Official Joe *****-****** Harris Presidency Thread

[just the facts]

he is a sick, disturbed individual.

But he’s not a racist scumbag, like YOU!

[aboutfkntime]

No I didnt. I voted against *****, as did many people, because I didn’t feel he deserved to be President.

Why are you so upset people judged ***** on his embarrassing behavior and his failure to handle the pandemic?

More conspiracy silliness. If this were true, that means ***** is responsible for passing the infrastructure plan which is getting more Americans back to work and fixing rods, bridges, railroads, etc that the majority of Americans feel are decrepit.

Note I posted many times if ***** hadn’t been such a political egotistical ******* that wouldn’t work with Dems, hed have passed the same infrastructure plan and likely have been reelected.

Youre funny- you post about me and others talking about ***** but youre still fixated on ***** after all these years.

that election was.... nationalist vs globalist

you voted for the globalist, you dumb cvnt






.....

[The Big Dunn]

that election was.... nationalist vs globalist

you voted for the globalist, you dumb cvnt

.....

***** has businesses and bank accounts in Russia, China and other foreign countries yet you call him a nationalist.

He was also a registered Dem that donated money to the Clintons- people who you also claim are globalists.

Youre really ****** dude.

[-MEGA-]

CNN —
President Joe ***** has made another series of inaccurate claims in an economic speech.

In late January, CNN *****’s false and misleading claims in an economic speech to union workers in ******ia. In a this Wednesday to union workers in Maryland, ***** repeated one of those claims and made three other incorrect statements – all of them about statistics. ***** and the national debt


In the Wednesday speech, ***** criticized the fiscal management of former President Donald *****. After correctly noting that the federal budget deficit every year of *****’s term, ***** said, “And because of those record deficits, no president added more to the national debt – that’s a 200-year debt – never added more to the national debt than my predecessor.”

ADVERTISING

Facts First: This claim is false. More debt was added in the eight years under President Barack *****, with ***** as vice president, than in the four years under *****. The ***** era set the record for most debt added in a single four-year presidential term, but ***** made it sound here like the ***** era set the record even when you include two-term presidents like *****. (***** in his State of the Union address last week that he was referring to a record for debt added in a four-year period.) Also, while ***** mentioned “record deficits,” plural, under *****, only one *****-era deficit, in pandemic-era fiscal 2020, was actually a record; the deficits in fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 were than every deficit in *****’s first term, when the country was emerging from a and ***** approved some policies that .

There are to measure the debt. Using the basic headline measure, , the debt increased about $9.3 trillion over *****’s eight years, from about on the day he was inaugurated in 2009 to about $19.9 trillion on the day ***** took office in 2017. The debt increased by about $7.8 trillion over *****’s four years, to about $27.8 trillion when ***** replaced him in 2021.

It’s also important to note that it is an to blame presidents alone for debt incurred during their tenures.

A significant amount of spending under any president is the result of decisions made by their predecessors – such as the creation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid decades ago – and by circumstances out of a president’s control, such as an inherited recession for ***** and the global Covid-19 pandemic for *****.

And while some debt can fairly be attributed to a single party – *****’s 2017 tax cuts, , were a significant contributor – other debt is bipartisan. Notably, the debt in 2020 after ***** approved trillions in spending that Congress had passed with ********ic and ********** support.

***** was right when he said that the deficit increased every year under *****. But the deficits in fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 under ***** were all below $1 trillion – lower than the deficits in fiscal 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 under the *****-***** administration. The deficit then roughly tripled, to a record level of about $3.1 trillion, in pandemic-era fiscal 2020. ***** and the national debt


In another part of the speech, ***** said, “We cut the debt by $1.7 billion the last two years.” The White House made a correction to the official transcript to make it “$1.7 trillion” instead of “$1.7 billion.”

Facts First: This claim is inaccurate even if you ignore *****’s billion-versus-trillion mixup. The national debt has continued to increase under *****. It is the deficit that has declined by about $1.7 trillion – and experts say it is misleading for ***** to take credit for that reduction.

Enter your email to sign up for CNN's "What Matters" Newsletter.


Sign up for CNN's What Matters newsletter
Every day we summarize What Matters and deliver it straight to your inbox.
Sign Me Up
No, Thanks
By subscribing you agree to our

The debt has during *****’s time as president, rising to about $31.5 trillion. As ***** also did in , his claim in this speech conflated the debt (the accumulation of federal borrowing plus interest owed) with the (the one-year difference between spending and revenues).

