|
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 |
You bet! I’m often left wondering, how do people think Trump is doing a good job. Some of it is information bubble, some is confirmation bias, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that not understanding basic math and not understanding what the numbers are actually telling you is another big factor.
|
On October 08 2026 04:56 Billyboy wrote:
You bet! I’m often left wondering, how do people think Trump is doing a good job. Some of it is information bubble, some is confirmation bias, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that not understanding basic math and not understanding what the numbers are actually telling you is another big factor.
Review oBlade's grasp of math and you'll probably have a clear answer.
|
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: ![[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? "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?
Let me explain succinctly with your own analogy that you brought up.
If my money manager lost 20% one year because he and his money council spent all my money on COVID bullshit, I would not go "Oh obviously the answer is the money manager across the street who will lose only 10% of my money every year." Do you understand why that's intolerable? If so, there's more detail below. If not, you won't understand the next part either.
It's not simply to "counter that Dem presidents do a better job." It's that you don't even know where the expenditures, the revenues, the percents of GDP even come from. Your entire understanding is naive and wrong if you think there is any direct PRESIDENT -> DEFICIT connection. You lack any adequate theory to understand the system.
"Look Bush and Trump cut some taxes once they ruined it." is bullshit. You know why? Because you can cut spending. You can just spend less.
They didn't.
Okay, fine, whatever, that just means we have to keep spending, and increase revenues instead.
So Democrats raised taxes to cover everything right? One of the many times they were in power?
No, they didn't. They haven't. They won't.
We are not talking about participation sticker report cards for fucking up the American fiscal situation slightly less by strategically losing control of government at key times or dodging historic pandemics. We are talking about the actual country. This is the real world. There is no Wizard of Oz. We're the wizard. Except thankfully most of the people here aren't, including aren't you Canadian? Look, it is fine not to understand the system. If everything you believe is correct at face value, the GOP will fiscally destroy the US by, say, the year 2045 by lowering taxes too much so there's no revenue and continuously spending on overpriced and underperforming boutique military equipment, whereas the Democrats will destroy the US by 2050 which is far preferable (LOL).
Unless you fiddle with just a couple of assumptions, and then say wait a minute, the Democrats will spend on Green New Deals like crazy, raise taxes to strangle the economy from the other side so there's no revenue, and be the ones to destroy the US by 2045 whereas all-in growth-oriented Republican policies will buy the US until 2050.
None of these situations are "Just vote blue bro and everything works out bro." Absolutely not. Not this issue.
|
On October 08 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 04:43 Billyboy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Let me explain succinctly with your own analogy that you brought up. If my money manager lost 20% one year because he and his money council spent all my money on COVID bullshit, I would not go "Oh obviously the answer is the money manager across the street who will lose only 10% of my money every year." Do you understand why that's intolerable? If so, there's more detail below. If not, you won't understand the next part either. It's not simply to "counter that Dem presidents do a better job." It's that you don't even know where the expenditures, the revenues, the percents of GDP even come from. Your entire understanding is naive and wrong if you think there is any direct PRESIDENT -> DEFICIT connection. You lack any adequate theory to understand the system. "Look Bush and Trump cut some taxes once they ruined it." is bullshit. You know why? Because you can cut spending. You can just spend less. They didn't. Okay, fine, whatever, that just means we have to keep spending, and increase revenues instead. So Democrats raised taxes to cover everything right? One of the many times they were in power? No, they didn't. They haven't. They won't. We are not talking about participation sticker report cards for fucking up the American fiscal situation slightly less by strategically losing control of government at key times or dodging historic pandemics. We are talking about the actual country. This is the real world. There is no Wizard of Oz. We're the wizard. Except thankfully most of the people here aren't, including aren't you Canadian? Look, it is fine not to understand the system. If everything you believe is correct at face value, the GOP will fiscally destroy the US by, say, the year 2045 by lowering taxes too much so there's no revenue and continuously spending on overpriced and underperforming boutique military equipment, whereas the Democrats will destroy the US by 2050 which is far preferable (LOL). Unless you fiddle with just a couple of assumptions, and then say wait a minute, the Democrats will spend on Green New Deals like crazy, raise taxes to strangle the economy from the other side so there's no revenue, and be the ones to destroy the US by 2045 whereas all-in growth-oriented Republican policies will buy the US until 2050. None of these situations are "Just vote blue bro and everything works out bro." Absolutely not. Not this issue.
