U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez let the cat out of the bag when she conceded: “Woke 1 was crazy!”
The New York congresswoman was facing questions some of the left’s greatest hits from the COVID era, including calls to abolish police and prisons. AOC argues that the pandemic created a massive opening and that candidates should be judged on where they stand today, not on what they said then.
Convenient.
It is understandable why she and other socialists are desperate to put some distance between themselves and… themselves. November is approaching, and wishing away yesterday’s radical ideas is easier than defending them.
Just one problem: When it comes to energy, “Woke 1.0” never went away.
Look at the Democratic Socialists of America’s own 2026 platform. Under its Green New Deal plank, DSA calls for massive taxpayer spending in “publicly owned” energy and phasing out fossil fuels.
It’s remarkably similar with what happened when Democrats actually controlled the federal government.
Upon assuming office, former President Joe Biden revoked the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Days later, he ordered a pause on new oil and natural gas leases on federal lands. In 2024, his Department of Energy halted new natural gas exports. And of course, he demanded everyone buy an electric vehicle.
Did Joe Biden implement the DSA platform word for word? No. But you’d be hard pressed to see the difference.
And you do not have to take that characterization from conservatives. Ocasio-Cortez herself said in 2023 that core tenets of the Green New Deal were reflected in Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Her office described the law as progress toward a “Green New Deal future.”
If it walks like a socialist and governs like a socialist…
Now, some Democrats are spending $15 million to combat the growing influence of DSA, which some describe as a “mortal danger” to the Democratic Party. Clearly, some Democrats understand that being associated with socialism creates an electoral problem. But from New York to Michigan, Democratic voters continue handing victories to candidates from the party’s socialist wing.
All of this brings us back to “Woke 1.0.”
For the next several months, voters will hear politicians insist that an old statement no longer represents their views. Or an unpopular slogan was a product of an unusual political moment or that something said during 2020 should not define a candidate in 2026.
Sometimes that explanation may be legitimate. People can change their minds. But voters are entitled to ask a harder question: What happened when these politicians actually had power?
On energy, we already have an answer.
Keystone was canceled. Federal leasing paused. LNG approvals halted. Federal regulators pushed the automobile market toward electric vehicles. Hundreds of billions of dollars were directed toward a government-driven energy transition.
“Woke 1.0” may become something Democrats laugh about rather than defend. But their energy policy is full of receipts, because it was working families who were paying the bill.
Leftists now want voters to doubt what they said. However, when it comes to energy, we should never forget what they did.
Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He is also author of the book “Power Restored: President Trump’s First Year and the Revival of American Energy Leadership.” You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
The Democratic Party/DSA is a train wreck and everyone knows it. The only things they have going to help them are voter fraud and the district Federal courts.
As a member of the post-WWII baby boomer generation and a person who served in the U.S. Navy late in the Cold War, I grew up watching this country (the U.S.) fight the spread of communism in the world during the Cold War–and especially when it got hot in Vietnam. The anti-war riots in the late 1960s are still fresh in my mind. The war tore this country apart.
And now, decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, we are supposed to embrace a DSA ideology which is not far removed from the communism of the USSR. I can only begin to imagine what is going through the minds of all the all of the Vietnam War vets out there who are watching this happen to the country they fought for in Southeast Asia. It must be making them sick.
Logic tells me that most if not all of the DSA members and voters are probably younger people who have no real knowledge or understanding of what we went through in this country during the Cold War, especially during the Vietnam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 (save for Bernie Sanders). After all, they never experienced it personally.
One would think that we as a nation would reject an ideology closely aligned with communism when we have seen how little communist adherents seemed to respect democracy and human rights in its 20th century history–and still today. Many DSA critics are predicting it will fall flat on its face, and I keep my fingers crossed that they are right.
As they old saying goes, “Those who do not learn anything from lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.” A lot of DSA members and voters are still a very l-o-o-o-ng way from understanding that. Many thanks to all my fellow military vets out there who served during the Cold War to help keep communism at bay in the world.
