Second-quarter GDP jumps 4.1% for best pace in nearly four years

I haven't attempted to run any numbers, but logic suggests to me that having 40%+ of wage earners not paying federal income tax will make balancing the budget a very difficult task.

Some think taking more from the rich will do it, but that just from pure ignorance. The number of people paying federal income taxes must be increased, and with the improving economy, the nation is on the right track.

 

So where did Trump get his 7 trillion in two years and there is less then 2 trillion to added debt? He must be doing a fantastic job

 

We dont need to raise taxes on the rich

Just reduce spending

Which would require a battle royal to accomplish

But as you know we cant tax our way to a balanced budget

 

I agree, no need to raise taxes on the rich.

I'll go along with spending reductions, but without increasing the number of people paying into the system, nothing will be accomplished.

Can't have almost half the people taking a free ride when it comes to federal income taxes.

 

Its ok. I knew you would back down when you were challenged.

lol you only said that after I challenged you.

Being in a thread does not make be a birther. Go ahead rahl, quote me anywhere where I said Obama wasn't born in the US. You can't even back yourself up once.

LOL I see you need another lesson.


Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane.

Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes,Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

Years later McKinley committed suicide.

Now of course we can't ask McKinley to relive it since he killed himself. Big relief for you right?

Was Randy Shilts, one of the first gay reporters and Harvey's friend lying too rahl when he talked specifically about Milks illegal sexual relationship with this boy? Where is your evidence he was? Oh that's right, you have none

And we have a man who was a boy that Harvey tried to get him to run away from home and be with this sexual predator


Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.

According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

Where is your evidence he is lying rahl? Oh thats right, once again you have none

https://libertycounselaction.org/content/home/37288/sexual_predator_honored_with_u_s_postage_stamp

The ownage on this topic and so many others is just beyond easy because you never dig up any facts to counter what you've been given. The king of the 5 year old playground "nuh uh" argument.

Still can't handle reality I see. I just once again proved a gay author and friend of Harvey Milk specifically testified in his book on Harvey's sexual assault on a 16 year old boy, McKinley referencing him specifically.

But don't worry I know you will ignore this evidence as you always do when you're caught in an unwinnable argument with me

My God rahl, its even on the far left wikipedia website:

Milk abruptly stopped working as an insurance actuary and became a researcher at the Wall Street firm Bache & Company. He was frequently promoted despite his tendency to offend the older members of the firm by ignoring their advice and flaunting his success. Although he was skilled at his job, co-workers sensed that Milk's heart was not in his work.[4] He started a romantic relationship with Jack Galen McKinley and recruited him to work on conservative Republican Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign.[14] Their relationship was troubled. When McKinley first began his relationship with Milk in late 1964, McKinley was 16 years old.[15]

So once again you've been owned by facts and I've got good money you will once again never admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

Everyone can see my facts with links to each. You of course have none as usual

 

I agree that making everyone pay their fair share would help balance the budget faster as long as we cap and reduce spending at the same time

 

Blanket base line budgeting should be outlawed.

 

When dems unilaterally passed Obamacare, did they care that "workers" had not only increased premiums, but faced a penalty if they didn't have insurance?

How about when many "workers" had their hours cut to below 32/week so that their employers didn't have to provide insurance?

Or how about when democrat policies raised oil costs on every tank of gas?

Or when there was record minority child poverty for YEARS under Obama.

You have precisely zero credibility.

 

Absolutely

No automatic increases of any program

 

And Democrats did when regardless of who is in the White House? Which party had majority control and especially Congress when we had surpluses or paltry deficits at the least. Which party had years of trillion dollar deficits?

 

And so what?

 

I've never made such an assertion what's your point.

 

I remember when they balanced the budget or had measly deficits and then as now the way to do it is to grow the economy.

Remember when Democrats cared about deficits and debt? No.

 

The GOP party of the housing bubble and GR and trillion dollar deficits, of course. But you knew that.

 

Oh I do. I remember Clinton inheriting from Bush a then record deficit, and passing a tax increase which flooded the treasury with revenues and led to the first surplus in decades. And Obama inhereted a $1.4T deficit which fell by 2/3 during his term.

 

US exports surging in 2nd quarter also:





https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports


Let's hope it keeps on rolling, regardless of the left's desperate investment in US failure...as usual...

 

Q4-2011 4.6%. Q2-2014 4.6%. Q3-2014 5.2% GDP Growth. https://www.statista.com/statistics...-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

So basically Obama beat this 3 times.... And Trump did it by almost doubling the annual deficit, and Obama did it while cutting the annual deficit by over half. Obama inherited $1.2 Trillion deficits and cut them to $500 Billion and Trump now has the deficit projected for next year back to $1.2 Trillion....

Not sure how anyone thinks this is a good thing.

 

What a funny thing for you to say, when you spent 8 years celebrating every bit of negative news when Obama was president.

 

Every bi partisan or non partisan analysis of how to cut the deficit has both. Remember it was the Republicans that wouldn't accept the grand bargain that cut spending 10 times for each dollar of taxes. And it is Trump who has doubled the deficit since taking office... That is what tax cuts do...

 

Desperate attempt to dodge the facts, AGAIN, duly noted.

I DECRIED Obama's IDIOCY, far from celebrating it....

 

Yes indeed. Let's hope donald doesn't **** up the growing exports we've had since 2009 with his stupid trade war.

 

You ignored my question. So Here it is again. If Canada's economy is booming, why aren't people investing in Canadian stocks? The rise in the TSX is pathetic.

 

And I have DECRIED donald's IDIOCY, PATHOLOGICAL LYING, CORRUPTION, AND GROSS INCOMPETENCE.

What's your point?

 

So the best since Obama was President. Too bad he didn't do as well as Obama did in his strong quarters.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/business/economy/economy-gdp.html

 

Clinton who was president when we had a balanced budget, was not a Republican.

Clinton left office with a $236B total surplus, which Bush and the Republicans squandered within a couple years, running up new record deficits. Their house of cards reduced the deficit a bit until the house imploded, causing the Great Recession and trillion dollar deficits Obama inherited.

So what's your point again?