Yes, I agree and conceded this in the above post. It would be nice to see this represented as a % of GDP, I think it is a more fair comparison vs raw $.

Quote:

So if you add up all the GOP and Dem presidents, did the GOP presidents increase the accumulated deficit the most? Yes. Did the Dem presidents also increase the accumulated deficit significantly? Yes.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

It doesn't really change the discussion

ETA: By which I mean the percentages go up under GOP presidents and down during Democratic presidents.

Let me make sure I understand you.

You think rate of change in the annual deficit is a better measure than total deficits for a President?

Yup, it shows direction. If the president left the yearly deficit lower than when he entered office I consider that positive change and vice versa.

A president can't control where he starts from which is why I don't like the total deficits metric.

And external factors matter. The Great Recession demanded increased federal spending.

In that sense, Trump has been the worst, by far. He's run up trillion dollar plus deficits with a good economy for all four years.

Exactly! He has pretty much done exactly the opposite of what you are supposed to do when the economy is good. It's nothing short of us getting fleeced by him and the rich.

You can fuck right off to Fuckyourselfville with that bullshit.


Once acquitted, what incentive for good behavior does he have? He now demonstrably has a Senate with neither the balls nor the spine to tell him no.

In '2016 they were yammering about having enough material for years of hearings to slam Clinton with and ohbytheway we're gonna impeach her for Benghazi.

Nothing new.

If Biden wins, the House is likely going to stay Democratic... so... no, they won't.

Very McConnell-esque

Virginia GOP delegate tries to kill own bill to remove Democratic segregationist statue | TheHill

Guess not interested in fair & balanced?


I thought I answered it.

Quote:

Your assumption that a threat of impeachment would have somewhat constrained Trump is questionable. Arguably, for the House to not impeach Trump would have emboldened him even more. I think the threat of a 2-time impeachment club is just as persuasive. I supported the impeachment process because it was the right thing to do. It also puts our politicians on record which is good. Its all out there now (calling on Bolton as additional witness for Ukraine is really pointless) and if Trump gets re-elected even with this impeachment, the Dems/Libs will need to take a good hard look in the mirror and assess whether they really are in tuned with the priorities and sentiments of the country as a whole (e.g. not just liberal enclaves in the NE and West).

Per the Maddow chart, the first year of a Presidency is multi-colored. Take out all first year deficits because it came from the previous year/administration. So for Obama, remove 2009 from the discussion.

In 2010, 2011 & 2012, the deficit is > $1T each year. Far greater than any other Presidents before him in raw $ (not sure where to get $ adjusted for inflation but that would be a better measure). In 2013 it drops to $650B.

That would be a dramatic drop but I don't think the "rate of decrease" is as relevant because 2010-2012 were such dramatically bad years. The damage was front loaded and already done. I don't care as much the decrease was 40-50% from 2012 to 2013 when we were already $3-4T up in 2010-2012.

Hence, my position that the total accumulated deficit is more important than rate of increase/decrease.

Let's agree to disagree.

Let's take a break, Sack.

This is fair. Much of Obama's deficits were because of the GR. Just like we can say much of GWB deficits were because of 9/11 wars.

Look at Obama's 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. Those deficits were just as great as GWB who had a war to deal with.

For Trump, according to Maddow's chart, its not all 3 years but your point is taken. He is headed in the wrong direction in a record way for sure.

One caveat for future conversations -- I think we have to look at raw deficit/debt $ but it needs to be complemented by "as a % of GDP" and normalized for today's $. The wiki article had % of GDP but only went through Obama's first term and (obviously) nothing on Trump.

Why do you guys keep engaging the Russian bot troll

Define "9/11 wars"

I was made in Singapore thank you very much!

No, much of the deficit under GWB was from his tax cuts for the rich.

And Iraq War

Yes the wars were considerable costs, but it doesn't touch what we lost from the tax cuts. For that, Bush deserves some blame for the deficit under Obama. Although Obama later extended portions of it so he gets some blame too.

It seems self evident to me -- Afghanistan and Iraq.

