Economics Thread

it never hurts to look at da numbahs

Republicans represent the smaller, fading segment, with less-educated, more-homogenous work forces reliant on traditional manufacturing, agriculture and resource extraction. Democrats represent the larger, growing one, fueled by finance, professional services and digital innovation in diverse urban areas.

Screen_Shot_2018-11-16_at_10.53.31_AM.png



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...es-of-the-future-while-many-GOP-districts-lag
 
it never hurts to look at da numbahs

Looks like:

Clinton averaged 18.3%
Bush averaged 18.9%
Obama averaged 21.8%
So far Trump has averaged 20.52

As I said, we used to be able to comfortably remain below 20% but that has changed and doesn't appear to be slowing down anyway.
 
Average outlays 1969-2018 are 20.3%. That's where we came in FY 2018. Right at the average for the past 40 years. In spite of having a significantly higher proportion of the population over 65, which works to increase federal government outlays on medical care and social security.

Meanwhile revenues are below their average of 17.4% for the 1969-2018 period.
 
Average outlays 1969-2018 are 20.3%. That's where we came in FY 2018. Right at the average for the past 40 years. In spite of having a significantly higher proportion of the population over 65, which works to increase federal government outlays on medical care and social security.

Meanwhile revenues are below their average of 17.4% for the 1969-2018 period.

Where you pulling numbers? I'm seeing different numbers in many sources (not saying you're wrong just want to get on same page)

Wallace+Spending+as%25+of+GDP.png
 
Where you pulling numbers? I'm seeing different numbers in many sources (not saying you're wrong just want to get on same page)

Wallace+Spending+as%25+of+GDP.png

the graph on page 2 of the CBO document...it has two dotted lines that represent the averages for outlays and revenues over the past 40 years...fiscal years 1969 to 2018
 
Last edited:
Telling you don't understand he economic implications of GM slashing 15% of their workforce
after spending the better part of last December touting the promise of tax cuts and a booming Trump economy.
Funny thing about Rosy Colored Glasses.

Not to mention, this is GM
 
Last edited:
Trump’s aluminum/steel tariffs cost GM a billion dollars.

I think ultimately a lack of demand is driving the cuts, but a $1B increase in costs is certainly going to accelerate cuts.
 
Trump’s aluminum/steel tariffs cost GM a billion dollars.

I think ultimately a lack of demand is driving the cuts, but a $1B increase in costs is certainly going to accelerate cuts.

The Bernie approved tariffs are a disaster. Will only be successful if China reduces or removes their own tariffs
 
Back
Top