bambino, lustyladdie 2019 GDP...2.3. 4th quarter...2.1

3 lies in one sentence!

1. QE ended in 2014. As I already noted, the Fed's balance sheet has contracted since then. FOMC actions to smooth out short-term money markets do NOT constitute QE.

2. GDP growth was only 1.6% in odumbo's last year. Under trump the economy has expanded during the last 3 calendar years by 2.4%, 2.9% and 2.3%, respectively. Which means national output has IMPROVED, measured both by level and growth rate.

3. The federal budget deficit has stayed under $1 trillion in each of the past 3 fiscal years (ending September 30). It was $665 billion in 2017, $779 billion in 2018, and $984 billion last year. As a % of GDP it remains well below the levels we endured during odumbo's first term, when the annual deficit blew past $1 trillion in all 4 years and WTF never uttered a word of criticism.

Bottom line - WTF is a liar, a fraud, and a partisan hack. But hey, let's give the bozo credit for stuffing 3 lies into a single sentence!

WTF is too dishonest to admit he would be delighted if a dim-retard was running with trumpy's economic record!! Originally Posted by lustylad

1) if you think what is being done is not QE...

2)Look at Obama's last 5 years of GDP

3) Obama's first term is coming off a recession you numbnut.

Trump is at 984 and projected for a TRILLION!

Compare Obama's last 3 with Trumps first three.

Weren't you one of the silly fuckers who bet me Trump would obtain 3% GDP?

I took your bet even though I said he would get a sugar high spike with his Laffer like tax cuts.

Who was correct?

1) if you think what is being done is not QE...

2)Look at Obama's last 5 years of GDP

3) Obama's first term is coming off a recession you numbnut.

Trump is at 984 and projected for a TRILLION!

Compare Obama's last 3 with Trumps first three.

Weren't you one of the silly fuckers who bet me Trump would obtain 3% GDP?

I took your bet even though I said he would get a sugar high spike with his Laffer like tax cuts.

Who was correct? Originally Posted by WTF

why do yous persist in these apples to oranges comparisons?

1) if you think what is being done is not QE...

2)Look at Obama's last 5 years of GDP

3) Obama's first term is coming off a recession you numbnut.

Trump is at 984 and projected for a TRILLION!

Compare Obama's last 3 with Trumps first three.

Weren't you one of the silly fuckers who bet me Trump would obtain 3% GDP?

I took your bet even though I said he would get a sugar high spike with his Laffer like tax cuts.

Who was correct? Originally Posted by WTF

Why don't you slow the fuck down, quit hyperventilating random incoherent sentences, and listen up while I re-school you in recent economic history, ok?

Here are some numbers you can't refute. The data is the data. Since you keep whining about making proper comparisons with odumbo, I've broken out the budget data separately for each of his 4-year terms, got it?

Here you go, douchebag:


Federal Deficit As % of GDP (Fiscal Years ending 9/30):

Odumbo 1st Term (2009-2012 Avg) - 8.5%
Odumbo 2nd Term (2013-2016 Avg) - 3.1%
Trump To Date (2017-2019 Avg) - 4.1%

Can you read a graph? Here's a bar graph showing the results on a year-by-year basis, along with projections going forward:





Were you screaming "the sky is falling!" during odumbo's first term, when deficits were more than TWICE as large (as a % of GDP) as they have been so far under trump? Of course you weren't. Why not? Because you are a hypocrite, a partisan hack, and demonstrably stupid on any topic involving economics.

Would I be more comfortable if the projections going forward were for deficits closer to 3% of GDP instead of flatlining around 5%? Of course I would! The only way to get there is to cut federal spending. Start with the recommendations of the Erskine-Bowles Commission. Surely you remember that bipartisan commission set up by odumbo back in 2010, dontcha? Oh wait, odumbo rejected their bipartisan recommendations. He didn't want to trim the growth in entitlement spending. So he rejected the work of his own bipartisan commission!

So let's see now... which of the current dim-retard candidates has a plan to curtail federal spending a la Erskine-Bowles?

Bernie? Fauxcahontas?

Ooops! Those two bozos are promising endless freebies which (if enacted) would quickly double our annual federal spending, from $4.5 trillion to over $8 trillion. That's moving in the exact OPPOSITE direction to what is needed! If either of them winds up in a position to fling open the federal spending spigots, the deficit would be back up to an alarming and unsustainable 10% of GDP in no time!

Like you, neither of those two pandering idiots ever took a course in simple economics. They shy away from numbers, too.

