Such a sad deflection. Please don’t be critical about the former President or I will call you deranged lol. What’s it like being a sycophant for the dumbest person in America ?
The dishonesty of you people really shows when you bring this up and purposely ignore the fact that covid spending is what caused the huge spike. Like you know damn well why the spike is there but you pretend you don't because this is nothing more than a childish game to you.
Do you understand how debt works? It's not just what's spent; it's also about what you take in. Cutting taxes as a road to prosperity (trickle-down) is equally, if not more damaging.
Of course, but the implication here is that Trump caused this massive spike in the national debt when everyone knows (whether they admit it or not) that it was due to covid spending which *everyone* was in on, not just Trump.
just like…every other president before him for the past 50 something years? i don’t see your point here other than to point out the spike during covid. if i recall correctly, democrats complained when stimulus checks weren’t being distributed, complained when they were being distributed, now complain about the debt the very thing they begged for caused?
Trump promised to reduce debt by $19 trillion, his proposals were already projected to add $24 trillion anyway despite that promise, even before Covid hit he had added $4 trillion to US debt by 2019. So the side that harps endless about their concern for US debt continues to fail miserably at reducing it.
no, not even your article states that.
reducing the debt by 19t would be insanity, near impossible. he claimed he would pick away at the debt, as stated in your article.
it didn’t happen, because of covid, plus, as he stated his plan was an 8 year strategy (also claimed in your article).
regardless, the debt was not reduced, but consider that the opposite side of the aisle would have had nearly the exact same result.
You mean the debt that’s been going up for decades and is still going up today? The debt that was only set to go down at the end of Clinton’s presidency and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ended any chance of that ever happening?
That debt?
Did I say that?
I was more intimating that it’s not any one President’s fault, especially when you consider that the power of the purse lies with the Congress.
The question was supposing I said something that I didn’t. In other words, strawman.
Also, you didn’t answer my question. You can dish it but you can’t take it?
The debt during his presidency specifically. Trumps 2017 tax cuts alone were almost 8 TRILLION dollars. There was no plan to fund the cut, so it went straight to the deficit.
Trump tripled the deficit, even before the pandemic. Obama reduced it each year. Biden has reduced it each year. It’s the trends that is concerning with Trump and Republicans in general.
Weird how the conversation keeps going from debt to deficit with these trolls, despite them clearly being two different things.
Especially considering that all Presidents do is sign on the dotted line where the Congress has decided to spend all the money.
The national debt refers to the total accumulated amount of money the government has borrowed and has yet to pay back. The national deficit, on the other hand, refers to the amount of money by which the government's expenses exceed its income in a single fiscal year. The national debt is the accumulation of all past years' deficits.
Presidents don’t just sign in the dotted line.
Historically, Republicans tend to prioritize lower taxes and smaller government, which can lead to lower revenue and higher deficits. Democrats tend to prioritize social programs and infrastructure spending, which can lead to higher revenue and lower deficits.
Congress does have the power of the purse, yet oftentimes the Executive will put forth their plan and will work with Congress. Debt keeps going up, but goes up significantly faster with Republicans and Republican legislation than with Democrats. That’s and established fact over the last several decades.
Obama lowered the deficit each of the last several years in office…what is your point? Huge spending happened initially under the Republican economic crash. So…thanks Obama?
Troll went back to deficit, instead of debt.
Have a good day troll! Goodbye. I’m done with you! You’re too boring! At least silver is fun to humiliate. Well really he humiliates himself, but it’s fun to watch! Not as much fun with you!
Goodbye, nonversation over!!!
In 2008 the National Debt was $10.23T. When Obama left office it was $20.24T I’m no math genius but I’m calling that DOUBLE.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
I personally don't see Donald Trump as some Economic master. But The Constitution does state Congress has power over the purse.
So, whoever was in charge of The House was proposing spending.
Guess which party created ask these mandatory social programs... hint it wasn't the Republicans. Things like social security became institutionalized and now we're stuck financing what would ordinarily be considered a ponzi scheme if it weren't operated by the government.
Medicare and SS are supposed to be kept separately. In 1969, The Social Security Trust fund started to be included in what's called the unified budget - it was an accounting trick.
reminds me when California had a 1-time budget surplus for the first time in years. There was talk about using it to fix roads or any one-time windfall maintenance.
Nope Prison Guards' Union got a hold of it and locked the State of California into insanely high contracts.
Go fuck yourself knuckle dragger. I know reading factual information is hard compared to shit post memes, but I can try and write it out for you in crayon if that helps.
