Far left lost another Squad member

[susanlea]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Even when someone is clearly lying, it's nice when they finally admit it. 

When will they admit to lying about Biden's dementia?

[rudi49jr]

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

There is a common saying "don't feed the troll". I believe that it is appropriate here.

I know. Sometimes I just can’t resist….

[Danderman123]

The extremes of both parties in Congress get ripped off from time to time.

 

No big deal.

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, susanlea said:

When will they admit to lying about Biden's dementia?

When will they (meaning you and all the other MAGA trumpers) admit that Trump lied 30,000 times during his presidency? When will Trump admit that his mind is turning to scrambled eggs?

[susanlea]

4 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

When will they (meaning you and all the other MAGA trumpers) admit that Trump lied 30,000 times during his presidency? When will Trump admit that his mind is turning to scrambled eggs?

Trump was great. Low inflation, low unemployment. Sorry for the facts.

[susanlea]

4 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

I know. Sometimes I just can’t resist….

All the facts on here and nice posters are right wing. All the liars and haters are left wing. Gets proven daily.

[Patong2021]

On 8/9/2024 at 5:55 AM, susanlea said:

Trump was great. Low inflation, low unemployment. Sorry for the facts.

No he was not. Trump inherited a strong economy and then promptly mismanaged the Covid crisis which then resulted in catastrophic economic damage. The Unemployment rate under the Biden administration, excluding the 2020  Covid crisis is actually as good if not better than the Trump period.  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04000024

 

The historic inflation data does not support your claim.

Obama: 2013 - 0.50%, 2014 - 0.80%,  2015-0.70%,  2016 - 2.10%

Trump: 2017 - 2.10%,   2018-  1.90%, 2019  2.30%, 2020 - 1.40%

Biden:  2021 - 7.00%,  2022  - 6.50%, 2023 - 3.40%  2024 year on year - 3%

 

If we use your logic,  the  Obama was a period of economic brilliance because inflation was so low.

 

The first year of Covid saw  a near shutdown of the world's economy which resulted in deflationary pressures. As the economy rebounded when it opened up again, it was reflected by the inflation rate. The Biden administration tamed those pressures and  provided  one of the world's most robust economies.  The US  inflation rate today is better than it was under the Reagan administration. You forget that 1979 and 1980 had  inflation rates of 12-13.5. Inflation was up and down during the  big financial boom times of the Reagan era.

The reality is that with the exception of running up deficits under the Trump administration because of  high income earner tax cuts,  the financial policies of the USA under both Biden and Trump were standard restrained policy.

[susanlea]

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

No he was not. Trump inherited a strong economy and then promptly mismanaged the Covid crisis which then resulted in catastrophic economic damage. The Unemployment rate under the Biden administration, excluding the 2020  Covid crisis is actually as good if not better than the Trump period.  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04000024

 

The historic inflation data does not support your claim.

Obama: 2013 - 0.50%, 2014 - 0.80%,  2015-0.70%,  2016 - 2.10%

Trump: 2017 - 2.10%,   2018-  1.90%, 2019  2.30%, 2020 - 1.40%

Biden:  2021 - 7.00%,  2022  - 6.50%, 2023 - 3.40%  2024 year on year - 3%

 

If we use your logic,  the  Obama was a period of economic brilliance because inflation was so low.

 

The first year of Covid saw  a near shutdown of the world's economy which resulted in deflationary pressures. As the economy rebounded when it opened up again, it was reflected by the inflation rate. The Biden administration tamed those pressures and  provided  one of the world's most robust economies.  The US  inflation rate today is better than it was under the Reagan administration. You forget that 1979 and 1980 had  inflation rates of 12-13.5. Inflation was up and down during the  big financial boom times of the Reagan era.

The reality is that with the exception of running up deficits under the Trump administration because of  high income earner tax cuts,  the financial policies of the USA under both Biden and Trump were standard restrained policy.

Strange way to view economics. Normally you would look at unemployment as well.

 

The economy was weak in 2016 under Obama. GDP growth fell to 1.8%, lowest in 5 years. Ubemployment was falling but still 4.7% when Trump took over.

