╌>

Trump Names Whistleblower

  
By:  al Jizzerror  •  5 years ago  •  565 comments


Trump Names Whistleblower
Donnie Trump Junior has been dropping the whistleblower's name for weeks.

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


Yep.  Trump treats the whistleblower's name like classified information - he releases it.

Butt, although it's unethical, outing a whistleblower is NOT a crime.


Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws

November 6, 20195:00 AM ET

BOBBY ALLYN

In recent days, President Trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry to be identified, presenting the question of whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the anonymous whistleblower.

According to four former top federal government officials who worked in intelligence and national security, the answer is no.

______________

John McLaughlin, the former acting director of the CIA, said part of the reason why federal laws do not prohibit the president from outing a whistleblower is that the concept was never considered within the realm of possibility before Trump took office.

McLaughlin said there is a longstanding deference to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs to expose corruption, waste and abuse that has largely prevented federal government officials from naming them.

"But as with so many of our supposed laws, compliance depends largely on a sense of integrity and voluntary compliance," McLaughlin said. "You just have to expect people to obey the law and the established practices, which of course in this administration has not always been the case."

Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta said a presidential unmasking of the whistleblower would mark a historic event.

"The whole purpose of that law was to allow people to be able to speak to fraud or crimes they see within their jobs and without having to pay a price for vengeance and retribution," said Panetta, adding that having a president publicly reveal a whistleblower's name would be "unprecedented in history."

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

Since "compliance depends largely on a sense of integrity" and The Donald has NO integrity, the whistleblower is screwed.


Ukraine whistleblower driven to work by armed security officers when Trump tweets about him

by Caitlin Yilek

December 26, 2019 03:55 PM

The CIA analyst who sparked the impeachment investigation is being protected by armed security officers.

The analyst, whose identity has not been confirmed, continues to work on issues relating to Russia and Ukraine and is driven to and from work by the armed officers when threats against him increase, the Washington Post reported. The threats tend to increase when President Trump tweets about the whistleblower.

The whistleblower submitted a complaint about Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine, including concerns about Trump urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival Joe Biden in a July 25 phone call.

Some Republican lawmakers have alleged that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella filed the complaint and have demanded that he testify in Trump’s impeachment proceedings.

Ciaramella, 33, was Ukraine director on the National Security Council at the end of the Obama administration and was briefly the acting senior director for European and Russian affairs in the early months of the Trump administration. He is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council.

Lawyers for the whistleblower, who have not confirmed or denied whether they are representing Ciaramella, said any attempt to out their client would be the "pinnacle of irresponsibility."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ukraine-whistleblower-driven-to-work-by-armed-security-officers-when-trump-tweets-about-him

Trump has repeatedly called the whistleblower a spy and a traitor.  And Trump says "you know what we used to do to traitors" and makes the throat cut sign.


TRUMP'S ALARMING ATTACKS THREATEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER—AND OUR FOUNDING VALUES

ANGUS KING , SENATOR OF MAINE

ON 11/8/19 AT 6:15 AM EST

From the moment news broke that President Donald Trump was accused of misusing his office for political gain, the president and elected officials who support him have sought to discredit the whistleblower as everything from a partisan hack peddling hearsay to a treasonous enemy of the state with an ax to grind.

To be sure, the president has every right to defend himself, but this is a misguided and dangerous approach that betrays his ignorance of America's history, threatens the whistleblower's safety and makes it less likely that future abuses of power by any federal official will be discovered and corrected. These statements cannot be allowed to continue in defiance of historical context or present facts. So, as the very idea of whistleblowing comes under attack, I think we would benefit from revisiting our nation's history of protecting those who speak truth to the highest levels of power—protections that date back to our nation's founding.

That's right. Whistleblower protections are not a recent creation; they were first put into place in 1778, as the ink of the Declaration of Independence was still drying and more than a decade before the Constitution would enshrine a healthy skepticism of concentrated power into our current system of government.

_______________

The most immediate concern must be the safety of the whistleblower. The president has roused his supporters into a furor over the identity of this anonymous official, which creates a serious danger to this person. In fact, press reports indicate that the FBI has already investigated death threats against the whistleblower, even though we do not know their name.

The entire situation raises the question: If this is how America treats whistleblowers, who will come forward next time? A chilling effect that prevents the next official who witnesses misconduct anywhere in the government from stepping forward could linger for generations, inflicting untold damage to our democracy.

Throughout our history, we have defended those patriots who call out corruption so that we may follow the light they shine toward a more perfect union. We believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant and salute those whose conscience guides them toward ethical behavior. If we are to continue to benefit from their courage, we must reassert, here and now, that centuries-old American value that speaking truth to power is not a right; it is a duty.

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-alarming-attacks-threaten-whistleblower-our-founding-values-opinion-1470522

The whistleblower has to have the protection of armed guards because The Donald is an unethical SOB.  And because many Trump supporters are gun toting psychos.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

Q:  Why did The Donald out the whistleblower?

A:  Because he is a fucking unethical asshole. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    5 years ago
Because he is a fucking unethical asshole. 

Now, now, al. Let's not rush to judgment. Maybe it's because he can manipulate his supporters (because he's always counted on their ignorance and inability to think for themselves) into making threats against the whistleblower, so his/her family can be threatened, then trump can tweet that he doesn't encourage that behavior. Of course, he's knowing they won't question why he doxxed the whistleblower at all unless he had every intention of making that patriot feeling threatened. He can feign ignorance and innocence, but he will feel emboldened because he manipulated his supporters without saying a word. 

The whistleblower is a fuckin' hero and history will reflect that very thing. Another morally rudderless thing to do, who will undoubtedly be defended by those who don't mind one bit being morally rudderless since they don't have a moral compass anyway. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1    5 years ago
The whistleblower is a fuckin' hero and history will reflect that very thing.

He should be awarded a medal.

Unfortunately, I don't think a medal can be pinned on kevlar.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.2    5 years ago

We should Trump (and his Chief of Staff, Secretary of State and his former National Security Advisor) under oath.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.2    5 years ago
Put  that guy under oath and have him testify i

I think we should put trump under oath and have him testify. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.5    5 years ago
you would get the classic line you can’t handle the truth

Because Trump can't speak the truth.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Ender  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.4    5 years ago

He would never testify and the republicans wouldn't let him.

They all know he can't tell the truth about anything. He would perjure himself in under a minute.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.4    5 years ago
I think we should put trump under oath and have him testify. 

He does not know how to tell the truth. And at some point not long after he takes the oath, he will veer off into a tirade about how he is being unfairly wronged, or a confession of how he would like to screw Ivanka.

The truth is not in his genes, and never has been.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.7    5 years ago
that would be hilarious trying to see how you guys are going to spend truth now

The Donald has devalued the value of truth.

Trump has make truth worthless.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
1.1.11  PJ  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.10    5 years ago

I respectfully disagree.  His supporters have devalued truth.  They no longer know what truth is or understand it's importance.  The supporters are the problem not Trump.  Trump is nothing without his supporters.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ender @1.1.8    5 years ago
He would never testify

An oath is a "perjury trap" for Trump.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Ender @1.1.8    5 years ago

If he can testify without slurring his words, suffering from aphasia

or just making up new words...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.13    5 years ago
An oath is a "perjury trap" for Trump.

I think many Republicans see asking Trump to tell the truth as a "perjury trap" because they all know he's guilty as sin, they just don't care. They don't want him to testify because they know he'll have to lie his ass off in order to not confirm the majorities worst fears about him. After spouting nearly 15,000 lies so far, even his sycophants know he can't be trusted to testify without ruining the narrative they've all been pushing of Donald being some innocent little victim under attack by the "deep state". The next few decades are going to be interesting watching the Trump fans eat crow as the Nixon fans did as more and more facts come out about how criminal his administration really was. There simply is no way this ends well for them whether Trump testifies or not.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.15    5 years ago
After spouting nearly 15,000 lies so far, even his sycophants know he can't be trusted to testify

Actually he has surpassed the 15,000 lie plateau.

The Number Of Lies Donald Trump Has Now Told In Office Is Mind-Boggling

The president has made more false claims in 2019 than in the two previous years put together, according to The Washington Post.
President Donald Trump  continues to tell lies at a breathless pace.

Trump as of Dec. 10 had told 15,413 untruths during his presidency, The Washington Post ’s Fact Checker column reported on Monday.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.17  Raven Wing  replied to  PJ @1.1.11    5 years ago
The supporters are the problem not Trump.  Trump is nothing without his supporters. 

I agree, and have said so here in other articles. Trump is not, and never was, Presidential material. His actions and his mouth have shamed our country and the majority of the American people. He has alienated all of our true allies and engaged in treasonous and criminal activities while in the WH, which is nothing new for him, as that is how he has been most all of his life. 

That the Repubs continue to avidly support him knowing his history and current behavior is, I think, more a matter of not being willing to admit the truth, so they further shame themselves, and our country, by continuing to avidly support him. It also demonstrates that they have set the bar so low for their own party that it no longer matters what kind of human being their candidate is, only if they can win. 

However......when it gets to the point where McConnell's re-election is threatened due to his shameful kiss-a$$ support for Trump, McConnell will quickly throw Trump under the bus. 

Like Trump, the only loyalty McConnell has is to himself and his rich Chinese in-laws, and his constituents can pound rocks where he is concerned. 

JMOO

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
1.1.18  PJ  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.17    5 years ago
it no longer matters what kind of human being their candidate is, only if they can win. 

And if the candidate is a white nationalist.  That's important to them also.

McConnell is a traitor to the country.  I pray he is not re-elected but I don't have much hope left.   This lot of voters has really damaged my optimism that good will overcome evil.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.16    5 years ago
has surpassed the 15,000 lie plateau

You're right as usual, I should have said "over 15,000".

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.20  Raven Wing  replied to  PJ @1.1.18    5 years ago
I pray he is not re-elected but I don't have much hope left.   

As long as his rich Chinese in-laws can buy his re-election for him he will continue to be re-elected. And until McConnell is out of Congress there is little hope that any real progress can be made that will be good for all the American people, and our country. Pelosi is a problem as well, but, no where near the same level as McConnell.

And I agree that he is a traitor to America and its people. And his undying loyalty to Trump is truly detrimental to our country. 

Yet, the time will come when he will reap what he has sown, and that is more than any punishment he could receive here on earth.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
1.1.21  PJ  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.20    5 years ago

I'm sure you're right but I'd still like to see him experience some pain for his actions against this country.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.22  Raven Wing  replied to  PJ @1.1.21    5 years ago

Me too! And like most all politicians, there is likely a lot of stuff hiding in his closet that he does not want made public. 

I find it curious that he continues to be re-elected when most of the people of Kentucky can't stand him. And despite what many say about the people of Kentucky being back-woods idiots, they are very intelligent and realize that all McConnell supports that is supposed to be for the benefit of his constituents, it mostly benefits his big donors and their cohorts.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.22    5 years ago
most of the people of Kentucky can't stand him.

They voted for a Democratic governor to replaced the asshole who was running as a pro-Trump anti-impeachment candidate (which was hilarious because governors have nothing to do with impeachment).

I hope there are a lot of voters in Kentucky that are sick of Moscow Mitch.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.24  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.23    5 years ago
I hope there are a lot of voters in Kentucky that are sick of Moscow Mitch.

That is one of my biggest wishes as well. He is like a stage 5 cancer that is will seriously bring far worse disaster to our Congress and country and its people unless he is cut out very soon. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.25  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.24    5 years ago
He is like a stage 5 cancer that is will seriously bring far worse disaster to our Congress and country and its people unless he is cut out very soon.

Well put.

Trump is a festering sore on the ass of the Republican Party.

If he isn't removed the infection may kill the party.

800

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Ender  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.26    5 years ago

Sounds a lot like narcissism. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.28  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.25    5 years ago

Here's a photo of the great White hunter, Donald Trump, Jr., proudly displaying the severed elephant penis, oops, I mean the severed elephant tail from his latest kill.

I'm opposed to killing elephants for fun, butt I appreciate the optics.  The Elephant is the symbol of the Republican Party.  Junior managed to kill an elephant before his daddy killed the GOP.

800

Junior gets a piece of tail in Africa.
 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Ender  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.29    5 years ago

Doesn't surprise me what you consider competence...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.1.31  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.4    5 years ago

He would just lie.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.32  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.25    5 years ago
If he isn't removed the infection may kill the party.

Trump and his rabid supporters have already killed the Republican party. What remains of what was once a decent political party is nothing but ignorance and hate. 

I was a Republican for most of my life, but, it is nothing like the party that I was once proud to be a part of. It is now nothing but a party of shame and corruption, just like its now leader, Trump. It has become a personification of Trump. 

They first sold themselves to the Tea Party, and now to Trump. They may as well use a 'For Sale To Highest Bidder' sign to designate their party instead of an R. And they have no one but themselves to blame. No one.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.34  CB  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.2    5 years ago

Independents are you reading ANY of this?!!

Nothing about the honor in finding out if what the true and proper transcript of the Ukraine-US call says? Do you want it released? Or should we just designate Donald Trump as holy right here and now?

Conservatives are weirding this country out! Where are the independents when moments like this happen?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.35  CB  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.4    5 years ago

We simply must get people to vote President Trump out of office, so proper law can get at him. Given four more years and the real danger is he might mesmerize nearly all of us. Remember, we are not used to see our presidents on television every single day or in the news or on social media. Already, he is patterned after a "dear leader." Everywhere you go—everywhere you are his name or personage is cocooning you.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.36  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.25    5 years ago
If he isn't removed the infection may kill the party.

The Republican Party itself is already dead. What we are seeing now is the rising of a new political machine that uses the Republican Party as their own moniker.

The neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and rabid, unofficial militias are what is now representing the Republicans. It is a party of hate and divisiveness. And McConnell has become the unofficial leader of the new Republican party. As even if Trump was ousted tomorrow, if McConnell remains the Republican party will continue to devour itself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.36    5 years ago
The Republican Party itself is already dead. 

Really, really dead this time?

Or is this like when Democrats and progressives declared the GOP dead after Obama won his first term?

Sorry, but the track record of such crackpot predictions and declarations sucks, big time.

The neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and rabid, unofficial militias are what is now representing the Republicans. It is a party of hate and divisiveness. 

A real crock right there,  those people represent themselves or their philosophies. Not the GOP.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.39  XXJefferson51  replied to  PJ @1.1.18    5 years ago

Trump is the good that overcame evil Hillary 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.40  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.37    5 years ago

Texan, what is this rumor I am hearing about Steven Miller, a senior advisor to Trump, being a white nationalists? What do you know about it? And, do you care to share it?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.41  CB  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.38    5 years ago

Perrie and Tig are libertarians, you say? Good heavens on odd voting cycles I can be an Independent and I have never considered being a libertarian!!!

OIP.Yd-nxFgXRG8QwqRZdk4WgQHaGp?w=221&h=193&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7 Moi thinks you do not know what thing you say you know?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.42  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @1.1.41    5 years ago
Perrie and Tig are libertarians, you say?

???

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.43  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.42    5 years ago

@1.1.38.

In real-time Perrie and Tig are Independents. I don't get any hint from either of the two about libertarianism, however.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
1.1.45  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.19    5 years ago
You're right as usual, I should have said "over 15,000".

Good thing sHillary didn't get elected. She would have doubled that number easily!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.46  CB  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.44    5 years ago

Rewrite?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.1.47  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.39    5 years ago

And look who you got instead.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.38    5 years ago
You can’t even prove that he’s a real whistleblower 

He filed a Whistleblower complaint that both the IG and the DNI said followed the law to the letter. The IG found the complaint to be credible and of 'urgent concern'. EVERYTHING in the complaint has been confirmed by witness testimony or admissions by Trump. 

What further proof do you think is necessary for him to be 'real'? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.51  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.50    5 years ago
None of that has been proven to be true.

ALL of that has been proven to be true FW.

The WB complaint, the IG's report have been released. The DNI testified to Congress in an open hearing. 

let’s see the person show up and testify then we’ll decide.

Who are you trying to kid? I doubt that you believe a word of the testimony that's already documented. 

I find it hilarious that most of you have whined about 'hearsay' but now insist that you need to hear a 'hearsay' witness. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.52  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.44    5 years ago
In real-time Perrie and Tig are Independents. I don't get any hint from either of the two about libertarianism, however.

Well, far be it for me to speak for Tig, but I am an independent. 

Libertarians have well established guiding principles, I don’t know what they stand for,  although most assuredly it’s not free speech.

And yet you're still here hurling insults. Seems pretty free to me. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.54  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.52    5 years ago
And yet you're still here hurling insults.

Yep.

He shows up on all of my articles and "hurls insults".

I love that shit.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.56  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.53    5 years ago
Is that a denial?  And I haven’t bought that independent nonsense from the get-go.

WTF?

Are you calling her a liar?

I think she knows her own political affiliation better than you do.

If she says she's an independent, I believe her and I don't understand why anyone would think she's lying.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.58  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.55    5 years ago
 I’m waiting to hear the explanation for why she thinks it’s an insult.

She didn't say that comment was an insult.

Butt she has probably seen lots of the other insults you have posted.

I've seen plenty of them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.61  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.59    5 years ago
It’s never been a reference to a political affiliation.

You said (comment #1.1.53):

I haven’t bought that independent nonsense from the get-go.

She said she's an "independent".  That's a "political affiliation".  You said you "haven't bought that independent nonsense from the get-go."  That's means you called her a liar.

It's YOUR comment you should OWN it.

I'm an expert on "independence".  I served on the USS Independence (in VF-102).

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.63  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.57    5 years ago
So you just prove my point

You had a point? 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.64  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.62    5 years ago
Independent is a non-affiliation by definition.

You can get on the ballot in some states as an independent.  Ross Perot is the best example of an independent.  

The Independence Party is an affiliate in the U.S. state of New York of the Independence Party of America . The party was founded in 1991 by Dr. Gordon Black, Tom Golisano , and Laureen Oliver from Rochester, New York , and acquired ballot status in 1994. Although often associated with Ross Perot , as the party came to prominence in the wake of Perot's 1992 presidential campaign , it was created prior to Perot's run. It currently has one registered member of the New York State Assembly , Fred Thiele .
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.67  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @1.1.63    5 years ago
You had a point? 

He rarely has a point.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.68  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.65    5 years ago
 So now you’re going even further away from the topic

You were discussing independence.

I was merely trying to help you understand it.

Don't you know about Ross Perot?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.70  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.69    5 years ago
So the logical conclusion would be that all these derogatory comments about me are a freak out over nothing. 

Who has "freaked out"?

Trollish comments don't bother me, it's just part of the Internet experience.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.73  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.71    5 years ago
Sure I know about Ross Perot and his unaffiliated presidential run.

Ross Perot ran as an Independent in 1992.  He got on the ballot in every state and got almost 19% of the popular vote.

He formed the Reform Party and ran again in 1996. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.75  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.74    5 years ago
now we’re playing captain obvious

I only play with myself.

It can be very satisfying.

Sometimes I Google myself until I Twitter in my pants.

What does Captain Obvious do when you play with him?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.76  cobaltblue  replied to    5 years ago
president nothing wrong with citizens protesting.

Unless you're a football player. Then the act of peaceful protest means you should be fired. Right? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.77  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.37    5 years ago
Or is this like when Democrats and progressives declared the GOP dead after Obama won his first term?

Prove it. Prove that was said. Provide a credible link that states that. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.79  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.54    5 years ago
He shows up on all of my articles and "hurls insults".