Did I miss a nuance, why did you ask?

The other low intensity conflicts probably did not add much to the deficit.

Using the Iraq War as a mitigating factor in Bush's management of the deficit is a really weird argument considering many of the arguments against the war centered around how much it would cost, especially because it would take much longer than the administration was touting. No shit the war was a major factor in the deficit increase. That's kinda the point.

There's plenty of troll bots on this forum.

Are you the Dem/Lib troll bot or the Independent troll bot or the GOP/Trumpers troll bot?

I was just making sure you lumped the Iraq War (because Saddam caused 9/11) in the "9/11 wars" before I put words in your mouth

It was first time I've heard that phrase.

You'll have to ask my maker.

Okay, I understand. Yes, agree my wording could be better but I was thinking Afghanistan and Iraq part deaux.

It's like watching a toddler that can't sit still. There seriously has to be something medically wrong with the man.

Trump is caught on camera waving his hands during national anthem - Business Insider

Have you ever seen Bladerunner?

That looks like a guy suffering from dementia.

So kneeling and remaining silent is disrespectful, but talking, waving your arms, gesturing and being otherwise disruptive is perfectly respectful? Okay.

Remember, he has Article II of the Constitution, which allows him to do what ever he wants

Yes but it's been a while. Why?

The “I am rubber and you are glue” approach.

I think Trump's odds of a second term just went up a some. Lot's of time left for something to happen but he's likely to go into November with a good/strong economy/market (e.g. too late for us to get into an official recession now but market could still crash).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx
And the rationale ...

Sure, he's got as good a chance as a sitting president, who has gotten the green light to manipulate the system for his benefit, as any other previous president has.

Sure, he's got as good a chance as a sitting president, with special needs, as any other previous president has.

Sure, he's got as good a chance as a sitting president, who is defended by rape, murder, and child porn lawyers, as any other previous president has.

He's an incumbent with a good economy, he should be the favorite.

Also, don't put too much stock in one poll.

I'm sure I missed this at some point, but we're pro landmine now?

Yes. And if by 'we', you mean trump and his ilk...yes.

Bone Spurs for all! Real ones this time too!

That breathing again.

And Nancy busy doing work in the background. It would be hilarious if she took out her iPhone and started texting!

Forgot about the clapping after every sentence.

GOP clapping and cheers seem almost ... giddy?

MSM will analyze the inaccuracies and provide more context but Trump is giving a pretty good speech right now.

The Pelosi paper rip becomes a massive meme within 24 hours.

A pretty good speech if you’re living in an alternative universe where the only thing that matters is what The Great Leader tells us should matter. Facts be damned.

Didn't watch all of it so catching up some.

Inviting Juan Guaido was a good move. I hope this means we will be doing more in Venezuela.

Pelosi supposedly tearing up the SOTU speech at the end is fun. Both are trying to show each other up and it's entertaining.

Yes! Let’s meddle some more, because it’s been so successful in the past! As if Chavez/Maduro wasn’t a direct result of our propping up other corrupt governments....

So has there been any US support of an existing foreign government or opposition leader that you would support?

Trying to understand what would be "good/justifiable" vs "bad"

I’m not sure I get the question.

I am opposed to meddling in the internal politics of other countries because quite frankly, we do not have a very good history in that regard and it has a direct correlation to troubled spots we deal with today.

We supported the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, which gave us the Shah. Which in turn gave us the Revolution in 1979 and our current enmity with Iran.

Our support of corrupt Cuban military governments gave us Castro. And the pattern repeats over and over in Latin America.

Supporting the overthrow of Ghadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria has done nothing but give more power to Islamists.

We needed a do over in Egypt after we realized we didn’t really like the results of their free elections.

Point being, I can’t think of any meddling we have been a part of in other country’s internal politics that has been a long term positive for us.

And if we are going to bitch about Russia meddling with our elections, we really ought to have a leg to stand on. And we don’t. Not even close.

Which is why you haven't heard me bitch about that stuff.

Every nation acts in their own best interest, not particularly more or less than we do historically.