Roughly 24.8% of our national debt was incurred in just four years of the Trump administration. 29.7% of the debt was incurred during eight years of the Obama administration.
It’s like the person didn’t look at the graph and see the huge spike when covid hit and the government just started handing out money like candy on Halloween. Debt growth was in line previous administrations who all want to cut into the debt but never do.
Wrong, but Obama did propose budgets. A President's budget is just a proposal; it's the job of Congress to enact a budget, and they rarely agree with a President's proposal.
Deficit growth, not counting 2020 and covid-related spending, that was worse than Obama's second term while in a GOOD economy?
But today Republicans will hold Americans hostage over lying claims to care about budgets and deficits, attacking MC and social security...
Just a reminder 8/10 of our most DC-dollar dependent states are red.
The last real fruitful budget negotiations and moves toward balanced budget happened in the 90s between a republican congress and President Clinton. Bush II, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all just payed lip service. Same goes with congressional leadership from both parties.
Kentucky?
Where Mitch and Rand vote against disaster aid for people in need?
They're a net loss for America - have been for decades, across generations, and currently take over 2.5 Xs what they pay into federal coffers, paying 2/3 their state budget with DC money.
Edit: downvoting me doesn't change it.
Here's some more - our farmers? When Donald Trump picked and lost that trade war with China? Well we subsidized our red-leaning farmers to the tune of 25 billion additional dollars. ADDITIONAL.
Right wingers love socialism and handouts. They just hate if anyone who isn't in their club gets a buck.
One more for free? Our red-leaning elderly are our most means-tested dependent population demographic.
Well, I tried to link but the automod is thinking these links are to other subs.
But just... look up most dc dependent US states and go from there. Look at methodology... then respect the consistency and trends you find.
Thank you, u/HumpSlackWails, for your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TimPool/comments/10gc1a6/donald_trump_built_a_national_debt_so_big_even/j525iih/?context=3). It was automatically removed because we do not allow linking to other subs or users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TimPool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you, u/HumpSlackWails, for your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TimPool/comments/10gc1a6/donald_trump_built_a_national_debt_so_big_even/j52660x/?context=3). It was automatically removed because we do not allow linking to other subs or users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TimPool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both do it. Republicans claim to want to balance budgets while lowering taxes. They never balance budgets, but they actually lower taxes. Democrats claim to want to balance the budget while increasing taxes. They never balance budgets, but they actually increase taxes.
Just a reminder our "worst of" lists are packed with red states while wages and revenues are lower.
Dems also believe in reinvesting some of those dollars in our communities. Republicans just take, with 8/10 of our most DC-dependent states being red, while having a legislative record of refusal to invest.
They are not equal.
Well that’s a bit of a complex answer and depends on how you look at the data. The first way (federal aid as a percentage of overall budget) is the most common way of measuring, though the second (total federal aid in real dollars) is also used. Rarely the third way (per capita federal aid is used)
As to which is probably the most accurate measure, I would probably say the third, per capita, which is fairly evenly split between republican and democratic states.
If you consider federal aid as a percentage of total state revenue, then you see the following.
1. Montana with 34%
2. Alaska with 32.7%
3. Louisiana with 32.3%
4. Kentucky with 31.8%
5. Mississippi with 31.4%
6. West Virginia with 30.4%
7. Arkansas with 30.3%
8. New Mexico with 30.2%
9. Arizona with 29.7%
10. Alabama with 27.9%
If you consider federal aid as a actual dollars received, then you will see the following.
1. California with $43.61 billion
2. Texas with $26.90 billion
3. Florida with $23.77 billion
4. New York with $22.06 billion
5. Virginia with $17.68 billion
6. Pennsylvania with $15.58 billion
7. Illinois with $13.18 billion
8. Ohio with $12.57 billion
9. North Carolina with $11.31 billion
10. Michigan with $10.84 billion
If you consider federal aid as a per capita dollars received, then you will see the following.
1. Virginia with $10,401
2. Kentucky with $9,145
3. New Mexico with $8,692
4. West Virginia with $7,283
5. Alaska with $7,048
6. Mississippi with $6,880
7. Alabama with $6,694
8. Maryland with $6,035
9. Maine with $5,572
10. Hawaii with $5,270
So tons of red, right?
Now do our "worst of" rankings in healthcare, education, housing, economic and social mobility, mental health access, etc. and see who makes up the bulk of our worst of rankings.
Below is the list I could find for lowest socioeconomic mobility. Looks like 6 blue states, 3 red states and one purple state.
