Farquaar wrote: Stickymayhem wrote:
I wonder if there were any events that occurred during Trump's tenure that may have necessitated a significant amount of government spending.
Stickymayhem wrote:Expanding the supreme court is not only an effective plan to reduce ill-gotten seats (waaaah why are the democrats using the same playbook as the republicans, that's not faaaaaaaaaair) influence across the entire country, it's a reasonable progression given how influential these seats are. The country cannot be well represented by 9 people and the original point of the damn court is to maintain bipartisan neutrality, which with a stacked republican line-up is no longer possible.
Would you be okay if Mitch McConnell expanded the SC tomorrow and filled it with Republican appointees, then? After all, if 9 seats are not enough, why not add more seats right now?
Obama oversaw a recession with several orders of magnitude more success. His failure to handle covid properly is his fault. In any case, the chart doesn't even include Covid
No I would not be okay with Mitch expanding the seats, because as a pragmatist I give zero fucks about civility politics and care about the consequential damage to human rights. Mitch McConnell has repeatedly proven that he doesn't give a fuck either and has broken norm after norm proving it so playing the "THEN WHY DON'T THEEEEEEY DO IT" game is idiotic.
What you get for trying to take people seriously that think like this. 'My details matter more than yours and I don't like that he won last time so we're doing our best to stop him now, no matter the cost.'
Oh my god you're so close. "My facts are more relevant and accurate than yours" Yes. Thank you. Exactly. No wonder you crashed and burned as an admin lmao you literally dispute objective realities because they're inconvenient.
And yes I will always support harm reduction in any area where possible and practicable. When the current president is actively harmful replacing him with a potato would reduce harm. I don't have to like uncle joe to know he'll do less damage and actually push some fucking climate change legislation before we all burn to death.
Your mum won't be able to turn the basement's air con high enough to keep you from melting forever Gamarr
Farquaar wrote:This article
, current as of July 2020, doesn't really support that graph's validity. If it's anything to go by, Reagan increased the debt by ~1.9 trillion, Bush senior by ~1.5 trillion, Clinton by ~1.4 trillion, Bush junior by ~5.8 trillion, and Obama by ~8.5 trillion.
It does show that Trump is a big spender though. Apparently his planned budgets will sum up to an ~8.3 trillion increase over both terms. Pretty bad, but also comparable to Obama, who didn't have the COVID crisis to deal with.
Also, compare the fact that Obama drove up debt to offer an actual healthcare option to millions of people, essentially trying to decommodify portions of healthcare to stop people dying, and Trump did it to provide the top 1% a nice big tax cut (They now pay less tax than the bottom 50% of households for the first time in history).
After the tax cuts, economic growth did not increase, hiring slowed and wage growth didn't move at all. He spent a trillion just to give money to the richest in the country, while Obama tried to provide healthcare.
I don't give a fuck about Obama but conflating these two cements your stupidity