@jbluhm86 said:

Remember when the Tea Party and their supporters were foaming at the mouth over the federal deficit when Obama was in office?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

But when the deficit is growing at a faster pace than even under the Obama administration, yet it's a GOP president in office, it's crickets from the Tea Party and their supporters. Hmm.

???

I agree with you sir. I don't like the fiscal irresponsibility at all. I freely admit I don't have a deep knowledge of national and international economics and can't begin figure out how to solve it. I had hoped when the Republicans had all three branches of office they could have put the clamps on it but that didn't happen. And let's face it the great unwashed doesn't want financial responsibility either. Every time things get out of hand and the government shutdown kicks in people scream like stuck pigs.

WSS

@jbluhm86 said:

The Fiscal Times: Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade: CBO

@tiamat63 said:

This was the best you could come up with?  Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)  

They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury.  I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice.   I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.  

So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong.   Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.

A bribe is a bribe.    And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.   

As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments.  Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit.  It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.

Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last.  So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.

Thanks for proclaiming your superior intellect...again, but us dimwits know where funding comes from.

Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Funding
 

You wanted more information

You looked for an unbiased source

And you learned something new???

I think you're doing it wrong. Just post a Heritage link and move on

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/new-report-shows-planned-parenthood-raked-1.5-billion-taxpayer-funds

@tiamat63 said:

This was the best you could come up with?  Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)  

They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury.  I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice.   I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.  

So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong.   Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.

A bribe is a bribe.    And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.   

As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments.  Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit.  It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.

Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last.  So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir. 

yeah. no link, no source. Just make believe garbage to be twisted around like a pink fairy dust licorice stick.

I hate to think they make political funds out of being reimbursed for the murder of born and unborn children.

"Planned Parenthood Reveals How Much More Taxpayers Gave Them In 2018 Taxpayers contributed to an over $20 million increase in federal funds allocated to Planned Parenthood in 2018, according to the abortion organization’s annual report. "

@canton-dawg said:

You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.

The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).

PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.

Most liberals can’t tell the difference.

This was the best you could come up with?  Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)  

They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury.  I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice.   I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.  

So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong.   Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.

A bribe is a bribe.    And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.   

As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments.  Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit.  It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.

Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last.  So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.

@canton-dawg said:

Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.

I  don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.

So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.

@tiamat63 said:

No, I'm not.       You said bribe.      Bribes can be offered with private funds.    Last I checked,  the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.  

You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.

The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).

PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.

Most liberals can’t tell the difference.

@mld-woody said:

Losing weight is a combination of the calories you intake and the calories you burn

A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.

Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect. 

@canton-dawg said:

I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.

No, I'm not.       You said bribe.      Bribes can be offered with private funds.    Last I checked,  the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.  

A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.

Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect. 

@tiamat63 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480464-trump-supporters-giving-away-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-at-events-in%3famp

I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.

@tiamat63 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480464-trump-supporters-giving-away-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-at-events-in%3famp

the dishonest inference is, that paying people on the leftwing side to protest, show up, etc... is the same as cash giveaways to communities, I think. Not the same thing.

@canton-dawg said:

 but the Libs are actually bribing voters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480464-trump-supporters-giving-away-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-at-events-in%3famp

@jbluhm86 said:

Well, since Trump is set to exceed the deficits that occured during the Obama administration, you tell me.

Forbes: Trump’s Budget Deficits Could Almost Double Obama’s

"The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2008 (the US government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (before Obama was elected) to fiscal 2009 (which was based on Bush’s last budget). It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and increased again in Trump’s first year in office."

• Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
• Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
• Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year, Bush’s budget and in the teeth of the Recession)
• Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
• Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
• Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
• Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
• Fiscal 2016: $587 billion

Comparing Trump’s deficits to Obama’s

Similar to comparing Trump’s job growth during his 29 months in office to Obama’s last 29 months where Trump’s Presidency has generated almost one million fewer jobs, Trump’s federal deficits are projected to zoom past Obama’s when you combine the last four years of Obama’s Presidency to Trump’s first four years. In fact Trump’s could approach doubling Obama’s.

There are a few timeframes that are useful to analyze given that a new President doesn’t really have control the fiscal year they are elected and inaugurated and may have minimal impact the first full year. To account for the time lags, below are three rolling four year timeframes for Obama’s last four years in office and Trump’s first four years.

Cumulative rolling four years of deficits under Obama:

• 2012-2015: $2,191 billion (last four years of Obama’s Presidency)
• 2013-2016: $2,171 billion (last three years and first year of Trump’s)
• 2014-2017: $2,471 billion (last two years and first two years of Trump’s)

Under Trump:

• 2017-2020: $3.330 billion (first four years of Trump’s Presidency, one year of increased spending)
• 2018-2021: $3,757 billion (second to fourth year of Trump’s Presidency, first year after and two years of increased spending)
• 2019-2022: $4,228 billion (last two years and first two years of next term)

As you can see the timeframes that use the actual last four years of Obama to Trump’s first four is actually the most favorable for Trump as his cumulative budget deficit is only $1,139 billion more. As time goes by Trump’s are worse by $1,586 billion and then $1,757 billion, respectively.

Let's not bury our head in the sand.

What platform are ALL the Dem Presidential hopefuls running on?

I'll help you out with that...freebies.

Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.

I  don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.

So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.

@fairhooker11 said:

not enuf?

Well, since Trump is set to exceed the deficits that occured during the Obama administration, you tell me.

Forbes: Trump’s Budget Deficits Could Almost Double Obama’s

"The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2008 (the US government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (before Obama was elected) to fiscal 2009 (which was based on Bush’s last budget). It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and increased again in Trump’s first year in office."

• Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
• Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
• Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year, Bush’s budget and in the teeth of the Recession)
• Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
• Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
• Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
• Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
• Fiscal 2016: $587 billion

Comparing Trump’s deficits to Obama’s

Similar to comparing Trump’s job growth during his 29 months in office to Obama’s last 29 months where Trump’s Presidency has generated almost one million fewer jobs, Trump’s federal deficits are projected to zoom past Obama’s when you combine the last four years of Obama’s Presidency to Trump’s first four years. In fact Trump’s could approach doubling Obama’s.

There are a few timeframes that are useful to analyze given that a new President doesn’t really have control the fiscal year they are elected and inaugurated and may have minimal impact the first full year. To account for the time lags, below are three rolling four year timeframes for Obama’s last four years in office and Trump’s first four years.

Cumulative rolling four years of deficits under Obama:

• 2012-2015: $2,191 billion (last four years of Obama’s Presidency)
• 2013-2016: $2,171 billion (last three years and first year of Trump’s)
• 2014-2017: $2,471 billion (last two years and first two years of Trump’s)

Under Trump:

• 2017-2020: $3.330 billion (first four years of Trump’s Presidency, one year of increased spending)
• 2018-2021: $3,757 billion (second to fourth year of Trump’s Presidency, first year after and two years of increased spending)
• 2019-2022: $4,228 billion (last two years and first two years of next term)

As you can see the timeframes that use the actual last four years of Obama to Trump’s first four is actually the most favorable for Trump as his cumulative budget deficit is only $1,139 billion more. As time goes by Trump’s are worse by $1,586 billion and then $1,757 billion, respectively.

kicking the can is fun

obamas  TARP (that doubled as his budget that his senate blindly approved for years)  and QE's ad infinitum

not enuf?

@jbluhm86 said:

Great economies don't mean jack shit if your spending continues to outpace economic growth.

It means it is better than having a mediocre economy with out of control spending. That is all, not defending out of control spending.