This from someone bragging about 5 thousand dollar la in their 401k on a Hooker Board as if that made them JD Rockefeller!IRA and it was 6,500 the yearly individual cap. it was 25,000 in my 401k try to keep it straight, K?Originally Posted by WTF
my my my said the spider to the fly ..Not trapped in any web. Why would try to discredit your own source, Kimberly Amadeo? She is the best source you have ever used. She knows more than some clown at the Washington Examiner or Fox news. Here are the facts that can't be disputed. From the link, you can see Obama's GDP numbers last three years and Trump's GDP numbers first three years.
bad move. now you are trapped in the web.
B]How Trump rescued the economy from Obama's failed policies[/B]
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ailed-policies
BAHHAHHAAHHHAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
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.You actually understand a couple of things.
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. Originally Posted by kehaar
so tell us professor, what did he get right and what did he get wrong?You'd have to ask someone to know
and you haven't yet said what part of the debt is the good part. yeah, there is a good part to the ] Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
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?Have you figured out you graph yet Dumbo?
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
Have you figured out your graph yet Dumbo?
Here are some numbers you can't refute. The data is the data.
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
