US Federal Deficit Fell 50% in Biden’s First Year

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Every major domestic problem the US has (housing shortage, healthcare costs, crime, immigration, etc) could be alleviated with robust public investment and intervention.

If you mean public money being spent either directly or in the form of credit then the exact opposite is true. That is precisely how the democrats caused the housing bubble  and crashed the us economy.

Gov't spending raises inflation, always. I can explain how if you need it but it's not terribly complicated. 

Quote

National and state policies in the last 40 years have largely trended toward reducing government revenue and cutting and privatizing the minimal programs we do have

There are more programs now than there have ever been and were even under trump and spending is at an all time high. 

Quote

Republicans and democrats squabble between tax rates in the absurdly low 30% range vs the 20% range while still operating a complex system that does some of the many things that almost everyone expects it to do, increasingly funded via deficit spending. Without cutting big budget items like the military, social security, Medicare, the only way to pay a 1.7 T deficit is with increased revenue--let alone afford anything else that would improve society.

That part is a little more accurate. Deficit spending has gotten out of control under both parties and it needs to be addressed. 

It's important to remember that just increasing taxes doesn't' mean more revenues beyond the very short term. That money comes out of the economy and that puts the brakes on economy and slows tax revenue growth. So it must be done very sparingly. You say the tax rates are low but i would guess you can't show any math or solid arguments as to why that's the wrong number other than "we make more if we increase it!", which as i note is often untrue.

In the end it's usually a number of different things.  Gov'ts make more money if wages go up (more to tax) so looking at creating more jobs and providing training for more high pay positions helps. Incentivising business to improve productivity helps. Making it easier to operate a small business (several ways to do that) can help a lot as well in some cases. 

AND  you also have to keep spending under control. Biden is wasting insane amounts of money. Trump was better but not exactly 'great' either. 

It's not easy. But that's why they get paid the big bucks.  Unfortunately both sides are more concerned with winning the next election than doing the right thing for the US. 

[Matthew]

12 hours ago, User said:

There is not one government program I can think of that has not substantially grown in the last 40 years or at a minimum kept up with inflation, not any example of government at state level, definitely not federal, that has not grown or expanded.

I don't disagree with that. There are more people now compared to then, technology has has created new capacities and complications, and in general people today expect more from their state and federal governments than they used to.

And despite decades of republican efforts to cut assisistence to the poor and elderly, or attack public education, these things tend to bounce back and remain extremely valued and have had no problem growing.

[Matthew]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Gov't spending raises inflation, always.

A lot of factors impact the value of money, the availability of goods, peoples expectation of future price increases. If your [somewhat over-simplified] dictum were true, inflation would always be crazy high, when in reality monitary policy usually does a fine job keeping inflation near their 2% target.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's important to remember that just increasing taxes doesn't' mean more revenues beyond the very short term. That money comes out of the economy and that puts the brakes on economy and slows tax revenue growth.

Though not unreasonable, this too is supposition more than fact. The Laffer Curve you're likely alluding to is a useful starting place. Obviously the higher tax rates gets the more diminishing returns will eventually occur. But just because there are sweet spots of efficiency doesn't mean that increasing the taxes will not increase revenue. Plus reality is more complicated than a Laffer Curve, for example the tax revenue is often spent on things that eventually contribute to the private sector economy (infrastructure, education, research, etc)

But in any case, my point is that politicians don't even seem comfortable talking about how to increase revenues when clearly that is a necessary thing that will have to occur sooner or later given the reality of what people overwhelmingly expect from their government.

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Matthew said:

A lot of factors impact the value of money, the availability of goods, peoples expectation of future price increases. If your [somewhat over-simplified] dictum were true, inflation would always be crazy high, when in reality monitary policy usually does a fine job keeping inflation near their 2% target.

Not really.  Sorry, this is actually not terribly complex.  As the man said inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. 

As long as money in the system is being created through market forces where a dollar of value is created for a dollar received inflation stays under control except in very unusual circumstances. However, when the government dumps large amounts of unearned money into the economy you get inflation. It is unbalanced.

There can be no doubt by any sane person that the spending that happened during covid and subsequent to that resulted in the inflation that was seen. You could argue that some of it was necessary spending given the urgency and the emergency. And fair enough. But the spending continued and continues today and yes, that absolutely impacts inflation.

