Could Trump do anything to make you stop supporting him?

[Cameron143]

If "government revenue" doubles and our national debt triples ($738 billion to $2.1 trillion from Reagans time), do you really think that is good? That is "preposterous". You don't think this was a contributor to inflation?

What you don't seem to grasp is that you can't cut taxes for corporations, continue all the entitlements the US offers, and NOT expect to go into debt. Why do you think we had to borrow so much money? Why do you think our national debt tripled? I thought only liberals thought if you run out of money, you just print more of it.

The irony is you think I don't understand economics yet you refuse to believe the data. You think growing the GDP is the only variable to consider and printing more money is a win-win for everyone. You have more in common with liberals than you think.

It is impossible for more revenue to increase debt. More spending increases debt. This is why I said you do not understand economics.

While it is fair to say the debt increased under Reagan, it is incorrect to say it was due to his economic policy. It was largely due to increase in defense spending. This same spending is what bankrupted the USSR and led to the freedom of eastern Europe.

Printing money as an economy expands is necessary. The increase in the money supply is not debt. It reflects the wealth that has accrued. When money is printed without the increase in goods and services as its cause, there will be inflation. You will have more dollars vying for the same number of goods. In other words, the supply has remained the same and demand has been artificially increased. It's Econ 101...Laws of Supply and Demand.
Thus, if you want to reduce debt, it can only be done by reducing spending. It doesn't matter how much revenue you raise, if you spend more than you have, you will increase debt.

 

[Cameron143]

If you have an elementary level understanding of economics, one would think GDP is the only variable to consider. We can artificially grow GDP... in fact, we did after the financial crisis in 2008, remember? What happened in the 80s and in 2008? That's right... our national debt exponentially started growing after giving even MORE corporate welfare to businesses that were too big to fail.

I understand you probably take offense to my calling out wealthy banks and corporations that received big golden parachutes after Republicans and Democrats bailed them out. You want to pretend like corporate welfare doesn't exist... No, you go a step further and accuse this type of behavior as being something from the left in spite of George Bush being the president at the time of the bail outs.

You do not understand economics and you ascribe things to me I haven't stated or implied. Additionally, you refuse to understand the most basic of economic principles. If I thought it would help, I would show you where and why you are wrong. But I don't think it will. So I'll just bid you grace and peace.

 

[Smoke]

It is impossible for more revenue to increase debt. More spending increases debt. This is why I said you do not understand economics.

While it is fair to say the debt increased under Reagan, it is incorrect to say it was due to his economic policy. It was largely due to increase in defense spending. This same spending is what bankrupted the USSR and led to the freedom of eastern Europe.

Printing money as an economy expands is necessary. The increase in the money supply is not debt. It reflects the wealth that has accrued. When money is printed without the increase in goods and services as its cause, there will be inflation. You will have more dollars vying for the same number of goods. In other words, the supply has remained the same and demand has been artificially increased. It's Econ 101...Laws of Supply and Demand.
Thus, if you want to reduce debt, it can only be done by reducing spending. It doesn't matter how much revenue you raise, if you spend more than you have, you will increase debt.

And this is why I say you don't understand economics. You can't decrease taxes and keep all the entitlements you were previously offering/paying for and NOT expect to go into debt. How do you pay for the entitlements? It's fantastic that the GDP increased, but someone has to pay the piper.

What makes economic sense is if you cut corporate welfare you ALSO cut some entitlement programs. The problem is, you become unelectable to the people you cut entitlements for. Getting re-elected is more important than balancing the books. Republicans are not really fiscally conservative in this respect. The Democrats are honest about their intention to spend us into oblivion though.

 

[Smoke]

You do not understand economics and you ascribe things to me I haven't stated or implied. Additionally, you refuse to understand the most basic of economic principles. If I thought it would help, I would show you where and why you are wrong. But I don't think it will. So I'll just bid you grace and peace.

Someone who thinks GDP growth is the only thing to consider is incapable of teaching anyone about economics. They might be the same or slightly better off getting a lesson from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

 

[Cameron143]

You mean how every state that's tried it has had enormous deficits as a result? How trumps cuts added more to the US debt than any other presidential act ever?

