Inslee stepping down in 2014

[CougEd]

69% of the debt since 1980 has come at the feet of a GOP president. There are two aspects of debt. Like your household you bring in X. In the federal govt that is raised by taxes. So even if you keep spending at the same level, and you decrease your tax base( income) of course you are increasing your debt.

Trump in 4 years went matched the debt Obama had in 8. Doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me.

Or the fed is just stupid?

Always the case . Let’s businesses do their thing and when they screw up look for the socialist answer.

I know the hvac guy at my house right now screws up on my house and every other job they have in the future I guarantee the feds aren’t bailing him out .

 

[WaltherPPK]

At a start, INSLEE's ESD give away of hundreds of MIL to Nigerian dirt, and his CO2 climate fraud make him the most reprehensable politician this state has seen. Along with the pack of left of lib Dems, the state has become a home for illegals, woke Karens and 2nd amendment violaters !

The ONLY hope is for the Republicans to WAKE UP and find a young, articulate, educated female of color ( asian, latin or african ) who supports the concept of limited government and will clean house in the state govt, especially the dept of ecology !

 

[dgibbons]

Or the fed is just stupid?

But, but, but the only thing the fed can do is increase or decrease rates. There's nothing else the fed can do, nothing, nothing, nothing.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST

 

[mikalalas]

69% of the debt since 1980 has come at the feet of a GOP president. There are two aspects of debt. Like your household you bring in X. In the federal govt that is raised by taxes. So even if you keep spending at the same level, and you decrease your tax base( income) of course you are increasing your debt.

Trump in 4 years went matched the debt Obama had in 8. Doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

I pointed out that the reasons Reagan's cutting of taxes, and BUDGET CUTS didn't work was because of wrong methods fighting war on drugs(which increased spending), and Iran Contra Scandal(which increased spending),

Also Reagan and Bush 1's cutting taxes and budget cuts LED, CAUSED Clinton, AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS to get DEBT UNDER CONTROL IN 92-96.

While Trump was great at creating a good economy, good jobs, HE NOT ONLY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR JAN 6 RIOTS, BUT HE WAS ALSO TERRIBLE, HORRIBLY BAD AND AS BAD AS LIBERAL SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS AT SPENDING, AND NOT CUTTING THE SPENDING BUDGET.

So BECAUSE OF THAT, WHILE TRUMP DID DO GOOD TAX CUTS, DIS BAD SPENDING, AND BAD NOT MAKING BUDGET CUTS LED TO, CAUSED SUCH HIGH DEBT.

Also Trump didn't have 8 years for tax cuts, etc, to work well enough. Also Trump had to fight a TAX AND SPEND AND NOT DO BUDGET CUTS LIBERAL SOCIALIST MAJORITY CONGRESS.

You do realize that the presidency is only 1/2 the equation, and that the CONGRESS holds the PURSE STRINGS, etc.

Clinton had a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS. THAT'S WHY CLINTON DIDNT HAVE HIGH DEBT, ETC.

IF Clinton would have had a LIBTARD Congress, Clinton probably would have had higher debt.

Your CHERRY PICKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, and your not seeing, not understanding via your bad reading comprehension.

Reagan and Bush 1's fiscal policies, LED TO THE GOOD CLINTON YEARS.

Reagan and Bush made mistakes: Reagan war on drugs, Iran Contra Scandal, Bush Breaking his NO MORE NEW TAXES PROMISE, AND TAXING MORE, PANAMA.

The only thing your right about CONTEXT WISE, IS:

1. CLinton LISTENED TO FISCAL CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, and because of that the Clinton years were good FISCALLY.

2. BUSH 2, and Trump were both bad fiscally, because altho cut taxes, didn't also cut spending budget.

What you don't get is that Harry Truman, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTS HAD TO FIX TAX AND SPEND PRESIDENTIAL MESSES, AND EITHER DIRECTLY KEPT DEBT UNDER CONTROL OR LED TO ANOTHER FOLLOWING PRESIDENT HAVING GOOD FISCAL YEARS(AKA REAGAN AND BUSH 1 CAUSING CLINTON'S GOOD FISCAL YEARS.

WHAT YOUR NOT GETTING IS THAT YOUR PUTTING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, AND THAT YOUR CHERRY PICKING, AND THAT YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING.

CLINTON, BUSH 2, TRUMP ARE THE EXCEPTIONS.

Most to almost all liberal Democrats are not good fiscally conservative wise like Clinton was.

Most fiscally conservative republican presidents are not fiscally irresponsible presidents like BUSH 2, TRUMP that DiD NOT CUT SPENDING BUDGET.

And BIDEN is well on his way to be the worst on DEBT EVER.

In fact UNDER BIDEN, the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE(CBO), and other experts are FACTUALLY saying that if something isn't done soon, BIDEN'S LIBTARD SOCIALIST TAX AND SPEND LIME CRAZY SPENDING IS GOING TO CAUSE THE USA TO DEFAULT, GO BANKRUPT ON DEBT BY JUNE 1ST OF THIS YEAR, SOMETHING THAT NO USA PRESIDENT HAS DONE OR ALLOWED TO HAPPEN BEFORE IN THE ENTIRE 200+ YEAR ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE USA.

The fact is that cutting taxes, and cutting spending budget and being fiscally conservative is better then taxing and spending like crazy, and MARGARET THATCHER, QUEEN ELIZABETH, WINSTON CHURCHHILL, HARRY TRUMAN, NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, have proved that with under control debt, good economy, good jobs, etc .

That despite BUSH 2, TRUMP, not doing a good job fiscally.

And Margaret Thatch, Queen Elizabeth, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, fiscal conservatives did a better fiscal job then CARTER, OBAMA, tax and spend like crazy libtards.

Your BEING as MR SPOCK WOULD SAY ILLOGICAL

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Your reading comprehension sucks.

I pointed out that the reasons Reagan's cutting of taxes, and BUDGET CUTS didn't work was because of wrong methods fighting war on drugs(which increased spending), and Iran Contra Scandal(which increased spending),

Also Reagan and Bush 1's cutting taxes and budget cuts LED, CAUSED Clinton, AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS to get DEBT UNDER CONTROL IN 92-96.

While Trump was great at creating a good economy, good jobs, HE NOT ONLY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR JAN 6 RIOTS, BUT HE WAS ALSO TERRIBLE, HORRIBLY BAD AND AS BAD AS LIBERAL SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS AT SPENDING, AND NOT CUTTING THE SPENDING BUDGET.

So BECAUSE OF THAT, WHILE TRUMP DID DO GOOD TAX CUTS, DIS BAD SPENDING, AND BAD NOT MAKING BUDGET CUTS LED TO, CAUSED SUCH HIGH DEBT.

Also Trump didn't have 8 years for tax cuts, etc, to work well enough. Also Trump had to fight a TAX AND SPEND AND NOT DO BUDGET CUTS LIBERAL SOCIALIST MAJORITY CONGRESS.

You do realize that the presidency is only 1/2 the equation, and that the CONGRESS holds the PURSE STRINGS, etc.

Clinton had a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS. THAT'S WHY CLINTON DIDNT HAVE HIGH DEBT, ETC.

IF Clinton would have had a LIBTARD Congress, Clinton probably would have had higher debt.

Your CHERRY PICKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, and your not seeing, not understanding via your bad reading comprehension.

Reagan and Bush 1's fiscal policies, LED TO THE GOOD CLINTON YEARS.

Reagan and Bush made mistakes: Reagan war on drugs, Iran Contra Scandal, Bush Breaking his NO MORE NEW TAXES PROMISE, AND TAXING MORE, PANAMA.

The only thing your right about CONTEXT WISE, IS:

1. CLinton LISTENED TO FISCAL CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, and because of that the Clinton years were good FISCALLY.

2. BUSH 2, and Trump were both bad fiscally, because altho cut taxes, didn't also cut spending budget.

What you don't get is that Harry Truman, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTS HAD TO FIX TAX AND SPEND PRESIDENTIAL MESSES, AND EITHER DIRECTLY KEPT DEBT UNDER CONTROL OR LED TO ANOTHER FOLLOWING PRESIDENT HAVING GOOD FISCAL YEARS(AKA REAGAN AND BUSH 1 CAUSING CLINTON'S GOOD FISCAL YEARS.

WHAT YOUR NOT GETTING IS THAT YOUR PUTTING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, AND THAT YOUR CHERRY PICKING, AND THAT YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING.

CLINTON, BUSH 2, TRUMP ARE THE EXCEPTIONS.

Most to almost all liberal Democrats are not good fiscally conservative wise like Clinton was.

Most fiscally conservative republican presidents are not fiscally irresponsible presidents like BUSH 2, TRUMP that DiD NOT CUT SPENDING BUDGET.

And BIDEN is well on his way to be the worst on DEBT EVER.