The deficit did fall by roughly $1.7 trillion between fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2022, from about $3.1 trillion to about $1.4 trillion. But as CNN has repeatedly , it is highly questionable how much credit ***** deserves for the decline – which overwhelmingly occurred because the emergency pandemic spending from the end of the ***** era expired as planned. In fact, independent analysts say *****’s own new laws and executive actions have significantly added to current and projected future deficits, not reduced those deficits. You can read more and . Medicare and the Inflation Reduction Act


***** made a confusing remark about prescription drug costs and the Inflation Reduction Act he signed into law last year.

He said the law “saves seniors a lot of money” on prescription drugs, then added that, by bringing down the cost of these drugs, the law “will cut the federal deficit, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over time.”

Both of these assertions are . But then ***** added that if **********s repealed this law, they would be getting rid of “$159,000 a year in savings on lower drug costs.”

Here’s a fuller quote: “Now, our ********** friends want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. They’d get rid of the savings on prescription drugs that we buy, like Medicare – I mean, we buy from – through – through Medicare. And it would eliminate, today, right now, $159,000 a year in savings on lowered drug costs. Now, that just means your tax dollars are going to save – be saved $159,000 to do what we’re doing right now.”

Facts First: The Inflation Reduction Act does not provide “$159,000 a year in savings on lowered drug costs.” A White House official made clear to CNN on Thursday that ***** was attempting to say that government savings of $159 billion over 10 years would be lost with a ********** repeal of two key Inflation Reduction Act provisions on prescription drugs.

Viewed one way, *****’s “$159,000 a year” figure significantly understated the total savings from these two provisions. (One allows Medicare to negotiate the price of certain prescription drugs. The other requires pharmaceutical companies to pay rebates to Medicare for price increases over the rate of inflation.) But his use of such a modest number may have led some listeners to believe that he was talking about giant savings to particular seniors or families rather than modest savings to the government. And his figure was incorrect regardless of how it was perceived.

The White House this section of the official transcript of the speech after CNN inquired about the “$159,000” figure. Billionaires and taxes


***** reprised an inaccurate figure he used in the in late January. He said of billionaires in the United States: “You know what their average tax they pay is? About 3%.”

Facts First: Once more, *****’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the third time in less than a month, ***** inaccurately described a from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about *****’s “3%” claim in the late-January speech, the White House a corrected transcript of that speech to make it “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even the 8% number is , since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are taxable income under federal law.

“*****’s numbers are way too low,” , senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, told CNN in late January – though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

***** has cited the 8% statistic in various , but the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and the ******ia speech – and “2%” .

[aboutfkntime]

***** has businesses and bank accounts in Russia, China and other foreign countries yet you call him a nationalist.

He was also a registered Dem that donated money to the Clintons- people who you also claim are globalists.

Youre really ****** dude.

you are just a fkn idiot

1) ***** dumped all of the globalist garbage that does not benefit America

2) AFTER watching him do that.... you voted for a corrupt pedo who IMMEDIATELY reinstated all of those globalist policies

you are just a dumb leftie phaggot who voted for a globalist pedo LMAO






...

[aboutfkntime]

a dumb leftie phaggot who voted for a globalist pedo LMAO

speaking of dumb leftie phaggots who voted for a globalist pedo.....



MUST WATCH !!!



Tucker: This could lead to the destruction of the West

...

[Vlad_]

Here’s some truth:


333840942_5173399456095682_1675916680313138982_n.jpg?stp=cp0_dst-jpg_e15_fr_q65&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=110474&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=3vu_lgVH1GoAX-J_c1q&tn=MrKb_qRc3dS4ymY1&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfB8ap_-6Qf

[The Big Dunn]

Murdoch and other Fox execs agreed 2020 election was fair but feared losing viewers, court filing shows


"We thought everything was on the up-and-up,” Rupert Murdoch said of the 2020 election.

[siablo14]

Murdoch and other Fox execs agreed 2020 election was fair but feared losing viewers, court filing shows


"We thought everything was on the up-and-up,” Rupert Murdoch said of the 2020 election.

Carlson: ***** a 'demonic force'


On Jan. 6, 2021, the day the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a pro-***** mob as Congress sought to certify the results of the 2020 election, Carlson texted his producer that ***** is "a demonic force, a destroyer. But he's not going to destroy us."

• Host Tucker Carlson said as early as Nov. 16, 2020, that ***** ally Sidney Powell was "lying" about election fraud, according to the filing. He texted an individual whose name was redacted that her claims, made without evidence, were "shockingly reckless."

Has Ghost changed his stance since these new info came out?

[BodyBagz]

'How dare you': Mother of two sons who died from fentanyl demands ***** apologize for laughing about her story



TBF, dumbasses OD'ing is funny.
The Pres should be more professional, though.