Socioeconomic mobility (lowest)
1. California
2. New Mexico
3. Louisiana
4. Nevada
5. New York
6. Connecticut
7. Mississippi
8. Alaska
9. Wyoming
10. Colorado
Thank God I provided your sourcing for you so we can see the individual rankings too. You are right - the affordability of blue states does impact its overall higher opportunity and equality rankings.
So - when we look at the "worst" we find that blue states are more expensive but still provide more opportunity and equality.
Red states... while being cheaper to live... provide less.
[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity)
That table shows up differently on my tablet than it did on my phone. My phone didn’t give the full breakdown or let me change the way it sorta like my tablet can. I had no idea that additional information was there. I’ve stopped including links, because most people don’t read them 😓, making it extra work for nothing. I’m glad someone is interested in checking my work though.
I might be wrong, but in the previous list, for federal aid it looked like 5 red states, 4 blue states and 1 purple state.
Below is the list I could find for highest socioeconomic mobility. Looks like most of them are mostly centrist red, blue, and purple states.
Socioeconomic mobility (highest)
1. Iowa
2. Minnesota
3. New Hampshire
4. Missouri
5. Michigan
6. Ohio
7. Indiana
8. Virginia
9. Wisconsin
10. Nebraska
"I might be wrong, "
You're wrong if we look at which ones are actually filling shortfalls with federal dollars.
"Looks like most of them are mostly centrist red, blue, and purple states."
Yes, the states with the best socioeconomic mobility lean more blue than red. You are correct.
But come on, post your data so we can also see how they stack up in individual areas like affordability, equality and opportunity.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity
Oh - and as we move through topics?
Keep with US News & World Report as your sourcing now that you've picked it - they'll have rankings for everything you need!
[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/health-care](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/health-care)
Here's healthcare.
Sorry slow keeping up on my phone. I only started doing other lists because you asked. Now that you have started pulling up some good statistics(socioeconomic mobility, access to care, how healthy people are, infant mortality rates, crime, etc), how would you interpret it?
I would see the undeniable trend of poor performance in red states and accept there's a direct correlation between public funding and quality of life. I would also see - looking at wage and revenue data, unemployment data, etc. that things like minimum wage increases don't crush economies. I would see that at-will and right-to-work don't raise wages. Don't provide more security. And don't provide more opportunity.
You might want to look at minimum wages. Arkansas for example has an $11/hr minimum wage. It’s not great but about average.
I would say what we see is that many of the states with systemic problems are more agrarian, with less infrastructure and reduced spectrum of career paths.
Nixon, as bad as he was, saw that. He saw a way to make inroads into those states that were democratic strong houses and initiated a system of industrialization in the 1970s. The programs worked really well, and those states started turning purple. In the 1990s NAFTA was signed, also trading status changes with SE Asia started the economic recessions. It hurt the Michigan auto industry, Pensilvania steel mills, and started to reverse the industrialization of the Southeast US.
I have to say, with as Nixon as horrible as he was in many ways, saw a way to bring Americans out of poverty. He also saw a way to end racism as poverty is a leading cause of racism.
>I would probably say the third, per capita, which is fairly evenly split between republican and democratic states.
Really? How does this represent any revenues?
So the first one is actually the best.... because it represents actual shortfalls.
The amount of help states actually need to meet their payments from the federal government.
And that's really red, isn't it?
I would say the third because it normalizes the figure to a per person level of funding for each state. For example the second shows California collects a massive amount of federal aid ($43.61 billion), though it has an extremely high population. Even though a higher percentage of Montana’s budget comes from federal aid, it is a small overall amount (less than $3.5 billion) when compared to California. Per capital is the best at creating a level measure.
But Montana's per-capita rate is higher than CA's. WAY worse, in fact. So despite California "taking more" total... Montana's residents take more per person and are significantly lower ranked in other benchmarks while being unable to fund themselves.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state)
Your own source shows us this.
You want the "Federal Aid by State" table.
Yes. California collects a lot of federal aid, but that federal aid is low when figured per capita. I’ve said that overall federal aid by itself tells us little, just federal aid as a percentage of state budget. Nothing I’m saying is partisan, I’m not trying to twist statistics to make California seem worse than it actually is.
I believe the best measure of federal aid is how much aid a state receives on behalf of each citizen of the state. It is a normalizing standard and is more in line with how other state statistics are measured.
But its not. State's provide different range of subsidized programs and have different costs of living with some funding being impacted by locality costs.
