This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
Blackvegetable

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 30,405

Antifa
LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 10:05 am » wrote: Why the hesitation?  It is your criteria.  This is the method you use to determine who you vote for "supposedly".  So post them.  I'm waiting to hear your ANALYSIS.  Tell us what you "researched" and came up with.  lol.  I can't wait to hear this.
Admit that you have no idea, and I'll show you.

User avatar
omh

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 15,015

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2022, 10:02 am » wrote: You have no **** clue where to find them, do you.


Do you think I'd tee you up like this and not know?
 
why go looking for typecast people defending maybes, debunk the maybes. they make a pathway to your door to shut you up. Like a candle drawing moths to the flame as all they have to offer issues is shame and blame nobody takes their side.

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2022, 10:11 am » wrote: Admit that you have no idea, and I'll show you.
Okay.  I'll make you a deal.  I'll post YOUR numbers which you claim is YOUR argument if you agree to fully explain to us what YOU THINK they detail.  Show us your ANALYSIS of the data.  I'm trying to get you to learn how to THINK for yourself.  I don't believe YOU know how to do critical thinking.  I think you just go out and look at some numbers, and using your confirmation bias find SOMETHING in the numbers you THINK supports your preconceived bias without even realizing you're doing it.  You THINK you are actually reasoning.  But instead your brain just looks for anything it can find to support your bias and ignores all the other facts to the contrary which might end up being uncomfortable to you.  Anything which doesn't support your preconceived ideology your brain throws out in a microsecond so you don't have to challenge your perceived reality and your previously chosen view of the world.  That's not critical thinking.  That is confirmation bias.

No need to be ashamed.  Most people do it (95%).  It isn't easy to train your brain to avoid this and actually do critical thinking.  I'm not picking on you.  I really am trying to reveal something to you about the way the brain thinks.  And why posting data and assuming it supports your preconceived ideology doesn't further your knowledge of the truth, and furthermore doesn't provide you the ability to promote your assessment to others who don't have your bias.

Agreed?
 

User avatar
Blackvegetable

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 30,405

Antifa
LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 10:29 am » wrote: Okay.  I'll make you a deal.  I'll post YOUR numbers which you claim is YOUR argument if you agree to fully explain to us what YOU THINK they detail.  Show us your ANALYSIS of the data.  I'm trying to get you to learn how to THINK for yourself.  I don't believe YOU know how to do critical thinking.  I think you just go out and look at some numbers, and using your confirmation bias find SOMETHING in the numbers you THINK supports your preconceived bias without even realizing you're doing it.  You THINK you are actually reasoning.  But instead your brain just looks for anything it can find to support your bias and ignores all the other facts to the contrary which might end up being uncomfortable to you.  Anything which doesn't support your preconceived ideology your brain throws out in a microsecond so you don't have to challenge your perceived reality and your previously chosen view of the world.  That's not critical thinking.  That is confirmation bias.

No need to be ashamed.  Most people do it (95%).  It isn't easy to train your brain to avoid this and actually do critical thinking.  I'm not picking on you.  I really am trying to reveal something to you about the way the brain thinks.  And why posting data and assuming it supports your preconceived ideology doesn't further your knowledge of the truth, and furthermore doesn't provide you the ability to promote your assessment to others who don't have your bias.

Agreed?
I have no idea what you THOUGHT was gonna happen were you ever to post the numbers...

You wasted a lot of bandwidth. 

User avatar
omh

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 15,015

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2022, 10:55 am » wrote: I have no idea what you THOUGHT was gonna happen were you ever to post the numbers...

You wasted a lot of bandwidth. 
how? what byte of time is actually gone?