Most of Europe is socialist, and seems to be doing better than we are. People don’t worry about medical bills and don’t worry about getting old.
I think you are the one who need to think a little.
Trafamadore:
First of all, I need to ask you if you have a reading comprehension problem because my comment above was NOT about social welfare systems on either side of the Atlantic as your reply seems to suggest. I was talking about the U.S. struggle to contain communism during the Cold War and its threat to our democratic and human rights values in this country.
Secondly, we have a social system in the U.S. called Medicare which provides for the heath care insurance needs of American seniors and pays much or most of their medical bills as I can attest to from personal experience. Apparently, you have not heard of it. We also have Medicaid providing health care insurance for the poor (as well as SNAP). And then there is the Affordable Care Act for millions of others who do not get health insurance through their employers.
Admittedly, conservatives are probably not as supportive of these social welfare systems as the left is. But the conservatives know that threatening them is political suicide, so they know enough to leave them alone (for the most part).
Third, allow me to counter your poorly though out argument with a comparison of the performance of the EU economy against the U.S. economy over recent decades.
From GROK AI:
“The US has generally outpaced the EU in real GDP growth over the past few decades (especially since the mid-1990s/early 2000s and more clearly after the 2008 financial crisis), driven by stronger productivity gains, faster recovery from shocks, higher population growth in some periods, and tech/innovation leadership. The gap is more pronounced in nominal GDP (affected by exchange rates) than in PPP or per-capita terms, where differences are smaller but still favor the US recently. This year (2026), the US is seeing stronger growth.
Longer-term comparison (past few decades)
Post-1990s/2000s divergence: Europe caught up with or closely tracked the US in productivity and living standards in the postwar decades, but this largely ended around the mid-1990s. From roughly 1995–2024, US labor productivity rose substantially more (around 60%+ in some measures) than in the EU (~39%). Real GDP per capita grew somewhat faster in the US (e.g., ~58% vs. ~50% in one Bundesbank comparison for 1995–2024).After 2008: The US recovered faster from the global financial crisis and the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. One widely cited World Bank-based comparison notes US GDP (current USD) grew ~87% from 2008–2023 while EU GDP grew only ~13.5%, widening the gap (EU GDP fell from roughly matching or exceeding US levels in current dollars around 2008 to well below). Cumulative real growth has also favored the US, though exchange-rate and price effects exaggerate the nominal gap.Per capita and productivity nuances: Gaps in GDP per capita and especially GDP per hour worked have widened in favor of the US, linked to stronger US tech/innovation performance (e.g., few of the world’s largest tech firms are European) and differences in hours worked, investment, and regulation.Decade averages (approximate real GDP growth): US averages have often been higher (e.g., ~2.3–2.5% in the 2010s vs. EU ~1.6%). Both regions saw strong postwar growth earlier, with volatility around crises (2008–09, COVID-19).”
I will hazard a guess that the EU’s tendency to regulate and tax the bejesus of their economy has something to do with their weaker economic performance. Socialists probably have a tendency to do that, and economic growth is everything.
So, in conclusion Trafamadore, I will suggest that maybe it is you who needs to do something thinking about and re-evaluation of your belief systems.
“People don’t worry about medical bills.”
OK. But only for what is covered.
People “don’t worry about getting old.”
Um, ok if you say so.
“”seems to be doing better than we are”
Um, ok if you say so.
“Most of Europe is socialist,”
Most of Europe has social programs, of course.
Socialist?
Um, ok if you say so.
NOT!
For the next several months, silence of Dems in general is based on low information voters not connecting any dots and not even seeing all the dots to connect.
“silence of the Dems”
Sounds like an old movie title !
Is that why Trump has increased the national debt by 40%, to $40 trillion?
Which he hasn’t done.
When he became President at the start of 2025, debt was at 36.2 trillion..
Seems maths is something you also missed out on in junior high..
Under Trump administrations Trump 1.0 and 2.0 — $11.6 Trillion.