So look, dickbrain. We can see right through your phony concerns about federal red ink. If you truly cared about deficits, you would be ringing the alarm bells over the humongous unfunded proposals costing TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS being promised by the shamelessly pandering candidates running against trump!

So look, dickbrain. We can see right through your phony concerns about federal red ink. If you truly cared about deficits, you would be ringing the alarm bells over the humongous unfunded proposals costing TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS being promised by the shamelessly pandering candidates running against trump!



Amen -LL - and relevant to all the Fascist DPST's - all of whom support the Soylent Green New deal- and the other "free stuff and money for votes" pandering.

Federal Deficit As % of GDP (Fiscal Years ending 9/30):

Odumbo 1st Term (2009-2012 Avg) - 8.5%
Odumbo 2nd Term (2013-2016 Avg) - 3.1%
Trump To Date (2017-2019 Avg) - 4.1%

Can you read a graph? Here's a bar graph showing the results on a year-by-year basis, along with projections going forward:





! Originally Posted by lustylad

You do not even understand your own graph.

First let me explain the first year of a new President is really the last year of the prior presidents budget.


Now after rearranging your numbers...hopefully you'll see that Trump is running much higher numbers than Obama's 2nd term.

Only an idiot would use the first term numbers as they are skewed by the recession.

I'm not sure in what world where you think Trumps 4.1 number is better than Obama's 3.1 number????

It is like you confused that with growth.

Let me explain...the higher the number in relation to your graph is a bad thing.

You do not even understand your own graph.

First let me explain the first year of a new President is really the last year of the prior presidents budget.


Now after rearranging your numbers...hopefully you'll see that Trump is running much higher numbers than Obama's 2nd term.

Only an idiot would use the first term numbers as they are skewed by the recession.

I'm not sure in what world where you think Trumps 4.1 number is better than Obama's 3.1 number????

It is like you confused that with growth.

Let me explain...the higher the number in relation to your graph is a bad thing. Originally Posted by WTF

What the leftist thugs fail to understand is that the Social Security entitlement bill is coming do. When the SS taxes(they weren't contributions) were collected, the were not invested, but spent on the leftist agenda.

That money is gone. To support the government guaranteed agenda, the money spent on SS programs will increase dramatically. The government intake from SS taxes is going to be level, at best.

That accounts for a large part of the increase in the deficit, and that problem only gets worse. The concept that we would expand that problem by nationalizing post secondary education and health care boggles my mind.

Well written, K

What the leftist thugs fail to understand is that the Social Security entitlement bill is coming do. When the SS taxes(they weren't contributions) were collected, the were not invested, but spent on the leftist agenda.
Originally Posted by kehaar

Are you really this dense on how our taxes flow?

Ik look....three biggest expenditures by far are Defense, SS payments and Medicare/Medicaid.

SS and Medicare/Medicaid have run a surplus since the mid 80s. That mean the majority of debt has been run up by Defense spending which does not have a dedicated revenue stream. It should and the your dumbass would be able to understand just how much either more we need to pay in federal taxes or how much we need to reduce military spending.

But blaming the current debt on leftist priorities is ignorant.

Are you really this dense on how our taxes flow?

Ik look....three biggest expenditures by far are Defense, SS payments and Medicare/Medicaid.

SS and Medicare/Medicaid have run a surplus since the mid 80s. That mean the majority of debt has been run up by Defense spending which does not have a dedicated revenue stream. It should and the your dumbass would be able to understand just how much either more we need to pay in federal taxes or how much we need to reduce military spending. Originally Posted by WTF

Taxes are collected.

Money is spent.

If you believe there are "Accounts" that have any meaning, you are an idiot. When a grocery store takes in 5 dollars in cash for a pack of condoms, and then takes in 5 dollars in cash for a block of cheese, it is impossible to tell which 5 dollars went where.

Every year, the house and senate create bills to collect money.

Every year, the house and senate create bills to spend money.

There is no reconciliation as to how the money collected is split up.

The stupidity of some people astounds me.

There is no reconciliation as to how the money collected is split up.
Originally Posted by kehaar

Actually we do know where the money came from and wtf it is spent on.

Your ignorance on this matters does not suprise me. It is how they continually fool you into thinking SS and Medicare are the reason for our debt even though those programs have been in the black.

If you had 3 kids and they all put money into one account and two of them saved money and the third took that savings and spent it and borrowed even more and spent it too. Would you blame the two that saved their money for the account being in the red?

Would you blame the first two kids wo

You do not even understand your own graph.

First let me explain the first year of a new President is really the last year of the prior presidents budget.


Now after rearranging your numbers...hopefully you'll see that Trump is running much higher numbers than Obama's 2nd term.

