The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)

[Come On You Irons]

There. Resident WHO political commentators and gurus can knock yourselves out in here and conduct your endless bickering. All other threads will be locked.

[Nurse Ratched]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

 

 

Blocking Burnham from standing because Starmer is frit is egregious and I can't get my head round how Starmer and his team think it's acceptable. 

In the 1980s, I remember a Tory minister (Cecil Parkinson) had to resign because he got his long-time secretary/mistress pregnant and she went public with the news. It was considered a terrible scandal, a stain on his morals and integrity so serious that he couldn't be capable of being a minister in Government. Thatcher dragged her feet a bit, but it was inevitable he would have to go. What will it take for that robotic greige weasel Starmer to resign in shame? Look at the shameless herberts on both sides of the house these days. Apparently Crayons Rayner is on manoeuvres in the background, despite only having resigned/been pushed out in disgrace a matter of mere months ago. 

Also, Starmer's head is far too big for his haircut. Something very sinister about that.

[Nutsin]

No wonder you failed GCSE business studies.

Even if GDP growth accelerated from ~2 % to ~3–4 % for many years, it still wouldn’t generate enough additional revenue to cover the full multi-trillion-dollar cost of the cuts. 
You’d need additional GDP growth of ~7–8 percentage points above baseline every year — sustained over a decade — purely to generate enough extra revenue to match the revenue loss.

To match the revenue loss. That’s the entire loss of the revenue, Not the $300 billion deficit numbnuts.

Really? You actually want to carry on embarrassing yourself on this?

GDP isn’t government income. To recoup the loss in tax revenues GDP would have to grow more than 8%. Simple maths that I reckon my son could master.

You think that is going to happen?

Now that Trump has Biden’s inflation under control and a new Fed chair coming in lowering Biden’s high interest rates fixes the tax cut deficits. See below.

Add to that the cut backs in SNAP benefits Medicaid and Medicare fraud that’s costing the taxpayers Billions per year, exact amounts are not known because there is a multi state investigation under way, but the extent of the fraud is expected to be $19 billion in Minnesota alone. Probably more. Reduction is prescription drugs is a huge saving for Medicare see Trumps “most favored nation” bill estimated to save $200 billion per year on prescription drugs, Coupled with an increase in GDP which typically averages around 2.5% that is now running at a clip of above 5% you’ll find the tax cuts are easily paid for.

Remember we are no longer throwing $100’s of billions into the Ukraine money pot that Biden was, as well as all the other handout Trump is stopping in foreign aid, USAID, WHO etc:

I think the tax cuts are a prime example of America first. After all the money does belong to the worker ffs. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, not even you- you communist.

As of January 2026 (current date: January 25, 2026), here's the latest available picture:

### Actual/Year-to-Date Figures for FY 2026
Fiscal Year 2026 runs from October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2026. Through the first quarter (October–December 2025):
- Net interest outlays totaled approximately $270–276 billion (sources vary slightly; Peterson Foundation reports ~$270 billion, CBO Monthly Budget Review and related reports cite ~$276 billion for a similar period, up significantly from the prior year—e.g., +11–12% or about $30 billion more than Q1 FY 2025).
- Treasury Fiscal Data reports cumulative interest expense (gross, on the national debt) at $355 billion FYTD as of December 31, 2025 (this may include some gross vs. net distinctions, but aligns directionally with high interest costs).
- This pace suggests monthly interest is averaging around $90–92 billion recently (e.g., December 2025 net interest around $92 billion per some Treasury statements).

### Full-Year Projections/Estimates for FY 2026 or Calendar 2026
- Nonpartisan sources like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Peterson Foundation (PGPF) project net interest payments around $1.0 trillion (or slightly above) for calendar year 2026 or FY 2026 under current law baselines. This marks a continuation of the trend where interest crossed the $1 trillion annual threshold recently (e.g., FY 2025 net interest totaled ~$970 billion, already nearing or hitting $1 trillion in some accountings).
- Interest costs are projected to reach 3.2% of GDP in 2026 (per CBO/PGPF), surpassing the previous historical high set in 1991.
- For context:
  - This is up sharply from earlier years (e.g., $345 billion in FY 2020, $880 billion in FY 2024).
  - Over the next decade (e.g., 2026–2035), CBO projects cumulative net interest of $13.8 trillion (with some CRFB analyses noting potential for higher under alternative scenarios involving sustained high rates or policy changes).

[goose]

You daft cսnt $300 billion is 1% of our $30 Trillion GDP.