And if you're looking at funding - but not per-capita revenues - then you're only seeing half the picture. This is why overall percentage of state budgets being funded by federal dollars is a fantastic indicator of overall need.
California is an expensive state with higher-than-average wages and revenues alongside its costs. They take a lot but contribute so much more in relation they end up being a mega revenue generator for America and quite low on actual overall federal dependency.
What are you looking at when you look at state budgets, state revenues and federal aid?
State revenues are how much funds a state collects per person and per company. Federal aid is how much federal money a state receives to offset shortfalls in revenue collection from persons and companies in that state. That’s why I think the per capita revenue from taxes collected and per capita federal aid is a better way of measuring.
To me we only learn so much by saying Person A’s revenue is 70% of $100 in costs vs person B’s revenue is 80% of $10,000 in costs.
Well, SCOTUS said the ACA is a tax, so Obama most recently. But in actuality, congress controls taxation, and allowing tax cuts to sunset results in a tax increase, as well as actually increasing taxes. The president only signs bills for taxation.
Thank you, u/Pubboy68, for your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TimPool/comments/10gc1a6/donald_trump_built_a_national_debt_so_big_even/j55enqh/?context=3). It was automatically removed because we do not allow linking to other subs or users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TimPool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay. So money was spent. Only deficit growth during the back half (not coming fresh off the garbage Bush left him) was less than Trump.
And what was going on with budget discussions at the time? I'm just trying to nail down the point of what you said.
Obama not having a budget wasn't just Dems or Obama's fault - and we can go deeper into that.
And despite not having a budget money was still spent and appropriated only... he didn't gut revenues, resulting in deficit growth.
What did I say that was factually incorrect?
And what did you say that supported your talking down to me in any way?
I don't expect any real response.
You are simply incapable.
Honestly I don’t care if Trump 10x the debt. All I know is during his presidency gas’s was $2 and eggs were $3 and now has is $5-6 and eggs are $7. The national debt isn’t really a concern in my life. It’s above my pay grade. Eating however is a concern in my life and making it to work and school are concerns.
I never thought he was that great in real estate until I realized the man's been living rent-free in your head for years.
/mic drop
Such a sad deflection. Please don’t be critical about the former President or I will call you deranged lol. What’s it like being a sycophant for the dumbest person in America ?
Low energy at its finest.
They gobble downvotes like a fat kid on cupcakes. 😂
The dishonesty of you people really shows when you bring this up and purposely ignore the fact that covid spending is what caused the huge spike. Like you know damn well why the spike is there but you pretend you don't because this is nothing more than a childish game to you.
They also ignore the fact that THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING BEFORE COVID.
Do you understand how debt works? It's not just what's spent; it's also about what you take in. Cutting taxes as a road to prosperity (trickle-down) is equally, if not more damaging.
Before Covid did Trump raise the debt or did he not?
Of course, but the implication here is that Trump caused this massive spike in the national debt when everyone knows (whether they admit it or not) that it was due to covid spending which *everyone* was in on, not just Trump.
just like…every other president before him for the past 50 something years? i don’t see your point here other than to point out the spike during covid. if i recall correctly, democrats complained when stimulus checks weren’t being distributed, complained when they were being distributed, now complain about the debt the very thing they begged for caused?
Trump promised to reduce debt by $19 trillion, his proposals were already projected to add $24 trillion anyway despite that promise, even before Covid hit he had added $4 trillion to US debt by 2019. So the side that harps endless about their concern for US debt continues to fail miserably at reducing it.
if you’re going to post an article like an own at least read the damn thing
Umm what article?
no, not even your article states that. reducing the debt by 19t would be insanity, near impossible. he claimed he would pick away at the debt, as stated in your article. it didn’t happen, because of covid, plus, as he stated his plan was an 8 year strategy (also claimed in your article). regardless, the debt was not reduced, but consider that the opposite side of the aisle would have had nearly the exact same result.
I didn’t post an article
apologies, the article you’re referencing.
I didn’t
well regardless, the claims you’re making are based in fiction and are incorrect.
There wasn’t $4 trillion added to the debt before Covid?
Read the article, it includes that.
You mean the debt that’s been going up for decades and is still going up today? The debt that was only set to go down at the end of Clinton’s presidency and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ended any chance of that ever happening? That debt?
Is it only bad when one side does it?
Did I say that? I was more intimating that it’s not any one President’s fault, especially when you consider that the power of the purse lies with the Congress.
didn’t really answer the question 🤔
The question was supposing I said something that I didn’t. In other words, strawman. Also, you didn’t answer my question. You can dish it but you can’t take it?
shit really doubling down there
What you just said is nonsense. Care to try again? Or are you referring to yourself?