In fact UNDER BIDEN, the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE(CBO), and other experts are FACTUALLY saying that if something isn't done soon, BIDEN'S LIBTARD SOCIALIST TAX AND SPEND LIME CRAZY SPENDING IS GOING TO CAUSE THE USA TO DEFAULT, GO BANKRUPT ON DEBT BY JUNE 1ST OF THIS YEAR, SOMETHING THAT NO USA PRESIDENT HAS DONE OR ALLOWED TO HAPPEN BEFORE IN THE ENTIRE 200+ YEAR ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE USA.

The fact is that cutting taxes, and cutting spending budget and being fiscally conservative is better then taxing and spending like crazy, and MARGARET THATCHER, QUEEN ELIZABETH, WINSTON CHURCHHILL, HARRY TRUMAN, NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, have proved that with under control debt, good economy, good jobs, etc .

That despite BUSH 2, TRUMP, not doing a good job fiscally.

And Margaret Thatch, Queen Elizabeth, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, fiscal conservatives did a better fiscal job then CARTER, OBAMA, tax and spend like crazy libtards.

Your BEING as MR SPOCK WOULD SAY ILLOGICAL

Geezus. Get back on your meds.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Or the fed is just stupid?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Observer11]

Certain banks are holding treasuries paying low interest rates. Those treasuries dropped considerably in value as the Fed increased rates. Both the banks and the regulators screwed this up.

However, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the big banks wanted some institutions to fail, and had the lobbying power and were making enough campaign contributions to influence making that happen.

Or the fed is just stupid?

All of the above could be true.

 

[mikalalas]

You brought up presidents and deficits buddy. And F-you for calling me a moron. $5 says I'm smarter than you, for sure better looking, and have had satisfied more women. If you are really in Spain , stay there. Aren't they basically bankrupt as a country? You are no Coug.

IQ is not the same as wisdom, street smarts.

And anybody who supports tax and spend like crazy over fiscally responsible people, candidates, politicians, etc, is, while they may have a technically high intelligence, IQ, they are FOOLISH, IRRESPONSIBLE, MORONS(LACK OF WISDOM SPEAKING(Not intelligence speaking).

IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT.

 

[CougEd]

IQ is not the same as wisdom, street smarts.

And anybody who supports tax and spend like crazy over fiscally responsible people, candidates, politicians, etc, is, while they may have a technically high intelligence, IQ, they are FOOLISH, IRRESPONSIBLE, MORONS(LACK OF WISDOM SPEAKING(Not intelligence speaking).

IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT.

Mik…my reading comprehension is just fine . Debt is debt . You can say trumps tax cuts to the 1% were good, still is debt.

For example, I stop working limit the family income but buy a suite at Martin Stadium using my house line of credit . I may think it is a good expenditure … my wife thinks it sucks … but I still owe more money .

Now it could be argued some of the infrastructure spending is smart . I may even be in that category .

But still doesn’t change the fact since 1980 when our best exploded that trump was the biggest offender and he only had four years . 69% of ten debt since 1980 has been by the gop . Feel free to talk about good debt vs bad debt

 

[Cougini5591]

I'd just like to have SMART people actually be running and managing things.

If I had it my way, there would be no names and/or faces. Simply have a checklist of what you want and don't want and then have those answers applied to create your selection.

I don't like people voting when they have no clue of what they are voting for.

What would happen if you just asked questions like:

1) Should teachers have more control over kids than parents in terms of social issues/exposure at schools?

2) Should men/boys play in women's sports?

3) If you own a house, Should you be able to evict/kick out someone immediately if they don't have a signed agreement?

4) If a baby could actually be born at 20 weeks, Should that life be terminated?

5) if someone has paid their bills on time and has good credit Should they have to now pay more to cover people who didn't pay their bills and have bad credit?

6) Should workers be required to pay their money into unions if they don't want to?

Etc...

No one really should be able to force people what to say, but Lord help me... just put simple questions and answers out there... have those elected by what they actually are and what they will actually do.

 

[95coug]

I've never really followed Ferguson - but his "exploratory" ad is pretty powerful. (link below).

He'll be tough to beat by either side. Dem's, get out of his way. Repugnants, don't even waste your time fielding a candidate. Although a Clint Didier vs.Loren Culp primary shitshow would be kind of fun to watch.

Bob Ferguson announces exploratory campaign for Washington governor

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an exploratory campaign Tuesday to become the state's next governor.

kimatv.com

I think a Didier/Culp scenario would be a lot like an episode of Jerry Springer. They'd both just yell at each other, there's better than a 50% chance that furniture would be thrown, and when it was over nobody would really know what the hell just happened.

 

[mikalalas]

Mik…my reading comprehension is just fine . Debt is debt . You can say trumps tax cuts to the 1% were good, still is debt.

For example, I stop working limit the family income but buy a suite at Martin Stadium using my house line of credit . I may think it is a good expenditure … my wife thinks it sucks … but I still owe more money .

Now it could be argued some of the infrastructure spending is smart . I may even be in that category .

But still doesn’t change the fact since 1980 when our best exploded that trump was the biggest offender and he only had four years . 69% of ten debt since 1980 has been by the gop . Feel free to talk about good debt vs bad debt

You still don't understand and your reading comprehension sucks, and your illogical, etc.

READ VERY CAREFULLY.

TRUMP IS A DUMBAZZ WHO EITHER CONTINUED SPENDING, OR ALLOWED TAX AND SPEND LIKE CRAZY CONGRESS TO SKY ROCKET DEBT.

My point WAS NOT that Trump was good on Debt. For some strange reason your still errantly thinking that I am supposedly saying Trump was good on Debt, when I did not say that.

If you still think that after this comment, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

And I explained that Reagan, Bush 1, had extremely high debt and why, and broke down what they did right and wrong, and explained why that despite how the debt was high during their presidencies, I explained LEGIT, JUSTIFIED WHY'S and logically explained, showed how despite high debt, their fiscally responsible policies CAUSED CLINTON'S GOOD LOW DEBT, SURPLUS, ETC, DURING CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY.

I completely broke down the logic, facts, etc, of Clinton's Presidency, and what caused the good)Reagan, Bush 1, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS.

I not only condemned Trumps high debt, and Trump's incompetence that led to that, but I also condemned, mentioned BUSH 2's crazy spending that led to high debt.

Your still CHERRY PICKING CLINTON, BUSH, TRUMP, ETC, A LOW PERCENTAGE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, WINSTON CHURCHHILL, MARGARET THATCHER, HARRY TRUMAN, NIXON, FORD, OTHER FISCAL CONSERVATIVES LIKE THEM THAT COLLECTIVELY HAVE DONE BETTER THEM MOST OF THE TAX AND SPEND SOCIALIST, EXCEPT CLINTON, that is SMALL PERCENTAGE of TAX AND SPEND SOCIALIST.

YOUR TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT AND CHERRY PICKING. YOUR GOING BY THE 15% INSTEAD OF THE 85%

The fact is that MOST OF THE TIME, a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE LIKE QUEEN ELIZABETH, MARGARET THATCHER, WINSTON CHURCHHILL, HARRY TRUMAN, NIXON, FORD, EVEN FISCAL MODERATE TO SEMI FISCAL COMSERVATIVE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS LIKE JFK, ETC, ARE GEMERALLY BETTER FOR, ON DEBT, ECONOMY, JOBS, ETC, THEN TAX AND SPEND SOCIALIST LIKE CARTER, ETC, IN GENERAL.

Have there been exceptions? Yes. And those exceptions are Clinton(good debt), Bush 2(bad debt), and Trump(bad debt).

If you still don't get that then your your reading comprehension sucks.

And your a foolish, silly, illogical, stubborn, BRICK WALL, and a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME, BECAUSE YOUR ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON WITH.

Because of that, I'm done and not going to waste any more time on you.

Your just like the Jehovah Witnesses who say, accuse, that "You don't believe in Jesus"

Then I ask what is believing in Jesus?

They answer. Then I pull out a document that says what I believe, and say this is what I believe. Then I ask them does this document talk about the same belief in Jesus as your belief in Jesus? They answer yes, that document talks about a true, right belief in Jesus. Then I say to them, that since say that document talks about a true belief in Jesus, and since I believe in Jesus and what that document says about a true belief in Jesus, then why do you still accuse me of not believing in Jesus? Then they like a brainwashed record say, accuse, that you don't believe in Jesus.

They are just as illogical as you, and you are just as illogical as those Jehovah Witnesses

And just like can't talk to reason with those Jehovah Witnesses, can't reason with you, because you can't be reasoned with at times.

 

[95coug]

I've never really followed Ferguson - but his "exploratory" ad is pretty powerful. (link below).

He'll be tough to beat by either side. Dem's, get out of his way. Repugnants, don't even waste your time fielding a candidate. Although a Clint Didier vs.Loren Culp primary shitshow would be kind of fun to watch.

Bob Ferguson announces exploratory campaign for Washington governor

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an exploratory campaign Tuesday to become the state's next governor.

kimatv.com

Powerful? You must be referring to the smell.

For starters, exploratory my ass. This was scripted, filmed, produced and sitting on a shelf waiting for Inslee to announce. Decision was made a long time ago.