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

BlackVegetable's supposed supporting dating (in Billions of dollars):
1979 $827
1980 $908 Volcker raised fed rate to 20%
1981 $998 Reagan tax cut
1982 $1,142 Reagan increased spending
1983 $1,377 Jobless rate 10.8%
1984 $1,572 Increased defense spending
1985 $1,823
1986 $2,125 Reagan lowered taxes
1987 $2,350 Market crash
1988 $2,602 Fed raised rates
1989 $2,857 S&L Crisis
1990 $3,233 First Iraq War
1991 $3,665 Recession
1992 $4,065
1993 $4,411 Omnibus Budget Act
1994 $4,693 Clinton budgets
1995 $4,974
1996 $5,225 Welfare reform
1997 $5,413
1998 $5,526 LTCM crisis & recession
1999 $5,656 Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 $5,674 Budget surplus
2001 $5,807 9/11 attacks & EGTRRA
2002 $6,228 War on Terror
2003 $6,783 JGTRRA & Iraq War
2004 $7,379 Iraq War
2005 $7,933 Bankruptcy Act & Katrina.
2006 $8,507 Bernanke chaired Fed
2007 $9,008 Bank crisis
2008 $10,025 Bank bailout & QE
2009 $11,910 Bailout cost $250B ARRA added $242B
2010 $13,562 ARRA added $400B, payroll tax holiday ended, Obama Tax cuts, ACA, Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 Debt crisis, recession and tax cuts reduced revenue
2012 $16,066 Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 Sequester, government shutdown
2014 $17,824 QE ended, debt ceiling crisis
2015 $18,151 Oil prices fell
2016 $19,573 Brexit
2017 $20,245 Congress raised the debt ceiling
2018 $21,516 Trump tax cuts
2019 $22,719 Trade wars
2020 $27,748 COVID-19 & 2020 recession
2021 $28,400 COVID-19 & American Rescue Plan Act

So your cherry pick was
1993    $4,411              2001    $5,807            2009    $11,910       2017    $20,245
1992    $4,065              2000    $5,674            2008    $10,025       2016    $19,573
---------------------------      ----------------------------      ---------------------------      --------------------------
               $346                             $133                          $1,885                         $672
I'm assuming this is what your CB latched onto Since it appears to show the most favorable light imaginable ignoring any real analysis. But I could be wrong since you requested I post YOUR numbers.

 
 
Last edited by LibDave on 15 Jan 2022, 12:12 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2022, 10:55 am » wrote: I have no idea what you THOUGHT was gonna happen were you ever to post the numbers...

You wasted a lot of bandwidth.
It isn't wasted if it teaches you WHY you are unable to actually ANALYZE the facts and do critical thinking.  It might just change your life.
Also, I have no way of knowing WHAT you believe the numbers to be.  Lots of data twisting out there.
 
Last edited by LibDave on 14 Jan 2022, 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blackvegetable

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 30,405

Antifa
LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 11:08 am » wrote: It isn't wasted if it teaches your WHY you are unable to actually ANALYZE the facts and do critical thinking.  It might just change your life.
Also, I have no way of knowing WHAT you believe the numbers to be.  Lots of data twisting out there.
You really don't know **** about this.


Post the numbers.

User avatar
Blackvegetable

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 30,405

Antifa
LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 11:06 am » wrote: BlackVegetable's supposed supporting dating (in Billions of dollars):
1979 $827
1980 $908 Volcker raised fed rate to 20%
1981 $998 Reagan tax cut
1982 $1,142 Reagan increased spending
1983 $1,377 Jobless rate 10.8%
1984 $1,572 Increased defense spending
1985 $1,823
1986 $2,125 Reagan lowered taxes
1987 $2,350 Market crash
1988 $2,602 Fed raised rates
1989 $2,857 S&L Crisis
1990 $3,233 First Iraq War
1991 $3,665 Recession
1992 $4,065
1993 $4,411 Omnibus Budget Act
1994 $4,693 Clinton budgets
1995 $4,974
1996 $5,225 Welfare reform
1997 $5,413
1998 $5,526 LTCM crisis & recession
1999 $5,656 Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 $5,674 Budget surplus
2001 $5,807 9/11 attacks & EGTRRA
2002 $6,228 War on Terror
2003 $6,783 JGTRRA & Iraq War
2004 $7,379 Iraq War
2005 $7,933 Bankruptcy Act & Katrina.
2006 $8,507 Bernanke chaired Fed
2007 $9,008 Bank crisis
2008 $10,025 Bank bailout & QE
2009 $11,910 Bailout cost $250B ARRA added $242B
2010 $13,562 ARRA added $400B, payroll tax holiday ended, Obama Tax cuts, ACA, Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 Debt crisis, recession and tax cuts reduced revenue
2012 $16,066 Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 Sequester, government shutdown
2014 $17,824 QE ended, debt ceiling crisis
2015 $18,151 Oil prices fell
2016 $19,573 Brexit
2017 $20,245 Congress raised the debt ceiling
2018 $21,516 Trump tax cuts
2019 $22,719 Trade wars
2020 $27,748 COVID-19 & 2020 recession
2021 $28,400 COVID-19 & American Rescue Plan Act

So your cherry pick was
1993 $4,411 2001 $5,807 2009 $11,910 2017 $20,245
1992 $4,065 2000 $5,674 2008 $10,025 2016 $19,573
--------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
$346 $131 $1,885 $672
I'm assuming this is what your CB latched onto Since it appears to show the most favorable light imaginable ignoring any real analysis. But I could be wrong since you requested I post YOUR numbers.