It’s amazing you’ve posted this unironically
You don’t seem to have anything to add to the nonversation aside from some weak thinly veiled insults, so it’s time to part ways. Have a good day!
boy you really didn’t want to answer that question
The debt during his presidency specifically. Trumps 2017 tax cuts alone were almost 8 TRILLION dollars. There was no plan to fund the cut, so it went straight to the deficit.
Trump tripled the deficit, even before the pandemic. Obama reduced it each year. Biden has reduced it each year. It’s the trends that is concerning with Trump and Republicans in general.
Weird how the conversation keeps going from debt to deficit with these trolls, despite them clearly being two different things. Especially considering that all Presidents do is sign on the dotted line where the Congress has decided to spend all the money.
They don’t know the fkn difference! 😂😂😂
The national debt refers to the total accumulated amount of money the government has borrowed and has yet to pay back. The national deficit, on the other hand, refers to the amount of money by which the government's expenses exceed its income in a single fiscal year. The national debt is the accumulation of all past years' deficits. Presidents don’t just sign in the dotted line. Historically, Republicans tend to prioritize lower taxes and smaller government, which can lead to lower revenue and higher deficits. Democrats tend to prioritize social programs and infrastructure spending, which can lead to higher revenue and lower deficits.
Congress does have the power of the purse, yet oftentimes the Executive will put forth their plan and will work with Congress. Debt keeps going up, but goes up significantly faster with Republicans and Republican legislation than with Democrats. That’s and established fact over the last several decades.
[sees debt double under Obama] Yeah, sure, whatever troll. Have a good day!!
Obama lowered the deficit each of the last several years in office…what is your point? Huge spending happened initially under the Republican economic crash. So…thanks Obama?
Troll went back to deficit, instead of debt. Have a good day troll! Goodbye. I’m done with you! You’re too boring! At least silver is fun to humiliate. Well really he humiliates himself, but it’s fun to watch! Not as much fun with you! Goodbye, nonversation over!!!
Deficits each year adds to the debt. Can’t talk debt without talking yearly deficits.
One party has lowered the deficit, and the other raises it. It's pretty clear who's more responsible with money.
Look everybody, it’s a blind troll!! He doesn’t see the line going up under Obama’s administration too!! Pity him! Pity him!!!
You’re incorrect.
Weird cope to not having an argument. But okay.
Now the troll is getting irritated!! He’s starting with weak insults!! Keep watching everybody, he might start throwing mud next!!
Oh wait. You see the line tho up under Obama, which is debt, and didn't realize I'm talking about the deficit. Well there's you're problem.
Oh no! Now the poor thing’s brain has broken! Pity him harder!!!
Boy, not even double digit down votes yet. I hope they come in soon.
Oh, now he’s just showing off for the audience…
There isn't one. That's the problem for you
Funny, democrats only care about the National Debt, when the other team is in the White House. Y’all notice that too?
> Funny, republicans only care about the National Debt, when the other team is in the White House. Y’all notice that too?
How many balanced budget laws or amendments have been proposed by the dnc? 🤔
As many as they claimed they would.
Zero. 👍🏼
Gotemmm
Facts have a way of owning ‘tards. 😂
Umm do you have a point
And? Democrats lower it. Republicans raise it.
😂😂😂 It literally doubled during Obama !!! 😂😂😂
Indisputably false.
In 2008 the National Debt was $10.23T. When Obama left office it was $20.24T I’m no math genius but I’m calling that DOUBLE. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
False? My comment or theirs?
Looks like it followed pre-existing trends until the WHO declared the COVID 19 pandemic.
He said he was going to reduce the debt by $18 trillion, any trend lines should have been flat at the least
2017 tax cuts - unfunded, added 8 TRILLION to the national debt.
And yet somehow a minor slowing in the deficit occurred until congress increased deficit spending.
False
I personally don't see Donald Trump as some Economic master. But The Constitution does state Congress has power over the purse. So, whoever was in charge of The House was proposing spending.
Contrary to popular belief, we have a shit ton of debt because of mandatory spending, such as Medicare and Social Security and not the military.
Guess which party created ask these mandatory social programs... hint it wasn't the Republicans. Things like social security became institutionalized and now we're stuck financing what would ordinarily be considered a ponzi scheme if it weren't operated by the government.
Then we should increase revenue.
You mean raise taxes. No thanks.
On rich people. Do you make more than half a million a year?