Only an idiot would use the first term numbers as they are skewed by the recession.

I'm not sure in what world where you think Trumps 4.1 number is better than Obama's 3.1 number????

It is like you confused that with growth.

Let me explain...the higher the number in relation to your graph is a bad thing. Originally Posted by WTF

you are the only person in human history to flunk stupid.

you are the only person in human history to flunk stupid.


[IMG]https://i.imgflip.com/19p0hl.jpg[/IM Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

This from someone bragging about 5 thousand dollar la in their 401k on a Hooker Board as if that made them JD Rockefeller!

This from someone bragging about 5 thousand dollar la in their 401k on a Hooker Board as if that made the JD Rockefeller! Originally Posted by WTF

still waiting for you to post the three major components of the debt and which one is bad.

Why don't you slow the fuck down, quit hyperventilating random incoherent sentences, and listen up while I re-school you in recent economic history, ok?

Here are some numbers you can't refute. The data is the data. Since you keep whining about making proper comparisons with odumbo, I've broken out the budget data separately for each of his 4-year terms, got it?

Here you go, douchebag:


Federal Deficit As % of GDP (Fiscal Years ending 9/30):

Odumbo 1st Term (2009-2012 Avg) - 8.5%
Odumbo 2nd Term (2013-2016 Avg) - 3.1%
Trump To Date (2017-2019 Avg) - 4.1%

Can you read a graph? Here's a bar graph showing the results on a year-by-year basis, along with projections going forward:





Were you screaming "the sky is falling!" during odumbo's first term, when deficits were more than TWICE as large (as a % of GDP) as they have been so far under trump? Of course you weren't. Why not? Because you are a hypocrite, a partisan hack, and demonstrably stupid on any topic involving economics.

Would I be more comfortable if the projections going forward were for deficits closer to 3% of GDP instead of flatlining around 5%? Of course I would! The only way to get there is to cut federal spending. Start with the recommendations of the Erskine-Bowles Commission. Surely you remember that bipartisan commission set up by odumbo back in 2010, dontcha? Oh wait, odumbo rejected their bipartisan recommendations. He didn't want to trim the growth in entitlement spending. So he rejected the work of his own bipartisan commission!

So let's see now... which of the current dim-retard candidates has a plan to curtail federal spending a la Erskine-Bowles?

Bernie? Fauxcahontas?

Ooops! Those two bozos are promising endless freebies which (if enacted) would quickly double our annual federal spending, from $4.5 trillion to over $8 trillion. That's moving in the exact OPPOSITE direction to what is needed! If either of them winds up in a position to fling open the federal spending spigots, the deficit would be back up to an alarming and unsustainable 10% of GDP in no time!

Like you, neither of those two pandering idiots ever took a course in simple economics. They shy away from numbers, too.

So look, dickbrain. We can see right through your phony concerns about federal red ink. If you truly cared about deficits, you would be ringing the alarm bells over the humongous unfunded proposals costing TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS being promised by the shamelessly pandering candidates running against trump! Originally Posted by lustylad

WTFFs brain is as limp as his dick.

Actually we do know where the money came from and wtf it is spent on.

Your ignorance on this matters does not suprise me. It is how they continually fool you into thinking SS and Medicare are the reason for our debt even though those programs have been in the black.

If you had 3 kids and they all put money into one account and two of them saved money and the third took that savings and spent it and borrowed even more and spent it too. Would you blame the two that saved their money for the account being in the red?

Would you blame the first two kids wo Originally Posted by WTF

The money I put into SS is forever gone. No amount of Rube Goldbergh machination will allow it to come back. Our current deficit is: (How much we are collecting in taxes)-(How much we are spending through the government). A moron could understand that concept.


SS/medicare is a Ponzi scheme enforced at the point of a gun. All benefits are paid for with current tax burden. There was never an investment in value producing assets.

People rely on SS now, and it can never be substantially diminished. It is vital that folks recognize that it is a simple tax and spend program, even the truly stupid.


I would as the simple question: What was the excess social security collections invested in?

Look it up.


As to "who to blame", Clint Eastwood has a great line: "Deserve aint got nothing to do with it". In a reasonable world, people can't make a contract with themself to have their children pay for their retirement. That is what happened, and the bulk of the beneficiaries are getting out way more than they put in, with their children paying the price in the future. Again, there isn't anything anyone can do about that con job, because it happened in the past, and the young folks continue to pay in the future.

I realize that you may not have the ability to understand such simple things. C'est La Vie

Who was the "lock box" guy? That was truly funny, but I don't feel like looking it up.