Rich people don't create prosperity ... consumers do.

You mean the blue states that run deficits? Show me a state that has no state tax that is not running a surplus.
It is the increasing taxes that is driving people away from California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. If the blue states weren't given so much money from the federal government, they would already have been bankrupted.
Do yourself a favor sometime...look up state by state how much revenue each state pays in to the federal government and how much they receive.

 

[ZNP]

More government spending also means more revenue. As a general rule the US gets 40% back as revenue on whatever they spend. The problem is that it is wasteful spending because they are spending someone else's money. The best use of any money is always, as a rule, from those who had to work to earn it. If Reagan had cut the size of the US government in half it would not have increased revenue, and it would have been political suicide, but the US today would be in much better shape financially.

 

[Cameron143]

Someone who thinks GDP growth is the only thing to consider is incapable of teaching anyone about economics. They might be the same or slightly better off getting a lesson from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I haven't referred to GDP.

 

[Smoke]

I think people know the truth about why Republicans don't care about our national debt even though they claim the title of being economically conservative. If I was a senior citizen or close to being one, I won't have to face the consequences of the national debt as I will more than likely be dead by the time the country is bankrupt entirely. The national debt is to be reconciled by future generations. This is a selfish mindset. "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

 

[ZNP]

Is it really 47% for Trump and 43% for Biden?

The same polls that had Hillary Clinton with a 12-14 point lead over Trump when she lost are now telling us that Trump has a 4 point lead. However, in the last week I have heard one of the founders of BLM is looking to campaign for Trump, and I heard from two inner city politicians in Chicago that they also are calling for Trump to visit their city and they will walk the streets with him campaigning. They claim they can turn Chicago Red. I also heard Biden giving a speech and get drowned out with "FJB" chants.

I have seen other polls that show that 70% of Americans feel they are worse off now than when Trump was President.

I also saw a poll of 25 to 30 year olds that Biden won 65% of their vote in 2020, they now are about 60% for Trump. That is a massive flip.

So I don't trust polls who have lied to me in the past. I am going to say that it is more like 70% for anyone but Biden. They may not want Trump, but they will vote for him to get rid of Biden.

I would also point out that we are about to see a crash in the US dollar, some very high level bankers are predicting we see a 30% drop in the dollar this month. So let's get real, by election day in 2024 it will definitely be 70:30 for anyone but Biden. Therefore anyone against Trump being elected is also against democracy. This is what the people in this country want based on independent polls.

 

[Smoke]

I haven't referred to GDP.

True, you use the term "government revenue" for what GDP actually is. "Government revenue" is really the taxes and non-taxed resources collected by the government. I explained this earlier but you're the pro when it comes to economics.

 

[Cameron143]

And this is why I say you don't understand economics. You can't decrease taxes and keep all the entitlements you were previously offering/paying for and NOT expect to go into debt. How do you pay for the entitlements? It's fantastic that the GDP increased, but someone has to pay the piper.

What makes economic sense is if you cut corporate welfare you ALSO cut some entitlement programs. The problem is, you become unelectable to the people you cut entitlements for. Getting re-elected is more important than balancing the books. Republicans are not really fiscally conservative in this respect. The Democrats are honest about their intention to spend us into oblivion though.

Honestly, you could do more. The reason is because the two things are not related.
Taxes...revenue.
Programs...spending.
Decreasing taxes increases revenue. When it was pointed out to Obama that by cutting taxes more money would flow into the Treasury and he would be able to help more people he refused to do it because it would mean wealthy people would make more money as well. That's how liberals think.

 

[Cameron143]

More government spending also means more revenue. As a general rule the US gets 40% back as revenue on whatever they spend. The problem is that it is wasteful spending because they are spending someone else's money. The best use of any money is always, as a rule, from those who had to work to earn it. If Reagan had cut the size of the US government in half it would not have increased revenue, and it would have been political suicide, but the US today would be in much better shape financially.

Yes...a 60% loss of value. Much different from the 50% increase Pelosi bragged about.

 

[Cameron143]

True, you use the term "government revenue" for what GDP actually is. "Government revenue" is really the taxes and non-taxed resources collected by the government. I explained this earlier but you're the pro when it comes to economics.

