Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Macbrother" data-source="post: 4677277" data-attributes="member: 42759">Again, this is false on its face.&nbsp; During the depths of the Great Recession, which Obama inherited, his worst budget shortfall was $1.4 trillion.&nbsp; Trump&#039;s budget deficit this year will be ~$3.9 trillion.&nbsp; In his so-called &quot;stagnant recovery&quot; he averaged 2.4% GDP growth with a deficit of roughly $600 billion.&nbsp; Trump achieved an historic, meteoric GDP growth of... oops.. it was only 2.5% per year, on average, his best year being 2.9%.&nbsp; And that&#039;s with a budget deficit of no less than $1 trillion per year.&nbsp; These are the facts, on the ground, you can easily see them yourself on the government&#039;s own website.&nbsp; So no, sorry, there was nothing genius or groundbreaking about Trump&#039;s economy, he merely added historic debt to add very slightly incremental gains.&nbsp;Firstly, you have failed to articulate why Americans have a right to security, fire protection, and education, but not health.&nbsp; And I&#039;ll ask again - do you support social security for the disabled?&nbsp; Healthcare for the elderly?&nbsp; These are all &quot;socialist&quot; programs.&nbsp; Secondly, everything else you posted was speculative nonsense.&nbsp; Australia has a very robust private healthcare and a public one.&nbsp; Scandinavia, South Korea, Japan - all prosperous, capitalist nations that have robust public healthcare options.&nbsp; No one is calling for price controls, death panels, blowing up private healthcare, whatever other such crap you&#039;re spouting off.Something else you failed to address - you are already paying for the poor&#039;s health insurance when an uninsured person gets hit by a car, or when a person who&#039;s too poor to afford a doctor goes to the ER to get routine care, and you are paying at a far more expensive rate than if they would simply have a family doctor.&nbsp; Why not acknowledge this, and put into place a system where this doesn&#039;t happen - a subsidized public option so the poor can get routine care as well, and at much better rates.&nbsp; I really don&#039;t see how that&#039;s an unreasonable proposition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Macbrother, post: 4677277, member: 42759"] Again, this is false on its face. During the depths of the Great Recession, which Obama inherited, his worst budget shortfall was $1.4 trillion. Trump's budget deficit this year will be ~$3.9 trillion. In his so-called "stagnant recovery" he averaged 2.4% GDP growth with a deficit of roughly $600 billion. Trump achieved an historic, meteoric GDP growth of... oops.. it was only 2.5% per year, on average, his best year being 2.9%. And that's with a budget deficit of no less than $1 trillion per year. These are the facts, on the ground, you can easily see them yourself on the government's own website. So no, sorry, there was nothing genius or groundbreaking about Trump's economy, he merely added historic debt to add very slightly incremental gains. Firstly, you have failed to articulate why Americans have a right to security, fire protection, and education, but not health. And I'll ask again - do you support social security for the disabled? Healthcare for the elderly? These are all "socialist" programs. Secondly, everything else you posted was speculative nonsense. Australia has a very robust private healthcare and a public one. Scandinavia, South Korea, Japan - all prosperous, capitalist nations that have robust public healthcare options. No one is calling for price controls, death panels, blowing up private healthcare, whatever other such crap you're spouting off. Something else you failed to address - you are [B]already [/B]paying for the poor's health insurance when an uninsured person gets hit by a car, or when a person who's too poor to afford a doctor goes to the ER to get routine care, and you are paying at a [B]far[/B] more expensive rate than if they would simply have a family doctor. Why not acknowledge this, and put into place a system where this doesn't happen - a subsidized public option so the poor can get routine care as well, and at much better rates. I really don't see how that's an unreasonable proposition. [/QUOTE]

Verification