RE: Are we there yet?
Re: Craig's comment from yesterday:
>> Both Lancellot and Harambe seem to like to play word games when a point doesn't stick, perhaps in an attempt to detour the discussion away from paths they'd rather not go down... Harambe tried to suggest (at least it was my understanding that he did), that Trump's failure (and that of other Republican presidents) to keep debt under control was the fault of previous Democrat governments, because for the first 9 months, they are largely operating under bills passed by the previous government.
I don't know what word games you are talking about. If I point out there is a delay, then it is applicable when discussing any other presidency as well, except when supplemental bills are passed which affect spending in the current year and not the next year's budget (such as when Democrats won a supermajority in 2008). Trump in his first term was in no way a fiscal conservative. He was a deal maker, and deal making in government invariably lends itself to spending more money. If you look carefully at the chart on the previous page, you will see that your partisan analysis just does not hold up. Large increases in debt NEVER happen when Republicans control both houses and the presidency. But they ALWAYS occur as Democrats increase their power in government.
If you think that's not causal, why are Conservatives and Libertarians always harping on the national debt, but never Keynesians?
That said, Trump's economic policies in the second term appear to be very different. He seems to be attempting to cut spending, though his talk of grand investments seems to be in the opposite direction, and there is a lot of instability while testing stuff out. It is preemptive to say whether debt will rise or fall in the next four years. There is a moderate chance that economic growth from AI will be so significant that it shrinks national debt as a percentage of GDP, and boosts tax revenue, like under the Clinton years. This is the outcome we can all hope for regardless of political affiliation. Will there be a disparity in who benefits from that wealth? Probably. And that will get rebalanced in the 2028 or 2032 election when Dems get the helm back. That part of our political system is pretty predictable.
RE: Are we there yet?
Bumping this thread up again since CD got strangely quiet when I provided analysis challenging his analysis.
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
Message edited:
The first reason I got "strangely quiet" is that you pretty much ignored my observations, and referred me back to your graphs, from which extracting any information about the overall net effect of control of the House, the Senate and the White House is quite a laborious task. The second reason is that all this quibbling simply serves to divert from the main point I was making, way back many moons ago: that doing something (serious, not insane) about solving the debt problem would mitigate the need for all the misery Trump and Musk have caused over the relatively insignificant (compared to debt) problem of allegedly unnecessary extraneous government jobs.
I do not agree with your dismissal of raw debt figures. Debt to GDP is most useful if you wish to compare it to other nations, which we don't. GDP is very prone to rapid change thanks to events such as pandemics and financial crises, both of which have been experienced in the period under consideration; and thus wide swings in debt to GDP can occur which don't affect the real debt situation, long-term.
Nevertheless, I have acceded to your demand to use debt to GDP as the measuring stick.
Preferring to work smarter rather than harder, I let AI do my digging for me. If you wish to dispute the findings, be my guest.
Here are some figures I obtained from Microsoft CoPilot:
Based on available data (for the period 1981-2024):
• Republican administrations: The debt-to-GDP ratio increased by approximately 72%.
• Democratic administrations: The debt-to-GDP ratio increased by approximately 48%.
• Republican-controlled House: The debt-to-GDP ratio increased by approximately 68%.
• Democratic-controlled House: The debt-to-GDP ratio increased by approximately 52%.
• Republican-controlled Senate: The debt-to-GDP ratio increased by approximately 65%
• Democratic-controlled Senate: The debt-to-GDP ratio increased by approximately 55%.
These show that regardless of whether you look at control from a point of view of the White House, the House, or the Senate, Republican administrations have fared notably worse in the period from Reagan to present than Democrats, echoing my findings from earlier.
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: Are we there yet?
Of course, if you're looking closely, you might notice that this period includes 6 Republican terms and only 5 Democratic. But even allowing for another Democratic term, the numbers are still lower.
RE: Are we there yet?
Basically, the chart I already shared provides all the evidence that needed to show that the claims above are misleading. I will elaborate on this when I get a chance in the next day or so.
RE: Are we there yet?
You two go squabble somewhere else.
Using the arrest of a judge as a propaganda tool.
Are we there yet.
As to debt, let it go, but note under which president the debt increased the most (by percentage)
RE: Are we there yet?
We must be getting close now, right??
#1 The 'president' has hosted a dinner for the top purchasers of his shady crypto coins. Trump is estimated to have raked in about $394 million from the unidentified investors.
The event has been labelled 'an orgy of corruption.'
#2 Meanwhile, in the Oval Office, Trump hosted Cyril Ramaphosa, the president of South Africa and besmirched both the man and his country with a series of blatant lies, including a falsehood-filled propaganda video.
Every sane and knowledgeable viewer knew that everything was a lie.
This is what the US presidency has descended into.
Are we there yet?
RE: Are we there yet?
Dude, don't insult our country. Trump is the President, not the 'president'. He was duly elected. Whether he acts in a manner worthy of the office is a separate issue.
RE: Are we there yet?
Don't insult my intelligence. Capital P or lower case p Trump should never have been it.
The man insults the office every day. Are you okay with the President of your country inviting another President into the Oval Office (with capitals!) and then assailing him with lies about what is happening in his own country?
FFS!
RE: Are we there yet?
What Trump does or does not do is not within my control. Using proper punctuation is, and it's a reflection of one's intelligence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19- 20 21
