What is Conservatism?

[g5000]

Republican Congress.

Republican President.

DOUBLED deficits.

And that's all you need to know about Republicans and how disconnected they are from conservatism.

In fact, you can't find a single pseudocon to bitch about Trump's deficits the same way they bitched about Obama's.

And that tells you how hypocritical and brain damaged they are.

Obama added $10 trillion to the debt, trillions to the Fed holdings, at 0% interest rates. Call us when Trump comes even close to that disaster.

I predict a BOOOOOOOOSH reply.

Obama inherited the Bush devastated country in total ruin. The Great Bush recession produced massive revenue shortfalls and gave Obama massive deficits. Second Obama then needed a stimulus plan, look at the 1930s AND Europe to see what would have happened if we had no stimulus. Obama definitely did a poor job with debt and some aspects of the stimulus were wasteful, but in the end the deficit dropped once the recovery began and Obama's deficits were close to Bush's pre-Bush economic meltdown.

Yep, Obama inherited a train wreck.

Trump was elected on third base, if you'll pardon my mixed metaphors. There is no excuse for Trump spending now like Obama did in 2009 in this booming economy.

Trump is running up massive deficits in order to juice the GDP.

Another thing the pseudocons' propagandists don't explain to them: Gross Domestic Product - GDP

GDP = C + G + I + NX. C is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy, G is the sum of government spending, I is the sum of all the country's investment, including businesses capital expenditures and NX is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (NX = Exports - Imports).


So here's Trump's little secret: You can juice the GDP number by increasing government spending.


Trump and the GOP's deficits:

FY 2017 $665 billion
FY 2018 $833 billion (est)
FY 2019 $984 billion (est)

Up, up and awaaaaaaaaay!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

Yep. Trump is like Obama. Only worse. Instead of lowering our deficits, like Obama did, Trump has doubled our deficits in just two years.

I'm fine with you rubes equating Trump to Obama. That's awesome.

Every time you blubber, "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama", you are admitting Trump is a piece of shit, too, and that you were conned.

Dem's oppose any spending cuts, there you have it.

HMMM well seeing how the only president we ever have that made real cuts and had balanced budgets is Clinton. He made a lot of cuts, and don't go claiming it was because of the Congress because that same Congress went wild a few years later under Bush and turned CLinton's massive surplus into a massive deficit with massive spending bills AND CLinton used veto power to achieve the balanced budgets.

At the end of the day, you have no facts to support your fake news statements

Sure Clinton was great if you weren’t an American company. Keep your eye on the ball better if Monica is not slobbering your knob.

Always look behind the curtain...

The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy

 

[g5000]

Trump has yet to match Obama's highest quarterly GDP.

He has yet to match the job growth of Obama's last five years. Therefore, today's low UE was mostly built on the work of the previous Administration.

Trump is way below matching the DOW's growth in the same time period as Obama.

In less than two years, Trump has managed to DOUBLE the deficit he was left with. He has done that to juice the GDP, and he STILL can't match Obama.

In short, Trump has been less than impressive.

The Naked Emperor was born on third base, and the dipshits think he hit a triple!

 

[g5000]

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

Yep. Trump is like Obama. Only worse. Instead of lowering our deficits, like Obama did, Trump has doubled our deficits in just two years.

I'm fine with you rubes equating Trump to Obama. That's awesome.

Every time you blubber, "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama", you are admitting Trump is a piece of shit, too, and that you were conned.

Dem's oppose any spending cuts, there you have it.

HMMM well seeing how the only president we ever have that made real cuts and had balanced budgets is Clinton. He made a lot of cuts, and don't go claiming it was because of the Congress because that same Congress went wild a few years later under Bush and turned CLinton's massive surplus into a massive deficit with massive spending bills AND CLinton used veto power to achieve the balanced budgets.

At the end of the day, you have no facts to support your fake news statements

Sure Clinton was great if you weren’t an American company. Keep your eye on the ball better if Monica is not slobbering your knob.

Always look behind the curtain...

The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Another tard blaming the CRA for the GLOBAL derivatives bubble and subsequent crash.

Actually, Clinton contributed to the crash by signing off on the Republican bill which deregulated the derivatives market.

Which has nothing to do with his BUDGET.

You should read your own link, because Trump is doing some of the same tricks with the GDP and budget. Only worse. Much worse.

 

[The Banker]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

I wore a uniform and served my country in combat. I love the fact that the United States of America is a grand experiment in self rule. I stood up for this principle with my very life. That’s what conservatives stand for. I’m sorry...I’m Old School..do I need a mic drop at the end of that?

I would love to have a country with smaller government and much less government spending. I think we need to

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Hey, stupid fuck. Let me ask you about that surplus, since you are a "fucking banker."