Though not unreasonable, this too is supposition more than fact. The Laffer Curve you're likely alluding to is a useful starting place. Obviously the higher tax rates gets the more diminishing returns will eventually occur. But just because there are sweet spots of efficiency doesn't mean that increasing the taxes will not increase revenue. Plus reality is more complicated than a Laffer Curve, for example the tax revenue is often spent on things that eventually contribute to the private sector economy (infrastructure, education, research, etc)

Quote

But in any case, my point is that politicians don't even seem comfortable talking about how to increase revenues when clearly that is a necessary thing that will have to occur sooner or later given the reality of what people overwhelmingly expect from their government.

Poor people have to expect less. And sometimes that's not a bad thing either. There are quite likely a number of spending initiatives that could be canceled that people really wouldn't miss that much.

At the end of the day though I think that before any conversation can happen people have to agree on priorities. They have to agree and tell their politicians that bringing the budget close to balance is a priority. If they don't signal that fiscal responsibility is a major issue chance that the politicians are going to risk their neck trying to address it. Nobody wants to be the guy that closes the purse without the public's permission

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

A lot of factors impact the value of money, the availability of goods, peoples expectation of future price increases. If your [somewhat over-simplified] dictum were true, inflation would always be crazy high, when in reality monitary policy usually does a fine job keeping inflation near their 2% target.

Though not unreasonable, this too is supposition more than fact. The Laffer Curve you're likely alluding to is a useful starting place. Obviously the higher tax rates gets the more diminishing returns will eventually occur. But just because there are sweet spots of efficiency doesn't mean that increasing the taxes will not increase revenue. Plus reality is more complicated than a Laffer Curve, for example the tax revenue is often spent on things that eventually contribute to the private sector economy (infrastructure, education, research, etc)

But in any case, my point is that politicians don't even seem comfortable talking about how to increase revenues when clearly that is a necessary thing that will have to occur sooner or later given the reality of what people overwhelmingly expect from their government.

I fear that the vapid rhetoric may actually be believed from the backroom.

And they might think that the Laffler Curve is absolute and revenues need to be zero.  I heard about some plan to fund the government solely using tariffs which is crazy.

If the leadership believes their rhetoric we may see a catastrophe, which would fulfil the current hyperbole about our current state.

[Matthew]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry, this is actually not terribly complex.

That's because you're over-simplifying a thing that has several causes and is likely too many variables to fully understand or calculate.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. 

I'm familiar with Austrian school orthodoxy, but actual economists know that inflation is not limited to one thing.

Simple Example: At the start of the pandemic the price of bicycles and all bicycle-related supplies suddenly soared. Even low quality off-brand bikes were not to be found. Production of many components was disrupted at the same time that lock-downs and social distancing caused demand for bikes to increase. A similar phenomenon occurred for ceetain goods and services worldwide. Aditionally, once people understand that inflation is ocurring, they anticipate future price increases which itself actually contributes to inflation because the population is primed with a willingness to pay higher prices. This is why even after fiscal policy factors you're referring to are long over, inflation still can still increase for years.

But the big fiscal policy pandemic spending you're referring to did not kick in until 2021. Stimulus checks, etc. And the monetary system from March of 2020 until March of 2021 was at near deflation levels. Gas prices plummeted to about a dollar per gallon in 2020. Yet, at the same time, the price of many consumer goods and services (and the components of those goods and services) were widely skyrocketing.

If it were true that monetary policies were the only thing driving up prices, then inflation would be more evenly distributed across industries. But in reality the consumer goods and services that spiked during lockdowns (food, vehicles, entertainment, and housing) have experienced far bigger price increases.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I fear that the vapid rhetoric may actually be believed from the backroom.

And they might think that the Laffler Curve is absolute and revenues need to be zero.  I heard about some plan to fund the government solely using tariffs which is crazy.

If the leadership believes their rhetoric we may see a catastrophe, which would fulfil the current hyperbole about our current state.

What a load of absolute bullcrap.  Show me ANYONE who is in a gov't position who's suggesting that gov'ts should be funded from tarrifs exclusively? 

And if by 'back room' you mean the gov't and by 'rhetoric' you mean well established fiscal principles then the result isn't disaster, it's good management.  Simply dumping money into the economy is what leads to disasters. Canada is a fine example. 

And you're sounding more and more like myata every day. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

That's because you're over-simplifying a thing that has several causes and is likely too many variables to fully understand or calculate.