I can't help but laugh every time. They're defending Trump by imitating his churlish behavior, by refusing to acknowledge the obvious, and their defense of the indefensible. I don't believe most of his supporters here are stupid. Most can see that Trump is disastrous and I'm sure most would wish Trump would stop tweeting. I believe most republicans wish he would stop tweeting since it only works against him. However, few are as truthful as Wally. Wally has owned it, and for that, he's shown more courage than most. Wally admits he just likes "seeing demmies cry." That's it. Fuck how we appear on the world stage. Fuck how ridiculous we look. Fuck all the indictments. Fuck the ignoring subpoenas and fuck turning over documents. Fuck how he's destroyed the republican party. Fuck that he handed us Congress. Fuck the immoral behavior in his personal life. Fuck the provable falsehoods. Fuck personal integrity. Fuck self-respect. Fuck that they support someone who disparages dead heroes. Fuck that he called a prisoner of war, an American hero, a loser because he was captured and tortured. They will hold onto the fact that trump is perceived as a person that makes demmies cry. They're still pissed that we elected, popularly and electorally, an educated, classy, well-received black man. 

I like watching the insults fly from people don't realize that having a civil response will get some attention, not elicit laughter. Really, really hard laughter. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.80  cobaltblue  replied to  Dulay @1.1.63    5 years ago
You had a point?

I've been looking ... have you found one yet? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.81  Dulay  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.80    5 years ago

As al cited, trolling seems to be his point. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.82  CB  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.79    5 years ago
They're still pissed that we elected, popularly and electorally, an educated, classy, well-received black man. 

Cobaltblue, to illustrate your point take a look at this link and share it widely:  

Excerpt:

During the Dec. 4 hearing, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a stalwart ally of the president, said something that led to widespread mockery among scholars, the press, and Gaetz's political opponents:

"And you know what? If wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable offense, I look forward to reading that inspector general's report, because maybe it's a different president we should be impeaching."

Gaetz was, of course, referring to former President Barack Obama. Many just shook their heads at a lawmaker they see as a bombastic, highly partisan attack dog. But, in their rush to lampoon, was he actually right?

The operative wording: "wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable offense," demonstrates the depravity of the republican party mind as a unit. 

These fools, for there is no other proper word for it, are sending up this forewarning their backbiting will not end with Trump who cried out, "impeach me" and "I can do whatever I want as president." They are planning to drag the former black president down into the cesspool of Trump . . .if they are allowed control of the House again.

The operative word: again. Can anything be more vindictive? More illustrative of what why republicans can not cope with positions of power?

It won't work for them either. As, the wiretapping is their 'stupe.' But, once more it will be a gross evidentiary case of fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayers dollars on frivolous investigations and losses of official government time. To the tune of what? Millions of dollars.

And these republican fools say we don't have money to help the poor? There will be (as is happening now) these expenditures on f hit that won't work because it can't work! —Already being cued up by one Rep. Matt Gaetz.

It's sick. It's Trump sick. And I for one am fed up with this republican version of revenge-porn!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.84  JohnRussell  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.83    5 years ago
They were busy buying that new fucking boat that they got from the improved economy while the Dems are out there crying in their cheap ass beer.

How many MAGA fools in blue collar or rural Ohio or Michigan or Appalachia have bought new boats? 

Trump disgraces America every day, and you want four more years of this travesty?

I'm a supposed snowflake, and I have a message to all Trumpsters - shove it up your ass. 

How's that for being a snowflake? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.85  CB  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.83    5 years ago

And the nation should give a fhit about your "captain" and your supposed boat why? You should listen to what is happening around you because people are being attacked, injured, and killed from all the hate circulating in the present "bully" culture that is partially funding your alleged escapades!

A lot of good having a hot "babe" at the marina will do you if hate crashes your party!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.87  JohnRussell  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.86    5 years ago

That may be the most intelligent thing you've said. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
1.1.89  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.84    5 years ago
and I have a message to all Trumpsters - shove it up your ass.

actually... didn't we shove trump up your ass in 2016?

I am fairly certain that is how it went down and trust me when I say, we are going to repack that gift in 2020

cheers :)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.90  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @1.1.82    5 years ago
The operative wording: "wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable offense," demonstrates the depravity of the republican party mind as a unit. 

The operative word was left out of their stupid premise, please allow me to amend the statement:

The operative wording: "imaginary wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable offense," demonstrates the depravity of the republican party mind as a unit.

The idiotic Republican kangaroos led by Moscow Mitch as quite capable of trying to destroy the reputations of Obama, Clinton and JFK.  Unfortunately, I doubt if they can conduct a fair trial for the actual criminal - Donald John Trump.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.91  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.83    5 years ago
I’ll be on my new fucking boat partying

Trump used to own a boat.

Can you say "bankrupt"?

800

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.93  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.83    5 years ago
Maybe you haven’t caught on the fact that nobody gives a fuck, two fux or any number of fucks they might even have to give about what he says.

800

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.94  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.88    5 years ago
she’s a really freaking hot Russian babe.

Did she give The Donald a golden shower?

Do you want one too?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.95  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @1.1.89    5 years ago
didn't we shove trump up your ass in 2016?

Yes, and Trump loves it up there (it's an "all you can eat" place).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.96  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @1.1.92    5 years ago
Can you say Got Bank. I know I can.

You always do.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.97  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.90    5 years ago
The idiotic Republican kangaroos led by Moscow Mitch as quite capable of trying to destroy the reputations of Obama, Clinton and JFK.

The more they say the left has operated in criminal manner and that some democratic politicians have committed obvious crimes, what they're really saying is that republicans are a do-nothing, inept, Keystone Kops bunch of fools. Not one indictment. Not one subpoena issued. The repubs let them run roughshod over them and never did a thing about it. Poor poor republicans. Inept. Amateurish. Ineffective. Impotent. The only thing Mitch can do is leave bills to die. When people here that are citing that the democrats are as crooked, if not more, as trumplethinskin, they are in essence pointing out the weakness of their party. All talk. No action. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.98  Dulay  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.97    5 years ago
When people here that are citing that the democrats are as crooked, if not more, as trumplethinskin, they are in essence pointing out the weakness of their party. All talk. No action. 

I can't count how many times I have asked 'Where are the indictments'? 

BUTT Hillary, BUTT Obama, BUTT Biden, BUTT Comey, BUTT McCabe.

Trump's DOJ has had THREE YEARS to present evidence to a Grand Jury and not one indictment has been forthcoming. 

Then I was told to wait until the Horowitz report comes out.

They're ALL going to JAIL! 

Now that that ship has sailed, their hopes are all on Durham. Barr just said that Durham won't be done with his investigation in the near future so it looks like 4 YEARS and still no indictments for stuff they all alleged is glaringly obvious to them. 

But ask them why they don't decry the incompetence of the Trump DOJ and they bail. Nary a peep...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.99  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @1.1.98    5 years ago
'Where are the indictments'? 

Mueller sent some of Trump campaign officials to jail butt could NOT indite nor could he exonerate  Trump.

800

UPDATE:  Stone and Gates have also been sentenced.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.100  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.99    5 years ago

BUTT Hillary!

She's killed more people than viruses!

Surely Barr could get a Grand Jury to indict her for something, ANYTHING!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.101  cobaltblue  replied to  Dulay @1.1.100    5 years ago

Killed more people than viruses!!! Fucckin' HILARIOUS1111

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.102  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.61    5 years ago
I'm an expert on "independence".  I served on the USS Independence (in VF-102).

I actually voted for Perot in 92 so by your criteria i guess that makes me an "uber" independent.  

Never do that again in our current system.   All it did was help elect the guy who won who was my last choice that year.

Thx for your service by the way.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.103  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.102    5 years ago
i guess that makes me an "uber" independent.

I never said that.  Please don't try to put your words in my mouth.  They taste like shit.

I just pointed out that being an "independent" can be a political affiliation.

I used Ross Perot '92 as an example.

I did NOT vote for Perot.

I think it's funny that so many people wasted their vote in '92.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.104  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.103    5 years ago
I never said that.  Please don't try to put your words in my mouth.  They taste like shit.

Never said you did so i guess you already have a familiarity for that taste from somewhere else.

I just pointed out that being an "independent" can be a political affiliation.

Glad you finally made the connection.   Good job!

I used Ross Perot '92 as an example.

Good for you.   You get a cookie.

I did NOT vote for Perot.

Good for you.   You get another cookie

I think it's funny that so many people wasted their vote in '92.

A swing and a miss.   Work on your insults [deleted] .... you're slipping

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.106  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.104    5 years ago
Work on your insults al jizzy

Thanx for providing such an outstanding example of a trollish comment.

The Mods love shit like that.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.107  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
They always seem to vote democrat

That's what intelligent voters do.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.109  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
You miss spelled "Sheep".

HA!

You misspelled "misspelled".  That is ironic.

No wonder you can't spell "intelligent".

Please continue to proof read my comments.  It's fucking hilarious!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.111  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago

That comment is dripping with ignorance.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.112  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.106    5 years ago

Coming from you, that's high praise.

Thx jizzer .... you're the best

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.1.114  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.23    5 years ago

who was running as a pro-Trump anti-impeachment candidate

Isn't MM both of these also?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.115  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.114    5 years ago
Isn't MM both of these also?

Matt Bevin appeared on stage with The Donald the night before he lost the election for governor of Kentucky.  Bevin publicly announced his opposition to impeachment (governors have NO role in the impeachment process).

Moscow Mitch, the Russian incumbent Senator will probably publicly suck Trump's dick (if he can find it) when he campaigns for re-election in 2020.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.116  Raven Wing  replied to  CB @1.1.82    5 years ago
And these republican fools say we don't have money to help the poor?
True. They need the money to pay for all of Trumps many golf games. TRUMP'S GOLFING HAS COST TAXPAYERS $102 MILLION, JUST $12.7 MILLION BEHIND OBAMA'S TRAVEL DURING ENTIRE PRESIDENCY -

Obama played 306 rounds of golf during his entire two terms in office.

Trump has played 2.6 times more golf than Obama in his first 2 years and 91 days and has cost the tax payer an estimated $74 million more than Obama.

Even if Trump own many of the courses, the cost of travel, added security and golf cart rental is on the backs of the American taxpayers, who, apparently, are his bottomless pocket book. 

And damn the poor. Who cares. There will always be poor people. Right? So why worry about helping any of them. Right? And if you help one you have to help them all. Right? His golf games are far more important. Right?

You can get away with it here on earth as a CINO, and the people will soon forget. But, the Creator will never forget. 

My opinion. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.117  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.116    5 years ago
Even if Trump own many of the courses, the cost of travel, added security and golf cart rental is on the backs of the American taxpayers, who, apparently, are his bottomless pocket book.

Emoluments (foreign and domestic)!

That should have been another article of impeachment.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.118  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.117    5 years ago
That should have been another article of impeachment.

True...however, that would only open a large argument for ....."But Obama"...."But Clinton"......"But Eisenhower", etc. 

What would be another article is the amount of time he spends on Twitter divulging classified information, and wasting time he should be spending on far more important matters that need to be addressed.  

And the amount of time he wastes on Twitter and playing golf leads me to believe that someone else is taking care of those far more important matters.

And who is that? Ivanka? Nah...she has her business in other countries to take care of to worry about issues here at home. 

Perhaps her hubby Jarred. Nah....he is far too busy promoting his own business deals with foreign governments to worry about what happens here in America. 

Maybe one of his Sons? Nah....they are too busy making a$$es of themselves to worry about anything that might help the America. After all, what could be more important than killing an elephant and cutting off its tail for the world to see?

So, it seems that there is only the lower staff, maybe Guiliani, to worry about the important matters of our country. But, then......he is busy hiding from Trump to save is own skin.

Sooo.......just who IS running the country? Curious minds want to know.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.119  CB  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.116    5 years ago

Happy New Year RAVEN WING!!!

Thank you for understanding how important @1.1.82 means to me. Republicans must not regain the House in 2020, only to harangue and be abusive to the former president who sat, brooded through, and played a major role in ending this nation's great recession on his watch!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.120  Raven Wing  replied to  CB @1.1.119    5 years ago

Happy New Year to you as well, CB.

Even is Trump is re-elected, he will leave a poop stain on America that will be impossible to remove for the life of our country.

However....his legal Impeachment is still yet to be settled. We are waiting for his trial, which of course, the Repubs in the Senate, led by Americas well known puppet master McConnell, to try and make sure Trump is not removed from office.

Whether or not he is removed, he can never remove the fact that he is the 3rd US President to be Impeached. That will live with him and his family forever.

The one I truly feel sorry for is his young Son, Barron. Bad enough he is Trumps Son, but he will have that fact hanging over his head for the rest of his own life.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.121  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.120    5 years ago
Whether or not he is removed, he can never remove the fact that he is the 3rd US President to be Impeached. That will live with him and his family forever.

That's something to celebrate.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.122  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.121    5 years ago

Happy New Year to you and yours as well, al. 

That is something that is a matter of history, and Trump nor the puppet master McConnell can wash it away, paint over it, or bury it. Ever. And that IS something to celebrate. Just like the Repubs celebrated wildly when they Impeached Bill Clinton. 

And as Clinton had his trial in the Senate, so should Trump. He does not deserve any special treatment any more than Clinton did. The rule of law MUST be followed, no matter WHO the Impeached party is. If it was a MUST for Clinton, it is a MUST for Trump. If the Senate does not do so, they are in contempt of our Constitution. And should be held accountable as such.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.123  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.122    5 years ago

Intelligent rational people will vote for Democrats.

Idiots and bigots will vote Republican.

If there is a huge turnout Democrats will win.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.124  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.123    5 years ago

If the Democrat that wins is intelligent, has read the US Constitution, and understands it, and gives a damn about our country and its people, and can re-establish our much needed relationship with out allies, then they would be a reasonable President. But...if not, then we would be no better off than with Trump. 

So I truly hope that those who vote Democratic will use their heads and make sure their vote really counts.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.125  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.124    5 years ago
If the Democrat that wins is intelligent

Which Democratic candidates are dumb asses who don't understand the Constitution, don't give a shit about the citizens and want to destroy NATO? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.126  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.125    5 years ago

I have no idea. There are a couple that I would not vote for. But, I really don't think they have a chance to be nominated anyway. 

The other important matter is who they pick as their running mate. Their VP must be capable of picking up the reins and moving forward should anything happen to the President.

Our current VP is far too unqualified and unfit to be able to do that if need be. So picking a VP is also a very important step.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.127  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.126    5 years ago
The other important matter is who they pick as their running mate. Their VP must be capable of picking up the reins and moving forward should anything happen to the President.

Agreed.

Most of the Dems are fine with me although I think an avowed socialist would be an easy target for Trump.

And I wouldn't vote for Putin's girl, Tulsi Gabbard.  She might destroy NATO.  She refused to answer a simple question:  Should the U.S. stay in NATO?

800

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.128  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.127    5 years ago

Looks like she is taking the cowards way out all around. If she can't answer a simple question like that straight up then she is not fit to be President, or even VP. 

Too bad there are no Repubs willing to take the chance to run against Trump. I guess they a re too scared for themselves and their family being threatened by Trumps goons and rabid supporters. So they don't dare to run against him. That does not say much for our electoral process. But, speaks volumes of the Repubs and how they lack any respect for our Constitution or laws of our country.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.129  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.128    5 years ago
Too bad there are no Repubs willing to take the chance to run against Trump.

William Weld, Joe Walsh and Mark Sanford are supposedly running against Trump.

Butt they never receive any press coverage, so I'm not even sure they're still in the race.

Trump has made sure there will not be any Republican primaries so it's a moot point.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.130  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.129    4 years ago
Trump has made sure there will not be any Republican primaries so it's a moot point.

That should not be allowed. But, that is what Trump is all about. He does not know the real meaning of 'fair', only his own definition that is all about him only.

The decent Repubs who can think for themselves, and there are many out there, should protest it, not that it would do any good. And I guess they don't want to be in the middle of a white Nationals and supremacists attack on the protesters if they do.  

Trump is a plague that has deeply infected our country, and it will not be cured easily. But, there also has to be a desire to cure it, and so far that is not the case. However, Americans have seen many serious situations in our country since its inception and survived and grew even better, and I feel sure that will happen with the Trump plague. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    5 years ago

Wrong.  Trump re tweeted an existing article that names Eric Ciaramella as the Whistleblower.  It’s about time!  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    5 years ago
Wrong.  Trump re tweeted an existing article that names Eric Ciaramella as the Whistleblower.

I agree!

That was very wrong of The Donald.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.2  CB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    5 years ago

Model leadership? What going on here?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @1.2.2    5 years ago

he shoos have done it a long time ago.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.4  CB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.3    5 years ago

So let's get this straight you just want Trump to be a ghetto street thug president. Is that correct? Be the brawler in the "classy" White House? Tear every thang down and piss in the corners too? Because that is what you calling for when you suggest there are "no standards" to uphold!

If that is what Trump is about: Throw the bum out of office and let him go straight back home to his mansion!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.2.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.3    5 years ago
he shoos have done it a long time ago.

Who gives a shit about Trump's shoes?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.2.6  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.5    5 years ago

Trump and his administration is the epitome of what America and other decent countries renounce in other countries and their dictators that willfully use their positions and governments for their own greed and personal gain at the expense of their own people's welfare. 

Trumps tariff war with China is a great failure, and a serious detriment to the livelihood of so many of our farmers and businesses, and also negatively affects our people. Yet he thinks he deserves adulation and a Nobel Peace Prize.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2.6    5 years ago
Yet he thinks he deserves adulation and a Nobel Peace Prize.

He deserves the Pelosi Impeachment Prize.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.2.8  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.7    5 years ago
He deserves the Pelosi Impeachment Prize.

He's already been served that, and well deserved. Now we will see how well he and puppet master McConnell can find a way to kill the required trial. I am sure they will try every illegal trick in the books to do that, try to say it is legal.

Just how far down the sewer are they willing to go for Trump. We will soon see.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    5 years ago

Now he can intimidate and threaten both the whistle blower and his family.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
1.4.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.4    5 years ago
Now he can intimidate and threaten both the whistle blower and his family.

Okay then... fantasy land... I will play.

if what ya say is true, id say, next thing ya know he will be charging obamas, federal officials, with fabricated crimes and then become dictator for life like in china.

or,  not so much... LOL

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.4    5 years ago
Now he can intimidate and threaten both the whistle blower and his family.

I see. And has that actually been happening or did you just make that up?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.2    5 years ago

The latter! 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.4.3    5 years ago
The latter! 

Wow!

You must be extremely talented to make up a comment that Paula Bartholomew posted.

How did you do that? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.4.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.2    5 years ago
And has that actually been happening or did you just make that up?

Can you explain what other reason would there be to expose the whistleblower in two days' worth of tweets? What could be gained by doing that, other than knowing his base would want to frighten and intimidate the whistleblower? trump is known to be a retaliator. 

If you're not sucking trump's dick, he considers you human scum. Doesn't matter how many years you've served your country admirably. Doesn't matter. If you're not bending over for trump, he'll trash you. Being trashed by trump and getting his base frothing (his base doesn't even do their own fact-finding before frothing) in order to appear ferocious, is a badge of honor at this point.

trump and his base ... paper tigers, every last one of them. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.6  Tacos!  replied to  cobaltblue @1.4.5    5 years ago
Can you explain what other reason would there be to expose the whistleblower in two days' worth of tweets?

If I had to guess, it would be to attack his credibility. That seems far more likely to me than frightening or intimidating him. There's no reason to frighten or intimidate him. The whistleblowing has already happened. It won't be undone. The best Trump can hope for is to discredit it.

trump is known to be a retaliator.

Sure. If you say something nasty about him, he'll say something nastier back. That's about the end of it. It's not like he's causing people to die or disappear. You might be thinking of someone else.