Lots of examples in there about where he's given Washington money away. Not much on how he & his boss have turned Tacoma, Seattle, and a big piece of the I-5 corridor into a bigger cesspool than it already was.

Nothing about how as "Washington state's top law enforcement officer" made it more difficult - and dangerous - for every other law enforcement officer to do their job.

"Washingtonians must have the freedom to make their own health care decisions" - except if it's for long term care, then they must be forced to pay a tax for long term health care coverage...that won't even pay enough to cover a modest procedure.

 

[CougInSpain]

You brought up presidents and deficits buddy. And F-you for calling me a moron. $5 says I'm smarter than you, for sure better looking, and have had satisfied more women. If you are really in Spain , stay there. Aren't they basically bankrupt as a country? You are no Coug.

You’re hilarious….. Trying to have a d!ck measuring contest with someone on the internet is like trying to mow a yard in the rain, pointless….. For someone who thinks they are smarter than me, your reading comprehension is that of someone who just graduated from high school in a democratically ran district. I’ve posted countless times where the only conclusion you could draw was that I am in the state of WA. I won’t disclose where to you because you don’t seem like a very stable person and I’m not a trusting person to begin with. Since you are mentally unfit to run a dishwasher, I will let you believe that everything you just posted about yourself to be true.

 

[CougEd]

You still don't understand and your reading comprehension sucks, and your illogical, etc.

READ VERY CAREFULLY.

TRUMP IS A DUMBAZZ WHO EITHER CONTINUED SPENDING, OR ALLOWED TAX AND SPEND LIKE CRAZY CONGRESS TO SKY ROCKET DEBT.

My point WAS NOT that Trump was good on Debt. For some strange reason your still errantly thinking that I am supposedly saying Trump was good on Debt, when I did not say that.

If you still think that after this comment, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

And I explained that Reagan, Bush 1, had extremely high debt and why, and broke down what they did right and wrong, and explained why that despite how the debt was high during their presidencies, I explained LEGIT, JUSTIFIED WHY'S and logically explained, showed how despite high debt, their fiscally responsible policies CAUSED CLINTON'S GOOD LOW DEBT, SURPLUS, ETC, DURING CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY.

I completely broke down the logic, facts, etc, of Clinton's Presidency, and what caused the good)Reagan, Bush 1, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS.

I not only condemned Trumps high debt, and Trump's incompetence that led to that, but I also condemned, mentioned BUSH 2's crazy spending that led to high debt.

Your still CHERRY PICKING CLINTON, BUSH, TRUMP, ETC, A LOW PERCENTAGE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, WINSTON CHURCHHILL, MARGARET THATCHER, HARRY TRUMAN, NIXON, FORD, OTHER FISCAL CONSERVATIVES LIKE THEM THAT COLLECTIVELY HAVE DONE BETTER THEM MOST OF THE TAX AND SPEND SOCIALIST, EXCEPT CLINTON, that is SMALL PERCENTAGE of TAX AND SPEND SOCIALIST.

YOUR TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT AND CHERRY PICKING. YOUR GOING BY THE 15% INSTEAD OF THE 85%

The fact is that MOST OF THE TIME, a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE LIKE QUEEN ELIZABETH, MARGARET THATCHER, WINSTON CHURCHHILL, HARRY TRUMAN, NIXON, FORD, EVEN FISCAL MODERATE TO SEMI FISCAL COMSERVATIVE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS LIKE JFK, ETC, ARE GEMERALLY BETTER FOR, ON DEBT, ECONOMY, JOBS, ETC, THEN TAX AND SPEND SOCIALIST LIKE CARTER, ETC, IN GENERAL.

Have there been exceptions? Yes. And those exceptions are Clinton(good debt), Bush 2(bad debt), and Trump(bad debt).

If you still don't get that then your your reading comprehension sucks.

And your a foolish, silly, illogical, stubborn, BRICK WALL, and a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME, BECAUSE YOUR ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON WITH.

Because of that, I'm done and not going to waste any more time on you.

Your just like the Jehovah Witnesses who say, accuse, that "You don't believe in Jesus"

Then I ask what is believing in Jesus?

They answer. Then I pull out a document that says what I believe, and say this is what I believe. Then I ask them does this document talk about the same belief in Jesus as your belief in Jesus? They answer yes, that document talks about a true, right belief in Jesus. Then I say to them, that since say that document talks about a true belief in Jesus, and since I believe in Jesus and what that document says about a true belief in Jesus, then why do you still accuse me of not believing in Jesus? Then they like a brainwashed record say, accuse, that you don't believe in Jesus.

They are just as illogical as you, and you are just as illogical as those Jehovah Witnesses

And just like can't talk to reason with those Jehovah Witnesses, can't reason with you, because you can't be reasoned with at times.

Mik...I really don't know what to say at this point. So I am clear, I get you think Trump was a bad "debtor". I get you think Reagan and Bush were good on debt. But I want to make sure, didn't their debt climb? Didn't Regan double the debt, putting on more than two trillion? Again, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, we had 860 billion in debt. In four years carter put on 250 billion in debt if I recall correctly. In 8 years Reagan put on 8 times what Carter put on the credit card. Bush almost out on 3 trillion in four years.

The problem was and always has been supply side economics. It very well may have worked in cali. But the world changed in 81. Trickle down economics no longer worked. Jobs were offshored, as were bank accounts., Taxes were lowered, meaning income was lower. Creating more debt.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if a theory use to work, all I know is the GOP does not have the answer when it comes to getting a fiscal house in order.

Again, there is a bottom line...69% of the debt since 1980 has been put on by a GOP president...one that has the veto power.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

You’re hilarious….. Trying to have a d!ck measuring contest with someone on the internet is like trying to mow a yard in the rain, pointless….. For someone who thinks they are smarter than me, your reading comprehension is that of someone who just graduated from high school in a democratically ran district. I’ve posted countless times where the only conclusion you could draw was that I am in the state of WA. I won’t disclose where to you because you don’t seem like a very stable person and I’m not a trusting person to begin with. Since you are mentally unfit to run a dishwasher, I will let you believe that everything you just posted about yourself to be true.

Boy I just love these personal attacks. Are you Yaki in disguise? FYI, my degree from WSU was in Business. But since you have no f-ing idea who I am I am mentally unstable. F-you dickwad. And I'm pretty sure everything I posted was spot on. And no I did not graduate from a D ran district. Like that should matter.

 

[CougEd]

You’re hilarious….. Trying to have a d!ck measuring contest with someone on the internet is like trying to mow a yard in the rain, pointless….. For someone who thinks they are smarter than me, your reading comprehension is that of someone who just graduated from high school in a democratically ran district. I’ve posted countless times where the only conclusion you could draw was that I am in the state of WA. I won’t disclose where to you because you don’t seem like a very stable person and I’m not a trusting person to begin with. Since you are mentally unfit to run a dishwasher, I will let you believe that everything you just posted about yourself to be true.

CIS .. wife makes me mow the lawn in the rain and shovel the driveway when it is snowing … doesn’t seem pointless to her

 

[CougEd]

Boy I just love these personal attacks. Are you Yaki in disguise? FYI, my degree from WSU was in Business. But since you have no f-ing idea who I am I am mentally unstable. F-you dickwad. And I'm pretty sure everything I posted was spot on. And no I did not graduate from a D ran district. Like that should matter.

LC… personally I need references to support your claims . 😜

 

[Stretch 74]

Mik...I really don't know what to say at this point. So I am clear, I get you think Trump was a bad "debtor". I get you think Reagan and Bush were good on debt. But I want to make sure, didn't their debt climb? Didn't Regan double the debt, putting on more than two trillion? Again, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, we had 860 billion in debt. In four years carter put on 250 billion in debt if I recall correctly. In 8 years Reagan put on 8 times what Carter put on the credit card. Bush almost out on 3 trillion in four years.

The problem was and always has been supply side economics. It very well may have worked in cali. But the world changed in 81. Trickle down economics no longer worked. Jobs were offshored, as were bank accounts., Taxes were lowered, meaning income was lower. Creating more debt.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if a theory use to work, all I know is the GOP does not have the answer when it comes to getting a fiscal house in order.

Again, there is a bottom line...69% of the debt since 1980 has been put on by a GOP president...one that has the veto power.

Sorry, but your "bottom line" is in the wrong place. See below, some responses to different posts.


Let’s see if I can make some sense out of some of the debt argument that has been going on here it some actual facts and data, try to clear up some obvious misinformation/misconceptions/lies/whatever. The Spokesman had one of their full page spreads a couple weeks ago that I thought was very interesting, so I tore it off and kept it. Comes in very handy now. They are often done on musicians and their charting hits, weather, finance, movies, etc, but this particular one was about the US Debt. Using that and some googles info I hope to be able to transfer that data to my post here.