To calculate with absolute precision perhaps but not in a functionally accurate way. I get that you don't want it to be due to gov't spending but by and large it is. 

Put it this way - reduce spending and inflation goes down.  The Scotia bank in Canada for example predicted that a 3 percent reduction in gov't spending in 2022 would have addressed the inflation issues without the need to increase interest rates. 

Sorry but you're trying to OVER complicate something in order to dismiss it. Gov't spending raises inflation, and the more excessive it becomes the more that's true. 

Quote

I'm familiar with Austrian school orthodoxy, but actual economists know that inflation is not limited to one thing.

So are you claiming at this point that gov't spending does not significantly impact inflation? 

Nobody claimed there weren't other factors - but gov't spending ALWAYS leads to inflation. If the gov't spends less then there's less inflation. 

Quote

But the big fiscal policy pandemic spending you're referring to did not kick in until 2021.

Well if THAT"S true and i'm right then i guess we would have expected to see inflation shoot up in 2021 right? When the spending kicked in and then continue to get worse from there as more money was spent. 

U.S. Inflation Rate 1960-2024 | MacroTrends

• U.S. inflation rate for 2022 was 8.00%, a 3.3% increase from 2021.
• U.S. inflation rate for 2021 was 4.70%, a 3.46% increase from 2020.
• U.S. inflation rate for 2020 was 1.23%, a 0.58% decline from 2019.
• U.S. inflation rate for 2019 was 1.81%, a 0.63% decline from 2018.

Hmmm. Guess it wasn't the bicycles after all huh  

 

Quote

If it were true that monetary policies were the only thing driving up prices, then inflation would be more evenly distributed across industries. But in reality the consumer goods and services that spiked during lockdowns (food, vehicles, entertainment, and housing) have experienced far bigger price increases.

Again, nobody has claimed it is the only thing. What was said was that it is a thing every time and a major thing.

However your statement above is completely inaccurate. You would not expect to see it evenly spread across Industries in the slightest, in fact that would be the absolute last thing I would expect. But as an example people have money to buy food because the government gave it to them. People couldn't go out to eat so they bought lots of groceries. This increases demand without increasing supply and you get inflation in the food sector. If the government gave out less money than people would have less money to go buy food and they would either buy less or they would look at buying products that have not gone up in price which would help keep inflation under control.

You are arguing against a hundred years of well-established economic fact. Government spending causes inflation. Pretending that it doesn't or that there's a whole bunch of other nebulous factors which Cannot be calculated or known by mortal men is nuts.

Biden's spending is largely responsible for the inflation that America has experienced. People aren't stupid and they realize this. And they will hold him to account for what he has done. And that's going to be a problem for him going into the next election because his supporters can say whatever they like but people are well aware that when they go to the store they're walking out with a lot less food and when they want to buy something they're interest rates are a lot higher and more expensive

[Matthew]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I get that you don't want it to be due to gov't spending but by and large it is. 

Ah, so you're just talking about fiscal policy spending. Sorry you used the word monetary previously which caused me to assume you knew more about this topic and were making a better argument than you actually are attempting to make.

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So are you claiming at this point that gov't spending does not significantly impact inflation? 

No I'm the one claiming that there are many factors and it's complicated. You're the one trying to say it's largely government spending. Government intervention in a market does impact prices. A great example of this in the US is that we have a private market for healthcare alongside Medicare paid for by the government. This marginally causes some healthcare inflation but other factors are even greater.

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Guess it wasn't the bicycles after all huh

Bicycles are one of thousands of examples of goods that began increasing in price during 2020. Showing that inflationary forces were already infolding profoundly before the government stimulus spending started. By the time we get to 2022 its impossible to know how much of that inflation was due to what.

You're attempting to draw very specific policy conclusions that are in reality unknowable and are more variables than you're willing to acknowledge, apparently for the purpose of your idiological dogma.

Edited June 27 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Ah, so you're just talking about fiscal policy spending. Sorry you used the word monetary previously which caused me to assume you knew more about this topic and were making a better argument than you actually are attempting to make.

No, but i figured i better dumb it down as you were clearly struggling with it. 

Quote

No I'm the one claiming that there are many factors and it's complicated. You're the one trying to say it's largely government spending.

