Printable View
Sorry if this caveat above the table shows a revision to the actual data.. A revision done during the previous admin known for manipulating data/facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-)
In Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2009) Dollars, and as a Percentage of GDP: 1940-2023
(in Billions of Dollars)
If the Fed is going to spend money farmers who produce something of value is a much better investment than a gov't paper pusher.
I don't like this idea of eliminating the requirement to start taking distributions from retirement accounts at 70.5. 50 years (if you start putting money into a 401(k) or IRA right out of college) is enough time to defer taxes. If you take a distribution, you don't have to spend the money. You just have to pay the taxes you've deferred for however long you've had retirement accounts.
Roth for lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
In that case you've at least paid taxes up front on the principal.
Evidence, please. And of course the current administration is always careful with data/facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Of course they are. They may have no basis in reality, but they're always careful with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-man
Current dollars....No mention of actual dollars. Means adjustments were made to the actual figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-man
If someone presented figures in current/adjusted dollars an intelligent person would want to see the raw figures.
WTF?? "Current dollars" simply means dollar amounts unadjusted for inflation. I would have thought you might have known that given your oft-stated prowess in economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I think he does. I think he's saying that since it's adjusted for inflation, then it's somehow more likely to have been manipulated in other ways. This is one of the lazier and ridiculous attempts at gaslighting I've seen by Brew.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-man
Also strange it's more clear to say 'nominal' and 'real' instead of 'actual' and 'current'.
But current dollars, because they are unadjusted for inflation, are in fact "actual dollars". So Strange's comment makes no sense. And if he really wanted real dollars (adjusted for inflation), those numbers are there in the same table. So Strange, like his pal Trump, is just making up shit about Obama. Unless he has some actual evidence that demonstrates data manipulation by the Obama administration, he should be ignored...just like Trump's tweets should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Having worked in the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 10 years, in the CPI office, I can assure you that the economists and statisticians who work there do there best to provide the best and most accurate data series possible. And the same can be said for those who work in the Bureau of Economic Analysis where the GDP data are tabulated. People like Strange and his pal Trump know absolutely nothing about what goes on in these statistical agencies. To claim that the data are manipulated or adjusted for political purposes is pure BS.