[[deleted - misinformation]]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.7  CB  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.6    5 years ago

You dare to post misinformation here without taking time to identify it as such?! This is offensive to the ng degree, in my opinion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.9  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.4.7    5 years ago

I figured obvious satire was obvious. Apparently not.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.9    5 years ago
I figured obvious satire was obvious. Apparently not.

People frequently misunderstand me too.

They think I'm joking because "no one could be that fucking meme".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.4.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.2    5 years ago

"Two weeks of public testimony has revealed new, damaging details of the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, but witnesses who come before Congress and the American people have had to pay a price. 

Witnesses have endured harassment, threats and attacks on their personal character as they are suddenly thrust into public view."

Asked during his testimony this week whether he or his businesses had received any threats or reprisals due to his sudden prominence, Sondland testified that there were “many.” 

“We have countless emails apparently to my wife. Our properties are being picketed and boycotted,” he said."

The Hill

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.12  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.4.11    5 years ago

Sounds like that guy better call the cops, eh? He may be the victim of actual crimes.

Whistleblower statutes are meant to protect people from being fired, passed over for promotion, denied opportunities, etc. (things that are not normally against the law) for complaining about things at work.

They are not intended to protect people from all manner of evil in the world. They couldn't manage that even if that were the intent. And anyway, it's not necessary. As I indicated before, things like threats and harassment are already against the law. They are also crimes that could be perpetrated on a person for a million reasons that aren't whistleblowing.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.12    5 years ago
Whistleblower statutes are meant to protect people from being fired, passed over for promotion, denied opportunities, etc. (things that are not normally against the law) for complaining about things at work.

Sondland was a witness, not a whistleblower.  As an Ambassador he has a security detail.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.14  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.4.13    5 years ago

Oh ok. Maybe tell Paula, I guess. I haven't been paying attention to names and roles. This thread, starting @1.4 (and the seed in general) was about intimidating and threatening a whistleblower. Obviously nobody should be threatening or harassing an ambassador, a whistleblower, or anyone else.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.15  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.14    5 years ago
Oh ok. Maybe tell Paula, I guess.

Why?

Paula was talking about witnesses:

"Two weeks of public testimony has revealed new, damaging details of the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, but witnesses who come before Congress and the American people have had to pay a price.  Witnesses have endured harassment, threats and attacks on their personal character as they are suddenly thrust into public view."

For some reason, you replied by talking about whistleblower statutes.

Whistleblower statutes are meant to protect people from being fired, passed over for promotion, denied opportunities, etc. (things that are not normally against the law) for complaining about things at work.

Please don't try to blame Paula for your misunderstanding.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.4.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.12    5 years ago

With Sondland, Trump had help from the governor of OR who is a rabid Trump supporter.  He called for people to go after him and his businesses.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.17  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.4.15    5 years ago
Why?

Because I didn't bring up Sondland in the context of a conversation about the whistleblower. She did.

For some reason, you replied by talking about whistleblower statutes.

Yes because that's what the seed is about and that's what the conversation has been about. Have you read the title of this seed? You seeded it and you still don't know?

"Trump Names Whistleblower"

So, that would the "some reason."

Please don't try to blame Paula for your misunderstanding.

I haven't misunderstood anything. I don't care too much for bullshit, though.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.18  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.4.16    5 years ago
With Sondland, Trump had help from the governor of OR who is a rabid Trump supporter.  He called for people to go after him and his businesses.

Uh . . . What?

When you say "OR" do you mean Oregon? Because the governor of Oregon is Kate Brown. A Democrat. Not a "he" and most certainly not a "rabid Trump supporter."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.19  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.12    5 years ago
Whistleblower statutes are meant to protect people from being fired, passed over for promotion, denied opportunities, etc. (things that are not normally against the law) for complaining about things at work.

The Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits ANY form of reprisal, which arguably would include divulging their name. 

The Inspector General is authorized to receive and investigate, pursuant to subsection (h), complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Once such complaint or information has been received from an employee of the intelligence community— 

(A) the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee , unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken, and this provision shall qualify as a withholding statute pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the “Freedom of Information Act”); and 

(B)no action constituting a reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for making such complaint or disclosing such information to the Inspector General may be taken by any employee in a position to take such actions, unless the complaint was made or the information was disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

That isn't 'complaining about things at work. 

They are not intended to protect people from all manner of evil in the world. They couldn't manage that even if that were the intent. And anyway, it's not necessary. As I indicated before, things like threats and harassment are already against the law. They are also crimes that could be perpetrated on a person for a million reasons that aren't whistleblowing.

Argle-bargle.

It would be bad form to threaten or harass someone unless their identity were confirmed. Since the IG is prohibited from disclosing the identity of the WB, that can't happen, unless of course Trump mandates it. Trump seems to prefer innuendo more though. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.20  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.4.19    5 years ago
Argle-bargle

Typical

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.21  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.20    5 years ago

Yes, for those with a decent vocabulary. Would you prefer I dumb it down for you? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.4.22  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.4.21    5 years ago

Civil discourse is just not an option for you, is it?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.20    5 years ago
The Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits ANY form of reprisal, which arguably would include divulging their name.

Unfortunately the current Attorney General has no interest in law enforcement.  He is in charge of covering up everything evil that Trump does.  He must be a very busy MF'er.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.24  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @1.4.19    5 years ago
Argle-bargle

Ha, ha. I haven't heard that in years.

I think we called it "argy-bargy" back in my old Poly-Sci daze in college.

My prof used that comment on one of my many papers when I took "comparative governments".  Butt he was one of those "lefty pinkos" that the White-wingers love to hate.  He may have been one of the few people on the planet who was even further to the left than I was.

I think someone here may think "argle-bargle" is profanity or something.

It's certainly NOT "typical".

BTW,

HAPPY NEW YEAR, DULAY!!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.25  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.22    5 years ago
Civil discourse is just not an option for you, is it?

Typical.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.26  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.4.24    5 years ago
Civil discourse is just not an option for you, is it?

When I saw that Scalia used it in the DOMA ruling, I was in...

Happy New Year to you too...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.27  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @1.4.26    5 years ago
Scalia used it in the DOMA ruling

Oh shit.

DOMA = typical Republican doublespeak.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.28  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @1.4.26    5 years ago
Scalia used it

There should be a port-a-let, instead of a headstone, on Scalia's grave because he was such an asshole

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4.29  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.22    5 years ago

It seems not. They are totally uncivil toward those who disagree with them and then they blame us conservatives for daring to express our views as to why they can’t or won’t be civil.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4.30  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @1.4.22    5 years ago

It seems not. They are totally uncivil toward those who disagree with them and then they blame us conservatives for daring to express our views as to why they can’t or won’t be civil.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4.31  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @1.4.25    5 years ago

Clearly not, it seems.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4.32  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @1.4.25    5 years ago

Clearly not, it seems.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.33  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.4.29    5 years ago
They are totally uncivil toward those who disagree with them

Who's "they".

I'm the most polite MF'er here.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.34  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.4.32    5 years ago
Clearly not, it seems.

Why are you stuttering?

Are you ridiculing Biden?

Are you channelling Sarah Fuckabee Sanders?

512

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.35  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.4.34    5 years ago
Why are you stuttering?

In case your repetitious comments get deleted, I thought I should copy them so people can see why I asked you about "stuttering".

1.4.29 Heartland American replied to  Tacos! @ 1.4.22   an hour ago

It seems not. They are totally uncivil toward those who disagree with them and then they blame us conservatives for daring to express our views as to why they can’t or won’t be civil.

1.4.30 Heartland American replied to  Tacos! @ 1.4.22   an hour ago

It seems not. They are totally uncivil toward those who disagree with them and then they blame us conservatives for daring to express our views as to why they can’t or won’t be civil.

1.4.31 Heartland American replied to  Dulay @ 1.4.25   54 minutes ago

Clearly not, it seems.

1.4.32 Heartland American replied to  Dulay @ 1.4.25   53 minutes ago

Clearly not, it seems.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
2  PJ    5 years ago

He is the way he is BECAUSE his supporters have allowed it.  They are to blame and they should be held accountable for his actions.  People have been attacked and murdered because of this President's supporters.  I hate those motherfuckers with every fiber of my being.  I will NEVER give them a pass for what they've done to this country through their support of this president.  God damn I hate them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  PJ @2    5 years ago
I hate those motherfuckers with every fiber of my being.

I wish I could vote your comment up multiple times.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  lady in black  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1    5 years ago

You and me both!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  lady in black @2.1.1    5 years ago
You and me both!

Count me in. The cowardly fucker bad mouthed prisoner of war McCain. Not an ounce of honor. He disparages the dead. Mocks the survivors. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.2    5 years ago
The cowardly fucker bad mouthed prisoner of war McCain.

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.3    5 years ago

mccain-like-presidents-not-impeached.jpg

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.2    5 years ago

I guess all three of you could each hate us all equally badly.  We’d settle for such enmity for five more years telling us how much you dislike us re-electing President Trump.  Small price to pay for a good economy, low taxes and less regulations, not to mention remaking the federal court system.  We already did MAGA and now we are going to KAG!  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.5    5 years ago
We already did MAGA and now we are going to KAG!  

What did you GAG on that made you smock CRACK?

Did the president Twitter FAKE News all over you?

Wake up and smell the fucking COVFEFE!

512

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  PJ @2    5 years ago

Thank you for your hate!  I really appreciate it more than you can imagine!  MAGA complete KAG an ongoing effort.  TRUMP-PENCE 2020!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.3.1  cobaltblue  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.3    5 years ago
TRUMP-PENCE 2020!

Out of curiosity, would you let your young children watch one of his rallies? How he mocks peoples, derides people, thrives on attempts to humiliate? 

Please spend more time with your children, Heartland. I'm saddened for them. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
2.3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.3    5 years ago

You and the Trumpers are the haters.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
2.3.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.3.2    5 years ago

Agree!

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.5  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  PJ @2    5 years ago
I hate those motherfuckers with every fiber of my being.

when things get bad just remember all the good times you had under obama

He is the way he is BECAUSE his supporters have allowed it.  They are to blame and they should be held accountable for his actions.

that is funny... I mean as if... LOL

but for now, you are on a watch list :)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.5    5 years ago
when things get bad just remember all the good times you had under obama

Obama got us out of the economic nightmare that DuhBya gave us.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.5.2  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.1    5 years ago

the slowest economic recovery in history.

while selling us out to the chinese.

such an accomplishment. bless his heart.

 

cheers :)

 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.5.2    5 years ago
the slowest economic recovery in history.

Which is still progressing at about the same pace despite the increase in deficit spending.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.5.4  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.3    5 years ago
Which is still progressing at about the same pace

with exception to the last year, the labor participation fell for 7 straight years under obama. with our jobs and money going overseas the whole time.  that is not something to be proud about. obama did not set the record for lowest unemployment is 50yrs but obama  did ok in putting people on welfare. 

despite the increase in deficit spending.
  1. expanding deficit spending at home
  2. expanding trade deficit with china

I will take the number 1       with fries and a coke

cheers :)

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
2.5.5  PJ  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.3    5 years ago

Save yourself.  They will never admit a black man was a better leader than their broken witless and easily manipulated white man.   I don't waste my time communicating with them.   I don't respect them and I view them as enemies of America.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.5.4    5 years ago
  1. expanding deficit spending at home
  2. expanding trade deficit with china
I will take the number 1       with fries and a coke

You've got it.   Trump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record).

Here are the actual numbers for the first nine months of this years spending.

$3,355,970,000,000: Federal Spending Sets Record Through June; Deficit Hits $747,115,000,000

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 11, 2019 | 2:25pm EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018 , when the Treasury doled out $3,199,795,700,000 in constant June 2019 dollars. Before last year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the first nine months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $3,176,577,910,000.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

The difference between the $2,608,855,000,000 in total taxes collected in the first nine months of this fiscal year and the record spending of $3,355,970,000,000 left the government with a deficit of $747,115,000,000.

Well, shit Trump has broken the federal deficit spending record for the last two year.

He must be doing better on trade deficits, right?

Wrong!

Trade deficit explodes, now highest in U.S. history

By David J. Lynch (c) 2019, The Washington Post

Posted Mar 6, 2019 at 2:06 PM Updated Mar 6, 2019 at 2:09 PM

WASHNGTON — The Commerce Department said Wednesday that, despite more than two years of President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies, the United States last year posted a $891.2 billion merchandise trade deficit, the largest in the nation’s 243-year history.

The trade gap with China also hit a record $419 billion, underscoring the stakes for the president’s bid to reach a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping as soon as this month.

The department’s final 2018 trade report, which was delayed by the government shutdown, showed that the U.S. bought far more in foreign goods than it sold to customers in Europe, Asia, North America and Africa. The goods shortfall topped the 2006 record of $838.3 billion, set as the housing bubble was peaking, and marked the third co nsecutive year of rising deficits.

A broader measure of the nation’s trade performance, which includes the services sector, showed a narrower, but still large $621 billion deficit. That reflected a deterioration of more than $100 billion from the figure that Trump inherited from President Barack Obama.

It has been evident for months that the president was failing to shrink a trade gap that he calls “unsustainable” and that he says represents a massive transfer of wealth from Americans to foreigners. Over the past year, even as he imposed tariffs on foreign-made solar panels, washing machines, steel, aluminum and assorted goods from China, imports roared ahead of exports.

Economists say the trade deficit is swelling because of broad economic forces, including a chronic shortfall in national savings that was exacerbated by last year’s $1.5 trillion corporate and personal income tax cut. As cash-flush businesses and consumers increased their spending, purchases of imported goods rose while the overvalued dollar weighed on exports.

“Macroeconomics end up ruling. You can’t wish it away. You can’t tariff it away,” said William Reinsch, a former Commerce Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Commerce Department report comes amid indications that negotiations with China over a sweeping trade agreement may be in their final weeks. China has offered to buy a reported $1.2 trillion in additional American products over the next six years in a deal that reportedly would ease each side’s tariffs, usher in changes to Beijing’s state-led economic model and include tough new enforcement mechanisms.

But most economists say that such increased Chinese purchases would likely only divert U.S. shipments from other foreign customers, shrinking the trade gap with China but leaving the global balance largely unchanged. With the economy at or close to full employment, U.S. farms and factories have a limited ability to sharply increase output to meet a sudden increase in Chinese orders.

“That reality is not going to change,” said economist Matthew Slaughter, dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College.

Any deal with China would mark a milestone in Trump’s tariff war, though not its end. The Commerce Department on Monday began investigating whether imports of titanium sponges, used in chemical plants and military hardware, represent a national security threat.

The president has used similar studies to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum and has threatened to apply them to imported cars and car parts.

Trump persists with the import levies even as some supporters push for him to also act on other forces fueling the trade deficit, including a robust dollar.

The dollar is now valued 19 percent above its 10-year average against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners, according to Federal Reserve data.

The high dollar acts as a price increase for American exporters, making it harder to compete with foreign rivals. “A competitive dollar is the most important tool we have to spur economic growth and job creation in the U.S. economy,” said Michael Stumo, chief executive of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

The U.S. typically runs a sizable surplus in its global services trade, which includes spending by foreign tourists and students, financial services or consulting, partially offsetting the larger goods gap.

The best chance of the trade deficit shrinking any time soon would require an economic downturn that no one wants. In 2009, amid the Great Recession, the trade deficit fell 40 percent from the peak three years earlier to about $506 billion.

“If you want to lower the trade deficit, have a recession,” said Reinsch .

Trump has long been convinced that the United States gets a raw deal from its trade ties. As a New York real estate magnate in the 1980s, he routinely complained about Japanese auto companies and investors who purchased iconic American properties like Rockefeller Center or Pebble Beach.

In a 2016 campaign speech in Pennsylvania, Trump called the trade deficit a “politician-made disaster” and promised swift change. “We can turn it all around - and we can turn it around fast,” he said.

Trump has used tariffs or import taxes more aggressively than any American president since the 1930s. In a March 2 speech to a conservative political group, he called them “the greatest negotiating tool in the history of our country” and credited them with bringing trade partners such as China to the bargaining table.

The president has successfully negotiated new agreements with South Korea, North American neighbors Canada and Mexico, and appears close to a deal with China. But it’s too early to say what effect - if any - those agreements will have on the deficit.

Changes in U.S. tariffs called for in the South Korean deal took effect only on January 1 while Congress has yet to act on the new North American agreement.

Still, tariffs so far have proven to be a blunt weapon. The president often boasts about how much money the U.S. government is reaping from tariffs.

“Billions of dollars, right now, are pouring into our Treasury,” he told the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2, adding that Chinese exporters are absorbing almost the entire burden of the tariffs.

But a pair of new studies concludes that he is wrong. “When we impose a tariff, it is the domestic consumers and purchasers of imports that bear the full cost of the tariffs,” said David Weinstein, an economics professor at Columbia University, who co-authored one of the papers.

Weinstein said the president appears to be relying on a 2018 analysis of data from the 1990s, when the U.S. represented a larger share of the global economy and enjoyed more leverage over exporters in other countries.

Weinstein’s study, co-written withMary Amiti of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Princeton University’s Stephen Redding, reviewed what actually occurred last year after U.S. tariffs took effect and concluded that Americans paid the entire tariff bill.

A second study by four economists from the University of California, Los Angeles; Yale University, the University of California, Berkeley; and Columbia University reached the same conclusion.

That study also found that workers in Republican-leaning counties, especially in farm states, suffered the greatest losses from tariffs that U.S. trading partners imposed in retaliation for the president’s actions .

Trump’s tariffs also may cause U.S. companies to write off sizable investments in their Chinese factories as they scramble to shift operations to safer venues, said the study by Weinstein, Amiti and Redding. If the tariffs continue, about $165 billion worth of trade would be redirected each year, they added.

The study also found sizable costs relative to any expected benefits. If the tariffs led to the creation of 35,000 new manufacturing jobs - equal to all the steel and aluminum jobs lost in the past decade - they would cost $195,000 per job, the study found.

“The costs of the trade war are quite large relative to optimistic estimates of any gains that are likely to be achieved,” wrote the trio of economists.

Remember what Trump said about the trade deficit?

In a 2016 campaign speech in Pennsylvania, Trump called the trade deficit a “politician-made disaster” and promised swift change. “We can turn it all around - and we can turn it around fast,” he said.

Yep.   Trump lied (as usual).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.6    5 years ago
Trump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record).

rump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record).That comment is a lie. A bold face lie unsupported by any FACTS.

Look up the deficits in  2008 and 2009, and then get back with a retraction of that lie.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.5.8  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.6    5 years ago
You've got it.

wait... did you think it would not be expensive to rebuild our military and add a space force to our military all the while reversing 30yrs of bad economic policy and trade deals?

don't worry... mexico will pay for it... LOL

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.7    5 years ago
rump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record).That comment is a lie. A bold face lie unsupported by any FACTS.

Read my comment.

I included the documentation (that you obviously did NOT read).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.5.8    5 years ago
while reversing 30yrs of bad economic policy and trade deals?

Try reading my comment.

Trump has not "reversed" anything.

Trump has managed to increase the both the federal deficit and the trade deficit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.11  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.9    5 years ago

Must be some type of weird new math--where larger numbers are actually smaller numbers, right?

Deficit for 2009  $1.413 trillion

Deficit for 2010  $1.294 trillion

Deficit for 2011  $1.3 trillion

Deficit for 2012  $1.087 trillion

Deficit for 2019  $1.092 trillion

Deficit for 2020 (PROJECTED)  $1.011 trillion

Now, feel free to correct me if the numbers for 2009, 2010, and 2011 are all greater than the numbers for 2019 and projected for 2020.

Like I stated, your comment was and is a lie.

BTW, here is the scource for MY numbers. I'm sure you'll get a kick out if it. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.12  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.9    5 years ago
I included the documentation (that you obviously did NOT read).