BTW, I have actually voted for several different political affiliated candidates in my life-R, D, Ind, and other. I do have equal opportunity disgust for both major parties in Congress. I have been saying for many, many years that DC needs to stop spending so much money, especially with the interest rates on said debt being so low, because it was really going to bite us all in the ass when the rates went up, as EVERYONE knew they eventually would. And of course that is playing out today. My disgust is also heightened by the refusal of Congress to solve the problems of Social Security. That is something that could have been EASILY fixed years ago (raise full retirement age, eliminate the annual cap, include stock options as income to be subject to SSI taxes, etc), but it seems like there isn’t a pair of balls between the entire lot back there in DC. Sadly….

*********************************************

69% of the debt since 1980 has come at the feet of a GOP president. There are two aspects of debt. Like your household you bring in X. In the federal govt that is raised by taxes. So even if you keep spending at the same level, and you decrease your tax base( income) of course you are increasing your debt.

Trump in 4 years matched the debt Obama had in 8. Doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me.

When you continue to spout that 69% number without deeper analysis you start to sound like the Unchatty Kathy that won’t answer anything of consequence in the Presidential daily briefing or just throws out something that is obviously false. It is like her (Kareem Gem Pee-er) trying to convince us that illegal immigration is down by 90% (!!!!) when that number simply refers to one particular program aimed at 3 (I think is the number) of South American countries. Meanwhile all the rest of the illegal immigrants keep pouring across the border. So here is the actual debt (in trillions) added to the debt under the presidents since 1980:

1.8 Bill Clinton
6.8 Barack Obama
9.4 Joe Biden

18.3 Dem Total


1.9 Ronald Reagan
1.3 George Bush 41
5.4 George Bush 43
3.9 Donald Trump

14.5 Rep Total

So I am guessing that the 69% number that you are loving is a number that does NOT account for the damage done by Biden. So while the Dems have actually added almost $4 trillion more than the Republicans* to the debt, keep in mind that they have done that in only 18 years in office, while the Republicans were in office 24 years. So Dems ran up ~$1 trillion/year while the Reps rate was much lower at ~$0.6 trillion per year.

And you need to take notice of how Biden has increased the debt by DOUBLE what Trump did, and that is in only two years for Biden vs four years for Trump. THAT is what doesn’t sound like fiscal conservatism to me!

Of course, another factor to consider is that it is the House of Representatives that actually has the authority to approve the spending, while the President then has to either sign the bill or veto it after clearing the Senate. So, take a look at which side was in control of each branch over that time frame:

Year-----H-----S-----WH

81-83----D-----R-----R

83-85----D-----R-----R

85-87----D-----R-----R

87-89----D-----D-----R

89-91----D-----D-----R

91-93----D-----D-----R

93-95----D-----D-----D

95-97----R-----R-----D

97-99----R-----R-----D

99-01----R-----R-----D

01-03----R-----R-----R

03-05----R-----R-----R

05-07----R-----R-----R

07-09----D-----D-----R

09-11----D-----D-----D

11-13----R-----D-----D

13-15----R-----D-----D

15-17----R-----R-----D

17-19----R-----R-----R

19-21----D-----R-----R

21-23----D-----D-----D

23-25----R-----D-----D

************************************************

################################################

Spain …. Inflation is coming down . You act like PPP money wasn’t printed money .

You said this is a lib issue . Simply telling you your facts are incorrect . Check out the money bush Reagan trump and bush two spent then compare to Clinton and Obama ?

Why are you ignoring the biggest $$$ waster of them all, Josef Goebbels Biden? Yeah, it gets pretty ugly when you throw that turd into the punchbowl, doesn’t it?

The difference is what the Republicans feel the need to spend it on .

Inflation is coming down? Yippee!! Is that what you want to brag about? Throwing out another White House talking point? That is like Paul Wulff bragging about holding USC to only 7 points in the 4th quarter after giving up 70 points in the first three quarters and having them take a mercy knee before halftime. (Actual numbers may be off a tad, I didn’t look them up, but you all will understand the point) And you know what? Inflation is cumulative, rather like the inverse of compound interest. Sure, the actual current rate may be down from what it is, but the damage has already been down, and it will continue to inflict damage to us, everyone that has IRA’s and 401k’s and non-COLA pensions. It isn’t simply the current ~5%, or even the ~10% a year or so back, it is the month after month after month after month that we lose purchasing power. My accounts have taken a double or triple kick in the nuts due to the market woes taking the actual account balances down plus the FACT that what is left in there will buy MUCH less than it would have 2-3 years back. I think Gropey Joe's policies have cost me about 20% of my life savings so far.

###########################

**********************************************************

Mik...I really don't know what to say at this point. So I am clear, I get you think Trump was a bad "debtor". I get you think Reagan and Bush were good on debt. But I want to make sure, didn't their debt climb? Didn't Regan double the debt, putting on more than two trillion? Again, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, we had 860 billion in debt. In four years carter put on 250 billion in debt if I recall correctly. In 8 years Reagan put on 8 times what Carter put on the credit card. Bush almost out on 3 trillion in four years.

The problem was and always has been supply side economics. It very well may have worked in cali. But the world changed in 81. Trickle down economics no longer worked. Jobs were offshored, as were bank accounts., Taxes were lowered, meaning income was lower. Creating more debt.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if a theory use to work, all I know is the GOP does not have the answer when it comes to getting a fiscal house in order.

Again, there is a bottom line...69% of the debt since 1980 has been put on by a GOP president...one that has the veto power.

Yes, debt has increased under EVERY president since Truman. No, Reagan added just under $2 trillion, not more than $2 trillion.

I disagree that the problem has always been supply side economics. The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

You may want to re-evaluate who does a less bad job of trying to keep the fiscal house in order, based on the data I have provided above. BTW, the sources cited include the OMB, US Treasury, NPR, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Slate, CNET, Statista, and a couple others. Nothing from Fox News, sorry everyone!
********************
I should also provide some discussion about the major factors affecting the economy and spending and debt, but it is getting very late and I am tired, so am heading for bed now. Maybe later I can throw a little more out there.


P.S.- Post was edited to fix the format mess from my Cut/Paste out of Word document. No other content was changed.
P.P.S.- *added "more than the Republicans" for better clarity showing how much more added by the liberal spendthrifts.

 

[Observer11]

Cliff notes version:

The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Cliff notes version:

The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

Term limits would help fix this endless cycle of BS out of DC.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Sorry, but your "bottom line" is in the wrong place. See below, some responses to different posts.


Let’s see if I can make some sense out of some of the debt argument that has been going on here it some actual facts and data, try to clear up some obvious misinformation/misconceptions/lies/whatever. The Spokesman had one of their full page spreads a couple weeks ago that I thought was very interesting, so I tore it off and kept it. Comes in very handy now. They are often done on musicians and their charting hits, weather, finance, movies, etc, but this particular one was about the US Debt. Using that and some googles info I hope to be able to transfer that data to my post here.

BTW, I have actually voted for several different political affiliated candidates in my life-R, D, Ind, and other. I do have equal opportunity disgust for both major parties in Congress. I have been saying for many, many years that DC needs to stop spending so much money, especially with the interest rates on said debt being so low, because it was really going to bite us all in the ass when the rates went up, as EVERYONE knew they eventually would. And of course that is playing out today. My disgust is also heightened by the refusal of Congress to solve the problems of Social Security. That is something that could have been EASILY fixed years ago (raise full retirement age, eliminate the annual cap, include stock options as income to be subject to SSI taxes, etc), but it seems like there isn’t a pair of balls between the entire lot back there in DC. Sadly….

*********************************************

69% of the debt since 1980 has come at the feet of a GOP president. There are two aspects of debt. Like your household you bring in X. In the federal govt that is raised by taxes. So even if you keep spending at the same level, and you decrease your tax base( income) of course you are increasing your debt.

Trump in 4 years matched the debt Obama had in 8. Doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me.

When you continue to spout that 69% number without deeper analysis you start to sound like the Unchatty Kathy that won’t answer anything of consequence in the Presidential daily briefing or just throws out something that is obviously false. It is like her (Kareem Gem Pee-er) trying to convince us that illegal immigration is down by 90% (!!!!) when that number simply refers to one particular program aimed at 3 (I think is the number) of South American countries. Meanwhile all the rest of the illegal immigrants keep pouring across the border. So here is the actual debt (in trillions) added to the debt under the presidents since 1980:

1.8 Bill Clinton ___________ 1.9 Ronald Reagan 6.8 Barack Obama ________ 1.3 George Bush 41 9.4 Joe Biden ____________ 5.4 George Bush 43 _________________________ 3.9 Donald Trump 18.3 Dem Total ____________ 14.5 Rep Total

So I am guessing that the 69% number that you are loving is a number that does NOT account for the damage done by Biden. So while the Dems have actually added almost $4 trillion to the debt, keep in mind that they have done that in only 18 years in office, while the Republicans were in office 24 years. So Dems ran up ~$1 trillion/year while the Reps rate was much lower at ~$0.6 trillion per year.

And you need to take notice of how Biden has increased the debt by DOUBLE what Trump did, and that is in only two years for Biden vs four years for Trump. THAT is what doesn’t sound like fiscal conservatism to me!

