anything else. I can only reply to so many things during the work day but iirc federal revenue continued to increase even after inflation with both tax cuts, if not immediately then shortly thereafter. Recessions make it tricky. Spending was and remains the problem. And again, the plans dems currently propose could not in fact be paid for with the taxes they claim to support. So how this helps for the future who knows.
It's been mathematically proven that taxing the rich could dramatically increase the standard-of-life and reduce the deficit, but you're like "nah, I don't really feel like it, I really feel like spending is the real problem."
The only hard choice is whether or not you'll let your feelings cloud objective truth, and you're losing.
|
On October 08 2026 01:50 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:44 Introvert wrote:On October 08 2026 01:40 Jankisa wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? Because, just like Introvert who will ignore when called out for lying, the only way for him to spin this lie is to "counter" my numbers with his numbers, same with Intro saying that Democrats are just as bad. In both cases, they lie or ignore facts and move on to, as you can see from the latest Intro post, shitting on Democrats because they literally don't do anything else. I can only reply to so many things during the work day but iirc federal revenue continued to increase even after inflation with both tax cuts, if not immediately then shortly thereafter. Recessions make it tricky. Spending was and remains the problem. And again, the plans dems currently propose could not in fact be paid for with the taxes they claim to support. So how this helps for the future who knows. It's been mathematically proven that taxing the rich could dramatically increase the standard-of-life and reduce the deficit, but you're like "nah, I don't really feel like it, I really feel like spending is the real problem." The only hard choice is whether or not you'll let your feelings cloud objective truth, and you're losing.
Well that's just obviously not the same thing as we were just arguing about. This one has more a philosophy and needs our political priors. You can just say I have a jaded view from living in California instead .
|
On October 08 2026 01:41 dyhb wrote:
I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding.
Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment.
Abolishing slavery was not popular, so America shouldn’t do it because that ended their democracy?
This is such a bad argument, people should do the right thing regardless of popularity. Populism is the stupidest.
|
On October 08 2026 01:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:41 dyhb wrote:
I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding.
Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment. You could be like Newsom and when California voters keep voting for the death penalty you judt refuse to carry it out anyways. How's that for a middle finger? You bring up a different fail case for democratic systems. One vote cancels another. Every Californian gets the government it deserves.
On October 08 2026 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:41 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding. Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment. I think Balkanization is probably among the more likely/less terrifying futures we're heading toward. Still plenty of room for that to be horrifying, but there are a lot of very bleak and very likely alternatives out there. Balkanization is pretty synonymous for where I think we're heading. It's not less terrifying.
On October 08 2026 02:03 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:41 dyhb wrote:
I think it's pretty simple that Americans support the death penalty enough to not make it an election issue to ban it through their representatives. What's complex is giving the legislative and executive law-making bodies the middle finger and doing it by judicial fiat. That's late-stage democracy or democratic backsliding.
Just break the country up and have one half pick no capital punishment. Abolishing slavery was not popular, so America shouldn’t do it because that ended their democracy? This is such a bad argument, people should do the right thing regardless of popularity. Populism is the stupidest. I say "Just break the country up" and you bring up the historical example of that happening over perhaps a more important disagreement. Please tell the thread that I didn't bribe you to agree with me, and this was just an accidental agreement between us!
|
On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it?
"Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room."
|
On October 08 2026 01:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:50 LightSpectra wrote:On October 08 2026 01:44 Introvert wrote:On October 08 2026 01:40 Jankisa wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? Because, just like Introvert who will ignore when called out for lying, the only way for him to spin this lie is to "counter" my numbers with his numbers, same with Intro saying that Democrats are just as bad. In both cases, they lie or ignore facts and move on to, as you can see from the latest Intro post, shitting on Democrats because they literally don't do anything else. I can only reply to so many things during the work day but iirc federal revenue continued to increase even after inflation with both tax cuts, if not immediately then shortly thereafter. Recessions make it tricky. Spending was and remains the problem. And again, the plans dems currently propose could not in fact be paid for with the taxes they claim to support. So how this helps for the future who knows. It's been mathematically proven that taxing the rich could dramatically increase the standard-of-life and reduce the deficit, but you're like "nah, I don't really feel like it, I really feel like spending is the real problem." The only hard choice is whether or not you'll let your feelings cloud objective truth, and you're losing. Well that's just obviously not the same thing as we were just arguing about. This one has more a philosophy and needs our political priors. You can just say I have a jaded view from living in California instead .