Lesson 1.


Debt v. Deficit


Learn to distinguish one from the other.


How they relate is a slightly more complicated matter.


When you're done, try answering the question I put to you, shorn of the commentary...

User avatar
omh

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 15,015

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2022, 11:15 am » wrote: Lesson 1.


Debt v. Deficit


Learn to distinguish one from the other.


How they relate is a slightly more complicated matter.


When you're done, try answering the question I put to you, shorn of the commentary...
one feeds the other as spontaneously separate and simultaneously working. you are using context to suggest they are separate planes of existing when actually two sides of the same boxed in ideology. now discuss the other 6 sides when thinking beyond mutually evolving now as genetically existing proportionately here?

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

Blackvegetable » 14 Jan 2022, 11:15 am » wrote: Lesson 1.

Debt v. Deficit

Learn to distinguish one from the other.

How they relate is a slightly more complicated matter.

When you're done, try answering the question I put to you, shorn of the commentary...
Actually what I gave you WAS deficit.  And trust me you are a minion in comparison to my understanding of the subject of economics.  Akin to a Pop-Warner quarterback claiming Brady doesn't understand the difference between a pass and a hand-off.

So please Actually look at the data I posted.  I posted the complete balance sheet debt on January 1, YEAR for many many years not just your cherry pick along with additional information pertinent to the debt.  What you FAILED TO NOTICE was at the bottom I took your Cherry picked snapshot in time and calculated the DEFICITS which I GUESSED you were claiming supported whatever you wanted people to see.  This is in fact why it was stupid for you not to POST THE DATA YOURSELF since it would require me to read your mind in regards to which deficits you are referring to.  I have no clue why you whined like a little girl for me to post YOUR DATA, as if my not posting YOUR DATA was a victory point for YOU.

To determine DEFICIT you subtract the DEBTs for two consecutive years obviously.  Depending on what year you are interested in knowing the debt, you subtract the DEBTs from either the year prior or the year after.  In other words when you say the 1993 deficit are you referring to January 1993 snapshot which would be 01/93 - 01/92 or are you referring to the deficits accrued during year 1993 which would be 01/94 - 01/93.

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

You also didn't make any assessment as to what you wanted anyone to take from your data and your analysis whatever they were. As if you were 100% sure we could read your mind and would OBVIOUSLY come to your assessment just by looking at data you also didn't provide. This indicates an extreme lack of communication skills. Don't ask others to provide YOUR DATA then assume (should they GUESS what data you are referring to) they will support your assessment which you also don't give because you believe they can read your mind. For instance do you attribute the deficit accrued DURING THE 1993 fiscal year to Bush Senior or do you attribute it to Clinton. In the case of 2009, is the debt accrued attributed to George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I'll give you a hint, it differs due to many factors which aren't consistent and invariably can be contributed to BOTH presidents. This alone makes the supposed basis for your voting decision ludicrous, frankly. Not to mention you must vote before the data is known so by definition this COULDN'T be your process for basing your vote. So be straight and admit you just do what lazy people without the skills of critical thinking do and just vote Liberal Democrat every time. Saves you having to actually think.

This left me no choice but to provide you with all the January 1 numbers, guess at what numbers you are referring to, then ask that you clarify what YOU assess the numbers indicate. I also did the math for you and actually listed the deficits for the period I THOUGHT you noticed due to your left-wing leanings. Hereto, this is a horrible shallow dive into the data.
 
So first thing is, "Were the deficits I posted the deficits you failed to post?"
Second, "Do these numbers agree with your numbers?"  This way we at least know what numbers you are using as your basis.
Third, "What do you interpret the data indicates?"... "Who do you contribute these deficits to?"  Binary application of responsibility?
 
Last edited by LibDave on 14 Jan 2022, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blackvegetable

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 30,405

Antifa
LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 4:03 pm » wrote: Actually what I gave you WAS deficit.  And trust me you are a minion in comparison to my understanding of the subject of economics.  Akin to a Pop-Warner quarterback claiming Brady doesn't understand the difference between a pass and a hand-off.