 

Trump boosted gdp and reduced unemployment to 3.5%.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, susanlea said:

Strange way to view economics. Normally you would look at unemployment as well.

 

The economy was weak in 2016 under Obama. GDP growth fell to 1.8%, lowest in 5 years. Ubemployment was falling but still 4.7% when Trump took over.

 

Trump boosted gdp and reduced unemployment to 3.5%.

And was the first President in forty years to actually reduce the wealth gap. 

[Patong2021]

16 hours ago, susanlea said:

Strange way to view economics. Normally you would look at unemployment as well.

The economy was weak in 2016 under Obama. GDP growth fell to 1.8%, lowest in 5 years. Ubemployment was falling but still 4.7% when Trump took over.

Trump boosted gdp and reduced unemployment to 3.5%.

 

I responded to a factually incorrect claim with the actual data. You have returned with what is called in education, an information dump: Information that while not necessarily incorrect is  not specific to the subject matter. In effect it is used by students (and politicians) when they are unable to respond to a question and instead attempt to deflect with a bombardment of other information.

 

Your comments on GDP are nonsensical. The national GDP with the exception of the Trump Covid legacy of 2020, has grown every year since 2020. This is a reflection of  national population growth and is in large part driven by consumer goods and services spending. i.e. as the population grows it spends more on housing, food, motor vehicles, services etc.

 

The  reference to unemployment rates is typical of someone cherry picking data in an attempt to support a biased claim. Unemployment  must be looked at  as a trend. If it wasn't then Trump would  have the sole responsibility for the unemployment rate of 13%+ that he left the Biden administration. Covid was the  factor in that spike, and it is   remarkable that the rate has now been brought back to 4%. The Trump administration unemployment rates match historical  trends. Your logic  would require effusive praise for the Johnson administration and scorn for the Ford, Regan and George Bush Jr. administrations that  saw some of the highest  unemployment rates in the past 50 years. Neither the praise, not the criticism would be reasonable, because the peaks were quickly corrected within the following years. 

 

 

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And was the first President in forty years to actually reduce the wealth gap. 

No. As per the Pew Research review;  

From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.

These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980. Income growth has been most rapid for the top 5% of families.  Even among higher-income families, the growth in income has favored those at the top. Since 1980, incomes have increased faster for the most affluent families – those in the top 5% – than for families in the income strata below them. This disparity in outcomes is less pronounced in the wake of the Great Recession but shows no signs of reversing.

 

The takeaway is very clear: The income growth has been most pronounced for the most affluent of US citizens. This is due in large part to  tax reductions for them. Trickle down economics does not work. Fair and equitable tax policy  does work. Elimination of tax reductions, loopholes and  tax simplification with minimum tax payments is more equitable.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

 

 

[susanlea]

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

 

I responded to a factually incorrect claim with the actual data. You have returned with what is called in education, an information dump: Information that while not necessarily incorrect is  not specific to the subject matter. In effect it is used by students (and politicians) when they are unable to respond to a question and instead attempt to deflect with a bombardment of other information.

 

Your comments on GDP are nonsensical. The national GDP with the exception of the Trump Covid legacy of 2020, has grown every year since 2020. This is a reflection of  national population growth and is in large part driven by consumer goods and services spending. i.e. as the population grows it spends more on housing, food, motor vehicles, services etc.

 

The  reference to unemployment rates is typical of someone cherry picking data in an attempt to support a biased claim. Unemployment  must be looked at  as a trend. If it wasn't then Trump would  have the sole responsibility for the unemployment rate of 13%+ that he left the Biden administration. Covid was the  factor in that spike, and it is   remarkable that the rate has now been brought back to 4%. The Trump administration unemployment rates match historical  trends. Your logic  would require effusive praise for the Johnson administration and scorn for the Ford, Regan and George Bush Jr. administrations that  saw some of the highest  unemployment rates in the past 50 years. Neither the praise, not the criticism would be reasonable, because the peaks were quickly corrected within the following years. 

 

 

No. As per the Pew Research review;  

From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.