Each time these tax cuts were enacted they came with huge increases in national debt and interest payments.
There is no one in their right mind that could argue that the promises they were enacted with (trickle down) happened, and the results of them on the federal budget are clearly visible.
But sure, you will as you do, continue to claim things despite the numbers showing otherwise, so what's the point.
The hilarious part is that we haven't even seen the worse of it, the BBB shit is yet to hit the fan, any tacit criticism of Trump #2 I've seen from you right wingers here was about that, but you still go around claiming that somehow, Democrats are "just as bad", even when numbers clearly show otherwise.
In other news, the president you guys choose has canceled corporate enforcement against over 200 Corporations, 44 % of those have direct and public ties to Trump.
Lack of these enforcement will, as many other things like gutting the IRS further depress federal income and fuck with the budget, but of course, Democrats are worse for the economy.
|
United States44367 Posts
On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room."
Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you?
|
On October 08 2026 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room." Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you?
The error KwarK spits out when he realizes he can't actually explain how a graph of true data is misleading, ladies and gentlemen.
You're in your 40s and thought "Changing the clocks does not provide more sunlight." was a contribution to DST discussion, I know better than to try to "convince" you of anything.
|
I think he is trying to convince people he's an idiot. Better than actively trying to radicalize people at least.
|
On October 08 2026 04:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 03:10 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room." Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you? The error KwarK spits out when he realizes he can't actually explain how a graph of true data is misleading, ladies and gentlemen. You're in your 40s and thought "Changing the clocks does not provide more sunlight." was a contribution to DST discussion, I know better than to try to "convince" you of anything.
Do you really not know why deficit totals are not what is used in comparison rather than percentages in every economics book ever? And sometimes is sited as an example on why one or the other chosen? Because if not I’m happy to explain it to you, but it seems like wasted typing if you’re just trolling.
|
United States44367 Posts
On October 08 2026 04:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 03:10 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room." Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you? The error KwarK spits out when he realizes he can't actually explain how a graph of true data is misleading, ladies and gentlemen. You're in your 40s and thought "Changing the clocks does not provide more sunlight." was a contribution to DST discussion, I know better than to try to "convince" you of anything.
Jimmy asserted that he needed daylight savings because without daylight savings there would only be 9 hours of sunlight in December which was simply not enough. It was a reasonable correction to make, we don’t know how sunlight works on his home, he may not know how it works on Earth.
|
On October 08 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 04:00 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 03:10 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room." Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you? The error KwarK spits out when he realizes he can't actually explain how a graph of true data is misleading, ladies and gentlemen. You're in your 40s and thought "Changing the clocks does not provide more sunlight." was a contribution to DST discussion, I know better than to try to "convince" you of anything. Do you really not know why deficit totals are not what is used in comparison rather than percentages in every economics book ever? And sometimes is sited as an example on why one or the other chosen? Because if not I’m happy to explain it to you, but it seems like wasted typing if you’re just trolling.
"Deficit total" is not a thing, it's called debt. Stop pretending.
|
On October 08 2026 04:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:On October 08 2026 04:00 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 03:10 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room." Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you? The error KwarK spits out when he realizes he can't actually explain how a graph of true data is misleading, ladies and gentlemen. You're in your 40s and thought "Changing the clocks does not provide more sunlight." was a contribution to DST discussion, I know better than to try to "convince" you of anything. Do you really not know why deficit totals are not what is used in comparison rather than percentages in every economics book ever? And sometimes is sited as an example on why one or the other chosen? Because if not I’m happy to explain it to you, but it seems like wasted typing if you’re just trolling. "Deficit total" is not a thing, it's called debt. Stop pretending.