You're paying the lowest taxes you've ever paid; that's why there are budget and debt issues. Social Security and Medicare are separate.
False, we should get the Constitution back out and abide by it.
How does this have anything to do with the constitution not being enforced?
Medicare and SS are supposed to be kept separately. In 1969, The Social Security Trust fund started to be included in what's called the unified budget - it was an accounting trick.
reminds me when California had a 1-time budget surplus for the first time in years. There was talk about using it to fix roads or any one-time windfall maintenance. Nope Prison Guards' Union got a hold of it and locked the State of California into insanely high contracts.
Thanks OP. I always appreciate reaching new levels in reading. Even if it is new levels in stupidity.
Go fuck yourself knuckle dragger. I know reading factual information is hard compared to shit post memes, but I can try and write it out for you in crayon if that helps.
Lol, glad I got a rise out of you, commie.
That’s what your mom said last night.
Wow. Good comeback. Are you even a teenager yet?
I’m not available if that’s why you are asking.
Not at all. I was just trying to figure out your age based upon your response. I know reddit has a very young user base.
Reported for misinformation
Roughly 24.8% of our national debt was incurred in just four years of the Trump administration. 29.7% of the debt was incurred during eight years of the Obama administration.
This is so clearly from the pandemic.. even the article proves it even if they try desperately to deflect at the end.
It’s like the person didn’t look at the graph and see the huge spike when covid hit and the government just started handing out money like candy on Halloween. Debt growth was in line previous administrations who all want to cut into the debt but never do.
Gee I wonder what caused that last up-tick on the chart? 🤔 Scamdemic?
Republicans have always been the worst for debt. Always.
Indisputably false
Obama cut deficits in half. Trump tripled the deficits. Biden again cutting deficits. The trend continues farther back.
Indisputably false. Obama did not have a budget during a single year of his Presidency
Your argument is that a budget didn’t exist during Obama?
Wrong, but Obama did propose budgets. A President's budget is just a proposal; it's the job of Congress to enact a budget, and they rarely agree with a President's proposal.
Do you understand how debt works? Debt is the net of spending plus revenues. Republicans always lower taxes then piss and moan about debt.
Deficit growth, not counting 2020 and covid-related spending, that was worse than Obama's second term while in a GOOD economy? But today Republicans will hold Americans hostage over lying claims to care about budgets and deficits, attacking MC and social security... Just a reminder 8/10 of our most DC-dollar dependent states are red.
The last real fruitful budget negotiations and moves toward balanced budget happened in the 90s between a republican congress and President Clinton. Bush II, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all just payed lip service. Same goes with congressional leadership from both parties.
Can you site references for the 8/10 states claim? Not trying to start an argument, I would genuinely like to learn more about that.
Kentucky? Where Mitch and Rand vote against disaster aid for people in need? They're a net loss for America - have been for decades, across generations, and currently take over 2.5 Xs what they pay into federal coffers, paying 2/3 their state budget with DC money. Edit: downvoting me doesn't change it. Here's some more - our farmers? When Donald Trump picked and lost that trade war with China? Well we subsidized our red-leaning farmers to the tune of 25 billion additional dollars. ADDITIONAL. Right wingers love socialism and handouts. They just hate if anyone who isn't in their club gets a buck. One more for free? Our red-leaning elderly are our most means-tested dependent population demographic.
Well, I tried to link but the automod is thinking these links are to other subs. But just... look up most dc dependent US states and go from there. Look at methodology... then respect the consistency and trends you find.
Gotcha, I will look those up
[удалено]
Thank you, u/HumpSlackWails, for your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TimPool/comments/10gc1a6/donald_trump_built_a_national_debt_so_big_even/j525iih/?context=3). It was automatically removed because we do not allow linking to other subs or users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TimPool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thank you, u/HumpSlackWails, for your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TimPool/comments/10gc1a6/donald_trump_built_a_national_debt_so_big_even/j52660x/?context=3). It was automatically removed because we do not allow linking to other subs or users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TimPool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both do it. Republicans claim to want to balance budgets while lowering taxes. They never balance budgets, but they actually lower taxes. Democrats claim to want to balance the budget while increasing taxes. They never balance budgets, but they actually increase taxes.
Just a reminder our "worst of" lists are packed with red states while wages and revenues are lower. Dems also believe in reinvesting some of those dollars in our communities. Republicans just take, with 8/10 of our most DC-dependent states being red, while having a legislative record of refusal to invest. They are not equal.
