I bet you don't even know what a fact is.
I'm someone who has never called them stupid things, unlike Reagan.
You need to try MUCH harder then...
What makes you think that?
I reread and can't see any statement I made that you showed not to be factual. What, specifically, were you thinking of?
[superior debaters] like you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS make use of the word 'deficit' rather than the word 'debt'.
They refer to two different things. I use both terms, depending on which of the two I'm referring to. But, yes, there is a strong preference among right-wing zealots to speak only of debt, since debt has increased during every modern presidency, which makes it less useful from distinguishing between fiscally competent presidents (who lower the deficit and thus slow the rate of debt growth) and fiscally incompetent ones (who raise deficits and speed the accumulation of debt).
You are now attempting to blame then-President Trump for something that Congress was and is responsible for.
As you know, if you are at all familiar with the Constitution, there is very little Congress can do on its own, at least without veto-proof super majorities. For that reason, presidential eras tend to take on more of the tone of the presidency of the era than the Congress. As an example, compare 1981-1988 to 1993-2000. The former era had a Republican president and mostly a Democratic Congress. The latter had the opposite. If Congress were the primary power, de facto, we would expect that earlier era to be one with rising taxes on the wealthy, a bunch of new labor protections, new gun control, and a shrinking of the share of the budget spent on the military. And if Congress were the primary power, de facto, we would expect the later era to be one with big tax cuts, a roll-back in labor protections, a roll-back in gun control, and an explosion of military spending. Is that the case for each?
As you can see, the actual policy changes of each era more frequently reflected the goals of the president than the Congress. The combination of the bully pulpit, the veto, and control of the executive agencies makes the presidency a position that can very much dictate the tone of an era.
He's not the one who botched the Afghan pullout
Yes, he definitely was. He kept announcing it and never doing it, which sapped the morale of our side, while emboldening the other, all as we bled a hundred billion bucks into that country per year, with nothing to show for it. You can't botch it much worse than that. By comparison, Biden succeeded in just a few months to do what Trump failed to do for four years: he got us the hell out.
He stoked the flames between Russia and Ukraine (with regard to NATO, knowing that Russia doesn't want NATO on their doorstep)....
Russia already has NATO on their doorstep. The US and Russia are just 55 miles away from each other at one point. What is it that you think "stoked the flames" exactly?
Your inability to think of a substantive response is noted.
Meaning?
Yes. You can understand that concept simply enough by looking at historical fuel efficiency. The amount of economic activity you could fuel with an gallon of gas was a whole lot lower back when gas got you 10 miles to the gallon than when it gets you 30. Price spikes in fuel incentivize people to come up with more fuel-efficient ways to do things, and since fossil fuels are effectively a finite resource, that means we ultimately get more economic mileage out of the available fuel.
As another example, remember that natural gas was often just flared off as a waste product when trying to get at oil reserves, in the past. Higher prices, though, made people realize that gas had value, and now it's used more efficiently. If we hadn't had higher prices earlier, we'd have burned off more of that resource unproductively.
What makes you think that.
You clearly don't understand what the GDP is nor how it is calculated.
That'll come as a bit of a surprise to my Ivy League economics professor who gave me a great score on the test that dealt with exactly that issue.
Otherwise, you would know full well that it is currently being driven up by massive inflation rather than any sort of increase in production.
I take it you've never had an economics class in your life. When people talk about GDP growth, they're nearly talking about REAL GDP growth. When people say 2021 has the strongest GDP growth in nearly 40 years, they mean the strongest REAL GDP growth.... in other words, the strongest after accounting for inflation.
You can see that here:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1#0
That's real GDP, which was up about 5.53% in 2021, which is the most since 1984.
Now see here:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP#0
That's nominal GDP (GDP before discounting for inflation). It was up about 11.76% in 2021, which is the most since 1978.
Do you see your error now? That's why people say last year's economic growth was the best in almost 40 years, not the best OVER 40 years.
Someone who isn't a complete moron says: "Fuck Biden and Fuck Demonkkkrats.
Actually, take a good look through this forum. I think you'll find that each an every person who uses the term "Demonkkkrats" is a complete moron. Seriously, can you think of even one of the posters here who uses that slur who isn't a gibbering imbecile?
Delusions. Trump didn't murder anyone.
Possibly not, but he did preside over the biggest single-year increase in murder rates on record. He loves to slap his name on stuff so I've accommodated that by slapping his name on the murder-rate surge he helped to shepherd into the world.
You have no idea what I was referring to, even though I already told you.
I know exactly what you're referring to. The figure you quoted comes from the Current Population Survey, either directly or indirectly (I assume you didn't go to the Census to get it yourself, but rather are just parroting something from a wingnut website, but ultimately it came from the CPS).