I really think you need to look up what the word succinctly means.
You also said nothing about why using totals was better than percentages, because of course in this example it’s not. Word salads don’t change that.
|
On October 08 2026 04:56 Billyboy wrote:
You bet! I’m often left wondering, how do people think Trump is doing a good job. Some of it is information bubble, some is confirmation bias, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that not understanding basic math and not understanding what the numbers are actually telling you is another big factor.
“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be” Thats a quote from 2019 when his supporters were unhappy with him.
It explains everything you need to know about any position help by a Republicans/Trump voter.
The cruelty is the point.
There is no political, social or economic theory behind it. There are no core values or principles. All of those have been taught be fluid to support the one thing that matters. They need to be hurting the right people.
|
On October 08 2026 05:10 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 04:43 Billyboy wrote: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:[quote] 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? Let me explain succinctly with your own analogy that you brought up. If my money manager lost 20% one year because he and his money council spent all my money on COVID bullshit, I would not go "Oh obviously the answer is the money manager across the street who will lose only 10% of my money every year." Do you understand why that's intolerable? If so, there's more detail below. If not, you won't understand the next part either. It's not simply to "counter that Dem presidents do a better job." It's that you don't even know where the expenditures, the revenues, the percents of GDP even come from. Your entire understanding is naive and wrong if you think there is any direct PRESIDENT -> DEFICIT connection. You lack any adequate theory to understand the system. "Look Bush and Trump cut some taxes once they ruined it." is bullshit. You know why? Because you can cut spending. You can just spend less. They didn't. Okay, fine, whatever, that just means we have to keep spending, and increase revenues instead. So Democrats raised taxes to cover everything right? One of the many times they were in power? No, they didn't. They haven't. They won't. We are not talking about participation sticker report cards for fucking up the American fiscal situation slightly less by strategically losing control of government at key times or dodging historic pandemics. We are talking about the actual country. This is the real world. There is no Wizard of Oz. We're the wizard. Except thankfully most of the people here aren't, including aren't you Canadian? Look, it is fine not to understand the system. If everything you believe is correct at face value, the GOP will fiscally destroy the US by, say, the year 2045 by lowering taxes too much so there's no revenue and continuously spending on overpriced and underperforming boutique military equipment, whereas the Democrats will destroy the US by 2050 which is far preferable (LOL). Unless you fiddle with just a couple of assumptions, and then say wait a minute, the Democrats will spend on Green New Deals like crazy, raise taxes to strangle the economy from the other side so there's no revenue, and be the ones to destroy the US by 2045 whereas all-in growth-oriented Republican policies will buy the US until 2050. None of these situations are "Just vote blue bro and everything works out bro." Absolutely not. Not this issue. I really think you need to look up what the word succinctly means. You also said nothing about why using totals was better than percentages, because of course in this example it’s not. Word salads don’t change that.
Only the first paragraph was about your analogy, that's why it says "succinctly" there and then moves on to "the next part." You have to work really hard to live in a world of misunderstanding basic shit like this to pat yourself with these infantile zingers. The typos, the thinking something like "deficit total" exists when every adult calls it DEBT, aren't just because of your phone, you obviously have some kind of illness that's made me be way too patient with you.
If Bob Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $500 billion, they're $50 billion over. If Jack Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $5 trillion, they're $500 billion over. That is worse, especially if the "dollars" have NOT changed by anywhere near 10x over that time. Why couldn't Jack spend with the same margin? I don't know but I'm sure he'll find a way to blame Republicans.
There is no "better." There is no case where knowing something else makes knowing the first thing worthless. More data, more knowledge, more awareness, is always better. Trust me, you need it. For you to sealion with this "Okay but NOW explain what your point is," don't waste my time. You can go back to the first post with a nice receptive open mind and figure out what my point was and why it was served by the specific data I shared.
|
United States44367 Posts
On October 08 2026 05:23 oBlade wrote:
That is worse, especially if the "dollars" have NOT changed by anywhere near 10x over that time.