So please Actually look at the data I posted.  I posted the complete balance sheet debt on January 1, YEAR for many many years not just your cherry pick along with additional information pertinent to the debt.  What you FAILED TO NOTICE was at the bottom I took your Cherry picked snapshot in time and calculated the DEFICITS which I GUESSED you were claiming supported whatever you wanted people to see.  This is in fact why it was stupid for you not to POST THE DATA YOURSELF since it would require me to read your mind in regards to which deficits you are referring to.  I have no clue why you whined like a little girl for me to post YOUR DATA, as if my not posting YOUR DATA was a victory point for YOU.

To determine DEFICIT you subtract the DEBTs for two consecutive years obviously.  Depending on what year you are interested in knowing the debt, you subtract the DEBTs from either the year prior or the year after.  In other words when you say the 1993 deficit are you referring to January 1993 snapshot which would be 01/93 - 01/92 or are you referring to the deficits accrued during year 1993 which would be 01/94 - 01/93.
Actually what I gave you WAS deficit
No.

FY 93 - 255 billion

FY 01 - (128 billion) surplus

FY 09 - 1,413 billion

FY 17 - 665 billion


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


Now, again, I urge you to limit yourself to confirming objective facts..

You will find yourself haunted by your labiaflatus...





 

User avatar
Blackvegetable

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 30,405

Antifa
LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 4:04 pm » wrote: You also didn't make any assessment as to what you wanted anyone to take from your data and your analysis whatever they were. As if you were 100% sure we could read your mind and would OBVIOUSLY come to your assessment just by looking at data you also didn't provide. This indicates an extreme lack of communication skills. Don't ask others to provide YOUR DATA then assume (should they GUESS what data you are referring to) they will support your assessment which you also don't give because you believe they can read your mind. For instance do you attribute the deficit accrued DURING THE 1993 fiscal year to Bush Senior or do you attribute it to Clinton. In the case of 2009, is the debt accrued attributed to George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I'll give you a hint, it differs due to many factors which aren't consistent and invariably can be contributed to BOTH presidents. This alone makes the supposed basis for your voting decision ludicrous, frankly. Not to mention you must vote before the data is known so by definition this COULDN'T be your process for basing your vote. So be straight and admit you just do what lazy people without the skills of critical thinking do and just vote Liberal Democrat every time. Saves you having to actually think.

This left me no choice but to provide you with all the January 1 numbers, guess at what numbers you are referring to, then ask that you clarify what YOU assess the numbers indicate. I also did the math for you and actually listed the deficits for the period I THOUGHT you noticed due to your left-wing leanings. Hereto, this is a horrible shallow dive into the data.
 
So first thing is, "Were the deficits I posted the deficits you failed to post?"
Second, "Do these numbers agree with your numbers?"  This way we at least know what numbers you are using as your basis.
Third, "What do you interpret the data indicates?"... "Who do you contribute these deficits to?"  Binary application of responsibility?
In the case of the debt accrued during 2009 to George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I'll give you a hint, it differs due to many factors which aren't consistent and invariably can be contributed to BOTH presidents.
Be quiet, bluffy.

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

Okay, lets try this AGAIN!

Your numbers do not match my numbers. My data comes from 2 sources, both of which agree but are presented differently. My 1st source is FRED.gov (Federal Reserve Economic Data). 2nd source is BLS.gov (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). So first lets figure out why our data differs now that you've finally been so kind as to provide your own data.

Where did you get your numbers?
 

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

LibDave » 14 Jan 2022, 4:51 pm » wrote: Okay, lets try this AGAIN!

Your numbers do not match my numbers. My data comes from 2 sources, both of which agree but are presented differently. My 1st source is FRED.gov (Federal Reserve Economic Data). 2nd source is BLS.gov (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). So first lets figure out why our data differs now that you've finally been so kind as to provide your own data.

Where did you get your numbers?
Talking to bv is a complete waste of time. But you were doing bv style avoidance when we debated also. Are you really a critical thinker?
 

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

Okay, I found several sources which are apparently where you got your data. All are left-wing sites which have been passing those same numbers back and forth as they deem them to be most favorable for whatever reason. But that's fine. At least I found your numbers.