I was shaking my head in my old job tracking the state and national economies at Biden’s unnecessary trillion-dollar add-on COVID stimulus for states when most states other than CA, IL, and NY were already in powerful economic rebound mode. Then I realized it was payoff time for the power centers of the Party in CA, Chicago, and NYC. Then there was the Biden election mandate budget that included large elements of the green new deal and payoffs to nonprofits run by Party loyalists and lobbyists. It goes on from there except one other fascinating thing is Dems only bring up the debt issue when they are not in power. Debt concerns somehow disappear when they are in power during the gold rush spending spree. All of this sequence of events tells me that the Dems now run on the assumption of another stimulus every four years to justify the open floodgates of spending. That will be the only way to fill up their bloated budget overreach, post-election mandate dreams. So watch for a housing crisis stimulus, energy cost stimulus, climate crisis stimulus, DEI crisis stimulus, reparations crisis stimulus, and health care insurance crisis stimulus.
And I shake my head at the $11.6 trillion increase under Trump — a 40% increase in our national debt.
I shake my head at trolls, but at least I have very low expectations from them in the first place.
$11.6 Trillion increase in the US national debt. Trump did it. Deniers deny.
When we refuse to engage a Flame Warrior who is trying to deflect, misdirect, and otherwise take a conversation into a novel direction, that is not denying.
Well it is in a sense. We deny your sophistry
Here. Have some catnip, kitty.
Since you refuse to acknowledge basic facts about the increase in US debt under the Trump administrations, I keep on it until I see minimal signs of sentient behavior.
When did Democrats ever care about the debt….cripes that is a stupid comment
It seems that Trump doesn’t care much about the debt — he’s increased it by 40% — $11.6 Trillion –in his administrations. Most profligate and irresponsible spender in American history.
He is a former democrat after all. Ole Joe was build back better but spent it on stupidity.
Warren, you are wrong… but not by much. Under Biden the debt increased by an average of $2.11T per year. Under Trump 1 and 2 to date, the debt has increased by an average of $2.08T per year.
By my calculation, I’m spot on — $2.08 trillion per year in Trumps administrations equates to exactly $11.6 trillion total under Trump. I said nothing about Biden, except to ask how much debt accumulation occurred under Biden. You’re the first to answer my question.
And here I thought the Constitution put all budget matters under the authority of Congress.
Welcome to the real world where the President can veto any legislation.
But vetoing legislation must always decrease the debt, something you claim never happens. So any arguing about presidential vetoes is a red herring. But there it is.
In the first 2 months of his term, Biden spiked the debt to GDP ration to the highest ever.
Also, Trump was saddled with the costs of the Congressional mandate called The Inflation Reduction Act that goes until 2031.
The appropriations do not account for the tax breaks and other goodies.
So how one views this muchly depends on context. Absolute dollars is merely one way of presenting the numbers.
Combining different terms of office is a deliberate attempt to deceive. While the arithmetic arriving at the total, the presentation is disinformaton.
Have some more catnip, kitten.
“Also, Trump was saddled with the costs of the Congressional mandate called The Inflation Reduction Act that goes until 2031.”
Trump and his Congressional lackeys repealed the IRA. Did you forget?
Derg, you took the bait.
Please do not feed the trolls.
Beeton the Denier is not worth the time it takes to compose a reply.
Assigning debt to a single President is silly. Each inherits spending approved by prior administrations with different congresses. They are all big spenders. Obama, Trump and Biden. And, the largest portion of debt spending goes to social programs approved in the 1930s and 1960s, which have been expanded well beyond their original intent by all Presidents.
Obama added more to the debt than every Presidents before him combined. But, do you saddle him with poor decisions made by the Clinton Administration when it came to subprime lending? Many try to assign the bailout money for this to Bush as he was the one who signed it, but again, actions taken by the Clinton Administration (primarily Janet Reno and Andrew Cuomo) set in motion what would require considerable liquidity injections needed to keep the world from going into a depression during Bush or Obama.