This argument would have worked better if you weren't currently using it to defend a chart where deficits from a $2t GDP US in 1977 are compared to deficits from a $32t GDP US in 2026 on a 1:1 basis.
|
Higher deficits during the Trump administrations when the GDP is even higher than it was during the Obama/Biden administrations means both the deficit and the debt are worse both in relative and absolute terms. Glad we cleared that up.
|
United States44367 Posts
On October 08 2026 05:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Higher deficits during the Trump administrations when the GDP is even higher than it was during the Obama/Biden administrations means both the deficit and the debt are worse both in relative and absolute terms. Glad we cleared that up.
Let's not forget that both the Bush and Trump tax cuts were pushed through despite projections showing they would blow up the deficit for years. The impact of those was felt long after their terms ended with the Republicans stonewalling any attempts to reform them to balance the budget.
|
On October 08 2026 05:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 05:10 Billyboy wrote:On October 08 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 04:43 Billyboy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Let me explain succinctly with your own analogy that you brought up. If my money manager lost 20% one year because he and his money council spent all my money on COVID bullshit, I would not go "Oh obviously the answer is the money manager across the street who will lose only 10% of my money every year." Do you understand why that's intolerable? If so, there's more detail below. If not, you won't understand the next part either. It's not simply to "counter that Dem presidents do a better job." It's that you don't even know where the expenditures, the revenues, the percents of GDP even come from. Your entire understanding is naive and wrong if you think there is any direct PRESIDENT -> DEFICIT connection. You lack any adequate theory to understand the system. "Look Bush and Trump cut some taxes once they ruined it." is bullshit. You know why? Because you can cut spending. You can just spend less. They didn't. Okay, fine, whatever, that just means we have to keep spending, and increase revenues instead. So Democrats raised taxes to cover everything right? One of the many times they were in power? No, they didn't. They haven't. They won't. We are not talking about participation sticker report cards for fucking up the American fiscal situation slightly less by strategically losing control of government at key times or dodging historic pandemics. We are talking about the actual country. This is the real world. There is no Wizard of Oz. We're the wizard. Except thankfully most of the people here aren't, including aren't you Canadian? Look, it is fine not to understand the system. If everything you believe is correct at face value, the GOP will fiscally destroy the US by, say, the year 2045 by lowering taxes too much so there's no revenue and continuously spending on overpriced and underperforming boutique military equipment, whereas the Democrats will destroy the US by 2050 which is far preferable (LOL). Unless you fiddle with just a couple of assumptions, and then say wait a minute, the Democrats will spend on Green New Deals like crazy, raise taxes to strangle the economy from the other side so there's no revenue, and be the ones to destroy the US by 2045 whereas all-in growth-oriented Republican policies will buy the US until 2050. None of these situations are "Just vote blue bro and everything works out bro." Absolutely not. Not this issue. I really think you need to look up what the word succinctly means. You also said nothing about why using totals was better than percentages, because of course in this example it’s not. Word salads don’t change that. Only the first paragraph was about your analogy, that's why it says "succinctly" there and then moves on to "the next part." You have to work really hard to live in a world of misunderstanding basic shit like this to pat yourself with these infantile zingers. The typos, the thinking something like "deficit total" exists when every adult calls it DEBT, aren't just because of your phone, you obviously have some kind of illness that's made me be way too patient with you. If Bob Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $500 billion, they're $50 billion over. If Jack Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $5 trillion, they're $500 billion over. That is worse, especially if the "dollars" have NOT changed by anywhere near 10x over that time. Why couldn't Jack spend with the same margin? I don't know but I'm sure he'll find a way to blame Republicans. There is no "better." There is no case where knowing something else makes knowing the first thing worthless. More data, more knowledge, more awareness, is always better. Trust me, you need it. For you to sealion with this "Okay but NOW explain what your point is," don't waste my time. You can go back to the first post with a nice receptive open mind and figure out what my point was and why it was served by the specific data I shared.
Deficit totals was trying to help direct you to obvious answer everyone is trying to help you with. But in the end your long word salads are not proving your point mate. And I might be dumb as a post, you could very well be right on that! But that just makes you being so much dumber worse not better.