Matter of fact, I have read it 3 times, all the while searching for where in your "documentation" it says even one little word about record deficits.

Tell you what, since I must be blind or something, be a dear and just cut and paste where in your "documentation" where it says ANYTHING about record deficits--which are your very own words, and ones you actually repeated in the post you think I didn't read.

Barring THAT, Trump setting record deficits is merely a figment of your rather vivid imagination.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.11    5 years ago

Here are ALL of the numbers from YOUR source (so don't try to call it "fake"):

Donald Trump:  Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. 5 That's a 30% increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

George W. Bush : Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

  • FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. This was Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act.
  • FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
  • FY 2007 - $501 billion.
  • FY 2006 - $574 billion.
  • FY 2005 - $554 billion.
  • FY 2004 - $596 billion.
  • FY 2003 - $555 billion.
  • FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Bill Clinton : Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

  • FY 2001 - $133 billion.
  • FY 2000 - $18 billion.
  • FY 1999 - $130 billion.
  • FY 1998 - $113 billion.
  • FY 1997 - $188 billion.
  • FY 1996 - $251 billion.
  • FY 1995 - $281 billion.
  • FY 1994 - $281 billion.

George H.W. Bush : Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase from the $2.857 trillion debt at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

  • FY 1993 - $347 billion.
  • FY 1992 - $399 billion.
  • FY 1991 - $432 billion.
  • FY 1990 - $376 billion.

Ronald Reagan : Added $1.86 trillion, a 186% increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

  • FY 1989 - $255 billion.
  • FY 1988 - $252 billion.
  • FY 1987 - $225 billion.
  • FY 1986 - $297 billion.
  • FY 1985 - $256 billion.
  • FY 1984 - $195 billion.
  • FY 1983 - $235 billion.
  • FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Jimmy Carter : Added $299 billion, a 43% increase from the $699 billion debt at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

  • FY 1981 - $90 billion.
  • FY 1980 - $81 billion.
  • FY 1979 - $55 billion.
  • FY 1978 - $73 billion.
HTTPS://WWW. THEBALANCE.COM /US-DEBT-BY-PRESIDENT-BY-DOLLAR-AND-PERCENT-3306296

Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression which required significant deficits to pull it out of the toilet.

Trump inherited a healthy economy butt he significantly increased the deficit anyway.

Obama's last deficit was:

Trump's first deficit was:

  • 2018 - $1.217 trillion.

If you examine the data above, the president who had the highest percent increase of the deficit was your hero, Ronald Reagan.  

Ronald Reagan : Added $1.86 trillion, a 186% increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

In the 1980 campaign Reagan criticized Jimmy Carter's high deficits.  Reagan promised to balance the budget by 1983.  Look at the data.  Reagan ran a then record high deficit that year - more than twice as high as Carter's highest deficit.

  • FY 1983 - $235 billion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.14  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.13    5 years ago

What a lengthy reply to completely NOT answer the challenge, which was your ridiculous and false claim that Trump deficits have set records.

Once AGAIN, simply quote from your "documentation" where it even says one WORD about record deficits under Trump, which you claimed in your own words. You said your source said it, so please, for the love of God, just PROVE it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.15  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.13    5 years ago
Here are ALL of the numbers from YOUR source (so don't try to call it "fake"):

The only thing I called fake was your claim of record deficits under Trump, which I disproved easily.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.15    5 years ago
The only thing I called fake was your claim of record deficits under Trump

Here's what I actuated posted (comment # 2.5.6):

Trump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record).

I backed it up with documentation (also comment 2.5.6):

$3,355,970,000,000: Federal Spending Sets Record Through June; Deficit Hits $747,115,000,000

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 11, 2019 | 2:25pm EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018

The deficit was higher after DuhBya's Great Recession because revenue was so low.

So Obama's first budget surplus (FY 2010) was high because the economy sucked and did not produce much tax revenue.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.17  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.16    5 years ago

Why not just admit that what you claimed is simply not true?

Why persist when it has been disproven?

Do you think there is a difference between deficits and deficit spending?

WTF kind of logic is THAT?

You have a deficit if you spend more than you have.

the deficit is not at the highest levels it has ever been, so thus, NO DEFICIT records!

Dude, this ain't fucking rocket science.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.17    5 years ago
Do you think there is a difference between deficits and deficit spending?

Yes.

I know Republicans can't do math.

Deficits are an equation:

Tax revenue - spending = a deficit when spending exceeds revenue.

When Clinton was president he raised taxes (and cut spending) and for four years he ran budget surpluses.  Because revenue exceeded spending.  Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar in economics and he could do the math.

In 2009-2010 revenue was very low because of DuhBya's Great Recession.  When revenue goes down the deficit goes up.  added to that was the necessity of higher spending to stimulate the pathetic economy.

What we're witnessing with Trump's federal budget is a decrease in revenue (because of his tax cuts) and an increase in spending (particularly military spending) which is increasing the deficit.

Trump can't do the math.  That's why the deficit is increasing and why he went bankrupt so many times.
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.21  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.5.20    5 years ago
the deficit blame game.

It's not a fucking game.

Since Trump inherited a healthy economy, he owns any increase in the deficit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.22  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.19    5 years ago

All I did was pint out your false claim, and now you want to talk bout everything BUT that.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.22    5 years ago
All I did was pint out your false claim

All you've done is spam another one of my threads.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.24  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.23    5 years ago

Since when did quoting one's words become spam?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.25  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.24    5 years ago
Since when did quoting one's words become spam?

Posting the same old shit over and over is fucking spam.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.26  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.25    5 years ago
Posting the same old shit over and over is fucking spam.

Ah.

So posting a lie more than once about "Trump's record deficits" is spam!

Good to know!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.5.27  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.9    5 years ago
(that you obviously did NOT read)

Obvious being the operative word. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.28  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.26    5 years ago

You posted about 35 comments on my article "Transsexuality".  They were spam too.

Now you're spamming this thread too.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.29  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.27    5 years ago

Anyone bothering to actually read and comprehend even a little of these posts would know that not only did I read it, I debunked the false claim made in it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.30  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.27    5 years ago

Please tell me that you're not silly enough to actually believe that the deficit has been at record highs under Trump, as was claimed!

Surely not you, too!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.5.31  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.30    5 years ago

TRUMP, REPUBLICANS RIDICULED AS FEDERAL DEFICIT, $3.7 TRILLION SPENDING HIT RECORD HIGHS

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.32  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @2.5.31    5 years ago

Do I need to explain what spending is and what a deficit is?

Do you, too believe that the deficit has set record highs under Trump?

LMMFAO!!!!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.33  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.30    5 years ago
Please t ell me that you're not silly enough to actually believe that the deficit has been at record highs under Trump,

You sound like a broken record.  Are you high?

This is what I actually said (see comment #2.5.6):  " Trump just set a new record for deficit spending"

I said " DEFICIT SPENDING ".

$3,355,970,000,000: Federal Spending Sets Record Through June; Deficit Hits $747,115,000,000

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 11, 2019 | 2:25pm EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018 , when the Treasury doled out $3,199,795,700,000 in constant June 2019 dollars. Before last year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the first nine months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $3,176,577,910,000.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

The difference between the $2,608,855,000,000 in total taxes collected in the first nine months of this fiscal year and the record spending of $3,355,970,000,000 left the government with a deficit of $747,115,000,000.

Maybe you're confused because I also said Trump has a record high trade deficit (which I also documented).

Trade Deficit Explodes, Now Highest In U.S. History

By David J. Lynch (c) 2019, The Washington Post

Posted Mar 6, 2019 at 2:06 PM Updated Mar 6, 2019 at 2:09 PM

WASHNGTON — The Commerce Department said Wednesday that, despite more than two years of President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies, the United States last year posted a $891.2 billion merchandise trade deficit, the largest in the nation’s 243-year history.

The trade gap with China also hit a record $419 billion, underscoring the stakes for the president’s bid to reach a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping as soon as this month.

The department’s final 2018 trade report, which was delayed by the government shutdown, showed that the U.S. bought far more in foreign goods than it sold to customers in Europe, Asia, North America and Africa. The goods shortfall topped the 2006 record of $838.3 billion, set as the housing bubble was peaking, and marked the third co nsecutive year of rising deficits.

A broader measure of the nation’s trade performance, which includes the services sector, showed a narrower, but still large $621 billion deficit. That reflected a deterioration of more than $100 billion from the figure that Trump inherited from President Barack Obama.

It has been evident for months that the president was failing to shrink a trade gap that he calls “unsustainable” and that he says represents a massive transfer of wealth from Americans to foreigners. Over the past year, even as he imposed tariffs on foreign-made solar panels, washing machines, steel, aluminum and assorted goods from China, imports roared ahead of exports.

Economists say the trade deficit is swelling because of broad economic forces, including a chronic shortfall in national savings that was exacerbated by last year’s $1.5 trillion corporate and personal income tax cut. As cash-flush businesses and consumers increased their spending, purchases of imported goods rose while the overvalued dollar weighed on exports.

“Macroeconomics end up ruling. You can’t wish it away. You can’t tariff it away,” said William Reinsch, a former Commerce Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Commerce Department report comes amid indications that negotiations with China over a sweeping trade agreement may be in their final weeks. China has offered to buy a reported $1.2 trillion in additional American products over the next six years in a deal that reportedly would ease each side’s tariffs, usher in changes to Beijing’s state-led economic model and include tough new enforcement mechanisms.

But most economists say that such increased Chinese purchases would likely only divert U.S. shipments from other foreign customers, shrinking the trade gap with China but leaving the global balance largely unchanged. With the economy at or close to full employment, U.S. farms and factories have a limited ability to sharply increase output to meet a sudden increase in Chinese orders.

“That reality is not going to change,” said economist Matthew Slaughter, dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College.

Any deal with China would mark a milestone in Trump’s tariff war, though not its end. The Commerce Department on Monday began investigating whether imports of titanium sponges, used in chemical plants and military hardware, represent a national security threat.

The president has used similar studies to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum and has threatened to apply them to imported cars and car parts.

Trump persists with the import levies even as some supporters push for him to also act on other forces fueling the trade deficit, including a robust dollar.

The dollar is now valued 19 percent above its 10-year average against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners, according to Federal Reserve data.

The high dollar acts as a price increase for American exporters, making it harder to compete with foreign rivals. “A competitive dollar is the most important tool we have to spur economic growth and job creation in the U.S. economy,” said Michael Stumo, chief executive of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

The U.S. typically runs a sizable surplus in its global services trade, which includes spending by foreign tourists and students, financial services or consulting, partially offsetting the larger goods gap.

The best chance of the trade deficit shrinking any time soon would require an economic downturn that no one wants. In 2009, amid the Great Recession, the trade deficit fell 40 percent from the peak three years earlier to about $506 billion.

“If you want to lower the trade deficit, have a recession,” said Reinsch .

Trump has long been convinced that the United States gets a raw deal from its trade ties. As a New York real estate magnate in the 1980s, he routinely complained about Japanese auto companies and investors who purchased iconic American properties like Rockefeller Center or Pebble Beach.

In a 2016 campaign speech in Pennsylvania, Trump called the trade deficit a “politician-made disaster” and promised swift change. “We can turn it all around - and we can turn it around fast,” he said.

Trump has used tariffs or import taxes more aggressively than any American president since the 1930s. In a March 2 speech to a conservative political group, he called them “the greatest negotiating tool in the history of our country” and credited them with bringing trade partners such as China to the bargaining table.

The president has successfully negotiated new agreements with South Korea, North American neighbors Canada and Mexico, and appears close to a deal with China. But it’s too early to say what effect - if any - those agreements will have on the deficit.

Changes in U.S. tariffs called for in the South Korean deal took effect only on January 1 while Congress has yet to act on the new North American agreement.

Still, tariffs so far have proven to be a blunt weapon. The president often boasts about how much money the U.S. government is reaping from tariffs.

“Billions of dollars, right now, are pouring into our Treasury,” he told the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2, adding that Chinese exporters are absorbing almost the entire burden of the tariffs.

But a pair of new studies concludes that he is wrong. “When we impose a tariff, it is the domestic consumers and purchasers of imports that bear the full cost of the tariffs,” said David Weinstein, an economics professor at Columbia University, who co-authored one of the papers.

Weinstein said the president appears to be relying on a 2018 analysis of data from the 1990s, when the U.S. represented a larger share of the global economy and enjoyed more leverage over exporters in other countries.

Weinstein’s study, co-written withMary Amiti of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Princeton University’s Stephen Redding, reviewed what actually occurred last year after U.S. tariffs took effect and concluded that Americans paid the entire tariff bill.

A second study by four economists from the University of California, Los Angeles; Yale University, the University of California, Berkeley; and Columbia University reached the same conclusion.

That study also found that workers in Republican-leaning counties, especially in farm states, suffered the greatest losses from tariffs that U.S. trading partners imposed in retaliation for the president’s actions .

Trump’s tariffs also may cause U.S. companies to write off sizable investments in their Chinese factories as they scramble to shift operations to safer venues, said the study by Weinstein, Amiti and Redding. If the tariffs continue, about $165 billion worth of trade would be redirected each year, they added.

The study also found sizable costs relative to any expected benefits. If the tariffs led to the creation of 35,000 new manufacturing jobs - equal to all the steel and aluminum jobs lost in the past decade - they would cost $195,000 per job, the study found.

“The costs of the trade war are quite large relative to optimistic estimates of any gains that are likely to be achieved,” wrote the trio of economists.

Maybe you'll actually read my post this time (butt, I doubt it).
Please don't spam me with the same bullshit you've been posting.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.34  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.32    5 years ago
Do you, too believe that the deficit has set record highs under Trump?

You may have a reading disorder.

You can't seem to see the word "spending".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.35  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.34    5 years ago

Explain what you think the real difference is between a deficit and deficit spending.

I have just GOT to hear this!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.36  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.35    5 years ago
Explain what you think the real difference is between a deficit and deficit spending.

A deficit is what occurs when federal spending exceed revenues (from taxes).

Record deficit spending occurs when Trump spends more than any other president has ever spend while running a deficit.

Please quit spamming my thread by pretending that the deficit and deficit spending are the same thing.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.5.37  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.36    5 years ago

Don't worry about Tex. He's always wrong.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.5.38  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.37    5 years ago

Well, with that ringing endorsement, now Tex knows he's on the right track.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.40  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.37    5 years ago
Don't worry about Tex. He's always wrong.

I am so sorry. I figured you would know that there have been no record deficits under Trump.

Here's a definition of deficit spending:

Deficit Spending
Deficit spending is the amount by which spending exceeds revenue over a particular period of time, also called simply deficit, or budget deficit; the opposite of budget surplus. The term may be applied to the budget of a government, private company, or individual. Government deficit spending is a central point of controversy in economics, as discussed below.
Wikipedia

Now, unless you are simply crazy enough to believe that record deficits have been set under a Trump Presidency, I believe my point is made. I won't waste any more time defining the "difference" between deficits and deficit spending. It is a completely useless "difference" that has no practical place in this discussion. The poster claimed record deficit spending under Trump. For THAT to occur, the deficit MUST reflect that and it clearly does not, unless you are hooked on some kind of weird progressive liberal "math" where smaller is larger.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.41  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.37    5 years ago

Like many Republicans, he does not understand economics.

That's why Republicans, since Eisenhower, have never been able to balance the budget.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.42  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.40    5 years ago

Derp.

SOS.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.44  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
Here is your chance son, explain the difference between deficits and deficit spending, don't copy and paste some bullshit opinion. Lets see what you have.

Maybe you should read the comments I've posted on this thread.

Comment #2.5.36 is the latest example.

if i remember correctly all the budget surpluses during Clintons years originated in the house

Okay, so by your "logic" Trump did NOT cut taxes, right.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.45  Texan1211  replied to    5 years ago

I believe that someone made a false claim, got called out on it, had it proven to him, and yet still insists on repeating the lie.

It is ludicrous.

He thinks there is a difference between the deficit and deficit spending! 

Like there could be ANY deficit spending without a deficit!

ROFFLMMFAO!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.48  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.45    5 years ago

Derp, derp, derp.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.49  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.48    5 years ago

Ah!

The usual highbrow response I expect when I call out a post as a lie, prove it, and still have the person who posted the LIE still sticking to their erroneous feelings even after having proof handed to them.

Please learn what deficits are before bothering to respond again to me.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.51  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.49    5 years ago
I expect when I call out a post as a lie, prove it

Total fucking BS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.52  Texan1211  replied to    5 years ago

You can't reason with people who don't understand what a deficit is, or what causes a deficit.

Logic escapes those types of folks.

Maybe dumb it down further for them?

I give up!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.53  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.51    5 years ago

Heck, I explained so a 10 year old could understand it.

I wasn't counting on you to be so obtuse.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.54  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.52    5 years ago
You can't reason with people who don't understand what a deficit is, or what causes a deficit.

Derp.

You can't reason with people who don't understand what deficit spending is, or that it increases a deficit.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.55  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.52    5 years ago
I give up!

I wish that was true!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.5.56  Split Personality  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.54    5 years ago

this article claims that the Trump deficits are the largest ever in an economy that is not in recession or post recession.

this article claims that instead of eliminating the deficit,  it has increased 68% under this Admin.

this article claims that, despite two good months, the trade deficit is the largest since 2008

And this oldy but goody from January of 2018

Trump's deficits are permanent

Unlike the trillion dollar budget deficits that occurred during the Obama administration that were temporary and largely the result of the Great Recession , the Trump deficits that will soon reach and exceed $1 trillion are permanent and will only get worse in the years ahead.

The Trump deficits are the result of changes in federal spending and revenue that will continue to be in place until some president and Congress decide to reverse them, that is, to increase taxes and make cuts to popular programs.

Not only has there been little appetite to do that, many in Congress and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on ignoring the deficit and national debt and increasing spending and reducing revenue even further.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.5.57  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.56    5 years ago

I have said this on multiple articles. It seems that people read what they want to read. But you are right, SP.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.58  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.56    5 years ago
this article claims that instead of eliminating the deficit,  it has increased 68% under this Admin.

Butt, didn't Trump say he could eliminate the entire national debt?

Maybe he's gonna declare bankruptcy.  He's got lots of experience doing that. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.5.59  Split Personality  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.58    5 years ago
In June 2018, Larry Kudlow, the director of the Trump White House’s National Economic Council, expressed his delight with the nation’s fiscal landscape. Federal revenues, he insisted, are “rolling in,” while the budget deficit “is coming down.” It wasn’t coming down at the time, and it’s certainly not coming down now. In the fiscal year that just wrapped up, as the Washington Post reported , the deficit hit $984 billion.

Butt, Butt, MSNBC.....jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.60  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.5.57    5 years ago

Geez, I hope you don't scare the stalker/trolls away.

This article appears to be popular (432 comments).

In reality many of the comments are taunts posted by frenemies. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.61  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.59    5 years ago
Butt, Butt, MSNBC.....

OMG! 

A Rachel Maddow clip will cause Trumpsters' heads to explode.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.62  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.60    5 years ago

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
2.5.63  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.56    5 years ago
The Trump deficits are the result of changes in federal spending and revenue that will continue to be in place until some president and Congress decide to reverse them, that is, to increase taxes and make cuts to popular programs.

Just out of curiosity, what were the budget deficits he inherited??? Have any of the cuts he has made in taxes caused any spending he has authorized to be unfunded?

I'm just wondering if the deficit he was saddled with (those "cans" that have been kicked down the road for decades) are what is causing him to fall behind in revenues needed to pay for his programs he is pushing through.