Reagan, with a Democrat run Congress, was a big spender relative to GDP as he tried to show the Soviets what the U.S. could do militarily, thus freeing Clinton from having to partake in the decades long arms race.
Your comments are from Democrat talking points only, which hope to sway you away from the more obvious problem, the size of the federal government, which neither party is interested in solving.
I agree with most of what you said.
I see you’ve graduated from TDS University. 🙂
Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President.
And the President can veto any bill from Congress. Sounds like the Constitution is new for you.
Here kitty. Have some more catnip.
The Green New Deal was a fascist socialism designed by retarded schoolchildren.
Don’t sugar coat it like that! Tell us how you really feel. 🙂
How does a foreign funded gain of function lab leak in Wuhan create a “massive opening”? Maybe we need Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Madura in prison to translate it for us or at least write a NYT bestseller book to lay it out.
AOC disavowing her own ‘Woke 1 as crazy’ is not a good look. She isn’t smart enough to understand the problem. Schadenfreude.
Woke 1 was crazy….. so let’s go to Woke 2…… crazy on an overdose of steroids. !!
Occasional Cortex is a fitting nickname
One look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow hard-core Democrats tells you they are better suited to an asylum than to standing for election to political power.
Not sure how saving the planet from global warming qualifies as woke. Just a matter of normal intelligence, like not putting your hand in a fire.
Unfortunately, climate deniers haven’t learned that it hurts — everyone.
The thing that has done more damage to humans in the last 20+ years is the totally stupid “climate agenda”, which goes hand in hand with leftist wokism.
U don’t believe in the Laws of Physics?
Do you know the Laws of Physics? Do you know climate models are not physics? They may have some physics within them. 😉
About as astute as saying the sky is blue.
You do not believe in the Scientific Method and accept all appeals to authority (aka “scientists say”.
More catnip for kitty.
I accept the body of peer reviewed science. Do you?
Not on the simple basis of appeal to authority.
Not without independent verification.
By accepting the body, you are taking the good, the bad, and the ugly as all valid.
By the way, a vast percentage of those papers are not true science. There is a lot of speculative research, modelling, etc., without verifiable data.
I really doubt you read all of them. I also doubt you read more than the abstracts. Mostly I believe you accept a media report that starts out with “scientist say….”
More catnip, kitten?
“Not without independent verification”. You mean by one of your illiterate Deniers?
I have over 150 graphs and excerpts from peer-reviewed papers that clearly show the Holocene optimum and MWP were warmer than today.
The poor little scientific nonce is beating himself off when he DENIES this peer-reviewed science..
Here are some I posted the other day
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/08/14/co2-is-winning-mitigation-fail/#comment-4230325
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/08/14/co2-is-winning-mitigation-fail/#comment-4230336
This is the man who thinks El Nino is the cause of global warming….. so no, he doesn’t believe in physics.
You’ve got the wrong guy.
I was agreeing with you. BNice2000 thinks El Nino is the cause of the warming. He is in mayor of “let it be anything but CO2” town.
Ok. Thanks.
Physics of compressible flow in the Earth’s atmosphere dictates that CO2 cannot cause any measurable warming..
Time for you two to go and learn some actual physics.
compressible flow has nothing to do with the transmission or restriction of thermal radiation from earth to space by greenhouse gases.
“climate deniers”
Wazza, I’ve already told you –
use “heretics!” and “blasphemers!”
Those are so much more effective & recognized enduring terms for religious movements to use against those who can’t be won over to their made-up ideologies.
“Heretics!” and “Blasphemers!” have been used by religions for thousands of years, whereas the “denier” epithet only got plagiarized by the CAGW religion back in the late 1990s.
Time to modernize the CAGW religion’s marketing Wazza.
The polls show it’s a dud.
This ^
But accurate.
The religion categorization?
Yeah hard for you to deny that 🔦💡
Easy. I accept science. You reject it.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is
just as good as your knowledge.”
– Isaac Asimov
Warren, you are a shining example of anti-intellectualism.