Well done, you got it correct this time. What you were actually claiming is that i said it was only gov't spending and i never claimed that. 

Quote

Government intervention in a market does impact prices.

You're coming along nicely.  But that's different than what we were discussing. 

When the gov't puts money into the economy, it puts upward pressure on inflation. I really can't make it easier than that. 

Quote

 By the time we get to 2022 its impossible to know how much of that inflation was due to what.

The economists disagree.

 

Quote

You're attempting to draw very specific policy conclusions that are in reality unknowable and are more variables than you're willing to acknowledge, apparently for the purpose of your idiological dogma.

You're attempting to avoid simple truths and obfuscate the issue because the truth doesn't suit your echo chamber talking points. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

 A great example of this in the US is that we have a private market for healthcare alongside Medicare paid for by the government. This marginally causes some healthcare inflation but other factors are even greater. 

I never understood why healthcare is considered a simple "market".

"How would you like to buy a few extra years of life ?"
"Nah, I'm good... I'll spend my money elsewhere thanks.  Ooooo look... a Jetski !"

[User]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never understood why healthcare is considered a simple "market".

It is a limited resource with supply and demand. 

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"How would you like to buy a few extra years of life ?"
"Nah, I'm good... I'll spend my money elsewhere thanks.  Ooooo look... a Jetski !"

People make these decisions already. 

Instead of eating healthy, exercise, they choose to spend their money on junk food and sitting around watching the 10 different streaming services they pay for... 

These are all choices people make in how to spend their time and money vs their health. 

 

[reason10]

On 10/25/2022 at 1:01 PM, Rebound said:

While Republicans blame Biden for global inflation and global high oil prices, they also blame the deficit… which has fallen a full fifty percent over Trump’s last two budgets.  
 

A GOP Congress will further slash taxes on the mega rich, making our deficits grow even higher. Their other plan is to keep the number of IRS agents the same as it was in 1970, when we had 2/3 our current population… because they want to support the tax-cheating mega rich, not salary earners who file straight out of their W-2’s. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/21/biden-federal-deficit-republicans/

1. That is a LIE.

2. Only !diots quote the WAPO.

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The economists disagree.

I disagree. Here are some examples of Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have commented publicly about inflation. They have a mix of views on the subject, they portray it as highly complicated, with many variables of causation:

• Joseph Stiglitz: "A careful look at US economic conditions supports the view that inflation was driven mainly by supply-side disruptions and shifts in the pattern of demand." From "How Not to Fight Inflation," Jan 26, 2023
• George A. Akerlof: "Inflation occurs when the demand for goods and services exceeds the available supply. This can happen due to several reasons, including an increase in the money supply, a decrease in the supply of goods and services, or changes in production costs." From Inflation: Akerlof's Perspectives on its Impact and Mitigation, June 9, 2024
• Sir Oliver Hart: "The basic definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. The rate of inflation does not depend solely on monetary issues within the Fed’s domain—it also depends on changes in the stock of goods and services. Sensible economic policies that aid growth will thus tend to curb inflation even with bad or capricious decisions by the Fed. But conversely, foolish economic and regulatory decisions will compound the problem by shrinking the economic pie..." From "Fuel for Inflation," Oct 3, 2022.
• Edmund S. Phelps: "But if the statical "optimum" [between inflation and unemployment] is chosen, it is reasonable to suppose that the participants in product and labour markets will learn to expect inflation (and the concomitant money wage trend) and that, as a consequence of their rational, anticipatory behaviour, the Phillips Curve will gradually shift upward (in a uniform vertical displacement) by the full amount of the newly expected and previously actual rate of inflation. Now if the recalculated "optimal" unemployment ratio does not change in the face of the shift, greater inflation will result than before and the pattern will repeat as expectations are continually revised upward..." From the Journal Economica, "Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time," Aug 1967, p. 255
• Robert J. Shiller: "Feeding fears of a wage-price spiral can be dangerous, especially if Americans view it as something that might continue indefinitely. Once lawmakers, business leaders and consumers come to believe the spiral has really taken hold, that belief can amplify long-term inflation expectations. It can make people angry and rigid in their demands and depress the stock market and consumer confidence." Inflation Is Not a Simple Story About Greedy Corporations, Feb 8, 2022
• Christopher A. Sims: "Increases in nominal debt in the hands of the public that are not accompanied by any increase in expected future tax liabilities or by any increase in the price level leave the public with apparently increased wealth, which they will try to spend, until price increases erode their wealth or expectations about future taxes or economic growth make them scale back spending. In these circumstances, an increased nominal interest rate flows directly through to increased nominal government spending. In a flexible price model, the monetary authority loses any ability to affect the price level, as interest rate increases increase the rate of expansion of nominal government debt without any restrictive effect on spending plans." From "Stepping on a Rake: The Role of Fiscal Policy in the Inflation of the 1970s," p. 2, 2008.
• William F. Diamond: "A mix of loose fiscal and monetary policy provides powerful economic stimulus, in large part by causing a surge in inflation that redistributes wealth from savers to borrowers. From "Printing Away the Mortgages: Fiscal inflation and the post-COVID boom," June 2024.