Just as a side note, I am a FIRM believer that we should have a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution with a requirement for a Rainy Day Fund added in. The only exception would be for actual defense of the country during a time of War or a cataclysmic natural disaster, and even then the funds would come first from the Rainy Day Fund and have to be replaced before any other Bridge To Nowhere BS project got a greenlight.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.64  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.5.63    5 years ago
Just out of curiosity, what were the budget deficits he inherited??? Have any of the cuts he has made in taxes caused any spending he has authorized to be unfunded?

The deficit Trump inherited was:

Here are ALL of the numbers from 1978 to the present:

Donald Trump:  Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. 5 That's a 30% increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

George W. Bush : Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

  • FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. This was Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act.
  • FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
  • FY 2007 - $501 billion.
  • FY 2006 - $574 billion.
  • FY 2005 - $554 billion.
  • FY 2004 - $596 billion.
  • FY 2003 - $555 billion.
  • FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Bill Clinton : Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

  • FY 2001 - $133 billion.
  • FY 2000 - $18 billion.
  • FY 1999 - $130 billion.
  • FY 1998 - $113 billion.
  • FY 1997 - $188 billion.
  • FY 1996 - $251 billion.
  • FY 1995 - $281 billion.
  • FY 1994 - $281 billion.

George H.W. Bush : Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase from the $2.857 trillion debt at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

  • FY 1993 - $347 billion.
  • FY 1992 - $399 billion.
  • FY 1991 - $432 billion.
  • FY 1990 - $376 billion.

Ronald Reagan : Added $1.86 trillion, a 186% increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

  • FY 1989 - $255 billion.
  • FY 1988 - $252 billion.
  • FY 1987 - $225 billion.
  • FY 1986 - $297 billion.
  • FY 1985 - $256 billion.
  • FY 1984 - $195 billion.
  • FY 1983 - $235 billion.
  • FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Jimmy Carter : Added $299 billion, a 43% increase from the $699 billion debt at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

  • FY 1981 - $90 billion.
  • FY 1980 - $81 billion.
  • FY 1979 - $55 billion.
  • FY 1978 - $73 billion.
HTTPS://WWW. THEBALANCE.COM /US-DEBT-BY-PRESIDENT-BY-DOLLAR-AND-PERCENT-3306296

Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression which required significant deficits to pull it out of the toilet.

Trump inherited a healthy economy butt he significantly increased the deficit anyway.

Obama's last deficit was:

Trump's first deficit was:

  • 2018 - $1.217 trillion.

If you examine the data above, the president who had the highest percent increase of the deficit was your hero, Ronald Reagan.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.65  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.55    5 years ago
I wish that was true!

Know what I wish was true?

That everyone reading this post could somehow understand that you can NOT have "record deficit spending" without having record deficits.

It is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.66  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.65    5 years ago
That everyone reading this post could somehow understand that you can NOT have "record deficit spending" without having record deficits.

Donald Trump has spent more than any president in history and he is simultaneously running a deficit.

I have provided a shit load of documentation the fucking PROVES that point.

You can deny that until you're blue in the face butt it is 100% true.

Why do you insist on posting stupid bullshit spam trying to deny that FACT.

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.67  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.66    5 years ago
Donald Trump has spent more than any president in history and he is simultaneously running a deficit.

Yep. Lots of Presidents have during their term  in office. No one denied that.

I have provided a shit load of documentation the fucking PROVES that point.

Yes, I read your links. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif No one I saw was arguing that fucking point. or did you not bother to read and comprehend what you should have fucking read?

You can deny that until you're blue in the face butt it is 100% true.

Never denied it even once, so what the hell are you ranting on about? Chill out a little, dude.

Why do you insist on posting stupid bullshit spam trying to deny that FACT.

Come on, dude, you don't want to go there with me. STOP arguing things you THINK I have stated and start fucking reading what I DO write and then argue THAT. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest and lazy as HELL.

If you insist on making a false statement like that, at LEAST have the gonads to back it up with a QUOTE FROM ME. Barring a quote--you made that shit up, and it is a LIE.

You claimed that Trump has had record deficit spending. That is simply impossible unless he has also set record deficits--which he HAS NOT. You can NOT have record deficit spending without record deficits.

I thought you MIGHT have finally seen the light when you posted this:

You can't reason with people who don't understand what deficit spending is, or that it increases a deficit.

Sadly, it ended up that you wrote that without understanding what you wrote. 

Deficit spending is spending more than you take in.

A deficit is the difference between what you spent and what you took in.

If one is setting records--they BOTH HAVE TO BE.

Which makes your claim that Trump is setting record deficit spending a LIE. If he WAS, the DEFICIT would be at a record high. It simply isn't.

Now, SPAM THE SHIT OUT OF THAT!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.68  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.64    5 years ago

Where do your numbers come from again?

The White House has different numbers than what you state.

  https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables

Looks like your source inflated some numbers for a certain President.
     

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.69  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.67    5 years ago
You claimed that Trump has had record deficit spending. That is simply impossible unless he has also set record deficits--which he HAS NOT. You can NOT have record deficit spending without record deficits.

Here's the documentation AGAIN;

$3,355,970,000,000: Federal Spending Sets Record Through June; Deficit Hits $747,115,000,000

By Terence P. Jeffrey   | July 11, 2019 | 2:25pm EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018 , when the Treasury doled out $3,199,795,700,000 in constant June 2019 dollars. Before last year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the first nine months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $3,176,577,910,000.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

The difference between the $2,608,855,000,000 in total taxes collected in the first nine months of this fiscal year and the record spending of $3,355,970,000,000 left the government with a deficit of $747,115,000,000.

Please read it this time.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.70  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.67    5 years ago
Which makes your claim that Trump is setting record deficit spending a LIE. If he WAS, the DEFICIT would be at a record high. It simply isn't.

My claim is not a lie.

Your lack of comprehension doesn't make me a liar.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.71  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.67    5 years ago
Now, SPAM THE SHIT OUT OF THAT!!

I am the author of this article and YOU are spamming it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.72  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.69    5 years ago

I already read that crap.

Remember, I asked you more than once to please quote ANYWHERE in your "source" it says that Trump has set any records for deficit spending--and you have simply been unable to do so. mainly because your very own source DOESN'T say it! Which makes your claim a simple, easy to understand, and even easier to debunk--LIE.

Trump has not set a single record for the highest deficit ever.

Trump has set no record for highest deficit spending either, although they are the same.

To claim otherwise is to post a LIE.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.73  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.71    5 years ago

OMG! I am "spammed out." I think as a child I ate some spam; I have not even seen a can of spam as an adult; I have NEVER seen as much spam as has been displayed on this article! Blah!

Psst. I don't even know (remember) it was a good 'treat.'

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.74  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.72    5 years ago
Remember, I asked you more than once to please quote ANYWHERE in your "source" it says that Trump has set any records for deficit spending--and you have simply been unable to do so

Oh boy!  More spam.

I've provided the documentation several times (and included the links).

I'm not going to post documentation again because you appear to be incapable of understanding it.

Here's another snack.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.75  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.5.73    5 years ago
I think as a child I ate some spam;

I did a lot of backpacking in places like Yosemite.  Hunting is not permitted there.  I usually ate trout (which are plentiful and delicious).  Butt, when I wasn't near water, the Spam provided protein, fat and salt (all are necessary nutrients).

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
2.5.76  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.64    5 years ago
If you examine the data above, the president who had the highest percent increase of the deficit was your hero, Ronald Reagan.

Definitely NOT my "hero" by any means, but what pisses me off the most when looking at these figures is the way they throw money around. I see millions, billions, and trillions treated like nickels, dimes, and quarters.

Disgusting!

All of these fuckers need to quit blowing money away and start paying down that deficit.

On the other hand, if the dollar gets devalued enough, my house note becomes easier to pay!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.77  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.74    5 years ago
Oh boy!  More spam.

Nope--just a simple request for you to prove your lie.

Epic fail on your part, btw.

I've provided the documentation several times (and included the links).

How bad does it suck when your "source" doesn't even say what you WANT it to say? LMMFAO!

I'm not going to post documentation again because you appear to be incapable of understanding it.

Oh, thank God! I thought you were just gping to repost more bullshit that has nothing to do with your claim, which is a lie--Trump has set NO RECORDS for the deficit or deficit spending.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.78  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.77    5 years ago
Oh, thank God! I thought you were just gping to repost more bullshit that has nothing to do with your claim, which is a lie-- Trump has set NO RECORDS for the deficit or deficit spending.

First of all it's not my claim.  I have been quoting what has been published by every credible source.

Bear in mind thatI didn't say Trump set record for the highest deficit.  I said he set a record for the highest deficit spending.

The documentation I previously posted is more current and cover the first nine months.  He also set a new record for deficit spending in the first seven months of 2019.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BREAKS NEW RECORD FOR SPENDING MONEY

BY NICOLE GOODKIND ON 5/14/19 AT 4:40 PM EDT

The federal government has spent more real money in the first seven months of this fiscal year than any other year in U.S. history, according to the latest monthly statement by the Department of Treasury. The previous record was set in 2011, when the U.S. was recuperating from the Great Recession.

In total, the U.S. spent $2.574 trillion, which marks an 8 percent increase over last year. The government also ran a $531 billion deficit from October through April. That's a 38 percent increase over the $385 billion deficit during the same period last year.

The change was largely due to an increase in military spending, healthcare and interest on debt owed, said the Treasury.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office released a report last week saying that President Donald Trump's 2020 budget proposal relied on overly optimistic economic assumptions and that the deficit would continue to grow from 78 percent of gross domestic product in 2018 to 87 percent of GDP by 2029. The president's budget assumed that the deficit would be $2.7 trillion lower than what the CBO estimated.

The president passed a $1.5 trillion tax bill his first year in office and sent Congress a record-breaking $4.75 trillion budget proposal in March. President Trump's interim chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said in April that his administration was "spending a bunch of money on stuff we're not supposed to."

The Trump administration's tax cuts and spending increases were responsible for 60 percent of this year's deficit, according to analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Without the tax cuts and spending increases, this year's budget deficit would have been the lowest since 2007 at around $360 billion, instead of nearly $1 trillion.

Late last week, the International Monetary Fund released a report highlighting their concern over growing debt in the United States. The IMF's five-year projections found the U.S. among just four advanced-economy countries with projected debt increases in the next few years.

On Monday, the president said on Twitter that he would add another $1.6 billion to NASA's budget "so that we can return to Space in a BIG WAY!" The president said he intended to fund flights to "to the Moon, then Mars."

The request is unlikely to be enough to get NASA started on this mission. Jim Bridenstine, the NASA administrator, called it a "down payment," on Monday. "In the coming years, we will need additional funds," Bridenstine told reporters.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.79  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.78    5 years ago
First of all it's not my claim.  I have been quoting what has been published by every credible source.

It sure the fuck IS YOUR CLAIM. Need I quote YOU?

Here ya go--your own fucking words:

You've got it.   Trump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record). (Post 2.5.6)

And your "source" doesn't support YOUR claim--which is nothing more than a LIE. If it DID, SURELY you could actually quote ANYWHERE in your "source" where it says Trump has had record deficits or deficit spending (same fucking thing). You simply can't because--wait for it--it doesn't state that. You have ZERO. NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING to support your claim, which is clearly a lie. I have asked you REPEATEDLY to quote your very own source, and all you can manage to do is cut and paste the same thing over and over and over---STILL not doing what was asked and STILL not proving your lie.

Do you seriously not know the difference between government spending and deficits???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that why you keep up the charade and keep parroting a lie?

Can ANYONE anywhere PLEASE get through to you and explain what a deficit is and how you can ONLY have record deficit spending if you have record deficits?

Tell me this, please, Mr. Math Wizard.

Can you have record deficits without record deficit spending?

Can you have record deficit spending without record deficits?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.80  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.79    5 years ago

You sound like a fucking broken record.

Yes, I did post this:

You've got it.   Trump just set a new record for deficit spending (breaking last year's record). (Post 2.5.6)

And YOU continue to say shit like this:

And your "source" doesn't support YOUR claim--which is nothing more than a LIE.

The latest source that I've provided (which apparently you can't read) has this title :

TRUMP, REPUBLICANS RIDICULED AS FEDERAL DEFICIT, $3.7 TRILLION SPENDING HIT RECORD HIGHS

BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW ON 8/13/19 AT 10:51 AM EDT
See that?

SPENDING HIT RECORD HIGHS

Are you going to continue spamming this thread?

Here's some spam for you:

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.81  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.80    5 years ago
And YOU continue to say shit like this:
And your "source" doesn't support YOUR claim--which is nothing more than a LIE. 
The latest source that I've provided (which apparently you can't read) has this title :
TRUMP, REPUBLICANS RIDICULED AS FEDERAL DEFICIT, $3.7 TRILLION SPENDING HIT RECORD HIGHS 
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW ON 8/13/19 AT 10:51 AM EDT

See that?

SPENDING HIT RECORD HIGHS

NO ONE disputed that---like I already told you before. What part don't you understand? Almost every single President in the last 40 years has seen the federal budget INCREASE. That is a fucking fact. What is NOT a fact is your lying claim that the deficit has increased to record highs under Trump. That is a LIE.

Now you seem to want to walk your fucking lying claim back by switching to "spending". 

Maybe you think ALL government spending is "deficit spending" if we have ANY deficit? That's fucking whack, dude!

Deficit spending is spending money we don't have. That is reflected in the deficit.

We do not have record deficits now. We do have record spending. They are not the same fucking things.

Your post and position that we have record deficits or record deficit spending now is nothing more than a lie and will always be a lie.

Fuck your little spam shit, too!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.82  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.75    5 years ago

I think I can remember the salt content. SALTY!!!!  It was a preservative, yes? Happy New Year!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.83  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.80    5 years ago
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.84  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.81    5 years ago
Maybe you think ALL government spending is "deficit spending" if we have ANY deficit? That's fucking whack, dude

From 1999-2001 the government ran budget surpluses.  Guess what there was also federal spending.  Butt is was not deficit spending.

Butt Trump is running a deficit.  His spending is deficit spending.  And his spending "HIT RECORD HIGHS".  Therefore, he has set a record for deficit spending.

Here's the definition of deficit spending :

Definition of deficit spending

: the spending of public funds raised by borrowing rather than by taxation

And here's the definition of deficit :

def·​i·​cit | \ ˈde-fə-sət
Definition of deficit

1 a (1) : deficiency in amount or quality a deficit in rainfall
(2) : a lack or impairment in an ability or functional capacity cognitive deficits a hearing deficit
b : DISADVANTAGE scored two runs to overcome a 2–1 deficit
2 a : an excess of expenditure over revenue facing a deficit of $3 billion raise taxes to help reduce the budget deficit
b : a loss (see LOSS sense 4b ) in business operations the year's operating deficit
Most of us can see that "deficit spending" and "deficit" are NOT the same thing.
Here's your snack:
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.85  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.81    5 years ago
Fuck your little spam shit, too!

You are the one who is spamming my thread.

I can see that you need more so here you are:

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.86  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.5.82    5 years ago
I think I can remember the salt content. SALTY!!!!  It was a preservative, yes? Happy New Year!

Yes, it does have lots of sodium.

If you're camping out and "living off of the land", you usually don't get enough salt in that diet.

Spam is one solution and it gets boring eating trout all of the time (I also carry a little salt shaker).

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.87  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.5.83    5 years ago

Muttley will like my new meme:

800

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.88  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.84    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.89  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.88    5 years ago
I can't argue with anyone stupid enough to believe that the fucking entire federal budget is deficit spending.

I guess you don't even understand dictionary definitions.

Eat your Spam and STFU.

Oh my.  Are you resorting to CoC violations?

Don't worry, I won't flag your little tantrum.

I never flag anything. 

You can't make me "STFU".  I'm the author of this article, so this is my thread that you insist to keep spamming.

I can see that you're still hungry so here you are:

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.5.90  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.29    5 years ago
I debunked the false claim made in it.

You're wrong. Again. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.91  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.90    5 years ago
You're wrong. Again. 

Actually, I think he's probably right - extreme right.

BTW, did you know Spam fossils were discovered in Texas?

I hope the Texan sees this impressive find:

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.92  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.90    5 years ago

Ah! Another person who seems to think that Trump has had record deficits and record deficit spending!!

How many in that particular little club--just the two of you believing that complete, utter nonsense?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.93  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.92    5 years ago
Trump has had record deficits

She didn't say that either.

Here's your New Year's snack:

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.5.94  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.28    5 years ago

so conservative opposition to your point of view on your seeds is to be considered spam?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.5.95  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.28    5 years ago

so conservative opposition to your point of view on your seeds is to be considered spam?  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.96  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.5.95    5 years ago
so conservative opposition to your point of view on your seeds is to be considered spam?

When some repeatedly calls me a liar, refuses to acknowledge simple concepts that have been explained several times and posts the same old shit over and over and over and over and over and....  It's spam .

And it's strange that you keep repeating yourself.

2.5.94   Heartland American   replied to  al Jizzerror @ 2.5.28     11 minutes ago

so conservative opposition to your point of view on your seeds is to be considered spam?

2.5.95   Heartland American   replied to  al Jizzerror @ 2.5.28     11 minutes ago

so conservative opposition to your point of view on your seeds is to be considered spam?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.97  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.96    5 years ago
And it's strange that you keep repeating yourself.

Here's a New Year's gift just for you (it's not Spam):

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.5.98  cobaltblue  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.5.95    4 years ago
so conservative opposition to your point of view on your seeds is to be considered spam?  

Spamming also includes repeating the same lines from the article written over and over and over again. 

There are some prolific writers that have nothing to say. Some are predestined to stay confined within the bubble of nothingness they created. No one pays attention to those people. No one. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.5.99  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.92    4 years ago
Another person who seems to think that Trump has had record deficits and record deficit spending!!
The president passed a $1.5 trillion tax bill his first year in office and sent Congress a record-breaking $4.75 trillion budget proposal in March. President Trump's interim chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said in April that his administration was "spending a bunch of money on stuff we're not supposed to." The Trump administration's tax cuts and spending increases were responsible for 60 percent of this year's deficit, according to analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Without the tax cuts and spending increases, this year's budget deficit would have been the lowest since 2007 at around $360 billion, instead of nearly $1 trillion.

Cite

You're wrong, Texan. Again.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.100  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.99    4 years ago

Look, I always though you at least had some common sense and could easily comprehend English.

The claim was that "Trump has had record deficit spending".

What do YOU consider to be deficit spending? Is it the amount of money we spend that we don't have? Is the deficit a total amount of money we had to borrow to cover that deficit spending?

Trump has had no record deficits or "deficit spending".

Simply fact. 

Since none of ya'll will believe me. please LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF at the following link.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables

For the record---no one disputed what the spending is.

Once agin, the favored way of debating here is on full display---accuse your opponent of saying somehting he never said, and then argue THAT instead of what was acutally claimed.

Ya'll doing that are intellectually lazy, and flat out dishonest.

i just never realized how many freaking idiots believed that overall spending--the vast majority of which is funded, is deficit spending.

It isn't. Deficit spending is all money that we don't have that we end up borrowing.

I thought at least high school graduates would be able to comprehend that, but sadly, I have been mistaken on that here. I thought more intelligent people were here.

 My mistake.

Ya'll enjoy your little circle jerk, and don;t forget to eat lots of  spam.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.101  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.87    4 years ago

Have a MUTTLEY New Year! USE SPARINGLY FOR PUNCH!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.5.102  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.100    4 years ago
forget to eat lots of  spam.

How could I not while you're here. 

You're wrong, Texan. Own it. You. Are. Wrong.

Again.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.103  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.100    4 years ago
Ya'll enjoy your little circle jerk, and don;t forget to eat lots of  spam

Here's some Spam for you:

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.104  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @2.5.102    4 years ago

Despite your sparkling repartee--"You're wrong, you're wrong"--I did notice you could not put into words what you consider deficits or deficit spending to be.