Wrong. That's just another false assumption on your part. GDP never used to include government spending. It was changed to include it to make those who were instituting poor economic policy not appear to be failing so badly. Government spending reduces GDP because it removes money from the economy.

 

[ZNP]

Brought to you by the Biden Administration

 

[Aviva]

I appreciate you actually looking at the data. The only part I'm more cynical about is Bill Clinton. I don't think he was an economic genius like Republicans think Reagan was. Jimmy Carter could have been president in the 90s and the dot com (.com) boom would have made him look like an economic mastermind.

Perhaps Clinton was good, but I'm not sure the data which suggests this is solid evidence considering the circumstances of the time.

The data doesn't lie.

 

[Smoke]

The data doesn't lie.

I don't think the data is lying either. I think the interpretation of the data can differ based on context. If I loved Bill Clinton, I would absolutely interpret the data to show he was an economic genius. If I was objective, I would take into account the dot com book and not automatically assume that because the data is what it is, it's attributed to Clinton's genius. I will concede it's possible Clinton may have been good for the economy, but I personally attribute much of the growth to the dot com boom. I will also concede I'm not a fan of Clinton which might make me more cynical about this. lol

 

[ZNP]

https://www.dailyfetched.com/cnn-ho...mp-polling-in-critical-states-this-isnt-good/

CNN Host Visibly Shook by New Trump Polling in Critical States: ‘This Isn’t Good’ – WATCH

• By: Jason Walsh
• December 12, 2023

These are the two states that Biden won in 2020 but went to Trump in 2016 before he ultimately won the election.

“The news is not great for President Biden,” Hunt said as she reported on results showing Trump leading Biden 49% to 44% in Georgia and 50% to 40% in Michigan.

“Trump’s margin over Biden is significantly boosted in both states by people who say they did not vote in 2020,” Hunt added.

“These less engaged voters favored Trump by 26 points in Georgia and by 40 points in Michigan,” she said.

According to the poll, just 35% of Michigan voters and 39% in Georgia approve of Biden’s job performance.

Voters in both states say Biden’s policies are not what they seek in a president.

69% of voters in Michigan and 66% in Georgia also had negative views on Biden’s stamina and sharpness.

The poll, conducted from November 30th to December 7th, surveyed 1,197 registered voters in Michigan and 1,068 registered voters in Georgia, with margins of error of plus or minus 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively.

President Trump lost Michigan by 2.8% and Georgia by 0.3% in 2020.

However, the recent polling shows voters are sick of Biden and are now returning to Trump.

When automotive companies began protesting against Biden earlier this year, Trump was given an opening.

Trump appealed to blue-collar workers in Michigan, which terrified the Biden and the Democrats.

The former president also faces a criminal trial in Georgia against a Democratic district attorney, which has done nothing more than rally his base.

Caroline Bye, a pollster and vice president at Morning Consult, said:

“Right now, Biden is not getting any credit for work he’s done on the economy.”

“Almost twice as many voters in the swing states are saying that Bidenomics is bad for the economy, as opposed to good for the economy, which is a really startling fact if you’re the Biden campaign.”

 

[true_believer]

More baloney from true believer (as usual).

The vision was already there when those who lived in America over 200 years ago chose to resist British tyranny and fought to gain independence for tyranny. Then those Founding Fathers designed a constitution to guarantee liberty and justice for all (which is now being shredded piece by piece).

And now -- AFTER ONLY ABOUT 250 YEARS -- American traitors wish to establish a tyrannical and totalitarian Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Racist regime in America, and totally destroy it from within.

But true believer loves this. The problem is that genuine true believers hate this.

America merely broke away from the British Empire to have it's own brand of Imperialism, taxation and propaganda.

 

[ZNP]

Joe Biden was omitted from Hunter’s new indictment by design
By
Social Links forMiranda Devine
Published Dec. 10, 2023, 10:24 p.m. ET

Predictably, the big takeaway from Hunter Biden’s indictment by Dem media is that it is “far from helpful to the Republicans.”

“It never mentions President Biden, not even indirectly,” said the New York Times, “and provides no evidence linking the misdeeds of the son to the father.”

It’s as if they live in a cave without access to modern communications.