Which is the chart you showed to try to counter that Dem presidents do a better job based on deficit.
Like let’s say you have a money manager who makes you 10 percent gains for 10 years. You switch up to a new one and he makes you 1 percent for 2 years. Do you switch back? By your logic you should not because the with the new guy you have a bigger total than you ever had with the old guy.
You caught up now?
|
United States44367 Posts
On October 08 2026 04:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 04:22 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:On October 08 2026 04:00 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 03:10 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2026 02:32 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 01:36 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2026 23:18 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2026 22:25 Harris1st wrote:On October 07 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:I was always aware of how bad Republicans are for the economy, but I came across this graph showing just how fucking horrible they have been for the deficit: Makes it so funny when our resident right wingers claim that they are worried about deficits and shit on Democrats about the economy, I mean, how can you say shit like this with a straight face, look at those spikes under Regan, Bush Jr. and Trump, it's hilarious. You'll need a bigger scale very soon and you'll have the greatest and most beautiful debts. It's almost like blue means good and red means bad. Wonder what else those colors stand for... Thanks to the genius of the blue team and especially Bill Clinton displayed in the budget deficit/surplus percent line graph (LOL), there was an oasis of fiscal responsibility towards the end of his second term when debt owed to the public slightly decreased. I mean, just imagine what the debt would look like WITHOUT that period of the adults being in charge. We should move immediately to get a constitutional amendment to let Clinton back in. Probably only he's capable of doing it. Oh, and of course, bring back the 105th and 106th Congresses at the time which were Republican majority. Let's bring them back if they aren't still there. Because you need Congress to pass budgets. I mean most of them are probably not a day past 90 years young. Barring that, if not enough are still alive to be available, we could at least put our weights behind political forces that want to cut the size of government the way Clinton did, cut waste, cut spending. Wonder if any factions have tried that recently and if any others have rabidly opposed it. You know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this data, and you know why. You know that we know that absolute dollars is a terrible way to show this, and you know we know why. You must know you're just going to get told off for misleading data. Why do you still do it? "Misleading" would mean I posted true data but used it to imply a conclusion that doesn't follow. Tell me what false conclusion I drew or implied and why it's not true. Odds are you can't or have to make something up. Or put on the big boy pants and contribute your own debt/GDP ratio graph, inflation adjusted dollars graph (if you believe nominal dollars can be meaningfully adjusted by the parameters of CPI), to make whatever point you think is in your head. Otherwise "misleading" is your dogwhistle for "That's true but I'm fucking lazy and want to think I'm still the smartest person in the room." Are you trying to convince me that you're just an idiot? Why? What's the upside for you? The error KwarK spits out when he realizes he can't actually explain how a graph of true data is misleading, ladies and gentlemen. You're in your 40s and thought "Changing the clocks does not provide more sunlight." was a contribution to DST discussion, I know better than to try to "convince" you of anything. Do you really not know why deficit totals are not what is used in comparison rather than percentages in every economics book ever? And sometimes is sited as an example on why one or the other chosen? Because if not I’m happy to explain it to you, but it seems like wasted typing if you’re just trolling. "Deficit total" is not a thing, it's called debt. Stop pretending. Which is the chart you showed to try to counter that Dem presidents do a better job based on deficit. Like let’s say you have a money manager who makes you 10 percent gains for 10 years. You switch up to a new one and he makes you 1 percent for 2 years. Do you switch back? By your logic you should not because the with the new guy you have a bigger total than you ever had with the old guy. You caught up now?
There's also the compounding effect. Assuming a base point of 100 in the first year the 10% guy only earned you 10. The new guy can beat that in absolute terms with just a 4% return because he's working with a much larger number thanks to the work of the 10% guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