Who controls the spending in government? Is it the President or the House? Let me clue you in. The House controls spending. Who controlled the House AND Senate for the last 6 years of clintons Presidency?

Go ahead and take a guess. I will give you a hint. Newt Gingrich.

Hey stupid ass, let me ask another thing, since you are a "smart banker." What did president clinton NOT have to deal with, that every other President had to deal with dating back to February 1945 (Yalta Conference?) Take a wild guess Mr "Banker." Oh, that is right. The fucking COLD WAR where YOUR SIDE LOST. The ussr and their glorious marxist proved to be a failed system. All under the crying commie eyes here.

Did open trade have any impact on our economy? Yes or no?

While you are at it, Mr Banker, tell me who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act did. Do you know who even rewrote it? When did that happen and what impact did that have on our banks?

Well, Mr "banker" I will be waiting for your explanation. You already showed how ignorant you are in your pathetic post, so I will not be expecting anything from your stupid ignorant ass.

WOW!!!!! What a childish rant filled with childish name calling, what happened did your mommy take away your fox news? You are acting like a 5 year old and you look stupid.

As far as spending input comes from both the legislative and executive branches as they work together to pass budgets. Clinton's agenda was to cut spending and balance the budget, he used veto power to ensure a balanced budget. Additionally he raised taxes on the wealthy which was opposed by Gingrich, but went a long way to balancing the budget. Remember this:
"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment"

Then on top of that the same GOP Congress approved all the reckless spending and tax cuts of Bush, so lets not try and claim that the GOP likes balanced budgets. Bill Clinton likes balanced budgets. Obama had a GOP congress for 6 years does that mean all of Obama's shortcomings are a result of that Congress?? We have had a GOP congress under Trump and the deficit has almost tripled since Trump took over. The cold war has long been over so why did we have massive military spending increases?

I know reality is a tough pill for you to swallow. How can conservatives claim they are for balanced budgets and spending cuts when they have absolutely blown up the deficit?

Time to throw another tantrum like a child...

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

The reality is there are many factors that contribute to economic success. That being said there are sevral instances where tax increases on the wealthy do not hinder growth or jobs at all. As the article pointed out there are many reasons why Clinton had great economic success, but he still increased taxes on the wealthy and it resulted in increased government revenue and an economic boom.

Secondly there are many instances where tax cuts have not benefited the economy at all. I would point to the Bush tax cuts and the Kansas experiment.

As I said there are many factors that contribute to economic growth and lack of growth and tax policy is a very small aspect of that. That also means that tax cuts do little to help the economy, as we have seen in multiple instances.

Further they point to NAFTA, tariff reduction, and globalist policies as being a huge boost to the economy. I would agree, but currently the GOP is against NAFTA and globalism. Globalism is good as it reduces the cost of our goods and makes our exports more competitive. Unskilled laborers in S America or CHina should be making our simple items like furniture air conditioners cars etc etc and we should be making the high tech high skilled items. China's cheap steel is a big benefit to the US, but most people on the right can't understand that.

With regard to our current Trump tax cut, it is a disaster. It has produced a small sugar high that will lead to a crash and then we will be MUCH worse off with even larger deficits. They should have enacted Warner's tax policy that gave tax credits to companies that invest in Capex, Trump's tax cuts have predominantly gone to stack buybacks so we essentially have tax payer subsidized stock buybacks. Trump's tax cut is also front loaded so in a few years there will be a big increase on the middle class and the middle class will end up paying more in the long run, not good.

 

[Bush92]

NAFTA..Clinton’s..I remember how you fucks sold that to Americans. Bullshit. Sure...more American keeping more of their own earnings is a bad thing. Sure.

 

[The Banker]

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

Left-wing politfact has some issues about the data combined in your articles. Maybe you should give it a read. In the event you don't have time, allow me to point out the conclusion of their findings:

Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.

A look at Hillary Clinton's claim about Vermont's gun pipeline to New York

Now to those wonderful Australian policies:

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

If the gun ban in Australia was so effective, why did it take over six years before any signs of improvement?

View attachment 229710
And then there is this:

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator

I'm just wondering where did they talk about Hillary Clinton in my articles. My articles are pointing out how people are legally buying guns in states with weak gun laws and then bringing them to NYC Cali and committing crimes with them or selling them on the black market, this is extremely solid and easy to track data. That is a big problem and would be solved by enacting universal strict gun laws.

Again I am pro gun, but the evidence is overwhelming in states and countries with strict gun laws there is less gun deaths and gun crimes. I am pro gun because I am a true supporter of people's liberty even the liberties that i don't like or agree with. If you try and say we need laws to save people's lives this would do it.