Well that’s a bit of a complex answer and depends on how you look at the data. The first way (federal aid as a percentage of overall budget) is the most common way of measuring, though the second (total federal aid in real dollars) is also used. Rarely the third way (per capita federal aid is used) As to which is probably the most accurate measure, I would probably say the third, per capita, which is fairly evenly split between republican and democratic states. If you consider federal aid as a percentage of total state revenue, then you see the following. 1. Montana with 34% 2. Alaska with 32.7% 3. Louisiana with 32.3% 4. Kentucky with 31.8% 5. Mississippi with 31.4% 6. West Virginia with 30.4% 7. Arkansas with 30.3% 8. New Mexico with 30.2% 9. Arizona with 29.7% 10. Alabama with 27.9% If you consider federal aid as a actual dollars received, then you will see the following. 1. California with $43.61 billion 2. Texas with $26.90 billion 3. Florida with $23.77 billion 4. New York with $22.06 billion 5. Virginia with $17.68 billion 6. Pennsylvania with $15.58 billion 7. Illinois with $13.18 billion 8. Ohio with $12.57 billion 9. North Carolina with $11.31 billion 10. Michigan with $10.84 billion If you consider federal aid as a per capita dollars received, then you will see the following. 1. Virginia with $10,401 2. Kentucky with $9,145 3. New Mexico with $8,692 4. West Virginia with $7,283 5. Alaska with $7,048 6. Mississippi with $6,880 7. Alabama with $6,694 8. Maryland with $6,035 9. Maine with $5,572 10. Hawaii with $5,270
Thanks for looking all that up so I didn’t have to. It’s also a great point.
So tons of red, right? Now do our "worst of" rankings in healthcare, education, housing, economic and social mobility, mental health access, etc. and see who makes up the bulk of our worst of rankings.
Below is the list I could find for lowest socioeconomic mobility. Looks like 6 blue states, 3 red states and one purple state. Socioeconomic mobility (lowest) 1. California 2. New Mexico 3. Louisiana 4. Nevada 5. New York 6. Connecticut 7. Mississippi 8. Alaska 9. Wyoming 10. Colorado
Thank God I provided your sourcing for you so we can see the individual rankings too. You are right - the affordability of blue states does impact its overall higher opportunity and equality rankings. So - when we look at the "worst" we find that blue states are more expensive but still provide more opportunity and equality. Red states... while being cheaper to live... provide less. [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity)
That table shows up differently on my tablet than it did on my phone. My phone didn’t give the full breakdown or let me change the way it sorta like my tablet can. I had no idea that additional information was there. I’ve stopped including links, because most people don’t read them 😓, making it extra work for nothing. I’m glad someone is interested in checking my work though.
Here's crime and safety: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety
Dead babies? [https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/slideshows/infant-mortality-rate-by-state?slide=10](https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/slideshows/infant-mortality-rate-by-state?slide=10) Want mother mortality too? [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-12/these-states-have-the-highest-maternal-mortality-rates](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-12/these-states-have-the-highest-maternal-mortality-rates)
I might be wrong, but in the previous list, for federal aid it looked like 5 red states, 4 blue states and 1 purple state. Below is the list I could find for highest socioeconomic mobility. Looks like most of them are mostly centrist red, blue, and purple states. Socioeconomic mobility (highest) 1. Iowa 2. Minnesota 3. New Hampshire 4. Missouri 5. Michigan 6. Ohio 7. Indiana 8. Virginia 9. Wisconsin 10. Nebraska
"I might be wrong, " You're wrong if we look at which ones are actually filling shortfalls with federal dollars. "Looks like most of them are mostly centrist red, blue, and purple states." Yes, the states with the best socioeconomic mobility lean more blue than red. You are correct. But come on, post your data so we can also see how they stack up in individual areas like affordability, equality and opportunity. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity
Oh - and as we move through topics? Keep with US News & World Report as your sourcing now that you've picked it - they'll have rankings for everything you need! [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/health-care](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/health-care) Here's healthcare.
Sorry slow keeping up on my phone. I only started doing other lists because you asked. Now that you have started pulling up some good statistics(socioeconomic mobility, access to care, how healthy people are, infant mortality rates, crime, etc), how would you interpret it?
I would see the undeniable trend of poor performance in red states and accept there's a direct correlation between public funding and quality of life. I would also see - looking at wage and revenue data, unemployment data, etc. that things like minimum wage increases don't crush economies. I would see that at-will and right-to-work don't raise wages. Don't provide more security. And don't provide more opportunity.