Edited Friday at 12:08 AM by Matthew

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I disagree.

It is absolutely your right to be wrong as much as you like. Here are some examples of Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have commented publicly about inflation. They have a mix of views on the subject, they portray it as highly complicated, with many variables of causation:

Lets go through a few of them and see about that. 

Joseph - he says it's supply side and shifts in demand.  Iv'e already addressed this position. 

George says its when supply is less than demand - and notes money supply is one issue but he doesn't say which is most common OR note that virtually all three are strongly impacted by gov't and gov't spending. 

Hart agrees with me. Too many dollars chasing too few goods, which is precisely what happens when gov'ts spend, especially deficit spending

 

The rest are pretty much the same. If you think there's something in there that says we can't calculate what is responsible for inflation with reasonable accuracy OR that gov't spending doesn't increase inflation then you're just not smart enough for this conversation. 

Here's a forbes article that directly addresses the issue

The Federal Reserve’s Inflation Problem Is Due To Federal Government Spending (forbes.com)

Sorry, you're wrong and you're trying to dance around the facts because you don't like them. 

Again - one could argue that some of the covid spending had to happen, the consequences would have been far worse. And if you want to make that argument go ahead. 

And you can make an argument that initially global supply issues played a significant role  but that didn't last very long at all.  In Canada the banks said it was responsible for 50 percent of the inflation initially (they figured out how much! Gasp! I thought that was beyond human knowledge!! )   But that fell quickly. That really didn't drive inflation in future years. 

More interesting tho you can't address the very real fact i pointed out that based on your own statements  if I was correct inflation should have jumped in 2021 2022 - and that's exactly what it did. 

Supply chain issues didnt' get worse in 2023, they got better -  but gov't spending did get worse and inflation was bad. 

 

You dance around avoiding the simple facts. Economists have always been able to explain where inflation came from after the fact. That's basic economic science. Is very easy to see where the inflation came from in these circumstances. And while there are other factors that play the biggest Factor that has had the most impact is government spending, at least after the first 6 months. And here we are with the supply chains pretty much completely back to normal and yet we are still well over target for inflation.

 

Sorry buddy. Inflation was largely Joe's fault and people are aware of it. And your Preposterous claim that inflation is some magical thing that nobody can understand or detect where it came from is juvenile. Of course we know.

And people will hold Biden to account for it. They are not happy with the economy or how things are right now

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you're wrong and you're trying to dance around the facts

Ah, are we actually debating something? Have you been articulating an argument?

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

but that didn't last very long at all

Supposition.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In Canada the banks said it was responsible for 50 percent of the inflation initially (they figured out how much!

Economists certainly try to calculate hypothetical estimates of things all the time. No economist anywhere would claim to be able to accurately calculate inflation.

Anyway, I'm sorry but the quality of your replies is declining and until you at least know the difference between fiscal and monetary policy, I don't see how this conversation can go much further. Implying that inflation is either based on supply chain issues or government spending suggests a limited grasp of the topic. It's ok, it was fun and we had a good run. Thanks for talking with me.

Edited Friday at 04:06 AM by Matthew

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never understood why healthcare is considered a simple "market".

"How would you like to buy a few extra years of life ?"
"Nah, I'm good... I'll spend my money elsewhere thanks.  Ooooo look... a Jetski !"

Well not all health care is about life-threatening illness or the like. And sadly people do have to make decisions about how much health care they can afford. He's in Canada does that we just do it indirectly. People die here all the time because we don't spend enough on Healthcare.

I know what you're saying, but that's the way it is

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Ah, are we actually debating something? Have you been articulating an argument?