Of course, another factor to consider is that it is the House of Representatives that actually has the authority to approve the spending, while the President then has to either sign the bill or veto it after clearing the Senate. So, take a look at which side was in control of each branch over that time frame:

Year-----H-----S-----WH

81-83----D-----R-----R

83-85----D-----R-----R

85-87----D-----R-----R

87-89----D-----D-----R

89-91----D-----D-----R

91-93----D-----D-----R

93-95----D-----D-----D

95-97----R-----R-----D

97-99----R-----R-----D

99-01----R-----R-----D

01-03----R-----R-----R

03-05----R-----R-----R

05-07----R-----R-----R

07-09----D-----D-----R

09-11----D-----D-----D

11-13----R-----D-----D

13-15----R-----D-----D

15-17----R-----R-----D

17-19----R-----R-----R

19-21----D-----R-----R

21-23----D-----D-----D

23-25----R-----D-----D

************************************************

################################################

Spain …. Inflation is coming down . You act like PPP money wasn’t printed money .

You said this is a lib issue . Simply telling you your facts are incorrect . Check out the money bush Reagan trump and bush two spent then compare to Clinton and Obama ?

Why are you ignoring the biggest $$$ waster of them all, Josef Goebbels Biden? Yeah, it gets pretty ugly when you throw that turd into the punchbowl, doesn’t it?

The difference is what the Republicans feel the need to spend it on .

Inflation is coming down? Yippee!! Is that what you want to brag about? Throwing out another White House talking point? That is like Paul Wulff bragging about holding USC to only 7 points in the 4th quarter after giving up 70 points in the first three quarters and having them take a mercy knee before halftime. (Actual numbers may be off a tad, I didn’t look them up, but you all will understand the point) And you know what? Inflation is cumulative, rather like the inverse of compound interest. Sure, the actual current rate may be down from what it is, but the damage has already been down, and it will continue to inflict damage to us, everyone that has IRA’s and 401k’s and non-COLA pensions. It isn’t simply the current ~5%, or even the ~10% a year or so back, it is the month after month after month after month that we lose purchasing power. My accounts have taken a double or triple kick in the nuts due to the market woes taking the actual account balances down plus the FACT that what is left in there will buy MUCH less than it would have 2-3 years back. I think Gropey Joe's policies have cost me about 20% of my life savings so far.

###########################

**********************************************************

Mik...I really don't know what to say at this point. So I am clear, I get you think Trump was a bad "debtor". I get you think Reagan and Bush were good on debt. But I want to make sure, didn't their debt climb? Didn't Regan double the debt, putting on more than two trillion? Again, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, we had 860 billion in debt. In four years carter put on 250 billion in debt if I recall correctly. In 8 years Reagan put on 8 times what Carter put on the credit card. Bush almost out on 3 trillion in four years.

The problem was and always has been supply side economics. It very well may have worked in cali. But the world changed in 81. Trickle down economics no longer worked. Jobs were offshored, as were bank accounts., Taxes were lowered, meaning income was lower. Creating more debt.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if a theory use to work, all I know is the GOP does not have the answer when it comes to getting a fiscal house in order.

Again, there is a bottom line...69% of the debt since 1980 has been put on by a GOP president...one that has the veto power.

Yes, debt has increased under EVERY president since Truman. No, Reagan added just under $2 trillion, not more than $2 trillion.

I disagree that the problem has always been supply side economics. The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

You may want to re-evaluate who does a less bad job of trying to keep the fiscal house in order, based on the data I have provided above. BTW, the sources cited include the OMB, US Treasury, NPR, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Slate, CNET, Statista, and a couple others. Nothing from Fox News, sorry everyone!
********************
I should also provide some discussion about the major factors affecting the economy and spending and debt, but it is getting very late and I am tired, so am heading for bed now. Maybe later I can throw a little more out there.

Wow, Stretch. My parents lost a third of their retirement savings in the market crash in 1987 when Reagan was president. It never recovered. Poor investment choices by their broker, not who was in office at the time. My retirement plans have taken a hit in the last couple of years, but not that much because I am a conservative in my investment choices. Didn't share much on the upside of the markets, but not taking it in the rump on the downside.

 

[Stretch 74]

Term limits would help fix this endless cycle of BS out of DC.

No, not term limits, term LIMIT. As in ONE. One 5 year term for House, one 10 year term for Senate. 20% turnover every year, starting with the longest tenured. No individual stock trades, no becoming a lobbyist after leaving Congress. Single term only so you won't be bothered trying to raise money for re-election when you are serving.

 

[Stretch 74]

Wow, Stretch. My parents lost a third of their retirement savings in the market crash in 1987 when Reagan was president. It never recovered. Poor investment choices by their broker, not who was in office at the time. My retirement plans have taken a hit in the last couple of years, but not that much because I am a conservative in my investment choices. Didn't share much on the upside of the markets, but not taking it in the rump on the downside.

That really sucks for your parents, I feel sorry for them. Brokers/financial advisors are not perfect, but sometimes you just have to question their competency. But sometimes things happen that are just out of their control. I lost $20,000/5% in one account about 10 years ago just due to a bad ruling by a judge in California. Something that should have been a safe investment suddenly screwed me over. My 401k also took a big hit in 1987, but that was fairly early in my career and it recovered in a few years. The tough thing with that was that it was back when Boeing only allowed transfers/rebalancing at the end of every quarter.

There were also big hits in 1999/2000 with the tech crash, and also the aftermath from the 9/11 attacks. Had the urge to pull out of the market, but still being years away from retirement I listened to all the financial gurus that tell you not to react to short term disturbances and think long term. So I rode out those two dips and they both came back in a few years, even though the Science and Technology option went down 70 freakin' %! UGH!!! Anyway, when the 2008 recession came around I said "Not this time" and moved everything from stocks and bonds and into interest earning account after the account was down 10%. That was a smart move that time, since the market and many funds were down 40-50% at the bottom. I did miss out on some gains when the market started back up, but ended up way ahead by missing most of the downturn.

Unfortunately, now I am retired and cannot increase the funds I have through earnings contributions, and like I said, even disregarding the opportunity for the actual dollar amount in the funds possibly going up, the value of those dollars is eroding from the unnecessary inflation that has been caused by government spending money they don't have. Really sucks!

 

[Loyal Coug1]

That really sucks for your parents, I feel sorry for them. Brokers/financial advisors are not perfect, but sometimes you just have to question their competency. But sometimes things happen that are just out of their control. I lost $20,000/5% in one account about 10 years ago just due to a bad ruling by a judge in California. Something that should have been a safe investment suddenly screwed me over. My 401k also took a big hit in 1987, but that was fairly early in my career and it recovered in a few years. The tough thing with that was that it was back when Boeing only allowed transfers/rebalancing at the end of every quarter.

There were also big hits in 1999/2000 with the tech crash, and also the aftermath from the 9/11 attacks. Had the urge to pull out of the market, but still being years away from retirement I listened to all the financial gurus that tell you not to react to short term disturbances and think long term. So I rode out those two dips and they both came back in a few years, even though the Science and Technology option went down 70 freakin' %! UGH!!! Anyway, when the 2008 recession came around I said "Not this time" and moved everything from stocks and bonds and into interest earning account after the account was down 10%. That was a smart move that time, since the market and many funds were down 40-50% at the bottom. I did miss out on some gains when the market started back up, but ended up way ahead by missing most of the downturn.

Unfortunately, now I am retired and cannot increase the funds I have through earnings contributions, and like I said, even disregarding the opportunity for the actual dollar amount in the funds possibly going up, the value of those dollars is eroding from the unnecessary inflation that has been caused by government spending money they don't have. Really sucks!

Well my parents are both dead now. Funny though, and I have retirement accounts with various institutions, mostly TIAA-Cref. My Mom died and left us what was left in her (Dad's) retirement fund. Not much, I wish she and Dad would have spent it, but I took it. About 60K. What's funny (not hah hah), is that even though they were both in their 80's, and I have not altered the investment makeup since her death, when the stock market had it's dump last year that account took the biggest hit of all my accounts. I mean WTF. Clients in their 80's, and you can't find safe investments for their retirement accounts? When I start drawing, that's the first one I'm emptying.

 

[CougEd]

Sorry, but your "bottom line" is in the wrong place. See below, some responses to different posts.


Let’s see if I can make some sense out of some of the debt argument that has been going on here it some actual facts and data, try to clear up some obvious misinformation/misconceptions/lies/whatever. The Spokesman had one of their full page spreads a couple weeks ago that I thought was very interesting, so I tore it off and kept it. Comes in very handy now. They are often done on musicians and their charting hits, weather, finance, movies, etc, but this particular one was about the US Debt. Using that and some googles info I hope to be able to transfer that data to my post here.

