AFFILIATE SEARCH | Shop Amazon.co.uk using this search bar and support WHO!
The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Forum rules
Whilst 'off-topic' means all non-football topics can be discussed. This is not a free for all. Rights to this area of the forum aren't implicit, and illegal, defamator, spammy or absuive topics will be removed, with the protagonist's sanctioned.
Whilst 'off-topic' means all non-football topics can be discussed. This is not a free for all. Rights to this area of the forum aren't implicit, and illegal, defamator, spammy or absuive topics will be removed, with the protagonist's sanctioned.
-
Come On You Irons
- Posts: 1242
- Old WHO Number: 304394
- Has liked: 86 times
- Been liked: 251 times
The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
There. Resident WHO political commentators and gurus can knock yourselves out in here and conduct your endless bickering. All other threads will be locked.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:20It’s not an exact science numbnuts. There are bulls and bears that’s what makes a market, some economists that are bearish some economists that are bullish. Some from either side have their algorithms. You and your propagandists are the Bears. That’s all it is.
It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.
Not an exact science but not something you get wrong by $300bn.
Like I said, you’d need growth which is historically unprecedented to cover the loss of tax revenues. To the point where it’s completely unthinkable and unimaginable.
So yes I’d bet my house on something that has less than 1% of happening.
Like I said, you’d need growth which is historically unprecedented to cover the loss of tax revenues. To the point where it’s completely unthinkable and unimaginable.
So yes I’d bet my house on something that has less than 1% of happening.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
It’s not an exact science numbnuts. There are bulls and bears that’s what makes a market, some economists that are bearish some economists that are bullish. Some from either side have their algorithms. You and your propagandists are the Bears. That’s all it is.
It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.
It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
There is no real world scenario that pays for those tax cuts.
You can play dumb all you like, but this really is obvious stuff.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:35No. I’m just listening to dozens of the most highly experienced and respected economists around.
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)
Hopefully they get something right one day.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:32Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.
cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!
No. I’m just listening to dozens of the most highly experienced and respected economists around.
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:08Keep reaching son.
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.
Have a sit down and think that one through.
Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.
cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!
cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:47So they are not using the Gov’t job numbers in their algorithims? Are you sure? Where do they get their job numbers from then? I mean you can’t ignore jobs in any forecast.
And do they all have exactly the same number?
Keep reaching son.
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.
Have a sit down and think that one through.
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.
Have a sit down and think that one through.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
good to hear you say, many people at the moment try to defend the indefensible
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:26Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:22goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:17Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue![]()
![]()
![]()
We’re talking about the best economists around.
they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes
Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.
You really are stupid’You’re getting your government departments confused son.
btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.
So they are not using the Gov’t job numbers in their algorithims? Are you sure? Where do they get their job numbers from then? I mean you can’t ignore jobs in any forecast.
And do they all have exactly the same number?
And do they all have exactly the same number?
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:22goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:17Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue![]()
![]()
![]()
We’re talking about the best economists around.
they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes
Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.
You really are stupid’
You’re getting your government departments confused son.
btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.
btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:17Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue![]()
![]()
![]()
We’re talking about the best economists around.
they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes![]()
Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.
You really are stupid’
You really are stupid’
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue
We’re talking about the best economists around.
they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes
i wonder if they count tariff revenue
We’re talking about the best economists around.
they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes
Last edited by goose on 24 Jan 2026, 20:20, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Possibly. We’ll find out exactly what data they put in to their algorithm. See how thorough they were. A ton of variables no doubt. I wonder if they count Tarrif revenue in their numbers? Although fuck knows how you’d predict that.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:30goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:58Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:54How has it been proven? It’s January ffs! This is their opinion, forecasts. Just like Stagflation and Inflation and all the others. Let’s see how much growth we get first and how much tax revenues that brings. You really have no idea. Your lack of understanding is unreal!You think it’s an ‘opinion’???![]()
![]()
![]()
it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models.out of curiosity how accurate do you think these models are?
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?
They’re not £300bn off.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:58Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:54goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:38It’s been proven that the cost of the growth projected is far outweighed by the loss of tax revenue. $300 odd billion every year.
You were pointed to multiple well respected sources and your own congressional committee all saying the same thing.
you can shout and avoid and throw insults around but these people know what they’re talking about.How has it been proven? It’s January ffs! This is their opinion, forecasts. Just like Stagflation and Inflation and all the others. Let’s see how much growth we get first and how much tax revenues that brings. You really have no idea. Your lack of understanding is unreal!You think it’s an ‘opinion’???![]()
![]()
![]()
it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models.
out of curiosity how accurate do you think these models are?
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Just for your tiny failed GCSE brain, to fully pay for the tax cuts you would need to far exceed any historically measured growth.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:54goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:38Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:32Not true, it’s been proven less tax means more consumer spending creating more GDP a vibrant economy and stronger markets which is good for your retirement accounts. Creates the wealth mindset effect, people fell better about spending.
Once again you show your simpleton understanding of economics.
Pick up a book you cսnt!It’s been proven that the cost of the growth projected is far outweighed by the loss of tax revenue. $300 odd billion every year.