These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980. Income growth has been most rapid for the top 5% of families.  Even among higher-income families, the growth in income has favored those at the top. Since 1980, incomes have increased faster for the most affluent families – those in the top 5% – than for families in the income strata below them. This disparity in outcomes is less pronounced in the wake of the Great Recession but shows no signs of reversing.

 

The takeaway is very clear: The income growth has been most pronounced for the most affluent of US citizens. This is due in large part to  tax reductions for them. Trickle down economics does not work. Fair and equitable tax policy  does work. Elimination of tax reductions, loopholes and  tax simplification with minimum tax payments is more equitable.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

 

 

Desperate and no idea.

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

I responded to a factually incorrect claim with the actual data. You have returned with what is called in education, an information dump: Information that while not necessarily incorrect is  not specific to the subject matter. In effect it is used by students (and politicians) when they are unable to respond to a question and instead attempt to deflect with a bombardment of other information.

 

Your comments on GDP are nonsensical. The national GDP with the exception of the Trump Covid legacy of 2020, has grown every year since 2020. This is a reflection of  national population growth and is in large part driven by consumer goods and services spending. i.e. as the population grows it spends more on housing, food, motor vehicles, services etc.

 

The  reference to unemployment rates is typical of someone cherry picking data in an attempt to support a biased claim. Unemployment  must be looked at  as a trend. If it wasn't then Trump would  have the sole responsibility for the unemployment rate of 13%+ that he left the Biden administration. Covid was the  factor in that spike, and it is   remarkable that the rate has now been brought back to 4%. The Trump administration unemployment rates match historical  trends. Your logic  would require effusive praise for the Johnson administration and scorn for the Ford, Regan and George Bush Jr. administrations that  saw some of the highest  unemployment rates in the past 50 years. Neither the praise, not the criticism would be reasonable, because the peaks were quickly corrected within the following years. 

 

 

No. As per the Pew Research review;  

From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.

These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980. Income growth has been most rapid for the top 5% of families.  Even among higher-income families, the growth in income has favored those at the top. Since 1980, incomes have increased faster for the most affluent families – those in the top 5% – than for families in the income strata below them. This disparity in outcomes is less pronounced in the wake of the Great Recession but shows no signs of reversing.

 

The takeaway is very clear: The income growth has been most pronounced for the most affluent of US citizens. This is due in large part to  tax reductions for them. Trickle down economics does not work. Fair and equitable tax policy  does work. Elimination of tax reductions, loopholes and  tax simplification with minimum tax payments is more equitable.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

 

 

Yes, under leftist policies the rich get richer, and the non-rich become more dependent on government, I never said they didn't. What I said was, that the wealth-gap was reduced under Trump. 

Paper: Wealth inequality shrinking after Trump-era tax reform, but progress at risk | Rice News | News and Media Relations | Rice University

 

You claim people's income went up "...due in large part to tax reductions for them." that

 

 You are saying that cutting taxes increases income, yes? We agree again. 

 

 

[Patong2021]

On 8/11/2024 at 9:39 PM, Yellowtail said:

Yes, under leftist policies the rich get richer, and the non-rich become more dependent on government, I never said they didn't. What I said was, that the wealth-gap was reduced under Trump. 

Paper: Wealth inequality shrinking after Trump-era tax reform, but progress at risk | Rice News | News and Media Relations | Rice University

 

You claim people's income went up "...due in large part to tax reductions for them." that

 

 You are saying that cutting taxes increases income, yes? We agree again. 

 

 

 

The  tax cuts benefit a small number of people. It cost others significantly because the amount of debt increases as the nation borrows to pay the cost for programs that would have been offset by the tax revenue collected from the super wealthy. 

 

Tax cuts without a reduction in  government spending and debt service actually end up increasing the future tax burden because the spending requirements must be offset by borrowing. Debt has to be serviced and repaid.  Close some redundant military bases and raise retirement age benefits to reflect increased lifespan are two of the most effective changes, but are politically impossible to do.

[still kicking]

On 8/12/2024 at 2:22 AM, susanlea said:

Desperate and no idea.

Another reply from the troll who had his name changed many times.