BTW, I have actually voted for several different political affiliated candidates in my life-R, D, Ind, and other. I do have equal opportunity disgust for both major parties in Congress. I have been saying for many, many years that DC needs to stop spending so much money, especially with the interest rates on said debt being so low, because it was really going to bite us all in the ass when the rates went up, as EVERYONE knew they eventually would. And of course that is playing out today. My disgust is also heightened by the refusal of Congress to solve the problems of Social Security. That is something that could have been EASILY fixed years ago (raise full retirement age, eliminate the annual cap, include stock options as income to be subject to SSI taxes, etc), but it seems like there isn’t a pair of balls between the entire lot back there in DC. Sadly….

*********************************************

69% of the debt since 1980 has come at the feet of a GOP president. There are two aspects of debt. Like your household you bring in X. In the federal govt that is raised by taxes. So even if you keep spending at the same level, and you decrease your tax base( income) of course you are increasing your debt.

Trump in 4 years matched the debt Obama had in 8. Doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me.

When you continue to spout that 69% number without deeper analysis you start to sound like the Unchatty Kathy that won’t answer anything of consequence in the Presidential daily briefing or just throws out something that is obviously false. It is like her (Kareem Gem Pee-er) trying to convince us that illegal immigration is down by 90% (!!!!) when that number simply refers to one particular program aimed at 3 (I think is the number) of South American countries. Meanwhile all the rest of the illegal immigrants keep pouring across the border. So here is the actual debt (in trillions) added to the debt under the presidents since 1980:

1.8 Bill Clinton ___________ 1.9 Ronald Reagan 6.8 Barack Obama ________ 1.3 George Bush 41 9.4 Joe Biden ____________ 5.4 George Bush 43 _________________________ 3.9 Donald Trump 18.3 Dem Total ____________ 14.5 Rep Total

So I am guessing that the 69% number that you are loving is a number that does NOT account for the damage done by Biden. So while the Dems have actually added almost $4 trillion to the debt, keep in mind that they have done that in only 18 years in office, while the Republicans were in office 24 years. So Dems ran up ~$1 trillion/year while the Reps rate was much lower at ~$0.6 trillion per year.

And you need to take notice of how Biden has increased the debt by DOUBLE what Trump did, and that is in only two years for Biden vs four years for Trump. THAT is what doesn’t sound like fiscal conservatism to me!

Of course, another factor to consider is that it is the House of Representatives that actually has the authority to approve the spending, while the President then has to either sign the bill or veto it after clearing the Senate. So, take a look at which side was in control of each branch over that time frame:

Year-----H-----S-----WH

81-83----D-----R-----R

83-85----D-----R-----R

85-87----D-----R-----R

87-89----D-----D-----R

89-91----D-----D-----R

91-93----D-----D-----R

93-95----D-----D-----D

95-97----R-----R-----D

97-99----R-----R-----D

99-01----R-----R-----D

01-03----R-----R-----R

03-05----R-----R-----R

05-07----R-----R-----R

07-09----D-----D-----R

09-11----D-----D-----D

11-13----R-----D-----D

13-15----R-----D-----D

15-17----R-----R-----D

17-19----R-----R-----R

19-21----D-----R-----R

21-23----D-----D-----D

23-25----R-----D-----D

************************************************

################################################

Spain …. Inflation is coming down . You act like PPP money wasn’t printed money .

You said this is a lib issue . Simply telling you your facts are incorrect . Check out the money bush Reagan trump and bush two spent then compare to Clinton and Obama ?

Why are you ignoring the biggest $$$ waster of them all, Josef Goebbels Biden? Yeah, it gets pretty ugly when you throw that turd into the punchbowl, doesn’t it?

The difference is what the Republicans feel the need to spend it on .

Inflation is coming down? Yippee!! Is that what you want to brag about? Throwing out another White House talking point? That is like Paul Wulff bragging about holding USC to only 7 points in the 4th quarter after giving up 70 points in the first three quarters and having them take a mercy knee before halftime. (Actual numbers may be off a tad, I didn’t look them up, but you all will understand the point) And you know what? Inflation is cumulative, rather like the inverse of compound interest. Sure, the actual current rate may be down from what it is, but the damage has already been down, and it will continue to inflict damage to us, everyone that has IRA’s and 401k’s and non-COLA pensions. It isn’t simply the current ~5%, or even the ~10% a year or so back, it is the month after month after month after month that we lose purchasing power. My accounts have taken a double or triple kick in the nuts due to the market woes taking the actual account balances down plus the FACT that what is left in there will buy MUCH less than it would have 2-3 years back. I think Gropey Joe's policies have cost me about 20% of my life savings so far.

###########################

**********************************************************

Mik...I really don't know what to say at this point. So I am clear, I get you think Trump was a bad "debtor". I get you think Reagan and Bush were good on debt. But I want to make sure, didn't their debt climb? Didn't Regan double the debt, putting on more than two trillion? Again, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, we had 860 billion in debt. In four years carter put on 250 billion in debt if I recall correctly. In 8 years Reagan put on 8 times what Carter put on the credit card. Bush almost out on 3 trillion in four years.

The problem was and always has been supply side economics. It very well may have worked in cali. But the world changed in 81. Trickle down economics no longer worked. Jobs were offshored, as were bank accounts., Taxes were lowered, meaning income was lower. Creating more debt.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if a theory use to work, all I know is the GOP does not have the answer when it comes to getting a fiscal house in order.

Again, there is a bottom line...69% of the debt since 1980 has been put on by a GOP president...one that has the veto power.

Yes, debt has increased under EVERY president since Truman. No, Reagan added just under $2 trillion, not more than $2 trillion.

I disagree that the problem has always been supply side economics. The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

You may want to re-evaluate who does a less bad job of trying to keep the fiscal house in order, based on the data I have provided above. BTW, the sources cited include the OMB, US Treasury, NPR, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Slate, CNET, Statista, and a couple others. Nothing from Fox News, sorry everyone!
********************
I should also provide some discussion about the major factors affecting the economy and spending and debt, but it is getting very late and I am tired, so am heading for bed now. Maybe later I can throw a little more out there.

Stretch …again I am a simpleton . We have 30 trillion on the books, do we agree on that ?

Do you agree bush 2 and trump put on half of that ?

So two presidents are responsible for half the debt. Does that seem right? No matter how you slice it , doesn’t seem fiscally responsible .

 

[95coug]

No, not term limits, term LIMIT. As in ONE. One 5 year term for House, one 10 year term for Senate. 20% turnover every year, starting with the longest tenured. No individual stock trades, no becoming a lobbyist after leaving Congress. Single term only so you won't be bothered trying to raise money for re-election when you are serving.

10 year term? Not a chance. You might convince me to go as long as 6, but that's it. I prefer 4, with 25% of seats being up every year.

Not only that, but I favor having designated housing for members of Congress. Here's your reasonable house, your reasonable neighborhood, and a reasonable school for your kids. No mansions, no private schools. But you can afford better? Good for you. If you want to be in Congress, this is what you get, and it's not optional.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

10 year term? Not a chance. You might convince me to go as long as 6, but that's it. I prefer 4, with 25% of seats being up every year.

Not only that, but I favor having designated housing for members of Congress. Here's your reasonable house, your reasonable neighborhood, and a reasonable school for your kids. No mansions, no private schools. But you can afford better? Good for you. If you want to be in Congress, this is what you get, and it's not optional.

4 is a little short. I say 12 years in the House, 12 in the senate. Shit, the problem is we have Mitch McConnell (38 years and counting), Dianne Feinstein (31 years and counting) , and Nancy Pelosi (36 years and counting). All now in their 80's. I mean come on.

 

[95coug]

4 is a little short. I say 12 years in the House, 12 in the senate. Shit, the problem is we have Mitch McConnell (38 years and counting), Dianne Feinstein (31 years and counting) , and Nancy Pelosi (36 years and counting). All now in their 80's. I mean come on.

If their terms are going to be that long, there's got to be some strict additional controls. And we redefine "treason" to include acceptance of bribes and lobbyist contributions.

 

[mikalalas]

Sorry, but your "bottom line" is in the wrong place. See below, some responses to different posts.


Let’s see if I can make some sense out of some of the debt argument that has been going on here it some actual facts and data, try to clear up some obvious misinformation/misconceptions/lies/whatever. The Spokesman had one of their full page spreads a couple weeks ago that I thought was very interesting, so I tore it off and kept it. Comes in very handy now. They are often done on musicians and their charting hits, weather, finance, movies, etc, but this particular one was about the US Debt. Using that and some googles info I hope to be able to transfer that data to my post here.

BTW, I have actually voted for several different political affiliated candidates in my life-R, D, Ind, and other. I do have equal opportunity disgust for both major parties in Congress. I have been saying for many, many years that DC needs to stop spending so much money, especially with the interest rates on said debt being so low, because it was really going to bite us all in the ass when the rates went up, as EVERYONE knew they eventually would. And of course that is playing out today. My disgust is also heightened by the refusal of Congress to solve the problems of Social Security. That is something that could have been EASILY fixed years ago (raise full retirement age, eliminate the annual cap, include stock options as income to be subject to SSI taxes, etc), but it seems like there isn’t a pair of balls between the entire lot back there in DC. Sadly….