But there is always this, right?

I may indeed have been wrong in assuming normal intelligence and at least a hint of intellectual honesty from some here. So congrats, I was wrong about THAT. 

However, I am not wrong on deficits. And all you have to do to prove me wrong is show the deficits for the last 4 Presidents. And then get someone who knows math even just a little to explain it to you. And they will tell you which numbers are larger. Seems to me it might be a monumental task, seeing as how larger numbers are smaller numbers to ya'll.

That is why ya'll are trying to walk back your outright lies about Trump setting records for deficits and deficit spending.

I'll come back in a few years and check on how your math lessons are going!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.5.105  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.103    4 years ago

I would rather eat Spam than to read yet another LIE from you about Trump setting records for deficit spending or deficits.

Look at my link--it is official--not some slanted source.

Read it and get someone to explain it to you, then tell me who has had the highest deficits in history.

Here is a GIANT hint for you.

It isn't Trump.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.106  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.104    4 years ago
That is why ya'll are trying to walk back your outright lies about Trump setting records for deficits and deficit spending

I hope you don't drown in denial.

Nobody said Trump set a record for the highest deficit, he set a record for the highest deficit spending .

I know you won't understand, butt he is one more attempt at enlightening you (these numbers are for the first 10 months of FY 2019).

U.S. Government Sets New Records for Spending and Revenues

Craig Eyermann  •  Wednesday August 14, 2019 10:15 AM PDT  • 

The U.S. government set new records for spending and tax revenues in July 2019 . But because spending has risen so much faster than its tax collections, the latest U.S. Treasury monthly statement also confirms that the government’s budget deficit through the first 10 months of its 2019 fiscal year now exceeds the full year deficit of $777 billion recorded in 2018.

Terence Jeffrey of CNS News describes how today’s spending compares with the previous record for inflation-adjusted government spending, which was set back in 2009:

The federal government spent a record $3,727,014,000,000 in the first ten months of fiscal 2019 (October through July), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

While spending that record $3,727,014,000,000, the government ran a deficit of $866,812,000,000.

Before this year, the most that the federal government had ever spent in the first ten months of a fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when the Treasury spent $3,576,745,930,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars, adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator ).

Federal spending was impacted in fiscal 2009 by the recession that was ongoing when that fiscal year began. At the beginning of fiscal 2009, President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program to bailout failing banks. Later that fiscal year, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aimed at stimulating the economy.

I know you've worked up an appetite avoiding that documentation so here's your snack:

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.107  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.105    4 years ago
I would rather eat Spam than to read yet another LIE from you about Trump setting records for deficit spending or deficits.

I am NOT a liar.

Here's your tasty treat:

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.5.108  Dean Moriarty  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.106    4 years ago

That says record for spending not deficit. 
Obama set the record for deficit. 

The largest annual deficits ever were achieved by the Obama “Administration in 2009, 2011, and 2010 when the deficits reached $1.413 trillion, $1.300 trillion, and $1.294 trillion, respectively.”

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.109  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.5.108    4 years ago
That says record for spending not deficit.  Obama set the record for deficit. 

That's exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread.  Trump has't set a record for the highest deficit, butt he has set the record for the highest deficit spending.

Obama's deficit was higher because of very low tax revenue (caused by DuhBya's Great Recession).

Trump has set a spending record.  Since he too is running a (lower) budget deficit, it's known as "deficit spending".  Since it's record high spending, it's "record deficit spending".  It's an easy concept to understand anywhere outside of Texas.

I appreciate you for getting that right.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.5.110  Dean Moriarty  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.109    4 years ago

Yes deficit spending is lower under Trump than Obama because Trump is generating record revenue. The difference between the revenue and spending is the deficit and Obama has the record for largest deficit spending. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.112  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.5.110    4 years ago
Obama has the record for largest deficit spending.

Yes he did and that record for spending has been broken by Trump.

Yes deficit spending is lower under Trump than Obama because Trump is generating record revenue.

Revenue and spending are opposites.  Are you from Texas?

When the federal budget is running a deficit (every year recently except 1998-2001) and the government spends money, it is called "deficit spending".

Please read comment #2.5.6 for the first installment of this concept.  Here's the short version:

$3,355,970,000,000: Federal Spending Sets Record Through June; Deficit Hits $747,115,000,000

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 11, 2019 | 2:25pm EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018 , when the Treasury doled out $3,199,795,700,000 in constant June 2019 dollars. Before last year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the first nine months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $3,176,577,910,000.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.113  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @2.5.111    4 years ago
Obama enjoys the distinction of having the HIGHEST DEFICIT SPENDING of any President ever.  Period, end of story.

Wrong.  Record revenue has offset record spending so it's not a record deficit.   Butt it is a record for  deficit spending.

Record deficits and record deficit spending are two different things (except in Texas, apparently). 

The federal government spent a record $3,727,014,000,000 in the first ten months of fiscal 2019 (October through July), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today .

While spending that record $3,727,014,000,000, the government ran a deficit of $866,812,000,000.

Before this year, the most that the federal government had ever spent in the first ten months of a fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when the Treasury spent $3,576,745,930,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars, adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator ).

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.5.114  Split Personality  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.5.110    4 years ago

And that record revenue is coming from tariffs on the backs of American consumers.

Not really a great thing considering the layoffs in manufacturing due to the tariffs,

or the additional debt from short term subsidies to farmers being crushed by the tariffs.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.115  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.114    4 years ago
And that record revenue is coming from tariffs on the backs of American consumers.

You are absolutely right.

China does NOT pay the fucking tariffs, we pay the tariffs (although this is probably not believed in Texas).

What Is A Tariff, Who Pays, And What Is The Purpose Of A Tariff?

What is a tariff, exactly? As markets react to China trade talks and growing hopes of a deal, understanding how President Donald Trump's tariffs work is more relevant than ever. A tariff is a tax on imports, often known as a duty or a trade barrier. The purpose of a tariff is generally to protect domestic production and jobs, though economists say other domestic sectors and customers ultimately pay for tariffs.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.5.116  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @2.5.111    4 years ago

Oh come on, you are too smart to say that.  It's a temporary record, it's a partisan "talking" point at best.

Trump plans on spending more and more of OUR money.

If he gets a second term as planned he will match or exceed any measurement of Obama's 8 year economic performances

and will do so without the excuse of recession or post recession economy.

Trump's history is one of spending other peoples money then declaring bankruptcy.

The economy and the stock market are cycles, good times are always followed by crashes.

The only constant is debt.

Oh well, I am making wings and enjoying the surprising Outback Bowl.

The article is exceeding the capacity of the system and my last comments took more time to load

than it took Minnesota to score again.

Happy New Year to everyone!

Later...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.117  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.116    4 years ago
The article is exceeding the capacity of the system and my last comments took more time to load than it took Minnesota to score again.

Sorry about that.  There are over 550 comments on this thread (and about 100lbs of Texas Spam).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.118  CB  replied to  Split Personality @2.5.116    4 years ago

Happy New Year (again), Split Personality!

You hit the nail on its head and drove it home. As President, former President Obama had announced that taking care to end the recession would not be his only legacy, but that he would make emboldened strives to pass his own agenda to boot! Thus, he did add to the mounting deficit because it was necessary for him to accomplish something he had promised the peoples who voted for him—beyond George W. Bush's doings.

Thank you for your wise answer. And to our host, who kept the room open for such a statement as it is, Al Jizzerror!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.119  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.5.118    4 years ago
Thank you for your wise answer.

SP is extremely intelligent and well informed.  He is an important asset for NT.  We're lucky to have him here.

We're lucky to have you too. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.5.120  sandy-2021492  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.117    4 years ago
The article is exceeding the capacity of the system and my last comments took more time to load than it took Minnesota to score again.
Sorry about that.  There are over 550 comments on this thread (and about 100lbs of Texas Spam).

Just a suggestion - you could lock this one, and open another article with the same title and "Part II" or something similar.  We've done that in the past when discussions got too big to load.  Not often, but not many articles get this amount of traffic.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.121  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.120    4 years ago
Just a suggestion - you could lock this one

It's an experiment.

My frenemies are spamming the comments.

I want to see how much Spam it takes to make an article explode.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.5.122  CB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.5.58    4 years ago

Well he did say we would pay off our national debt about midway that 'thang.' And he is right our nation does print the money! (Though that would be a truly hard way to get out of national debt.)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.5.123  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.5.122    4 years ago

He doesn't pay off debts, he just declares bankruptcy.

Maybe he's planning to default of the U.S. debt and declare victory over China since they hold so much of our debt in U.S. bonds. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3  lady in black    5 years ago

He said it himself, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters wouldn't blink an eye.

And we know that his supporters have trump denial syndrome....sickening.  His mindless robots make excuses for all his bad behavior.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  lady in black @3    5 years ago
He said it himself, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters wouldn't blink an eye.

800

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
3.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  lady in black @3    5 years ago

Whenever I see that I think of Charles Bronson in the Death wish movies cleaning up the city and taking out the trash. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    5 years ago

The whistleblower is that part of the magic trick, or the bullshit artist, where he says, "look over here". 

A distraction from the truth. An excuse.  A "dont blame me, blame the whistleblower" moment. 

And yes, Trumpsters who fall for it are dumbfucks. 

Blame yourselves, not everyone else. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5  Tacos!    5 years ago
Trump Names Whistleblower

How silly! Trump didn't name anybody who wasn't already being named by someone else. It's not like he outed this guy himself. What's the point of this?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @5    5 years ago
Trump didn't name anybody who wasn't already being named by someone else.

You're right.  Donnie Trump Junior made the talk show rounds outing the whistleblower weeks ago. 

It's not like he outed this guy himself. What's the point of this?

This is the first time The Donald personally outed the whistleblower.

I thought he deserved the recognition for his unethical bullshit.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.1.1  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1    5 years ago
The Donald personally outed the whistleblower.

Yessirree. Stir up his base so they threaten the 'whistleblower', threaten the family, then he can tweet that he doesn't endorse the expressions of violence so he can manipulate his base to do his bidding while he holds up his hands as if they're clean. He uses his base like minions. And they don't get it. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1    5 years ago
This is the first time The Donald personally outed the whistleblower.

Do you not understand the concept of "outing" someone? It's kind of hard (i.e impossible) to out someone who is already out.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    5 years ago
Do you not understand the concept of "outing" someone?

Don't worry.

I won't rat on you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to    5 years ago

That’s for sure!  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.1.6  cobaltblue  replied to    5 years ago
Oh yes we do!

Okay, thank you for the HUUUUGE laugh this morning!!! I almost spewed my coffee!!! 

Your response above was to these sentences: "He uses his base like minions. And they don't get it." 

On M*A*S*H:

Hawkeye:  "Frank!! Quit acting like an idiot!!!"
Frank Pierce:  [whining]  "I'm not acting!!!" 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
6  PJ    5 years ago

The whistle blower is a true patriot along with the other civil and core servants that stepped forward to testify at their own peril.  If this country survives the voters who voted in trump, history will portray them as the traitors they became to this country because of their hatred and jealousy of others.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  PJ @6    5 years ago
The whistle blower is a true patriot along with the other civil and core servants that stepped forward to testify at their own peril.

They are all very brave people who will be recognized as true patriots by future historians.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
6.1.1  PJ  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.1    5 years ago

Yes, it's disturbing how they are being attacked for carrying out their oaths.  It's simply madness.  I do not know any other way to describe it.  I remember when all Americans cheered patriotism but not this lot.  They attack it while praising and protecting russia.  These are not the actions of true Americans.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2  cobaltblue  replied to  PJ @6    5 years ago
he whistle blower is a true patriot along with the other civil and core servants that stepped forward to testify at their own peril.  If this country survives the voters who voted in trump, history will portray them as the traitors they became to this country because of their hatred and jealousy of others

Brilliant. And true. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  cobaltblue @6.2    5 years ago

CB, I predicted 3 1/2 years ago that one day it would all come down to the Trump supporter. 

When you have someone who is so monumentally unfit and unqualified for the office, and people vote him in anyway, it is inevitable that one day the spotlight would fall on those voters.  They are the ones who are to blame for all this. And if they wont accept the responsibility then it has to be thrust on them. 

There is no other way. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    5 years ago
those voters.  They are the ones who are to blame for all this.

Yes.

Hillary was right - they're fucking deplorable.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
I take full responsibility along with the tax cuts.

The tax cuts have resulted in doubling the deficit.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
6.2.5  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    5 years ago

I have always blamed the voters.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @6.2.5    5 years ago

I know. You get it. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
tax cuts don't cost anything

Tax cuts reduce revenue (the side of the equation that republicans always ignore).

Trump tax cuts hiked the deficit, now $1 trillion, so guess what Republicans want for 2020

The 2017 tax cuts produced only a brief sugar high for the economy. America can't afford Round 2: Our view

The Editorial Board
USA TODAY

In 2017, trying to sell Congress on a $1.5 trillion package of tax cuts , President Donald Trump made some pretty Trumpian predictions. 

“The economy now is at 3% (growth),” he said. "Nobody thought it would be anywhere close. I think it could go to 4, 5 and maybe even 6%, ultimately .”

In fact, the economic growth rate that year was not 3% but 2.4%. And with Trump’s sweeping, massive, transformative, awesome, really huge tax cuts, the growth rate in 2018 surged all the way up to — drumroll, please — 2.9%.

That’s right, half a percentage point, and even that uptick was short-lived. Most projections for this year have it back below where it was before enactment of the tax cuts. Next year’s projections range from 2% to outright recession.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.11  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
Sorry spending causes deficits not tax cuts.

When federal expenditures exceed federal revenues it results in federal deficits.   It's a simple arithmetic equation.  Excessive spending increases the deficit.   Excessive tax cuts reduce revenue and increase the deficit.

Republicans do not understand the revenue side of the equation.  That's why every Republican president since Reagan has set a new record for the highest deficits in history.

Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar in economics, set the record for the highest surpluses in history by raising taxes .

History of the US Federal Budget Deficit

Budget Deficit by Year

The budget deficit is the difference between the money the federal government takes in, called receipts, and what it spends, called outlays each year. The U.S. government has run a multibillion-dollar deficit almost every year in modern history, spending much more than it takes in .
The opposite of a budget deficit, a budget surplus, occurs when the government’s revenue exceeds current expenditures resulting in an excess of money that can be used as needed.
In fact, the government has recorded budget surpluses in only five years since 1969, most of them under Democratic President Bill Clinton .
______________
    • 2019 - $960 billion budget deficit (projected)
    • 2018 - $779 billion budget deficit
    • 2017 - $665 billion budget deficit
    • 2016 - $585 billion budget deficit
    • 2015 - $439 billion budget deficit
    • 2014 - $514 billion budget deficit
    • 2013 - $719 billion budget deficit
    • 2012 - $1.1 trillion budget deficit
    • 2011 - $1.3 trillion budget deficit
    • 2010 - $1.3 trillion budget deficit
    • 2009 - $1.4 trillion budget deficit
    • 2008 - $455 billion budget deficit
    • 2007 - $162 billion budget deficit
    • 2006 - $248.2 billion budget deficit
    • 2005 - $319 billion budget deficit
    • 2004 - $412.7 billion budget deficit
  • 2003 - $377.6 billion budget deficit
  • 2002 - $157.8 billion budget deficit
  • 2001 - $128.2 billion budget surplus
  • 2000 - $236.2 billion budget surplus
  • 1999 - $125.6 billion budget surplus
  • 1998 - $69.3 billion budget surplus
  • 1997 - $21.9 billion budget deficit
  • 1996 - $107.4 billion budget deficit
  • 1995 - $164 billion budget deficit
  • 1994 - $203.2 billion budget deficit
  • 1993 - $255.1 billion budget deficit
  • 1992 - $290.3 billion budget deficit
  • 1991 - $269.2 billion budget deficit
  • 1990 - $221 billion budget deficit
  • 1989 - $152.6 billion budget deficit
  • 1988 - $155.2 billion budget deficit
  • 1987 - $149.7 billion budget deficit
  • 1986 - $221.2 billion budget deficit
  • 1985 - $212.3 billion budget defici
Please notice that deficits became surpluses from 1998-2001 (Clinton's last 4 budgets).
Nixon had one budget surplus when the Democratic House defunded the Vietnam War (which ended that stupid war).
I encourage you to do the math.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.12  JBB  replied to    5 years ago

No! Income minus spending equals the surplus or (deficit). All adults should understand the basics of...math. Surely even you know this...

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
6.2.13  sixpick  replied to  JBB @6.2.12    5 years ago

Let this be for Al and JBB.

Now follow these links and show me where the national debt goes down during Clinton or any President's time in office.  Clinton didn't have a surplus.

The first link covers before Clinton took office and most of Clinton's two terms and the second link covers the balance plus more years with Bush and so on.  There is no surplus.  It's math.  It's how Clinton did the math, but if there was a surplus, then the National Debt would have gone down, not up as it did every year Clinton was in office.

You can do this yourself or I'll be glad to go into it further.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.15  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sixpick @6.2.13    5 years ago
Now follow these links and show me where the national debt goes down during Clinton or any President's time in office.  Clinton didn't have a surplus.

The national debt and budget deficits/surpluses are two different things.

Clinton ran four years of budget surpluses 1998-2001.  Detractors like the CATO Institute are full of shit.

Here is the full text of a statement released by the U.S. Treasury Department about Clinton's success:

 "THE FISCAL LEGACY OF THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION" TREASURY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY DAVID W. WILCOX REMARKS TO THE SOCIETY OF GOVERNMENT ECONOMISTS WASHINGTON, DC

12/20/2000

    spacer.gif

FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

LS-1088


I. Introduction

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. It is a privilege to address this group at the close of the Clinton Administration, and to have the opportunity to review the Administration's fiscal legacy.

One sure indicator of the importance of that legacy is the fact that, in at least four ways, the state of fiscal policy is fundamentally different today than it was eight years ago. I have organized the bulk of my remarks today around those four fundamental changes.

But before reviewing those four changes, let me take you back to the beginning, and recall for you how difficult it was to pass the President's first deficit reduction package in 1993, and how great the skepticism it encountered as to its economic merits. The deficit reduction package passed the House of Representatives on August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218-216, with all Republicans voting against. The next day, the Senate passed the bill, on a vote of 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, again with not a single Republican vote in support of the package.

Much of the commentary in 1993 was, to say the least, skeptical as to the economic merits of the plan. One member of Congress remarked that "this is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy." Another said: "This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat and believe that more taxes and bigger government is the answer."

Leaving aside the false premise as to the fiscal orientation of the Democratic Party today, we do now know the outcome as to the recent performance of the macroeconomy: During the Clinton Administration, we have enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. Inflation declined to the lowest levels since the Kennedy Administration, and has remained moderate this year despite the run-up in energy prices. Productivity growth has averaged 3.0 percent over the last five years - nearly double its average rate over the preceding 20 years. And real wages finally have begun rising across the economic spectrum.

Now there has been a lot of debate in recent years about how to parse out the credit for that macroeconomic performance. To be sure, much of the credit goes to the American people, who have displayed enormous creativity and entrepreneurial energy, and to the development of path-breaking new technology. But as Secretary Summers has noted, the American people were creative and entrepreneurial in 1992 as well, and yet the country could not seem to improve its lackluster economic conditions. I hope it will not surprise you too greatly if I attribute a share of the credit to the strategy of sustained fiscal discipline that was put in place by the President and his economic team.

And notwithstanding the economic outcome, I am not aware of any offer on the part of the member of Congress I quoted earlier to carry out his promise and vote with the Democrats!

Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of four ways in which fiscal policy has been transformed during the Clinton Presidency.

II. Facts and Figures

Perhaps the simplest and most obvious way in which the fiscal landscape has been revolutionized is the stunning change in the numbers:

  • I n FY1992 - the year before the Clinton Administration took office - the unified deficit of the Federal government ran a record $290 billion, or 4.7 percent of GDP. By contrast, in FY2000 - the fiscal year just completed - the Federal government set a different and more enviable record, with a surplus of $237 billion, or 2.4 percent of GDP.
  • In 1992, the debt held by the public was nearly 50 percent as large as the GDP, and projected to increase to roughly 65 percent of GDP by the end of FY2000. In fact, the debt now is only 35 percent as large as the GDP, and is projected on prudent assumptions to be eliminated by 2012 - even taking account of the President's spending and tax-cut proposals.

This turnaround in the numbers has brought real benefits to individual Americans:

  • The net interest payments of the Federal government in FY2000 alone were $125 billion lower than projected in early 1993. That amounts to more than $1700 for every American family.
  • Fiscal consolidation has helped reduce mortgage interest costs: a typical American family with a mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save about $2,000 annually in mortgage costs because of our new path of fiscal discipline. Low mortgage rates in turn have helped to make housing more affordable; the homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67.7 percent in the third quarter of this year.
  • The swing in the Federal budget from deficit to surplus has resulted in nearly a doubling of the net national saving rate, making more funds available for private investment. (And incidentally, the improvement in the Federal budget deficit - now a surplus - accounts for all of the improvement in national saving.) Surging investment, especially in equipment incorporating the latest advances in technology, has contributed to a pickup in workers' productivity growth - and ultimately, in their wages.

III. Unified budget accounting versus on-budget accounting

A second respect in which the fiscal landscape has been transformed has more to do with the institutions of the budget process than with the performance of the budget itself.

  • Until the past couple of years, the political debate about the budget focused on allocating unified surpluses - or, to be more precise about it - reducing unified deficits. A few insightful observers understood that balancing the unified budget should not be the ultimate goal, but believed that the more ambitious objective of balancing the on-budget account was so far out of reach that highlighting it as a potential objective might actually undermine our collective resolve rather than solidify it. And they were probably right.
  • But in the summer of 1999, buoyed by the progress of the preceding six years, President Clinton was able to shift the terms of the political conversation by putting forward a plan for allocating the projected on-budget surpluses over the succeeding ten years, and for setting aside all of the off-budget surpluses - the Social Security surpluses - for debt reduction.

The practical implication of this change is that the budgetary debate now focuses on how best to use $1.9 trillion in projected on- budget surpluses rather than $4.2 trillion in unified surpluses. The beneficial implications for national saving and the performance of the macroeconomy can hardly be overstated .

IV. Government saving and the trust funds

The shift in the terms of political debate had an immediate and extremely consequential implication for the interpretation of the Social Security trust fund, which represents a third important change in the fiscal landscape:

  • Back when the budget debate focused on the unified surplus or deficit, changes in the level of the Social Security trust fund conveyed little information about the extent to which the Federal government or the nation was preparing for the retirement of the babyboom generation. So long as balancing the unified budget remained the standard for adequate fiscal performance, a larger Social Security surplus would tend to be offset by a larger non-Social Security deficit. Accordingly, an increase in the Social Security trust fund did not imply that the government or nation was better prepared for the demographic changes of the next few decades.
  • But now that the budget debate focuses on balancing the on-budget account, changes in the level of the Social Security trust fund do reflect incremental government saving. So long as the on-budget account remains either in balance or in surplus, Social Security surpluses translate dollar for dollar into improvements in the net financial position of the government. Thus, they represent preparation that the Federal government is undertaking on behalf of all of us for the retirement of the babyboom generation.

It is worth digressing here for a moment to address one common misconception about the Social Security trust fund. A number of critics have attacked the "reality" of the trust fund, on the basis that the trust fund holds only "government IOUs." This attack is a red herring.

In point of fact, the macroeconomic reality of the trust fund does not hinge on the assets that it holds, but rather on the issue of whether trust fund accumulations are backed by government saving.

  • In the old regime, in which balancing the unified budget was taken to be the standard of adequate fiscal performance, the trust fund did not have great significance from a macroeconomic perspective (even though it is very "real" indeed for other purposes). And the same was true regardless of what assets the trust fund was invested in -- be they gold ingots, corporate shares, or Treasury securities.
  • By contrast, in the new regime, in which the fiscal objective is to balance the budget excluding the Social Security surpluses, then the trust fund is fully "real" from a macroeconomic perspective, again without regard to whatever assets the trust fund may be invested in.

The key is whether changes in the level of the trust fund are backed, dollar for dollar, by government saving. If they are, then - for my purposes as a macroeconomist - the trust fund is very real indeed. And this accomplishment - the fact that the Social Security trust fund now has real macroeconomic meaning - is, in my view, one of the most under-rated achievements of the Clinton Administration.

V. The near-term implications of out-year fiscal settings

A fourth change in the fiscal landscape is that we now have a much keener appreciation for the near-term implications of out-year fiscal settings.

  • In 1992, the notion that a back-loaded deficit reduction package could be stimulative in the near term was still regarded as somewhat controversial. This new theory held that once a deficit-reduction program had been announced, the bond market would look ahead, recognize the future fiscal consolidation and its implication for future short-term interest rates, and bring that back to the present in the form of lower long-term interest rates. Thus, it would be possible to stimulate business investment and other interest-sensitive forms of spending without immediately bearing the contractionary consequences of a tighter overall stance of fiscal policy.
  • Today, that view is regarded as conventional wisdom, largely on the basis of the experience of the 1990s. More specifically, over the course of 1993, as the initial deficit reduction package was working its way through the Congress, interest rates in fact did come down, even as the economic recovery was gathering strength, consistent with the theory behind the policy.

I should note that there is nothing special about fiscal consolidations, and that the logic of this lesson applies equally in reverse: a back-loaded fiscal expansion can, in principle, be contractionary in the near term. The main determining factors include the speed with which the fiscal stimulus is phased in, and the degree to which fiscal policy becomes more expansionary in the future relative to the present.

VI. Conclusion

The extent of the fiscal progress of the past eight years is almost difficult to comprehend. Now it is no longer common to worry about the mounting fiscal burden that we are bequeathing to our children. Instead, we can realistically look forward to the day when we will have eliminated the debt held by the public altogether.

But the fiscal agenda is not finished. Let me highlight two items that the Clinton Administration fought for, but was unable to obtain:

  • First, the President and Vice President proposed taking Medicare out of the budget, and thus giving the Medicare trust fund the same degree of macroeconomic significance now enjoyed by the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, despite some expressions of support for this idea from both sides of the aisle, Congress did not ratify the suggestion. This will be an important next step for the new Administration and the new Congress to take.
  • Second, of course, the fundamental goals of Social Security reform and Medicare reform remain unaccomplished. President Clinton put forward a plan that would have extended the solvency of the Social Security trust fund to 2054, and suggested that a bipartisan process be put in motion to close the remainder of the 75-year actuarial imbalance. On the Medicare side, he put forward a detailed proposal for extending the solvency of the trust fund while introducing real competition into the program - competition not only among Medicare HMO plans, but also between those plans and the traditional fee-for-service program.

Unfortunately, Congress failed to respond to the President's leadership on either point. But one of the greatest fiscal legacies of the Clinton Administration is that the resources have been preserved to enact those proposed solutions in the future, should the new Congress and the new President choose to do so. For the sake of the nation's economic future, I hope they will make that choice.

 


 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.2    5 years ago

And openly proud of it.  We can’t wait to go out and campaign and donate for him and then vote to re elect the President!  Proud to be a deplorable.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.17  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.16    5 years ago
Proud to be a deplorable.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6.2.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  PJ @6.2.5    5 years ago

I blame the morons that comprise the EC.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
6.2.19  sixpick  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.15    5 years ago
 "THE FISCAL LEGACY OF THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION" TREASURY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY DAVID W. WILCOX REMARKS TO THE SOCIETY OF GOVERNMENT ECONOMISTS WASHINGTON, DC

I know you'd like to truthfully say Clinton had surpluses, but it just ain't so.

If you really read what he is saying instead of what he wants you to hear, then you will see what he has done.  And you know what?  He didn't say a thing about Mama or the pickup truck, nor did he say anything about the Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress for the last 6 years of Clinton's presidency.  And he didn't even mention the Dot.com bubble that was a Dot.com boom at the time fixing to crash.  He acted like what a beautiful world and how it was always going to be that way.

You see....

Fiscal
Year
End
Date
Claimed
Surplus
Public
Debt
Intra-gov
Holdings
Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997   $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T green_down.gif $55.8B $1.792328T red_up.gif $168.9B $5.526193T red_up.gif $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T green_down.gif $97.8B $2.020166T red_up.gif $227.8B $5.656270T red_up.gif $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T green_down.gif $230.8B $2.268874T red_up.gif $248.7B $5.674178T red_up.gif $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001   $3.339310T green_down.gif $66.0B $2.468153T red_up.gif $199.3B $5.807463T red_up.gif $133.3B

You know that Social Security Trust fund he called an asset.  Of course it was doing pretty good with the Dot.com boom Clinton being fortunate enough to be sitting in the White House when it was roaring alone bringing in lots of money.  Wilcox didn't even mention anything about Congress or the Boom, but the fact is Clinton increased the Social Security Trust Fund IOU by using it to pay the Public Debt down.  It was kind of like not paying one loan, but instead borrowing more money from it to pay another loan down.  And since they didn't consider the Social Security Trust Fund which was nothing but a bunch of IOU's as a debt, well, you get the message.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sixpick @6.2.19    5 years ago
He didn't say a thing about Mama or the pickup truck

I see.  I appreciate the way you posted a link to your disinformation.

Did you get that pile of stupidity from Putin or the Ukrainians?

You should probably stop smocking those NRA bullets.

They seem to be blowing your mind.

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2.21  cobaltblue  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.16    5 years ago
Proud to be a deplorable.

yay!

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
6.2.22  sixpick  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.15    5 years ago
The national debt and budget deficits/surpluses are two different things. Clinton ran four years of budget surpluses 1998-2001.  Detractors like the CATO Institute are full of shit.

You know al, you should stop telling people the national debt and budget deficits/surpluses are two different things.  I assume you left out the part where surpluses and deficits are what determines what the national debt is.  Of course they are two different things, but they determine the final debt depending on whether you have one or the other.

On a personal level, the national debt is how much you have borrowed and thereby how much you owe.  Surpluses or deficits come about if you either make more than what you owe plus any other cost such as interest giving you a total debt, in this case your very own personal national debt. 

If you earn more than you spend, then you have money to pay your debt down, but if you earn less than you need to keep up with your debt, you have to find some way to cover that debt, usually by borrowing more money and getting further and further in debt as we have done for decades. Or you can shift the excess tax receipts from the Intragovernmental Holdings, such as Social Security with IOU's and us that money to pay down the Debt Held By The Public, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did.  That's why the National Debt never went down, but only continued to go up every year.

I assume you would agree with me that the economy was booming during Bill Clinton's two terms as President?  Since that is true, the payroll taxes were the highest at that time than they had ever been.  There was plenty of money to pay Social Security benefits because the Social Security Trust was not running a deficit.  They could have reduced those IOU's..More people were paying into it than ever before and if the government had not borrowed from it the balance of IOU's could have been going down during the years you refer to as Bill Clinton's surplus years,  I hope you agree with that, because it is true.

Now at this point, I'm going to leave it with you to evaluate the following graph.

This is directly from the government, not someone who wants to leave a legacy of how well things went while they were employed by the government.

You may have to enter information.  I chose January 4, 1993 through December 29, 2019.  I don't know if this link will work without you having to enter those dates.

The Daily History of the Debt Results

Historical returns from 01/04/1993 through 12/29/2019

The data for the total public debt outstanding is published each business day. If there is no debt value for the date(s) you requested, the value for the preceding business day will be displayed.

We'll see.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
6.2.23  sixpick  replied to  sixpick @6.2.22    5 years ago

Look at it yearly.  You'll see the Intragovernental Holdings increasing while the Debt Held By The Public decreasing every year at the end of the 9th month, but if you observe you will see the National Debt continues to increase.  Clinton increased the IOU's on the Intragovernmental Holdings to reduce the Debt Held By The Public during a time when there should have not been any increase in these IOU's.  They have been trying to pass this off as Clinton's surpluses and most people just take it for granted it is true without investigating it at all.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.24  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sixpick @6.2.22    5 years ago
You know al, you should stop telling people the national debt and budget deficits/surpluses are two different things.

The national debt is the total of all of the federal budget deficits minus all of the budget surpluses in American history.  

Obviously "the national debt and budget deficits/surpluses are two different things."

Here is an analysis of the Clinton years published by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  It addresses all of the issues in your ridiculous comment.  

I posted this before.  You should read it this time.  Or click on the link at the bottom of the report to see it at the Treasury Department's website. 

 "THE FISCAL LEGACY OF THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION" TREASURY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY DAVID W. WILCOX REMARKS TO THE SOCIETY OF GOVERNMENT ECONOMISTS WASHINGTON, DC

12/20/2000

    spacer.gif

FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

LS-1088


I. Introduction

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. It is a privilege to address this group at the close of the Clinton Administration, and to have the opportunity to review the Administration's fiscal legacy.

One sure indicator of the importance of that legacy is the fact that, in at least four ways, the state of fiscal policy is fundamentally different today than it was eight years ago. I have organized the bulk of my remarks today around those four fundamental changes.

But before reviewing those four changes, let me take you back to the beginning, and recall for you how difficult it was to pass the President's first deficit reduction package in 1993, and how great the skepticism it encountered as to its economic merits. The deficit reduction package passed the House of Representatives on August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218-216, with all Republicans voting against. The next day, the Senate passed the bill, on a vote of 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, again with not a single Republican vote in support of the package.

Much of the commentary in 1993 was, to say the least, skeptical as to the economic merits of the plan. One member of Congress remarked that "this is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy." Another said: "This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat and believe that more taxes and bigger government is the answer."

Leaving aside the false premise as to the fiscal orientation of the Democratic Party today, we do now know the outcome as to the recent performance of the macroeconomy: During the Clinton Administration, we have enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. Inflation declined to the lowest levels since the Kennedy Administration, and has remained moderate this year despite the run-up in energy prices. Productivity growth has averaged 3.0 percent over the last five years - nearly double its average rate over the preceding 20 years. And real wages finally have begun rising across the economic spectrum.

Now there has been a lot of debate in recent years about how to parse out the credit for that macroeconomic performance. To be sure, much of the credit goes to the American people, who have displayed enormous creativity and entrepreneurial energy, and to the development of path-breaking new technology. But as Secretary Summers has noted, the American people were creative and entrepreneurial in 1992 as well, and yet the country could not seem to improve its lackluster economic conditions. I hope it will not surprise you too greatly if I attribute a share of the credit to the strategy of sustained fiscal discipline that was put in place by the President and his economic team.

And notwithstanding the economic outcome, I am not aware of any offer on the part of the member of Congress I quoted earlier to carry out his promise and vote with the Democrats!

Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of four ways in which fiscal policy has been transformed during the Clinton Presidency.

II. Facts and Figures

Perhaps the simplest and most obvious way in which the fiscal landscape has been revolutionized is the stunning change in the numbers:

  • I n FY1992 - the year before the Clinton Administration took office - the unified deficit of the Federal government ran a record $290 billion, or 4.7 percent of GDP. By contrast, in FY2000 - the fiscal year just completed - the Federal government set a different and more enviable record, with a surplus of $237 billion, or 2.4 percent of GDP.
  • In 1992, the debt held by the public was nearly 50 percent as large as the GDP, and projected to increase to roughly 65 percent of GDP by the end of FY2000. In fact, the debt now is only 35 percent as large as the GDP, and is projected on prudent assumptions to be eliminated by 2012 - even taking account of the President's spending and tax-cut proposals.

This turnaround in the numbers has brought real benefits to individual Americans:

  • The net interest payments of the Federal government in FY2000 alone were $125 billion lower than projected in early 1993. That amounts to more than $1700 for every American family.
  • Fiscal consolidation has helped reduce mortgage interest costs: a typical American family with a mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save about $2,000 annually in mortgage costs because of our new path of fiscal discipline. Low mortgage rates in turn have helped to make housing more affordable; the homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67.7 percent in the third quarter of this year.
  • The swing in the Federal budget from deficit to surplus has resulted in nearly a doubling of the net national saving rate, making more funds available for private investment. (And incidentally, the improvement in the Federal budget deficit - now a surplus - accounts for all of the improvement in national saving.) Surging investment, especially in equipment incorporating the latest advances in technology, has contributed to a pickup in workers' productivity growth - and ultimately, in their wages.

III. Unified budget accounting versus on-budget accounting

A second respect in which the fiscal landscape has been transformed has more to do with the institutions of the budget process than with the performance of the budget itself.

  • Until the past couple of years, the political debate about the budget focused on allocating unified surpluses - or, to be more precise about it - reducing unified deficits. A few insightful observers understood that balancing the unified budget should not be the ultimate goal, but believed that the more ambitious objective of balancing the on-budget account was so far out of reach that highlighting it as a potential objective might actually undermine our collective resolve rather than solidify it. And they were probably right.
  • But in the summer of 1999, buoyed by the progress of the preceding six years, President Clinton was able to shift the terms of the political conversation by putting forward a plan for allocating the projected on-budget surpluses over the succeeding ten years, and for setting aside all of the off-budget surpluses - the Social Security surpluses - for debt reduction.

The practical implication of this change is that the budgetary debate now focuses on how best to use $1.9 trillion in projected on- budget surpluses rather than $4.2 trillion in unified surpluses. The beneficial implications for national saving and the performance of the macroeconomy can hardly be overstated .

IV. Government saving and the trust funds

The shift in the terms of political debate had an immediate and extremely consequential implication for the interpretation of the Social Security trust fund, which represents a third important change in the fiscal landscape:

  • Back when the budget debate focused on the unified surplus or deficit, changes in the level of the Social Security trust fund conveyed little information about the extent to which the Federal government or the nation was preparing for the retirement of the babyboom generation. So long as balancing the unified budget remained the standard for adequate fiscal performance, a larger Social Security surplus would tend to be offset by a larger non-Social Security deficit. Accordingly, an increase in the Social Security trust fund did not imply that the government or nation was better prepared for the demographic changes of the next few decades.
  • But now that the budget debate focuses on balancing the on-budget account, changes in the level of the Social Security trust fund do reflect incremental government saving. So long as the on-budget account remains either in balance or in surplus, Social Security surpluses translate dollar for dollar into improvements in the net financial position of the government. Thus, they represent preparation that the Federal government is undertaking on behalf of all of us for the retirement of the babyboom generation.

It is worth digressing here for a moment to address one common misconception about the Social Security trust fund. A number of critics have attacked the "reality" of the trust fund, on the basis that the trust fund holds only "government IOUs." This attack is a red herring.

In point of fact, the macroeconomic reality of the trust fund does not hinge on the assets that it holds, but rather on the issue of whether trust fund accumulations are backed by government saving.

  • In the old regime, in which balancing the unified budget was taken to be the standard of adequate fiscal performance, the trust fund did not have great significance from a macroeconomic perspective (even though it is very "real" indeed for other purposes). And the same was true regardless of what assets the trust fund was invested in -- be they gold ingots, corporate shares, or Treasury securities.
  • By contrast, in the new regime, in which the fiscal objective is to balance the budget excluding the Social Security surpluses, then the trust fund is fully "real" from a macroeconomic perspective, again without regard to whatever assets the trust fund may be invested in.