“need growth that is unprecedented” what a cսnt’

GO away you Div!

No wonder you failed GCSE business studies.

Even if GDP growth accelerated from ~2 % to ~3–4 % for many years, it still wouldn’t generate enough additional revenue to cover the full multi-trillion-dollar cost of the cuts. 
You’d need additional GDP growth of ~7–8 percentage points above baseline every year — sustained over a decade — purely to generate enough extra revenue to match the revenue loss.

To match the revenue loss. That’s the entire loss of the revenue, Not the $300 billion deficit numbnuts.

Really? You actually want to carry on embarrassing yourself on this?

GDP isn’t government income. To recoup the loss in tax revenues GDP would have to grow more than 8%. Simple maths that I reckon my son could master.

You think that is going to happen?

[Nutsin]

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.

You daft cսnt $300 billion is 1% of our $30 Trillion GDP.

“need growth that is unprecedented” what a cսnt’

GO away you Div!

No wonder you failed GCSE business studies.

Even if GDP growth accelerated from ~2 % to ~3–4 % for many years, it still wouldn’t generate enough additional revenue to cover the full multi-trillion-dollar cost of the cuts. 
You’d need additional GDP growth of ~7–8 percentage points above baseline every year — sustained over a decade — purely to generate enough extra revenue to match the revenue loss.

To match the revenue loss. That’s the entire loss of the revenue, Not the $300 billion deficit numbnuts.

[goose]

Very simply for you: 

• The US collects about $5 trillion a year in taxes
  • That’s only ~17–18% of GDP
• Because taxes are ~18% of GDP:
  • 1% extra GDP growth only raises tax revenue by ~0.18% of GDP
  • That’s about $55bn per year on today’s economy
• To cover $450bn a year in lost revenue:
  • You’d need ~8–9% EXTRA GDP growth every single year
  • On top of normal growth
• That means total growth of ~9–10% per year

 

[goose]

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.

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.

You daft cսnt $300 billion is 1% of our $30 Trillion GDP.

“need growth that is unprecedented” what a cսnt’

GO away you Div!

No wonder you failed GCSE business studies.

Even if GDP growth accelerated from ~2 % to ~3–4 % for many years, it still wouldn’t generate enough additional revenue to cover the full multi-trillion-dollar cost of the cuts. 
You’d need additional GDP growth of ~7–8 percentage points above baseline every year — sustained over a decade — purely to generate enough extra revenue to match the revenue loss.

[violator]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

Apart from the elections he cancelled out of fear. 

[Nutsin]

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
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.




 

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.

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.

You daft cսnt $300 billion is 1% of our $30 Trillion GDP.

“need growth that is unprecedented” what a cսnt’

GO away you Div!

[THUNDERCLINT]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

Yep, kweer was 100% correct when he said his father made tools.

Done nothing but guarantee the party carves itself up into factions and eats itself alive.

By the time it's over and Nige is PM the Tories will be the opposition and the labour commies behind the ridiculous greens and the comical liberals.

Given the state of those 4 unless a credible centre left party emerges Reform will govern for a generation.

[Fauxstralian]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

[Fauxstralian]

NEC core group will decide today whether the best candidate Andy Burnham will be allowed to stand for Parliament 
If they block him to protect the abysmal Starmer get ready for a Reform government 

[goose]

Hopefully they get something right one day.

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
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.



 

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.

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.

[Nutsin]

 

 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)

Hopefully they get something right one day.

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
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.

 

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.

[goose]

Just 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)

Hopefully they get something right one day.

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
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.
 

[Nutsin]

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.

Just 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)

Hopefully they get something right one day.

[goose]

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?

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.

Just 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)

[Nutsin]

Goose do me a favour mate. Can you give your crystal ball a little rub, let me know what next weeks results are gonna be? Much obliged!

[Nutsin]

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?

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.

Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.

cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!

[goose]

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?

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.

[Mr Anon]

Better late than never. For what it’s worth it was a cunty thing to say no doubt. Stupid too, nothing to be gained from it, no matter how it was meant.

 

 

good to hear you say, many people at the moment try to defend the indefensible 

[Nutsin]

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

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?

[goose]

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.

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

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.

[Nutsin]

They’re not £300bn off.

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.

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

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’

[Nutsin]

Better late than never. For what it’s worth it was a cunty thing to say no doubt. Stupid too, nothing to be gained from it, no matter how it was meant.

[goose]

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.

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.

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