You are extremely pro gun so you will never admit or accept anything that shows the negative of guns, no matter hiw solid the evidence.

WIth regard to Australia you are cherry picking data to try and back your point, here is the ultimate chart that shows how effective it was:

Pretty straightforward and dramatic, Gun deaths reduced a lot after the gun law

 

[g5000]

Both conservatism and the Republican party are dead. Dead, dead, dead.

And it will take a long time for either of them to return after the damage the pseudocons have done, and continue to do, to both.

 

[Bush92]

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

Left-wing politfact has some issues about the data combined in your articles. Maybe you should give it a read. In the event you don't have time, allow me to point out the conclusion of their findings:

Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.

A look at Hillary Clinton's claim about Vermont's gun pipeline to New York

Now to those wonderful Australian policies:

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

If the gun ban in Australia was so effective, why did it take over six years before any signs of improvement?

View attachment 229710
And then there is this:

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator

I'm just wondering where did they talk about Hillary Clinton in my articles. My articles are pointing out how people are legally buying guns in states with weak gun laws and then bringing them to NYC Cali and committing crimes with them or selling them on the black market, this is extremely solid and easy to track data. That is a big problem and would be solved by enacting universal strict gun laws.

Again I am pro gun, but the evidence is overwhelming in states and countries with strict gun laws there is less gun deaths and gun crimes. I am pro gun because I am a true supporter of people's liberty even the liberties that i don't like or agree with. If you try and say we need laws to save people's lives this would do it.

You are extremely pro gun so you will never admit or accept anything that shows the negative of guns, no matter hiw solid the evidence.

WIth regard to Australia you are cherry picking data to try and back your point, here is the ultimate chart that shows how effective it was:

Pretty straightforward and dramatic, Gun deaths reduced a lot after the gun law

2nd Amendment is what it is. I’m a strict constructionist.

 

[LaDexter]

Before 1998, "conservatism" meant for smaller government, lower taxes, and total patriotism to America.

Since 1998, "conservatism" has meant "an active participant in Zionist Treason against America."

 

[Theowl32]

Republican Congress.

Republican President.

DOUBLED deficits.

And that's all you need to know about Republicans and how disconnected they are from conservatism.

In fact, you can't find a single pseudocon to bitch about Trump's deficits the same way they bitched about Obama's.

And that tells you how hypocritical and brain damaged they are.

Obama added $10 trillion to the debt, trillions to the Fed holdings, at 0% interest rates. Call us when Trump comes even close to that disaster.

I predict a BOOOOOOOOSH reply.

Obama inherited the Bush devastated country in total ruin. The Great Bush recession produced massive revenue shortfalls and gave Obama massive deficits. Second Obama then needed a stimulus plan, look at the 1930s AND Europe to see what would have happened if we had no stimulus. Obama definitely did a poor job with debt and some aspects of the stimulus were wasteful, but in the end the deficit dropped once the recovery began and Obama's deficits were close to Bush's pre-Bush economic meltdown.

Wow, you just revealed how ignorant you are.

Banker? Bullshit artist.

You are one of those that think that was a bush economy?

Here are some questions for you.

What did the economy do after the democrats and pelosi took control of congress in 2007? They won the 2006 midterms, sound familiar? What did the economy do from 2007 to 2010? Look it up. Go ahead Mr Banker, tell us.

Who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and tell us what that did? Let me tell you since you are too ignorant to look it up. It exempted default swaps from regulation. What did that do?

Who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act? Do you know what that did? No, and for a "banker" to not know, it tells me you are a liar. Clinton rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act and that put significant pressure on banks to lend to low income neighborhoods. Go ahead, look it up and I dare you to say that was not true.

Now tell us who headed the Fannie and Freddie debacle. We are all waiting.

Meanwhile, you stupid losers take credit through typical left wing false propaganda, take credit for the recovery, when it was democrat policies that caused it.

The republicans took back control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. What happened to the economy since?

You are ignorant as hell.

 

[Mac1958]

The CRA

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

Left-wing politfact has some issues about the data combined in your articles. Maybe you should give it a read. In the event you don't have time, allow me to point out the conclusion of their findings:

Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.

A look at Hillary Clinton's claim about Vermont's gun pipeline to New York

Now to those wonderful Australian policies:

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

If the gun ban in Australia was so effective, why did it take over six years before any signs of improvement?

View attachment 229710
And then there is this:

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator

I'm just wondering where did they talk about Hillary Clinton in my articles. My articles are pointing out how people are legally buying guns in states with weak gun laws and then bringing them to NYC Cali and committing crimes with them or selling them on the black market, this is extremely solid and easy to track data. That is a big problem and would be solved by enacting universal strict gun laws.