The reason the president has gone unmentioned after a five-year investigation into Hunter’s role in the family influence-peddling racket is that the DOJ, like most of the media, corruptly protected him.

As IRS whistleblowers Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley keep telling Congress, every investigative avenue that led to Joe Biden was blocked.

This is why those IRS investigators were forced to blow the whistle.

A few examples:

• The FBI FD 1023 alleging Joe was bribed $5 million by Ukraine was kept from investigators.
• Investigators were refused access to Hunter’s laptop that the FBI had been given in December 2019 by Delaware computer repairer John Paul Mac Isaac.
• A search warrant for a cottage on Joe’s Delaware estate was denied.
• A plan to search Hunter’s storage unit was leaked to his lawyers.
• Questions about the “big guy” were not allowed in interviews with witnesses.
• Interviews with Biden family members were banned.
• Joe’s presidential transition team was tipped off in December 2020 that Shapley and an FBI agent were in California to interview Hunter the next morning (and thus they never did).
• The statute of limitations was allowed to expire on the potentially most serious charges from 2014 and 2015, involving payments from Ukraine which could have ensnared Joe.

‘Corroborated’
But the malfeasance extends far beyond the Hunter investigation in Delaware. Protecting Joe Biden is a longstanding whole-of-government enterprise.

Let’s look at IRS Special Agent Ziegler’s most recent update to Congress last week, for instance.

One intriguing reference was to Gal Luft, the fugitive former Israel Defense Forces colonel who, like Hunter Biden and his uncle Jim Biden, was in business with the China-controlled energy company CEFC.

In May, Luft skipped bail in Cyprus while awaiting extradition to the US on gun-running charges and, ironically enough, violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act over his work with CEFC, charges that magically have avoided Hunter and Jim.

Luft remains on the lam in an undisclosed location, claiming the charges against him are a political frame-up to protect the Bidens.

In any case, Ziegler last week confirmed the accuracy of the information Luft volunteered to the FBI in a March 2019 interview in Brussels about CEFC paying the Bidens in exchange for their FBI connections and use of the Biden name to promote China’s Belt and Road Initiative around the world.

“Information from this [Luft] interview was corroborated,” Ziegler testified. “In this interview, Luft recalled payments between Hunter Biden and CEFC, all of which were validated in evidence obtained throughout the investigation, even though his timing was slightly off.”

So the FBI knew all this in March 2019. And nine months later, it would take possession of Hunter’s laptop, which further corroborated what Luft had told them.

Mystery mole
Luft’s interview at the American Embassy in Brussels was what is called a “proffer” or voluntary interview, although the word “proffer” has been redacted from every page of Luft’s “302” that was provided to Ziegler.

Luft claims his main purpose for going to Brussels was to warn the FBI that it had a mole in its ranks whom he considered to be a “national security concern” — but he says there was no follow-up.

This FBI mole, dubbed “One Eye” by the Chinese, had leaked classified information to Hunter from four sealed indictments in the Southern District of New York that named Hunter’s CEFC partners, Luft told prosecutors.

Hunter then tipped off CEFC. That section of Luft’s interview also has been redacted from the 302 provided to Congress by Ziegler.

Luft told the House impeachment inquiry this year that the tipoff to CEFC executives came on the same day that Hunter sent WhatsApp messages to CEFC’s Kevin Dong and Raymond Zhao in which he referred to a “highly confidential and time sensitive” matter and demanded immediate payment of millions of dollars, while claiming his father was in the room with him.

“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” Hunter wrote to Zhao on July 30, 2017, in a WhatsApp message presented to Congress this year by the IRS whistleblowers.

“I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

The messages triggered a $5 million transfer from a CEFC-linked company in China to an account linked to Hunter.

Bank records obtained by the House Oversight Committee show that at least $40,000 of that $5 million was routed to Joe Biden’s personal account, via his brother Jim Biden, who recorded it as repayment of a “loan.”...

 

[true_believer]

true_baloney -- At present about 70% of Americans are polling in favor of this vision, so it seems, since the US is supposed to be "majority rule" it seems the minority are the ones trying to impose their vision on America.

Are you drawing from the same polls that said that Trump won the election in 2020?
It seems like it.