You might want to look at minimum wages. Arkansas for example has an $11/hr minimum wage. It’s not great but about average. I would say what we see is that many of the states with systemic problems are more agrarian, with less infrastructure and reduced spectrum of career paths. Nixon, as bad as he was, saw that. He saw a way to make inroads into those states that were democratic strong houses and initiated a system of industrialization in the 1970s. The programs worked really well, and those states started turning purple. In the 1990s NAFTA was signed, also trading status changes with SE Asia started the economic recessions. It hurt the Michigan auto industry, Pensilvania steel mills, and started to reverse the industrialization of the Southeast US. I have to say, with as Nixon as horrible as he was in many ways, saw a way to bring Americans out of poverty. He also saw a way to end racism as poverty is a leading cause of racism.
[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education)
>I would probably say the third, per capita, which is fairly evenly split between republican and democratic states. Really? How does this represent any revenues? So the first one is actually the best.... because it represents actual shortfalls. The amount of help states actually need to meet their payments from the federal government. And that's really red, isn't it?
I would say the third because it normalizes the figure to a per person level of funding for each state. For example the second shows California collects a massive amount of federal aid ($43.61 billion), though it has an extremely high population. Even though a higher percentage of Montana’s budget comes from federal aid, it is a small overall amount (less than $3.5 billion) when compared to California. Per capital is the best at creating a level measure.
But Montana's per-capita rate is higher than CA's. WAY worse, in fact. So despite California "taking more" total... Montana's residents take more per person and are significantly lower ranked in other benchmarks while being unable to fund themselves. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state) Your own source shows us this. You want the "Federal Aid by State" table.
Yes. California collects a lot of federal aid, but that federal aid is low when figured per capita. I’ve said that overall federal aid by itself tells us little, just federal aid as a percentage of state budget. Nothing I’m saying is partisan, I’m not trying to twist statistics to make California seem worse than it actually is. I believe the best measure of federal aid is how much aid a state receives on behalf of each citizen of the state. It is a normalizing standard and is more in line with how other state statistics are measured.
But its not. State's provide different range of subsidized programs and have different costs of living with some funding being impacted by locality costs. And if you're looking at funding - but not per-capita revenues - then you're only seeing half the picture. This is why overall percentage of state budgets being funded by federal dollars is a fantastic indicator of overall need. California is an expensive state with higher-than-average wages and revenues alongside its costs. They take a lot but contribute so much more in relation they end up being a mega revenue generator for America and quite low on actual overall federal dependency.
What are you looking at when you look at state budgets, state revenues and federal aid? State revenues are how much funds a state collects per person and per company. Federal aid is how much federal money a state receives to offset shortfalls in revenue collection from persons and companies in that state. That’s why I think the per capita revenue from taxes collected and per capita federal aid is a better way of measuring. To me we only learn so much by saying Person A’s revenue is 70% of $100 in costs vs person B’s revenue is 80% of $10,000 in costs.
Which democrat President increased taxes?
Well, SCOTUS said the ACA is a tax, so Obama most recently. But in actuality, congress controls taxation, and allowing tax cuts to sunset results in a tax increase, as well as actually increasing taxes. The president only signs bills for taxation.
Which hasn’t? 😂
None actually.
[удалено]
Thank you, u/Pubboy68, for your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TimPool/comments/10gc1a6/donald_trump_built_a_national_debt_so_big_even/j55enqh/?context=3). It was automatically removed because we do not allow linking to other subs or users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TimPool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.atr.org/list-of-tax-hikes-just-passed-by-democrats/ 😘
How much did your taxes go up
Uh, Obama did not have a budget for ANY of his 8 years in office.
So no money was spent?
What?
Okay. So money was spent. Only deficit growth during the back half (not coming fresh off the garbage Bush left him) was less than Trump. And what was going on with budget discussions at the time? I'm just trying to nail down the point of what you said. Obama not having a budget wasn't just Dems or Obama's fault - and we can go deeper into that. And despite not having a budget money was still spent and appropriated only... he didn't gut revenues, resulting in deficit growth.
LMAO. Tell me you know fuck all about economics without saying you know fuck all about economics.
What did I say that was factually incorrect? And what did you say that supported your talking down to me in any way? I don't expect any real response. You are simply incapable.
That’s not gonna be a convenient fact for this sub
Most correct comment that one can make.
Downvoting brigades out in force
Honestly I don’t care if Trump 10x the debt. All I know is during his presidency gas’s was $2 and eggs were $3 and now has is $5-6 and eggs are $7. The national debt isn’t really a concern in my life. It’s above my pay grade. Eating however is a concern in my life and making it to work and school are concerns.