Sometimes it’s better to just keep quiet and have everyone just assume you don’t understand anything rather than open your mouth and confirm it.
|
On October 08 2026 05:44 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 05:23 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 05:10 Billyboy wrote:On October 08 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 04:43 Billyboy wrote: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:
[quote]
"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? Let me explain succinctly with your own analogy that you brought up. If my money manager lost 20% one year because he and his money council spent all my money on COVID bullshit, I would not go "Oh obviously the answer is the money manager across the street who will lose only 10% of my money every year." Do you understand why that's intolerable? If so, there's more detail below. If not, you won't understand the next part either. It's not simply to "counter that Dem presidents do a better job." It's that you don't even know where the expenditures, the revenues, the percents of GDP even come from. Your entire understanding is naive and wrong if you think there is any direct PRESIDENT -> DEFICIT connection. You lack any adequate theory to understand the system. "Look Bush and Trump cut some taxes once they ruined it." is bullshit. You know why? Because you can cut spending. You can just spend less. They didn't. Okay, fine, whatever, that just means we have to keep spending, and increase revenues instead. So Democrats raised taxes to cover everything right? One of the many times they were in power? No, they didn't. They haven't. They won't. We are not talking about participation sticker report cards for fucking up the American fiscal situation slightly less by strategically losing control of government at key times or dodging historic pandemics. We are talking about the actual country. This is the real world. There is no Wizard of Oz. We're the wizard. Except thankfully most of the people here aren't, including aren't you Canadian? Look, it is fine not to understand the system. If everything you believe is correct at face value, the GOP will fiscally destroy the US by, say, the year 2045 by lowering taxes too much so there's no revenue and continuously spending on overpriced and underperforming boutique military equipment, whereas the Democrats will destroy the US by 2050 which is far preferable (LOL). Unless you fiddle with just a couple of assumptions, and then say wait a minute, the Democrats will spend on Green New Deals like crazy, raise taxes to strangle the economy from the other side so there's no revenue, and be the ones to destroy the US by 2045 whereas all-in growth-oriented Republican policies will buy the US until 2050. None of these situations are "Just vote blue bro and everything works out bro." Absolutely not. Not this issue. I really think you need to look up what the word succinctly means. You also said nothing about why using totals was better than percentages, because of course in this example it’s not. Word salads don’t change that. Only the first paragraph was about your analogy, that's why it says "succinctly" there and then moves on to "the next part." You have to work really hard to live in a world of misunderstanding basic shit like this to pat yourself with these infantile zingers. The typos, the thinking something like "deficit total" exists when every adult calls it DEBT, aren't just because of your phone, you obviously have some kind of illness that's made me be way too patient with you. If Bob Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $500 billion, they're $50 billion over. If Jack Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $5 trillion, they're $500 billion over. That is worse, especially if the "dollars" have NOT changed by anywhere near 10x over that time. Why couldn't Jack spend with the same margin? I don't know but I'm sure he'll find a way to blame Republicans. There is no "better." There is no case where knowing something else makes knowing the first thing worthless. More data, more knowledge, more awareness, is always better. Trust me, you need it. For you to sealion with this "Okay but NOW explain what your point is," don't waste my time. You can go back to the first post with a nice receptive open mind and figure out what my point was and why it was served by the specific data I shared. Deficit totals was trying to help direct you to obvious answer everyone is trying to help you with. But in the end your long word salads are not proving your point mate. And I might be dumb as a post, you could very well be right on that! But that just makes you being so much dumber worse not better. Sometimes it’s better to just keep quiet and have everyone just assume you don’t understand anything rather than open your mouth and confirm it.
When the debt has reached 5x GDP and entitlements are insolvent I'm not going to be comforted by your intellectual humility, because you're being fucking told now clear as day why an 8% deficit one year doesn't help us just because it's less than 10%.
|
Definitely vote Republican in 2028 if you want to see debt hit 5x the GDP.
|
On October 08 2026 06:04 LightSpectra wrote:
Definitely vote Republican in 2028 if you want to see debt hit 5x the GDP.
Rubio is not actually going to buy most of the rest of the world, relax.
|
On October 08 2026 05:57 oBlade wrote:
When the debt has reached 5x GDP and entitlements are insolvent I'm not going to be comforted by your intellectual humility, because you're being fucking told now clear as day why an 8% deficit one year doesn't help us just because it's less than 10%.
