« First « Previous Comments 60 - 99 of 113 Next » Last » Search these comments
anon_6ae12 saysWhat's your point? He wasn't one of those people attacking Obama 24/7 about the debt levels, so let's use him as an example of how it's alright to have huge debt despite the fact we spent the last 8 years saying exactly the opposite. Is that your argument?
My point is that the beloved Economic Icon of Liberals, Paul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.
Which is why THEY have to explain why a tax cut that may, IF the model is right, result in a piddling $1.5T debt increase, compared to the double of debt in the last decade to the tune of what, $10T I think, is such a Major Big Deal, So Irresponsible(tm)
Of course, everybody knows why Liberals have suddenly been concerned about increasing the Debt. #TDS.
Edit: I...
anon_6ae12 saysWhat's your point? He wasn't one of those people attacking Obama 24/7 about the debt levels, so let's use him as an example of how it's alright to have huge debt despite the fact we spent the last 8 years saying exactly the opposite. Is that your argument?
My point is that the beloved Economic Icon of Liberals, Paul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.
Which is why THEY have to explain why a tax cut that may, IF the model is right, result in a piddling $1.5T debt increase, compared to the double of debt in the last decade to the tune of what, $10T I think, is such a Major Big Deal, So Irresponsible(tm)
Of course, everybody knows why Liberals have suddenly been concerned about increasing the Debt. #TDS.
Edit: I...
aul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.
So you're saying Obama tacking on $10 TRILLION of debt in 8 years was no big thing?
According to The Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it will add $2.2trillion to the DEFICIT over the next decade. The 2017 budget deficit was already around $666bn. Would you like to explain to everyone what that means for the national debt over a decade? And this is without any major financial crisis occurring.
And any estimate is just that. If we get 3% growth for the next few quarters and start to get some non-anemic inflation, beautiful cheap money takes a bite outta the debt. Excuse me if I don't believe a field where 98% of the profession was completely surprised and gobsmacked by the worst Global recession since the Great Depression, and most of the 2% dissenting were permabears who were predicting collapse since 1980.
There's a reason Trump has conditioned all his cucks to disbelieve all media and distrust the educated and knowledgeable.
Of course there is...when 47% of statements by media go from "half true" to "pants on fire", what else would one expect?
Statements made on CNN
Click on the ruling to see all of the statements made on CNN.
True13 (16%)(13)
Mostly True29 (37%)(29)
Half True16 (20%)(16)
Mostly False7 (9%)(7)
False11 (14%)(11)
Pants on Fire3 (4%)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/
lol--did you see which pundits are lying?
Jack Kingston (Republican politician)
Sarah Palin (Republican politician)
Mike Rogers (Republican politician)
Michelle Bachmann (Republican politician)
Jan Brewer (Republican politician)
Notice a trend here?
Irrelevant.
The subject was about "the media lying".
If CNN allows liars to lie on their shows, they are as guilty ( by association )...
Notice a trend here?
And any estimate is just that. If we get 3% growth for the next few quarters and start to get some non-anemic inflation, beautiful cheap money takes a bite outta the debt. Excuse me if I don't believe a field where 98% of the profession was completely surprised and gobsmacked by the worst Global recession since the Great Depression, and most of the 2% dissenting were permabears who were predicting collapse since 1980.
No, it's pretty relevant. One party and it's President are habitual liars
yes. definitely trendy...
Sally Kohn ( liberal columnist )
Michael Skolnik ( libbie businessman )
Maria Cardona ( libbie strategist )
Donna Brazile ( libbie Clintonite, self-admitted cheater )
Marc Lamont Hill ( libbie professor of something )
Don Lemon ( libbie tv host, named correctly at birth )
Van Jones ( libbie tv host, has overactive tear glands )
Bill Maher ( libbie comedian wannabe )
No, not relevant.
One president and 1% of a party lying do not make the whole party complicit.
What's relevant is a systematic process by which the Republican party is overtly lying and then purposely sowing distrust in the institution that is calling them on their lies.
What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".
Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected
Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.
Of course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...
BlueSardine saysWhat you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".
Did I miss Trump outing himself? If so, please point me to the links on that.
BlueSardine saysPoliticians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected
No--it's because the MSM wasn't lying.