*********************************************

69% of the debt since 1980 has come at the feet of a GOP president. There are two aspects of debt. Like your household you bring in X. In the federal govt that is raised by taxes. So even if you keep spending at the same level, and you decrease your tax base( income) of course you are increasing your debt.

Trump in 4 years matched the debt Obama had in 8. Doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me.

When you continue to spout that 69% number without deeper analysis you start to sound like the Unchatty Kathy that won’t answer anything of consequence in the Presidential daily briefing or just throws out something that is obviously false. It is like her (Kareem Gem Pee-er) trying to convince us that illegal immigration is down by 90% (!!!!) when that number simply refers to one particular program aimed at 3 (I think is the number) of South American countries. Meanwhile all the rest of the illegal immigrants keep pouring across the border. So here is the actual debt (in trillions) added to the debt under the presidents since 1980:

1.8 Bill Clinton ___________ 1.9 Ronald Reagan 6.8 Barack Obama ________ 1.3 George Bush 41 9.4 Joe Biden ____________ 5.4 George Bush 43 _________________________ 3.9 Donald Trump 18.3 Dem Total ____________ 14.5 Rep Total

So I am guessing that the 69% number that you are loving is a number that does NOT account for the damage done by Biden. So while the Dems have actually added almost $4 trillion to the debt, keep in mind that they have done that in only 18 years in office, while the Republicans were in office 24 years. So Dems ran up ~$1 trillion/year while the Reps rate was much lower at ~$0.6 trillion per year.

And you need to take notice of how Biden has increased the debt by DOUBLE what Trump did, and that is in only two years for Biden vs four years for Trump. THAT is what doesn’t sound like fiscal conservatism to me!

Of course, another factor to consider is that it is the House of Representatives that actually has the authority to approve the spending, while the President then has to either sign the bill or veto it after clearing the Senate. So, take a look at which side was in control of each branch over that time frame:

Year-----H-----S-----WH

81-83----D-----R-----R

83-85----D-----R-----R

85-87----D-----R-----R

87-89----D-----D-----R

89-91----D-----D-----R

91-93----D-----D-----R

93-95----D-----D-----D

95-97----R-----R-----D

97-99----R-----R-----D

99-01----R-----R-----D

01-03----R-----R-----R

03-05----R-----R-----R

05-07----R-----R-----R

07-09----D-----D-----R

09-11----D-----D-----D

11-13----R-----D-----D

13-15----R-----D-----D

15-17----R-----R-----D

17-19----R-----R-----R

19-21----D-----R-----R

21-23----D-----D-----D

23-25----R-----D-----D

************************************************

################################################

Spain …. Inflation is coming down . You act like PPP money wasn’t printed money .

You said this is a lib issue . Simply telling you your facts are incorrect . Check out the money bush Reagan trump and bush two spent then compare to Clinton and Obama ?

Why are you ignoring the biggest $$$ waster of them all, Josef Goebbels Biden? Yeah, it gets pretty ugly when you throw that turd into the punchbowl, doesn’t it?

The difference is what the Republicans feel the need to spend it on .

Inflation is coming down? Yippee!! Is that what you want to brag about? Throwing out another White House talking point? That is like Paul Wulff bragging about holding USC to only 7 points in the 4th quarter after giving up 70 points in the first three quarters and having them take a mercy knee before halftime. (Actual numbers may be off a tad, I didn’t look them up, but you all will understand the point) And you know what? Inflation is cumulative, rather like the inverse of compound interest. Sure, the actual current rate may be down from what it is, but the damage has already been down, and it will continue to inflict damage to us, everyone that has IRA’s and 401k’s and non-COLA pensions. It isn’t simply the current ~5%, or even the ~10% a year or so back, it is the month after month after month after month that we lose purchasing power. My accounts have taken a double or triple kick in the nuts due to the market woes taking the actual account balances down plus the FACT that what is left in there will buy MUCH less than it would have 2-3 years back. I think Gropey Joe's policies have cost me about 20% of my life savings so far.

###########################

**********************************************************

Mik...I really don't know what to say at this point. So I am clear, I get you think Trump was a bad "debtor". I get you think Reagan and Bush were good on debt. But I want to make sure, didn't their debt climb? Didn't Regan double the debt, putting on more than two trillion? Again, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, we had 860 billion in debt. In four years carter put on 250 billion in debt if I recall correctly. In 8 years Reagan put on 8 times what Carter put on the credit card. Bush almost out on 3 trillion in four years.

The problem was and always has been supply side economics. It very well may have worked in cali. But the world changed in 81. Trickle down economics no longer worked. Jobs were offshored, as were bank accounts., Taxes were lowered, meaning income was lower. Creating more debt.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if a theory use to work, all I know is the GOP does not have the answer when it comes to getting a fiscal house in order.

Again, there is a bottom line...69% of the debt since 1980 has been put on by a GOP president...one that has the veto power.

Yes, debt has increased under EVERY president since Truman. No, Reagan added just under $2 trillion, not more than $2 trillion.

I disagree that the problem has always been supply side economics. The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

You may want to re-evaluate who does a less bad job of trying to keep the fiscal house in order, based on the data I have provided above. BTW, the sources cited include the OMB, US Treasury, NPR, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Slate, CNET, Statista, and a couple others. Nothing from Fox News, sorry everyone!
********************
I should also provide some discussion about the major factors affecting the economy and spending and debt, but it is getting very late and I am tired, so am heading for bed now. Maybe later I can throw a little more out there.

Thank you very much for proving my point with your numbers, added to my logic, reason, etc.

I knew he ED was full of BS.

I knew that Reagan, Bush 1, Bill Clinton had the least, best debt, and that Clinton only had it so good because of Reagan, Bush 1 earlier, and the fiscal conservative Congress that kept Clinton in check.

And I knew that Biden, Obama, Bush 2, Trump, had the worst bad debt.

And I knew that it was so for the reasons, logic, etc, that I explained to ED.

But like me, you wasted your time in a way, in that ED is going to be a BRICK WALL, not understand, get what your saying, be stubborn, foolish, silly, etc.

 

[mikalalas]

Cliff notes version:

The problem has ALWAYS been Congress spending more money than the government got in revenue in order to dole out favors to donors, curry favor with groups of voters, and use OUR money in every way possible to keep themselves in power.

Yep CONGRESS holds the PURSE STRINGS, NOT the president, altho the President can get Congress to either spend more or less, etc.

 

[mikalalas]

So Glad that Joe Manchin in Congress.

Fiscally responsible moderate centrist blue, purple dog Democrat Manchin is the only thing stopping the democrat controlled senate from passing, raising the Debt Ceiling, without cutting budget spending.

While raising the Debt Ceiling to avoid going bankrupt, default is better then doing nothing, it's not as good as either cutting budget spending to avoid the bankrupt, default, or raising debt ceiling but still cutting spending so that don't end up in this situation again.

The fiscal conservative Republicans are for the cuts to spending. The far left libtard socialist Democraps, are for no spending cuts, raising the Debt Ceiling.

If raise the debt ceiling, to go with more debt, that's going to ruin the economy, ruin job growth, increase inflation, and eventually cause USA's credit rating to go so bad, so low, and cause the interest, inflation on the debt to go Sky High.

If nothing is done, going bankrupt, default on the debt is worst, but if that happens the BLAME should be on the Democraps, for not cutting spending, because raising the Debt limit, like the Democraps want to do is WORSE then cutting spending, like what the Republicans want to do.

Because of the wonderful Joe Manchin, Joe Manchin can swing things to where the Republicans cut spending to avoid the Bankruptcy, default, or Raises the debt, with budget spending cuts, to avoid this problem again

If Biden, Trump both run again for president, I hope Joe Manchin either runs against Biden and Beats him out, or runs 3rd Party, and wins, if Trump is running.

If it's Biden, and Ben Carson, or Ron De SANTIS, or Cruz, Liz Cheney, etc, then I wouldn't want Manchin, Biden to win.

Why can't the parties choose the best candidates like Manchin, and Ben Carson, Cruz, Ron De Santis, Liz Cheney, etc, over, instead of choosing the worst candidates in Biden, Trump?

 

[Stretch 74]

Well my parents are both dead now. Funny though, and I have retirement accounts with various institutions, mostly TIAA-Cref. My Mom died and left us what was left in her (Dad's) retirement fund. Not much, I wish she and Dad would have spent it, but I took it. About 60K. What's funny (not hah hah), is that even though they were both in their 80's, and I have not altered the investment makeup since her death, when the stock market had it's dump last year that account took the biggest hit of all my accounts. I mean WTF. Clients in their 80's, and you can't find safe investments for their retirement accounts? When I start drawing, that's the first one I'm emptying.

Sorry that they are both gone, so are mine. I should have said 'sucked' instead of 'sucks' in case that was the situation, it would have been better that way.

 

[Stretch 74]

Stretch …again I am a simpleton . We have 30 trillion on the books, do we agree on that ?

Do you agree bush 2 and trump put on half of that ?

So two presidents are responsible for half the debt. Does that seem right? No matter how you slice it , doesn’t seem fiscally responsible .