The reasons your numbers differ is OMB was instructed by Congress to alter the manner in which it accounts for the money borrowed from the SS trust fund. You may be aware of this little slight of hand. For years Congress had been taking the money out of the SS Trust fund and buying non-negotiable Treasury bonds with the funds and using it to cover portions of the deficit. Prior to Clinton OMB included this in the deficit number publicized.  During the Clinton administration this changed so it no longer appears in the numbers and makes the deficit appear smaller after 1993. The amount changes each year depending on the age of the baby boomers. This is still the case. However, I have heard talk they may soon reverse this now that the government will be having to pay into the SS Trust fund. Go figure. Politicians always like to shine the most favorable light on debt and deficits regardless of party.

So normally with issues of the deficit it is better to use the US government's balance sheet in the Federal Reserve Bank and just do the quick math. Understand, under Clinton there never actually were surpluses, or at least it's a matter of how you look at it. If you consider SS Trust Fund tax money then perhaps he did, just barely. If you consider it our retirement savings borrowed by the US government then there was no surplus.

So now at least we know what data we are dealing with.
 

User avatar
Vegas

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Giant Slayer
Posts: 11,749
Politics: Beer and Popcorn


Are you pissed because he knows more than you about economics?

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

Okay, so now if you want to perform critical thinking you take the numbers off the US governments FR balance sheet. This is akin to you doing all your banking (loans and account balances) through a single bank and recording the total balance on Jan 1 every year. You can then subtract what you had last year to determine what kind of year you had.

But this doesn't help you assess who is accountable for any improvements or detriments in the governments position which occurred during the year in years when there is a transition of government (or even any year for that matter). Several reasons for this are the following.

1. The POTUS is not entirely responsible for determining the monetary policy of the US government. In fact The House of Representatives plays the larger role. Together, due to the Separation of Powers clauses they come to a consensus as to CHANGES in the government's spending. If they cannot agree, often Congress just passes a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution just says we will use the last budget legally passed by a Congress and a POTUS (could even be a former President's budget). Since they can't agree on any changes to the budget, the present budget will continue by default. They can do this on their own. So it can happen where a budget from a previous president remains in place. Obviously in this case using the inauguration date and attributing any deficit or surplus to the sitting POTUS wouldn't be accurate if they took no part in the budget.

If no budget can be agreed upon by the HoR, Senate, and POTUS AND Congress decides not to even pass a continuing resolution then the government shuts down. There is standing legislation whereby in such an impasse emergency essential personal are required to work. Normally they get reimbursed after the impasse is resolved. Often Congress even reimburses those who got sent home for lost wages. Somehow we have to take into account what this means in regards to assessments of the tendency of a POTUS or of a particular Party towards deficit spending.

(2 cont'd)

User avatar
LibDave

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 531
Politics: Capitalist

2. The government's fiscal year goes from October to October, whereas the balance sheet data is normally for January 1. Furthermore, the budget for a fiscal year is decided prior to October 1 (normally) and continues in effect through October well into a POTUS' first year in office (normally). However, there have been exceptions. Obviously this means on transition years one must attempt to figure out what portion of that deficit is attributable to which POTUS or Congress. So using 1993, 2001, 2009, and 2017 is problematic and a HORRIBLE manner (the worst) to assess the level of deficit attributed to the POTUS leaving office over his entire term in office. Obviously, even taking an average of every year they were in office would be better. Critical thinking would require adjusting their first and last years INTELLIGENTLY to determine that portion is actually attributable to them, then doing an average. For instance in Clinton's case on his 2nd day in office he passed tax increases for the PREVIOUS year! People who had already filed at the first of the year had to redo their taxes!!!! It was referred to as a retroactive tax increase and its constitutionality was highly questionable. They also increased spending prior to October of his first year in office (BY A LOT!!!) since the Dems had control of the HoR, Senate, and POTUS. There was no impasse so they didn't have to use the CR passed without Bush's approval any longer. This must be taken into account in order to assess the true tendency of a POTUS or Congress to deficit spend.

3. (cont'd).

 
 
Last edited by LibDave on 15 Jan 2022, 12:24 am, edited 4 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Beekeeper, Bill Gates [Bot], Buffalo, ConsRule, Crazytrain, DeplorablePatriot, dickens, FJB, FOS, GHETTO BLASTER, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Isabel, Jinn Martini, leftist, LibDave, nefarious101, Neo, neue regel, OdeToJoy, PaperLi [Bot], Pengwin, Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, pwingly, Semrush [Bot], SharminSultana, SJConspirator, Steve Jobs [Bot], supraTruth, Taipan, thelion, Twitter [Bot], Vegas, Yandex [Bot], Zeets2 and 601 guests