LOL -  well i suppose if you define an argument as an 'exchange of ideas'  i've been having a 'one sided' argument   But thanks for following along  

 

 

Quote

Economists certainly try to calculate hypothetical estimates of things all the time. No economist anywhere would claim to be able to accurately calculate inflation.

They do it all the time. and they're not hypothetical, they're based on facts and information. There's always a margin of error but the margin of error isn't that big. We know with extreme accuracy what has gone up. It's not hard at that point to look at the sources. There are numerous reports in Canada of exactly where inflation came from and what's driving it right now. America has the same

I know you desperately wanted inflation not to be Biden's fault. I can tell that you desperately need government spending not to be a source of inflation. And you have deluded yourself into thinking that nobody can possibly understand where inflation comes from so maybe somehow excessive government spending isn't the source.

Government spending leads to inflation. Whenever you have significant unearned dollars being dumped into the marketplace in a false economy inflation is the inevitable byproduct. Sometimes under certain circumstances it's still worth the risk. But in this case it just made things unaffordable for people.

And the people can see it and that's why they're pissed at Biden. You can say that the economy is great all you want but when people can't afford food or shelter they're not going to buy it

 

[Hodad]

On 6/26/2024 at 6:48 AM, Nationalist said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-economy-under-trump-before-covid-and-after-11602713077

Yes...they did.

Lol. No, they, didn't. Trickle down economics has never worked. Supply siders are like religious kooks who believe a miracle is coming every time, and every time it fails and they still keep believing that it will work next time. Companies don't spend that money on more people. They don't suddenly have more demand. The American people got a trillion-dollar deficit so the rich could get richer.

Yahoo finance

Tax revenue fell

 

Trump told us we'd get 6% growth. Not even remotely close. Basically nada. Down again by 2019.

 

Trump told us companies would use that this corporate windfall would boost hiring! But again, didn't move the needle even a bit. Growth trajectory unaffected. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:13 PM by Hodad

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. No, they, didn't. Trickle down economics has never worked. Supply siders are like religious kooks who believe a miracle is coming every time, and every time it fails and they still keep believing that it will work next time. Companies don't spend that money on more people. They don't suddenly have more demand. The American people got a trillion-dollar deficit so the rich could get richer.

Yahoo finance

Tax revenue fell

Trump told us we'd get 6% growth. Not even remotely close. Basically nada. Down again by 2019.

Trump told us companies would use that this corporate windfall would boost hiring! But again, didn't move the needle even a bit. 

 

I lived and worked through the Trump years. I know what the economy was like. So do you. You can wave around all the Libbie warped stats you like. It changes nothing.

[Hodad]

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I lived and worked through the Trump years. I know what the economy was like. So do you. You can wave around all the Libbie warped stats you like. It changes nothing.

Yeah, who needs data when you've got so many feelings!

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yeah, who needs data when you've got so many feelings!

 

Not feelings, oh thou of warped reality. Experience.

[Hodad]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not feelings, oh thou of warped reality. Experience.

No, you very much mean "feelings." You "feel" warm, so you declare it the hottest day ever. You "feel" the economy was good, so it was the best economy every.

You don't need thermometers or economic data, you just have your feelings and you use them to make create your own reality. And then get pissy when people point out actual facts. 

[Nationalist]

23 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, you very much mean "feelings." You "feel" warm, so you declare it the hottest day ever. You "feel" the economy was good, so it was the best economy every.

You don't need thermometers or economic data, you just have your feelings and you use them to make create your own reality. And then get pissy when people point out actual facts. 

Lol...I'm not the one posting warped stats. In fact, after Brandon's absent minded debate, I'm quite confident in the outcome of the pending election.

Inflation is killing people. They know what Trump presided over and they know what Brandon has presided over.

So you and your "facts" can argue all you like. But this election is already over.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...I'm not the one posting warped stats. In fact, after Brandon's absent minded debate, I'm quite confident in the outcome of the pending election.

Inflation is killing people. They know what Trump presided over and they know what Brandon has presided over.

So you and your "facts" can argue all you like. But this election is already over.

By "warped stats" you mean the same original and authoritative data sources that have been used to compare economic performance for forever?

Of course, you don't know that, because you don't know anything about economics whatsoever. You have your feelings and your Fox news. And that's all you need to form an opinion, lol.