Since, like Isaac Asimov, I accept the conclusions of scientific research and you, like the rest of the denizens of WUWT, reject science, you seem to have things reversed.
You only accept those conclusions that match your ideology.
You deny anything contrary to those conclusions.
You do not follow the science and you do not know what science entails.
Catnip for kitty.
I accept the findings of peer reviewed science. Do you?
You never read them. You accept them on appeal to authority. And you only accept those that fit in snuggly with your ideology.
I do not accept what I cannot independently verify.
More catnip kitty?
*meow*
Verified by…you? An uneducated non expert Denier is “independent verification”?
Hi Sparta.
Here are three more excerpts and graphs from peer-reviewed science, for beeting-himself-up to DENY.
I don’t anyone here who has denied there is a climate. Continuing to use that term, climate denier, shows how simple minded the climate alarmists are.
Almost all WUWT denizens deny the basic conclusions of all scientific research: that global warming is happening, it’s caused by human activities, and that it’s harmful to humans and other species.
Where did you get your degree in underwater basket weaving?
I apologize, Warren. I just don’t quite understand how an intelligent well educated senior citizen can be so blinded by the Climate cult. In your bullet list, you use the word “all” in every one. By this stage in life, a wise man should have learned to be very judicious with the use of the word “all.” Your four statements reflect a close-minded contempt for anyone who dares ask deeper questions or conduct their own independent analysis. You have become blind to the corruption of your fellow CAGW travelers. You are lost and don’t know it.
As for everyone else here at WUWT, Warren has revealed himself by these four ALL statements. He is a troll, and you know what we say about trolls …
All is essentially correct:https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
That was subsequently disproven. The analysis was biased and shoddy.
Only in the fevered imaginations of the science illiterates on WUWT.
Nope. Published in a peer reviewed paper.
Citation required.
Another Denier speaks!
Yes and we heard you, the science denier that you are.
From the “It’s warming rapidly” paragraph in FAQ 2.1, “The Earth’s Temperature Has Varied Before. How Is the Current Warming Any Different?”, on page 378 of the IPPC AR6 WG-I assessment report :
When summarising “all” (serious, peer-reviewed) scientific papers back in 2019/2020 the IPCC concluded that the time-resolution of temperature proxies from the LGM, i.e. just 18,000 to 20,000 years ago, was insufficient for “direct comparison with a period as short as the past 150 years”.
Your insistence on the use of he word “all”, combined with basic English comprehension, means that you (seem to) think that every single “climate reconstruction” paper published since 2020 includes a line in its “Discussion” or “Conclusions” section saying something like :
“X million years ago the rate of GMST warming was faster than the rate since 1970 AD”
That (more than !) qualifies as an “extraordinary claim”, and I trust that you have some “extraordinary evidence” to back it up.
I challenge you to provide a reference — or, even better, a link — to just one scientific paper that makes a claim even remotely similar to that.
.
From the start of the last paragraph of FAQ 2.1 :
The IPCC used, and still uses, words like “largely” — not “all” or “100%” — when deciding just how much of the “recent warming” could be attributed to human activity.
They also acknowledged that natural influences would have to be included when computing the effects of proposed adaptation and mitigation proposals.
The IPCC had, and has, enough humility to avoid mindless repetitions of the word “all”.
.
The vast majority of claimed “effects” haven’t even been detected yet, let alone judged on whether they are (/ will be) net “costly and harmful”, and if so by how much for any given date.
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”
“Articles”. Not peer reviewed papers. Not worth anything.
Recent comprehensive climate reconstructions published in Science reveal that the current rate of human-driven global warming is faster than any temperature spike observed across the entire past 485 million years. While Earth’s average surface temperature has naturally swung between 11°C and 36°C over deep time, past shifts took thousands or millions of years, giving ecosystems time to adapt.
Key Findings from the 485-Million-Year Record
… is unfortunately paywalled, but the “Supplementary Materials” file is open access (as is often the case), which includes a detailed “Materials and Methods” section.