We almost agree on the amount-it is actually $31.4 trillion as of the date of the Spokesman's article. Since that was on March 21st, it is likely to be even higher now.

I absolutely do NOT agree that GWB and DJT put on half of that. You are failing basic math here. Now I will give you a small partial pass due to the formatting mess from my Cut and Paste of the post from a Word document, but you still should have been able to figure it out, especially from my detailed discussion of it. You need to go back and read and understand the entire post, but here is a quick redo of the critical part:

Bill+Barry+Gropey--- 1.8+6.8+9.4=18.3 trillion attributable to the Donkeys

Ronny+George 41+George 43+Donald--- 1.9+1.3+5.4+3.9=14.9 Trillion attributable to the Elephants

Sooooo, what this comes down to is that 3 Dems added ~$4 trillion more debt in just 18 years than 4 Reps added to the debt in 24 years. Now, you better be sitting down for this, because it will be quite a shock to the system, but I actually DO agree with you that two presidents have combined to add over half of the U.S. debt since 1980. However, here is the true shock- YOU HAVE THE WRONG PARTY!!! Obama ($6.8 trillion)+ Biden ($9.4 trillion)=$16.2 trillion. So yes, those are the two presidents that have run up over half of the existing debt.

Not that McCain would have been miles better as a president, but people should have paid more attention when Barack stated that his goal was to transform the country, and also when Joe wanted to carry on the legacy of the Obama/Biden presidency.

Last time I looked at the RCP poll averages, about 70-75% of the public says our country is on the wrong track. How sad is that?

 

[CougEd]

We almost agree on the amount-it is actually $31.4 trillion as of the date of the Spokesman's article. Since that was on March 21st, it is likely to be even higher now.

I absolutely do NOT agree that GWB and DJT put on half of that. You are failing basic math here. Now I will give you a small partial pass due to the formatting mess from my Cut and Paste of the post from a Word document, but you still should have been able to figure it out, especially from my detailed discussion of it. You need to go back and read and understand the entire post, but here is a quick redo of the critical part:

Bill+Barry+Gropey--- 1.8+6.8+9.4=18.3 trillion attributable to the Donkeys

Ronny+George 41+George 43+Donald--- 1.9+1.3+5.4+3.9=14.9 Trillion attributable to the Elephants

Sooooo, what this comes down to is that 3 Dems added ~$4 trillion more debt in just 18 years than 4 Reps added to the debt in 24 years. Now, you better be sitting down for this, because it will be quite a shock to the system, but I actually DO agree with you that two presidents have combined to add over half of the U.S. debt since 1980. However, here is the true shock- YOU HAVE THE WRONG PARTY!!! Obama ($6.8 trillion)+ Biden ($9.4 trillion)=$16.2 trillion. So yes, those are the two presidents that have run up over half of the existing debt.

Not that McCain would have been miles better as a president, but people should have paid more attention when Barack stated that his goal was to transform the country, and also when Joe wanted to carry on the legacy of the Obama/Biden presidency.

Last time I looked at the RCP poll averages, about 70-75% of the public says our country is on the wrong track. How sad is that?

Two things … one, when they say our country is on the wrong track are they referring to gev economy specifically ?

Second, here is an article about Trump and debt … I guess it matters which one a person reads .

So the entire point is there is no fiscal responsibility by either party . This does get solved in part by term limits and taking away private money . That way government is for the people … not a special interest . If George soros wants to donate money, great. Half of what he donates goes to the r’s half goes to the d’s

Cutting taxes has failed to generate enough income to balance a budget , which trickle down economics was supposed to do.

If the number you gave me on bush, and the number below on trump is correct, that alone almost is half the debt .

Donald Trump​

At the end of fiscal year 2020, the debt was $26.9 trillion. Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, a 33.1% increase, largely due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and 2020 recession

 

[95coug]

We almost agree on the amount-it is actually $31.4 trillion as of the date of the Spokesman's article. Since that was on March 21st, it is likely to be even higher now.

I absolutely do NOT agree that GWB and DJT put on half of that. You are failing basic math here. Now I will give you a small partial pass due to the formatting mess from my Cut and Paste of the post from a Word document, but you still should have been able to figure it out, especially from my detailed discussion of it. You need to go back and read and understand the entire post, but here is a quick redo of the critical part:

Bill+Barry+Gropey--- 1.8+6.8+9.4=18.3 trillion attributable to the Donkeys

Ronny+George 41+George 43+Donald--- 1.9+1.3+5.4+3.9=14.9 Trillion attributable to the Elephants

Sooooo, what this comes down to is that 3 Dems added ~$4 trillion more debt in just 18 years than 4 Reps added to the debt in 24 years. Now, you better be sitting down for this, because it will be quite a shock to the system, but I actually DO agree with you that two presidents have combined to add over half of the U.S. debt since 1980. However, here is the true shock- YOU HAVE THE WRONG PARTY!!! Obama ($6.8 trillion)+ Biden ($9.4 trillion)=$16.2 trillion. So yes, those are the two presidents that have run up over half of the existing debt.

Not that McCain would have been miles better as a president, but people should have paid more attention when Barack stated that his goal was to transform the country, and also when Joe wanted to carry on the legacy of the Obama/Biden presidency.

Last time I looked at the RCP poll averages, about 70-75% of the public says our country is on the wrong track. How sad is that?

That one gets sadder. Looking specifically at that poll, we've been on the wrong track consistently since they started tracking it. There's exactly one week in its tracking (June 12, 2009) where the wrong track/right direction numbers balance out.

Looking at their aggregated polling, they have 2,863 data points corresponding with different polls and different weeks dating back to 2005 (if I parsed it right). Only 30 of those data points (1.05%) show a neutral to positive result.

But, the (very slightly) silver lining is that things really aren't that bad now, comparatively. The worst polled week of 2023 so far (Apr 11-17) - when 75% said wrong path vs. 15% right path - is only the 59th worst week recorded. March-October 2008 was consistently in the range of 65-85% negative.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

We almost agree on the amount-it is actually $31.4 trillion as of the date of the Spokesman's article. Since that was on March 21st, it is likely to be even higher now.

I absolutely do NOT agree that GWB and DJT put on half of that. You are failing basic math here. Now I will give you a small partial pass due to the formatting mess from my Cut and Paste of the post from a Word document, but you still should have been able to figure it out, especially from my detailed discussion of it. You need to go back and read and understand the entire post, but here is a quick redo of the critical part:

Bill+Barry+Gropey--- 1.8+6.8+9.4=18.3 trillion attributable to the Donkeys

Ronny+George 41+George 43+Donald--- 1.9+1.3+5.4+3.9=14.9 Trillion attributable to the Elephants

Sooooo, what this comes down to is that 3 Dems added ~$4 trillion more debt in just 18 years than 4 Reps added to the debt in 24 years. Now, you better be sitting down for this, because it will be quite a shock to the system, but I actually DO agree with you that two presidents have combined to add over half of the U.S. debt since 1980. However, here is the true shock- YOU HAVE THE WRONG PARTY!!! Obama ($6.8 trillion)+ Biden ($9.4 trillion)=$16.2 trillion. So yes, those are the two presidents that have run up over half of the existing debt.

Not that McCain would have been miles better as a president, but people should have paid more attention when Barack stated that his goal was to transform the country, and also when Joe wanted to carry on the legacy of the Obama/Biden presidency.

Last time I looked at the RCP poll averages, about 70-75% of the public says our country is on the wrong track. How sad is that?

I don't really agree with your numbers, but I'm too lazy to look up my own set of facts. I will say this - I voted for Ross Perot (twice), and John McCain. Either one would have been better that what we've had since. I remember Perot holding up charts in either an ad or debate showing the deficit/debt numbers. The only one who was even paying attention to this neverending deficit nightmare.

 

[BSpike76]

Stretch …again I am a simpleton . We have 30 trillion on the books, do we agree on that ?

Do you agree bush 2 and trump put on half of that ?

So two presidents are responsible for half the debt. Does that seem right? No matter how you slice it , doesn’t seem fiscally responsible .

The Balance did an analysis of the debt based on a president’s fiscal years. It came out closer to 55%R-45%D. They included any new debt they added to the fiscal year they inherited via new legislation.

It went like this:
Reagen- 1.86t
HW- 1.55t
Clinton- 1.4t
W- 5.85t
Obama-8.6t
Trump-6.7t
Biden-3.3t

For what it’s worth.

 

[Observer11]

The Balance did an analysis of the debt based on a president’s fiscal years. It came out closer to 55%R-45%D. They included any new debt they added to the fiscal year they inherited via new legislation.

It went like this:
Reagen- 1.86t
HW- 1.55t
Clinton- 1.4t
W- 5.85t
Obama-8.6t
Trump-6.7t
Biden-3.3t

For what it’s worth.

This just shows how utterly idiotic it was to shut the world down for 2 1/2 years.

 

[BSpike76]

This just shows how utterly idiotic it was to shut the world down for 2 1/2 years.

Looking at fy 20&21 it looks like about 3t was added above the “trend”.