The GHness of this one really struck me.
|
On October 08 2026 05:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 05:44 Billyboy wrote:On October 08 2026 05:23 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 05:10 Billyboy wrote:On October 08 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2026 04:43 Billyboy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Let me explain succinctly with your own analogy that you brought up. If my money manager lost 20% one year because he and his money council spent all my money on COVID bullshit, I would not go "Oh obviously the answer is the money manager across the street who will lose only 10% of my money every year." Do you understand why that's intolerable? If so, there's more detail below. If not, you won't understand the next part either. It's not simply to "counter that Dem presidents do a better job." It's that you don't even know where the expenditures, the revenues, the percents of GDP even come from. Your entire understanding is naive and wrong if you think there is any direct PRESIDENT -> DEFICIT connection. You lack any adequate theory to understand the system. "Look Bush and Trump cut some taxes once they ruined it." is bullshit. You know why? Because you can cut spending. You can just spend less. They didn't. Okay, fine, whatever, that just means we have to keep spending, and increase revenues instead. So Democrats raised taxes to cover everything right? One of the many times they were in power? No, they didn't. They haven't. They won't. We are not talking about participation sticker report cards for fucking up the American fiscal situation slightly less by strategically losing control of government at key times or dodging historic pandemics. We are talking about the actual country. This is the real world. There is no Wizard of Oz. We're the wizard. Except thankfully most of the people here aren't, including aren't you Canadian? Look, it is fine not to understand the system. If everything you believe is correct at face value, the GOP will fiscally destroy the US by, say, the year 2045 by lowering taxes too much so there's no revenue and continuously spending on overpriced and underperforming boutique military equipment, whereas the Democrats will destroy the US by 2050 which is far preferable (LOL). Unless you fiddle with just a couple of assumptions, and then say wait a minute, the Democrats will spend on Green New Deals like crazy, raise taxes to strangle the economy from the other side so there's no revenue, and be the ones to destroy the US by 2045 whereas all-in growth-oriented Republican policies will buy the US until 2050. None of these situations are "Just vote blue bro and everything works out bro." Absolutely not. Not this issue. I really think you need to look up what the word succinctly means. You also said nothing about why using totals was better than percentages, because of course in this example it’s not. Word salads don’t change that. Only the first paragraph was about your analogy, that's why it says "succinctly" there and then moves on to "the next part." You have to work really hard to live in a world of misunderstanding basic shit like this to pat yourself with these infantile zingers. The typos, the thinking something like "deficit total" exists when every adult calls it DEBT, aren't just because of your phone, you obviously have some kind of illness that's made me be way too patient with you. If Bob Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $500 billion, they're $50 billion over. If Jack Administration has a 10% deficit on a budget of $5 trillion, they're $500 billion over. That is worse, especially if the "dollars" have NOT changed by anywhere near 10x over that time. Why couldn't Jack spend with the same margin? I don't know but I'm sure he'll find a way to blame Republicans. There is no "better." There is no case where knowing something else makes knowing the first thing worthless. More data, more knowledge, more awareness, is always better. Trust me, you need it. For you to sealion with this "Okay but NOW explain what your point is," don't waste my time. You can go back to the first post with a nice receptive open mind and figure out what my point was and why it was served by the specific data I shared. Deficit totals was trying to help direct you to obvious answer everyone is trying to help you with. But in the end your long word salads are not proving your point mate. And I might be dumb as a post, you could very well be right on that! But that just makes you being so much dumber worse not better. Sometimes it’s better to just keep quiet and have everyone just assume you don’t understand anything rather than open your mouth and confirm it. When the debt has reached 5x GDP and entitlements are insolvent I'm not going to be comforted by your intellectual humility, because you're being fucking told now clear as day why an 8% deficit one year doesn't help us just because it's less than 10%.
That is a great strawman. Lucky I’m not saying smaller deficits are really good, I’m saying they are better than bigger ones!
I wonder if introvert just dies a little on the inside or actually has the occasional , am I supporting the right team thoughts, when he reads your math or JJRs history.
I’m guessing just the die part, because Trump talking about anything is always super stupid and hegsmeth is about as embarrassing as it gets, but you never know.
|
On October 08 2026 06:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2026 06:04 LightSpectra wrote:
Definitely vote Republican in 2028 if you want to see debt hit 5x the GDP. Rubio is not actually going to buy most of the rest of the world, relax.
Yep. It'll be China doing that because Trump surrendered basically every technological race to them. Even handily shipped them F35 parts in case there was anything about our military they didn't already know. The 5x debt/GDP ratio will come solely from bailing out failing industries and corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