One of the “temperature” proxies of their reconstruction comes from d18O data. As they put it on page 8 of the SM file :
OK, so just how “high-resolution” is the temperature (proxy) data for the most recent 34 million years or so ?
The Westerhold et al (2020) paper, “An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years”, is also on the Science website :
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba6853
Searching it for “resolution” led me to the caption for Fig. 1, which states :
So the “high-resolution” part used by the Judd et al (2024) paper for the “recent past” — i.e. the last 34 million years — that you initially linked to actually has an average of one sample every 2000 years.
Please explain exactly how (social) media articles can claim that “massive ancient warming events … unfolded at a much slower pace than the rapid warming occurring today“, where that “rapid warming” equals “warming since the 1970s / over the last 50 years“, when the reconstruction has an average sample rate of one datapoint every 2000 years.
All? No. Just the ones google brings to your attention.
All? No. There are no absolutes.
I will not cite a damned thing for you because I am not your lacky.
Your criteria is it must be published in a peer reviewed journal. Nothing else is valid. Except for NASA and NOAA, of course (/sarc). And the papers must be written by people you approve of.
You are in fact the worst science denier ever to post a blog comment.
More catnip, kitty.
You won’t cite because you can’t cite. Research to the contrary doesn’t exist, anymore than flat earth science exists.
NB : I am not SN4 …
A reminder of your initial bald assertions :
Please cite just one scientific paper that provides a (global mean) temperature reconstruction from “millions of years ago” with a temporal resolution of 150 years (or less).
The reason that you are unable to find even one such paper amongst “all” of those published both before and after 2021 — the IPCC AR6 WG-1 assessment report publication date — is that “They don’t exist”.
1) you never cited one paper that contradicted the 99.9% consensus on climate change
2) I cited the paper that concludes that the current rate of temperature rise hadn’t been exceeded in 485 million years
The full paper is paywalled, but the publicly available “Conclusion” reads, in its entirety :
Please point me to the word “rate” in there.
NB : They did not reach definitive conclusions, and explicitly stated that some of their more “surprising” findings rated “further investigation”.
.
I asked you to cite a paper that provides a (global mean) temperature reconstruction from “[ 485 ] millions of years ago” with a temporal resolution of 150 years (or less).
You avoided doing so.
Why ?
As the planet incrementally warms, fewer people die.
I guess you do not think death is hurting people.
Have some more catnip, kitty.
All scientific research concludes the opposite. It appears you’re one of the Deniers who reject those findings. How does it feel to be associated with the ignorant?
Blatant lie.
So now you resort to lying in addition to ad hominem attacks.
You are quite skilled in sophistry.
Cap nip is working very well, kitten.
Not lying. 99.9% of all peer reviewed research. Verified.
Any global warming is caused by increased absorbed solar radiation..
Wasting money on imaginary human contribution, by doing things that will have absolutely zero effect anyway.. is the very epitome of woke.. and of stupidity. !.
CO2 cannot create energy.
You’re right, it’s really more along the lines of delusional and loony tunes. Then again, Woke could also fall under that description.
Gonna save the planet. That’s hilarious. George Carlin had something to say about that.
Your intelligence is not on display.
First, it has not been proven the planet needs saving.
No deifinition of optimum climate has ever been established.
So yes, we are awake (original definition of woke).
Second, humanity has acclimated to a wide range of micro climates.
Given the 1.5 C since 1850 is valid (questionable at best), the is far from altering the planet beyond normal human acclimation.
What you seem to disapprove of is we who question the ideology do not genuflect to the appeals to authority as you do.
“…[to trafamadore] Your intelligence is not on display…”
Yes it is. That double digit IQ is coming across clearly.
Saving the planet is good work if you can do it.
But nobody ever has. That’s because its worse now than it ever was. See Mauna Loa CO2 observatory results for proof.
Sorry about your dreams not coming true. Wish harder, that always is suggested as a solution to unsolvable problems.
I agree the DSA are a bad thing and a danger to us all. However the run of the mill democrat is only steps behind them. It is only a question of degree.