BlueSardine saysPoliticofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.
Politofact outed Republican talking heads as liars proving my point. Retired politicians aren't the media--they are retired politicians.
Politicofact disagrees with you as well as the vast majority of americans who back politicofact.
BlueSardine saysOf course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...
No I hate it because it's impossible for people to make good decisions when they are constantly being lied to and cannot tell truth from fiction.
If people cannot tell truth from fiction then they are either not confirming facts from multiple non political sources, or they are too dumb to discern. ( see libbie college educated )
Are you joking? All day, every day on here there are posters who post BS because they don't confirm facts and are too dumb to discern.
Nope--politicofact agrees with me. They detail all the Republican politicians that go on CNN to spread their lies.
You'd lose that bet.
doubt it.
Case in point. TPB posts all sorts of shit. But every now and then a very salient and well constructed factual post comes out of him.
He's out to push your buttons 99% of the time, with great success I might add.
But TPB doesn't push anyone's buttons
But TPB doesn't push anyone's buttons because everyone ignores him 99% of the time
Fake news.
TPB ignored by 6. Patnet users number over 12,000...
3% growth over an extended period is what is needed so that the increased deficit isnt higher. When has there been a prolonged period of 3% growth?
And I notice you attacking the people rather than the figures. All figures point to a substantial increase in the deficit. Your post clearly conflated deficit and debt. Was that to deliberately mislead or were you just mixing the two? The fact that you keep pointing out the debt rise under Obama (with clear mitigating circumstances for a large part of that) whilst completely ignoring the fact that debt is projected to rise by a similar amount under Trump if there ISN'T any financial crisis seems a rather strange argument.
The GOP tax bill being rolled out Thursday includes a premise that used to be apostasy for Republicans: new debt of up to $1.5 trillion.
lol--so your contention is that TPB is not actually gaga over Trump but that his sctick is a long con trolling pat.net?
It's obvious when you look at the number of threads that TPB has started that have very limited replies.
It's possible to ignore someone without using the ignore feature of pat.net.
On Patnet, "ignore" has a specific connotation.
Please choose another adjective.
Almost every year in the 90s. Some years of the 2000s and most recently the entire 2005 year, had a few years close to 3% as well recently. Not in ancient history.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Stop with the talking point that I've mixed of debt and deficit. I know the difference. $1.5T is the number that was going around for months now, and the number I have in my head. Not asspull numbers run by Neoliberal Think Tanks with an axe to grind.
Why are Republicans suddenly willing to embrace $1.5 trillion in new debt?
So it's been a few decades since there has been the necessary prolonged period of growth - the projections require 3% growth every year not one year. Even you'd have to agree that the world economy is rather different now that it was in the 90s.
And your 'what about' comments are getting a bit tired. There were powerful reasons for the rise in the Obama reason. The Republicans spent the entire time attacking him about it, but oh, surprise, surprise, once they get into power the tune changes.
A few decades? That implies it last happened in the 60s or somesuch. It happened in the 2000s, ONE decade ago, we had a few years of 3%+ growth. The decade before that there was 3%+ growth for much of the years as well. And of course the 80s.
There is no whataboutery. The most frequently cited number I've seen is $1.5T to the debt over a decade. The Debt was doubled almost $10T since 2008 so the sudden concern for debt spending and the transformation of Obama Boosters into Deficit Hawks seems a little suspicious given the timing of the protest and size of the estimated costs.
« First « Previous Comments 60 - 99 of 113 Next » Last » Search these comments
Justice Gorsuch
Tax cuts
Repeal of Obamacare mandate
Big hike in DOD spending
12 Federal appeals court judges
Withdrawal from Paris Accord
Repeal of “net neutrality” Google/Netflix Wealth Transfer
Passage of VA reform
Jerusalem Embassy in the Capital of Israel
No Hillary the Hostile
Hollywood Hypocrisy Exposed
ISIS all but eliminated
Soaring Home Sales
17-year low in Unemployment
Vibrant Economy with massive GDP gains
...that the Very Serious People said was "no longer possible" of 3%+
Saudi Arabian Reforms
(Note the "What has Trump accomplished?" rhetoric has been on the wane, replaced by Diet Soda rumors)
#Winning #Politics