You were pointed to multiple well respected sources and your own congressional committee all saying the same thing.
you can shout and avoid and throw insults around but these people know what they’re talking about.How has it been proven? It’s January ffs! This is their opinion, forecasts. Just like Stagflation and Inflation and all the others. Let’s see how much growth we get first and how much tax revenues that brings. You really have no idea. Your lack of understanding is unreal!
You think it’s an ‘opinion’???
it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models.
it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Up but slower than the Biden administration in ‘23 and ‘24.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:38Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:32Not true, it’s been proven less tax means more consumer spending creating more GDP a vibrant economy and stronger markets which is good for your retirement accounts. Creates the wealth mindset effect, people fell better about spending.
Once again you show your simpleton understanding of economics.
Pick up a book you cսnt!It’s been proven that the cost of the growth projected is far outweighed by the loss of tax revenue. $300 odd billion every year.
You were pointed to multiple well respected sources and your own congressional committee all saying the same thing.
you can shout and avoid and throw insults around but these people know what they’re talking about.
How has it been proven? It’s January ffs! This is their opinion, forecasts. Just like Stagflation and Inflation and all the others. Let’s see how much growth we get first and how much tax revenues that brings. You really have no idea. Your lack of understanding is unreal!
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:33Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:29Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:23I never said our debt was nothing, I agree with Trump we need lower interest rates so servicing the debt is not so expensive. Rates have been dropping since Trump took office. See the 30 year fixed mortgage rate for proof or the 10 yr T-Bill,
Here’s the 1 year chart for proof.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10What’s interesting about the chart is if you select the 5 yr chart you’ll see that Interest rates took off in 2022, While Biden was in office, right around the time he announced his $5 trillion spending bill whilst telling us we had supply chain issues.And yet Trump has delivered more debt at a faster rate.
And yet Interest rates are down and so is inflation, so is crime and drug death.
You know what’s up, GDP. As is Consumer sentiment and wage growth.
You know what’s up, GDP. As is Consumer sentiment and wage growth.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:32goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:27Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:23I never said our debt was nothing, I agree with Trump we need lower interest rates so servicing the debt is not so expensive. Rates have been dropping since Trump took office. See the 30 year fixed mortgage rate for proof or the 10 yr T-Bill,
Here’s the 1 year chart for proof.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10But the debt grows at record levels and will grow even faster when the tax cuts land.
Good luck with that.
More debt than Biden, faster acceleration of debt and lower growth.Not true, it’s been proven less tax means more consumer spending creating more GDP a vibrant economy and stronger markets which is good for your retirement accounts. Creates the wealth mindset effect, people fell better about spending.
Once again you show your simpleton understanding of economics.
Pick up a book you cսnt!
It’s been proven that the cost of the growth projected is far outweighed by the loss of tax revenue. $300 odd billion every year.
You were pointed to multiple well respected sources and your own congressional committee all saying the same thing.
you can shout and avoid and throw insults around but these people know what they’re talking about.
You were pointed to multiple well respected sources and your own congressional committee all saying the same thing.
you can shout and avoid and throw insults around but these people know what they’re talking about.
- goose
- Posts: 5950
- Old WHO Number: 212806
- Has liked: 535 times
- Been liked: 1060 times
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:29Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:23goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:16So when you posted about GDP data why bother? It’s a nothing burger right? Just happens to be a slower growth than Biden.
Did your GCSE teach you that GDP growth was nothing but deregulation was really important? No wonder you failed.
And that record accumulation of debt is nothing as well right?
Biden was a corpse in office but that corpse delivered more growth than your orange abuser![]()
![]()
I never said our debt was nothing, I agree with Trump we need lower interest rates so servicing the debt is not so expensive. Rates have been dropping since Trump took office. See the 30 year fixed mortgage rate for proof or the 10 yr T-Bill,
Here’s the 1 year chart for proof.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10What’s interesting about the chart is if you select the 5 yr chart you’ll see that Interest rates took off in 2022, While Biden was in office, right around the time he announced his $5 trillion spending bill whilst telling us we had supply chain issues.
And yet Trump has delivered more debt at a faster rate.
Re: The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)
goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:27Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:23goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:16So when you posted about GDP data why bother? It’s a nothing burger right? Just happens to be a slower growth than Biden.
Did your GCSE teach you that GDP growth was nothing but deregulation was really important? No wonder you failed.
And that record accumulation of debt is nothing as well right?
Biden was a corpse in office but that corpse delivered more growth than your orange abuser![]()
![]()
I never said our debt was nothing, I agree with Trump we need lower interest rates so servicing the debt is not so expensive. Rates have been dropping since Trump took office. See the 30 year fixed mortgage rate for proof or the 10 yr T-Bill,
Here’s the 1 year chart for proof.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10But the debt grows at record levels and will grow even faster when the tax cuts land.
Good luck with that.
More debt than Biden, faster acceleration of debt and lower growth.
Not true, it’s been proven less tax means more consumer spending creating more GDP a vibrant economy and stronger markets which is good for your retirement accounts. Creates the wealth mindset effect, people fell better about spending.
Once again you show your simpleton understanding of economics.
Pick up a book you cսnt!
Once again you show your simpleton understanding of economics.
Pick up a book you cսnt!