Has anyone noticed that under the Trump administration, $11.6 Trillion has been added to the national debt, an increase of 40%?
https://www.macrotrends.net/2496/national-debt-growth-by-year
look at 2020 ….
19.6%% …..2026….1.43 % …
Trumps total additions to the national debt total $11.6 Trillion. He might know how to pour concrete , but finances not so much
Ignoring the Covid year.. Trumps has increased the debt less than Biden and Obama. The largest increase percentagewise since covid was under Biden.
Trump increased the national debt by $11.6 Trillion. What was the increase under Biden? Under Obama?
Remind me again: Which branch of government controls spending?
What one single executive in our government has the final say?
Only when the congressional consensus says to spend it.
Seems there are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
And, if the President says no, Congress can overturn the veto.
So, who really has the say first and last?
Catnip time, kitty.
The test is how many times Trump vetoed a budget and says he would only approve it if it were balanced. Did he ever?
Post the data, year by year as a percentage of GDP.
Or go away.
Build Back Better
By my count this is your fourth repetition of this completely unsupported bald assertion in this comments section.
I have access to … checks notes … “the Internet”, which allowed me to find the following webpage in less than a minute :
https://www.us-debt-clock.com/presidents
In the “All presidential terms” section (about one-third down the page), sorted by “Most recent”, you will find (most of) the following :
President … … … Started With : Ended With : Added : % Change
Donald Trump (2) 36.21T : 40.00T : +3.79T : +10.5% (underlined numbers modified by me)
Joe Biden … … … 27.75T : 36.21T : +8.45T : +30.5%
Donald Trump (1) 19.95T : 27.75T : +7.80T : +39.1%
Barack Obama (2) 16.43T : 19.95T : +3.51T : +21.4%
Barack Obama (1) 10.63T : 16.43T : +5.81T : +54.6%
.
11.6 = 7.8 + 3.8 … you completely skipped over the years 2021 to 2024, and the 30% — i.e. $8.45 trillion — increase in the US national debt that Joe Biden presided over ?!?
NB : 40% is approximately correct for Donald Trump’s first term, in isolation, but it is unclear (to me, at least) how the debt increase specifically due to the COVID “emergency measures” from 2020 to 2022 is divided between the “Trump (1)” and “Biden” numbers above.
.
Increasing the debt is a bipartisan political decision, and has been for several decades (since at least the 1930s / FDR).
“Unsupported claim?” Your own calculation shows precisely the same number for Trump that I did…..an $11.6 trillion in the national debt.
My calculation, which did indeed “confirm” your 11.6 trillion number, was accompanied with a link to my data source.
It took a (small) amount of time and effort, and some curiosity, to check out your bald assertion that was made with absolutely zero “data / evidence” to back it up.
.
Your response is notable for failing to address the other “concrete number” in your original post.
“11.6 trillion” is for both 2017-2021 plus 2025-present.
“+40%” is only for the “Trump (1)” term, with a baseline of $27.75 trillion in (January) 2017.
40 / 1.4 ~= $28.57 trillion, which doesn’t line up with any “Started With” number in the source I provided.
Please provide your source which shows the date (and/or event ?) that 28.57 number corresponds to.
You were “comparing apples to oranges” without providing sources so people could check out your unsupported claims.
Your TDS is showing. Have you finished trans’ing all your grandchildren yet? How many Venezuelans are you hiding in your basement? When did you convert to Islam?
The quality of WUWT denial is showing.
Seems another does of catnip is needed. Kitty.
Again?
Sophistry.
This goes beyond another dose of catnip.
In your gut you know she’s…..
…and other Dem attack ad sayings from the past.
Trusting the Dems on energy would be like trusting a 2-year-old to cook Sunday dinner.
Reject the premise. Democrats and their woke agenda proponents don’t care at all about the environment or climate. They just want money and control. The end.
Bullseye.
AOC: “You noticed ‘Woke 1.0 was crazy’. You’re right. Vote for us and we’ll show you ‘Woke 2.0!'”