The key is whether changes in the level of the trust fund are backed, dollar for dollar, by government saving. If they are, then - for my purposes as a macroeconomist - the trust fund is very real indeed. And this accomplishment - the fact that the Social Security trust fund now has real macroeconomic meaning - is, in my view, one of the most under-rated achievements of the Clinton Administration.

V. The near-term implications of out-year fiscal settings

A fourth change in the fiscal landscape is that we now have a much keener appreciation for the near-term implications of out-year fiscal settings.

  • In 1992, the notion that a back-loaded deficit reduction package could be stimulative in the near term was still regarded as somewhat controversial. This new theory held that once a deficit-reduction program had been announced, the bond market would look ahead, recognize the future fiscal consolidation and its implication for future short-term interest rates, and bring that back to the present in the form of lower long-term interest rates. Thus, it would be possible to stimulate business investment and other interest-sensitive forms of spending without immediately bearing the contractionary consequences of a tighter overall stance of fiscal policy.
  • Today, that view is regarded as conventional wisdom, largely on the basis of the experience of the 1990s. More specifically, over the course of 1993, as the initial deficit reduction package was working its way through the Congress, interest rates in fact did come down, even as the economic recovery was gathering strength, consistent with the theory behind the policy.

I should note that there is nothing special about fiscal consolidations, and that the logic of this lesson applies equally in reverse: a back-loaded fiscal expansion can, in principle, be contractionary in the near term. The main determining factors include the speed with which the fiscal stimulus is phased in, and the degree to which fiscal policy becomes more expansionary in the future relative to the present.

VI. Conclusion

The extent of the fiscal progress of the past eight years is almost difficult to comprehend. Now it is no longer common to worry about the mounting fiscal burden that we are bequeathing to our children. Instead, we can realistically look forward to the day when we will have eliminated the debt held by the public altogether.

But the fiscal agenda is not finished. Let me highlight two items that the Clinton Administration fought for, but was unable to obtain:

  • First, the President and Vice President proposed taking Medicare out of the budget, and thus giving the Medicare trust fund the same degree of macroeconomic significance now enjoyed by the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, despite some expressions of support for this idea from both sides of the aisle, Congress did not ratify the suggestion. This will be an important next step for the new Administration and the new Congress to take.
  • Second, of course, the fundamental goals of Social Security reform and Medicare reform remain unaccomplished. President Clinton put forward a plan that would have extended the solvency of the Social Security trust fund to 2054, and suggested that a bipartisan process be put in motion to close the remainder of the 75-year actuarial imbalance. On the Medicare side, he put forward a detailed proposal for extending the solvency of the trust fund while introducing real competition into the program - competition not only among Medicare HMO plans, but also between those plans and the traditional fee-for-service program.

Unfortunately, Congress failed to respond to the President's leadership on either point. But one of the greatest fiscal legacies of the Clinton Administration is that the resources have been preserved to enact those proposed solutions in the future, should the new Congress and the new President choose to do so. For the sake of the nation's economic future, I hope they will make that choice.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
6.2.25  sixpick  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.24    5 years ago

Al, I've read that so many times, I can almost recite it.  Let's just say we agree to disagree.  I agree with you in the assumption Clinton could have had a surplus, but in the end the way the Intra-governmental Holdings work, there is no money in reality, only IOU's and at the end of the day, there is no balanced budget if we have a higher National Debt at the end of the year than we did the year before.  It's a funky accounting system in my opinion.  I wish we had the finances of the 1990's back when the National Debt was was 3.7 trillion public debt and 1.6 trillion Intra-governmental Holdings.  Everything after that has been downhill.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.26  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sixpick @6.2.25    5 years ago
Al, I've read that so many times, I can almost recite it. 

It's a shame you don't understand it.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7  The Magic 8 Ball    5 years ago
Eric Ciaramella

take the twist out of your panties...  this is not even news.

his name is everywhere. did y'all just find out or what?

that mbfc bubble meant to keep the left safe and uninformed must be working.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7    5 years ago
his name is everywhere. did y'all just find out or what?

This is the first time Trump himself has mentioned his name.

I wanted to give The Donald some recognition for his unethical bullshit.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1    5 years ago
This is the first time Trump himself has mentioned his name.

OMG - stop the presses... LOL

yer cracking me up :)

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7.1.1    5 years ago
yer cracking me up

Then why are you here? You crack ME up! It's like inviting yourself to a party and then bitching about the music, the food and the company. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.1.3  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.2    5 years ago
Then why are you here?

for the laugh... 

cheers :)

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7.1.3    5 years ago
cheers

Drink a lot, do ya? 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.1.5  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.4    5 years ago
Drink a lot, do ya?

I don't drink.

so why else would a person use that expression?

- lets put our thinking caps on ey? -

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.6  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7.1.5    5 years ago
so why else would a person use that expression?

It's usually used as thank you or goodbye. I doubt you're thanking us for the experience, and if you mean goodbye, you're still here. So what is it ol' chap? 

US informal: a friendly expression said just before you drink an alcoholic drink: Cheers! Your good health.
UK informal: used to mean "thank you": "I've bought you a drink." "Cheers, mate."
UK informal: used to mean "goodbye"
 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.1.7  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.6    5 years ago

hint: follow the yellow brick road

ta :)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.1.8  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7.1.7    5 years ago
follow the yellow brick road

The Wizard of Oz, like Trump, was a fraud.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.1.9  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1.8    5 years ago
The Wizard of Oz,

was imaginary. a dream.

don't worry, trump will be removed any day now... LOL

at the end of your dream trump will escape in a hot air balloon just like the wizard of oz did.

watch the ending. they have it pre-recorded... LOL

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.1.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7.1.9    5 years ago
Donald Trump's GoldenHair

The Donald keeps his hair dyed golden with his golden showers (provided by hookers).

512

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8  The Magic 8 Ball    5 years ago

being outraged by proof the cia is involved in the coup?   

never crossed a mind... LOL

but I forgot, that is just how the left rolls now.


y'all do understand before it is over every traitorous prick involved in trying to remove our president will be named.

better buckle up your big boy pants.

april showers bring may pains :)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8    5 years ago
being outraged by proof the cia is involved in the coup?

WTF?

What "coup"?

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8.1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1    5 years ago
What "coup"?

mbfc says your not allowed to know yet.

cheers :)

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1    5 years ago
What "coup"?

The coup according to Breitbart fans:

EF1TXcZWoAAMUXB.jpg

Pretty fuckin' funny if you ask me. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @8.1.3    5 years ago
Do you want us to send you a definition of cool people always ask me for shit like that around here

Wha'? 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
8.1.5  PJ  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1    5 years ago

And they say we're going through a drug epidemic..........  I'd say there's a mental illness crisis happening with about 40% of voters

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @8.1.3    5 years ago
cool people always ask me for shit

I'm sure you can provide plenty of it.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
8.1.7  PJ  replied to  cobaltblue @8.1.2    5 years ago

it's coo coo. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif   There is no other explanation.  This is the mindset of those who vote for trump.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.1.8  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @8.1.3    5 years ago
Do you want us to send you a definition of a coup

"Us"?

Are you a Siamese twin?

I know there hasn't been a "coup".

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8.1.9  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  cobaltblue @8.1.2    5 years ago
The coup according to
  1. durham
  2. admiral rogers
  3. barr.

did you forget about the ongoing (expanded) criminal investigation into obamas admins actions and everything before during and after the 2016 election?  

I understand, there is a massive blind spot on this subject. the mbfc has not approved the conversation yet.. LOL  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8.1.9    5 years ago

Who did the coup overthrow?

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8.1.11  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.10    5 years ago
the coup overthrow

it was unsuccessful. 

trump is still your president.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.1.12  cobaltblue  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.10    5 years ago
Who did the coup overthrow?

Oh heck. Now you're just bringing logic to subject. Don't confuse them. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.1.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.10    5 years ago
Who did the coup overthrow?

The "coup" is imaginary.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8.1.14  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1.13    5 years ago

so adm rogers, the guy who told trump obamas admin was spying on him and is now working with durham on an expanded criminal investigation into same, is imaginary also?

Okay then... LOL  good to know

glad you cleared that up for me :)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8.1.14    5 years ago

You promote conspiracy theories here constantly. Your credibility is shot to hell. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8.1.16  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.15    5 years ago

everything I have said would happen has or is in progress.

I'm still batting 1000 my friend.

I told everyone in 2017 adm rogers was working with the good guys... "conspiracy theory then... and now it published fact.

yepp. still batting 1000  

but hey, back to you...  hows that impeachment going? still hate trump and all that stuff?  any thing new in your life?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1.13    5 years ago

as is the deep state

but hey

it keeps journalists busy.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.1.18  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8.1.9    5 years ago
did you forget about the ongoing (expanded) criminal investigation into obamas admins actions and everything before during and after the 2016 election?  

And republicans are currently doing nothing about it?? Are you saying that republicans are inept? Are you saying that the republicans simply don't care? Where are they at regarding the criminal investigation on President Obama? And while we're on the subject of criminal investigations, how come Hillary isn't locked up as promised? 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.1.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @8.1.22    5 years ago
Are you trying to pretend you don’t know the meaning of the word us?

"Us" is plural indicating that you are speaking for other people too when you posted this:

Do you want us to send you a definition of a coup?

Who are these other people you're speaking for?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.24  XXJefferson51  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8.1.1    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.25  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1.8    5 years ago

No there was no coup.  Just an attempted coup that Admiral Rogers of NSA spilled the beans about to Trump during his transition period. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.26  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.15    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.1.27  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.26    5 years ago
Quite the personal attacks on another member

He simply equated someone's credibility with Trump's.

He wasn't being a "ball breaker".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
8.1.28  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.1.8    5 years ago

Consider the source.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.2  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8    5 years ago
y'all do understand before it is over every traitorous prick involved in trying to remove our president will be named.

... and those names will be engraved on Medals of Valor. 

History will not be kind to trump. But we'll have to wait and see. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.3  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8    5 years ago
april showers bring may pains

Oh boy. Can't wait. I'll bring popcorn. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8.3.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  cobaltblue @8.3    5 years ago
History will not be kind to trump

history is written by winners - spoiler alert - the left loses.

I'll bring popcorn. 

I got the good stuff... and will share :)

256

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.3.2  cobaltblue  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8.3.1    5 years ago
and will share

Nice of you. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
10  cobaltblue    5 years ago

Again, I'm hearing that the republicans didn't do anything about any of that. Funny, isn't it. You'd think it'd be all over the news. You'd think trump would be tweeting up a storm about that. You'd think the right would have indictments in order. Are the republicans brain dead or is it they don't care, they're merely watching their party sink? So many choices ... 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
11  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago
So you’re not familiar with how impeachment works

You think Obama can still be impeached and now you're accusing me of not being familiar with how impeachment works?

Wow!  I wish I had some of the shit you're smocking!

512

OTOH, I'd be afraid to smoke anything that fucking powerful.  It must cause dain bramage.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
11.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @11    5 years ago

Smocking gun?  Did this moron not learn from the backlash the first time he used that word?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
11.2.1  cobaltblue  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.2    5 years ago
Smocking gun?

Hilarious again!! And he used it more than once. He uses it because he knows words. He knows words more than the generals. Hahaha! 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB    5 years ago

Everybody here needs to realize something, although republicans need not bother. We have to get Trump out of office in November 2020. Else, can you imagine the state of our minds after watching this megalomaniac, and his conservative sycophants, trapped inside our televisions and our mental 'spaces' crowding out all other knowledge that seeks to take root?

You, me, we will not survive —the outrages I mean.

Independents, do get a clue. Donald Trump wants all our minds for a Trump branded garden!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
13  Jeremy Retired in NC    5 years ago
Trump treats the whistleblower's name like classified information - he releases it
  1. The "whistle blowers" name ISN'T classified.  Whistle blower protection protection covers retaliatory action.  Not naming the individual.
  2. You're mistaking the President for the failed DNC candidate from 2016.  

But don't let facts like that stop the propaganda.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
13.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13    5 years ago
The "whistle blowers" name ISN'T classified.

I never said the whistleblowers name is classified.

Evidently you did NOT read the fucking article.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
13.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @13.1    5 years ago
Evidently you did NOT read the fucking article.

Evidently you [deleted ]  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
13.1.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.1    5 years ago
Comment removed due to previous removal for violation [ph]

That's a beautiful example of a CoC violation (personal attack).

Butt don't worry, I never flag comments no matter how shitty they are.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
13.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @13.1.2    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
14  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

whistleblowing-18-638.jpg?cb=1391595969

And yet the whistle blower on the tobacco industry probably saved millions of lives.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
15  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

AUTHORS NOTICE:

As some of you may have noticed I changed gears in the way I'm responding to trollish comments being posted by certain "conservatives".

For the first 300+ comments on this thread I've been posting thoughtful, well researched, thoroughly documented explanations of complex subjects like deficit spending.  The replies have usually been the same old worn out talking points and boring deflections that have become the signature responses from the right.

Rather than continue to waste my time on serious comments time consuming comments, I've decided to give those idiots a taste of the shit they spew.  I know it may not help their halitosis butt it is far more amusing than long winded explanations that they are apparently in capable of understanding.

Ridiculous comments deserve ridiculous replies.

800  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
15.1  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @15    5 years ago

Lol .... this one is closer to the truth for you:

256

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
15.1.1  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @15.1    4 years ago
this one is closer to the truth for you:

Oh sparty, sparty, sparty. I laugh easily and I have fun watching the desperation on the right (honestly ... some comments should be on the trump edition of cards against humanity ... they're fuckin' hilarious!), but  you just cause eye rolling. C'mon sparty. Say something that I can read aloud to dinner guests so we can roll with laughter ... c'mon. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  cobaltblue @15.1.1    4 years ago

512

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
15.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @15.1.1    4 years ago

Aww sweetie, it's okay.   I know things haven't been going your way for the last three years but buck up.   You only have five more years to look forward to and decades of more conservative judges as well.   Good times eh?

Hug and kisses as always and make sure to serve the copious amounts of whine with your cheese that you're known to serve.

Toodles!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
15.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @15.1.3    4 years ago

Some might think you're rather condescending....

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
15.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @15.1.4    4 years ago

True but most would also agree that the person who cold responded to my post in the first place is as well.  

Well  .... at least the unbiased ones would

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
15.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @15.1.4    4 years ago
condescending....

That wouldn't have been my word choice.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
15.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @15.1.6    4 years ago

Yeah...but I'm biased

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
15.1.8  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @15.1.7    4 years ago
I'm biased

Well, I know you laugh at the the flag that goes with the MAGA hat.

800

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
16  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

BREAKIN NOISE.......................

Can this be true?

Trump retweets, deletes post naming alleged whistleblower

DARLENE SUPERVILLE and DAVID KLEPPER
,
Associated Press December 28, 2019

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President Donald Trump retweeted, then deleted, a post that included the alleged name of the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment by the House.

Just before midnight Friday, Trump retweeted a message from Twitter user @Surfermom77, an account that claims to be a woman named Sophia who lives in California. The account shows some indications of automation, including an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet.

By Saturday morning, the post had been removed from Trump's feed, though it could still be found in other ways, including on a website that logs every presidential tweet.

While Trump has repeatedly backed efforts to unmask the whistleblower, his retweet marks the first time he has directly sent the alleged name into the Twitter feed of his 68 million followers.

Unmasking the whistleblower, who works in the intelligence field, could violate federal protection laws that have historically been supported by both parties.

The whistleblower filed a complaint in August about one of Trump's telephone conversations with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other dealings with the Eastern European nation. The complaint prompted House Democrats to launch a probe that ended with Trump’s impeachment earlier this month. The matter now heads to the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to acquit the president.

The central points from the whistleblower’s complaint were confirmed during the House impeachment hearings by a string of diplomats and other career officials, many of whom testified in public . The White House also released a transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy, in which he asks for help investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee.

Speculation about the whistleblower's identity has been circulating in conservative media and on social media for months.

U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. The Associated Press typically does not reveal the identity of whistleblowers.

The White House had no comment Saturday on the president’s retweet or why it was removed.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
16.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  al Jizzerror @16    5 years ago
BREAKIN NOISE....................... Can this be true?

This is NOT TRUE!

Trump would never delete his unethical tweet (which is really a retweet of a bot's tweet ).

Here's what Twitter said about the apparent deletion:

Twitter Says Internal Glitch Caused Trump Retweet Naming Whistleblower To Momentarily Disappear

Rachel Sandler Forbes Staff
I cover breaking news.

Topline : A widely criticized retweet from President Donald Trump naming the alleged impeachment whistleblower momentarily disappeared for some users on Saturday—and Twitter says it was caused by an internal system outage.

  • Just before midnight on Friday, Trump retweeted a post from a pro-Trump account naming the alleged whistleblower whose complaint kickstarted his impeachment.

  • The Associated Press reported that the account appeared to be a bot that automatically tweets out pro-Trump content and uses stock images as its profile picture.
  • But on Saturday, CNN noted that the retweeted appeared to have been deleted for some users, leading the outlet to report that someone associated with Trump may have taken down the post.
  • Hours later on Saturday night, the retweet reappeared. In a statement , Twitter said the glitch was due to an “outage with one of our systems, tweets on account profiles were visible to some, but not others.”

Key background : Trump has repeatedly attacked the whistleblower, but up until this weekend had refrained from referencing the alleged whistleblower’s name directly. His son, Donald Trump Jr., was slammed by critics in November for tweeting a link to an article with the purported whistleblower’s name after it circulated in right-wing circles for months. Mainstream media outlets, including Forbes , have declined to publish speculation on the whistleblower’s identity over concerns about the whistleblower’s safety.

Yep.  It took a "glitch" to make it appear that Trump was coming to his senses.  And, no, The Donald has absolutely no concern about the safety of the whistleblower.  If the whistleblower is harmed, Trump should be held responsible.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
17  CB    5 years ago

Happy New Year, Al Jizzerror! What a ball you threw this week. Good on you!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @17    5 years ago
Happy New Year, Al Jizzerror ! What a ball you threw this week. Good on you!

Thanx for noticing that I throw a ball (NYC drops a ball).

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.1.1  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.1    4 years ago

Yippee, baby. Yippee!!!

Happy New Year, everyone! Wishes for a joyous and healthy new year. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
17.1.2  CB  replied to  cobaltblue @17.1.1    4 years ago

Happy New Year, Cobalt Blue!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.1.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @17.1.1    4 years ago
Yippee, baby. Yippee!!!

I owe you a big sloppy wet kiss (a little south of your mouth).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
18  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

HAPPY NEW YEAR, CB!!

I hope you enjoyed the shit show.

We don't have the leeway that BHN eventually eventually earned on NV.

It would be amusing if I could bitch slap the shit out of the trolls on this site too, butt SiNNERS and ButtHeads here is not that kind of group (yet).  We may have slightly more latitude here than some of the other groups butt pushing the envelope here is highly frowned upon.

I don't want to cause an avalanche of censorshit.  It much more fun when the entire congregation can follow along and read everything.

If I go too far, be sure to wave when I get thrown on the banned wagon.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
19  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

To all of my friends on NewsTalkers:

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

800

Remember 2019 as the year The Donald go impeached.

And 2020 will be the year Trump leaves the White House.

And to all of my wonderful NewsTalkers frenemies, please have a mediocre New Year.

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

All of the above candidates are vastly superior to Donald Fucking Trump.

Butt, then again, I would vote for a turnip over The Donald.

 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
20  pat wilson    5 years ago

Happy New Year !!!!!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
20.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  pat wilson @20    5 years ago
Happy New Year !!!!!

Thanx, Pat.

800

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
21  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

800

 
 

Who is online


Kavika
Ed-NavDoc
Ronin2


56 visitors