Again I am pro gun, but the evidence is overwhelming in states and countries with strict gun laws there is less gun deaths and gun crimes. I am pro gun because I am a true supporter of people's liberty even the liberties that i don't like or agree with. If you try and say we need laws to save people's lives this would do it.

You are extremely pro gun so you will never admit or accept anything that shows the negative of guns, no matter hiw solid the evidence.

WIth regard to Australia you are cherry picking data to try and back your point, here is the ultimate chart that shows how effective it was:

Pretty straightforward and dramatic, Gun deaths reduced a lot after the gun law

I couldn't find any fact check on your articles except for when Hillary used your statistics in a debate against Sanders. That's when Politifact looked into it. You and Hillary both used the same numbers and sources.

What the article pointed out was that there is no significant data on the so-called Iron Pipeline. While it's true many of the guns that were used in crime originated from other states, NY also has a lot of people from other states moving in or working in NY. They bring their guns with them and it's quite possible that because they are such a commodity, they are stolen and then sold on the market. It's also a possibility that they just sold their guns as they would in their own states. Or they were sold several times and eventually ended up in one of those states.

My chart displays all homicides while yours displays gun homicides only. Yours comes from an organization called Gun Policy. org. My source is the Australian Institute of Criminology. So I guess it's a matter of which source you trust more. I don't know who Gun Policy.org is, but it certainly sounds like an American anti-gun organization whereas mine is from the Australian government themselves. My source also pointed out the huge increase in other violent crimes since the ban such as rapes, robberies and physical assault. If you don't want to believe that either, it's being reported all over Europe where strict gun bans are in effect. It only goes to reason criminals will take advantage of people who cannot legally defend themselves. And if both our charts are accurate, what it shows is the guns were never the problem--people were because even without guns, the murder rate increased for several years after the ban.

I am not "guns are all good" in any way or form. I've said repeatedly that firearms are like the internet. They are mostly used for good things, but a small percentage of people take advantage of them and use them for evil.

On the internet, people have been scammed out of money, their personal and financial information has been ripped off, children have committed suicide from social media attacks, people have been set up for murder via placing ads on the internet, people download child porn and learn how to make bombs for terrorism attacks. But because of the small percentage of bad things that go on here, would you want to see your internet abilities restricted because of those people?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

I wore a uniform and served my country in combat. I love the fact that the United States of America is a grand experiment in self rule. I stood up for this principle with my very life. That’s what conservatives stand for. I’m sorry...I’m Old School..do I need a mic drop at the end of that?

I would love to have a country with smaller government and much less government spending. I think we need to

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Hey, stupid fuck. Let me ask you about that surplus, since you are a "fucking banker."

Who controls the spending in government? Is it the President or the House? Let me clue you in. The House controls spending. Who controlled the House AND Senate for the last 6 years of clintons Presidency?

Go ahead and take a guess. I will give you a hint. Newt Gingrich.

Hey stupid ass, let me ask another thing, since you are a "smart banker." What did president clinton NOT have to deal with, that every other President had to deal with dating back to February 1945 (Yalta Conference?) Take a wild guess Mr "Banker." Oh, that is right. The fucking COLD WAR where YOUR SIDE LOST. The ussr and their glorious marxist proved to be a failed system. All under the crying commie eyes here.

Did open trade have any impact on our economy? Yes or no?

While you are at it, Mr Banker, tell me who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act did. Do you know who even rewrote it? When did that happen and what impact did that have on our banks?

Well, Mr "banker" I will be waiting for your explanation. You already showed how ignorant you are in your pathetic post, so I will not be expecting anything from your stupid ignorant ass.

WOW!!!!! What a childish rant filled with childish name calling, what happened did your mommy take away your fox news? You are acting like a 5 year old and you look stupid.

As far as spending input comes from both the legislative and executive branches as they work together to pass budgets. Clinton's agenda was to cut spending and balance the budget, he used veto power to ensure a balanced budget. Additionally he raised taxes on the wealthy which was opposed by Gingrich, but went a long way to balancing the budget. Remember this:
"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment"

Then on top of that the same GOP Congress approved all the reckless spending and tax cuts of Bush, so lets not try and claim that the GOP likes balanced budgets. Bill Clinton likes balanced budgets. Obama had a GOP congress for 6 years does that mean all of Obama's shortcomings are a result of that Congress?? We have had a GOP congress under Trump and the deficit has almost tripled since Trump took over. The cold war has long been over so why did we have massive military spending increases?

I know reality is a tough pill for you to swallow. How can conservatives claim they are for balanced budgets and spending cuts when they have absolutely blown up the deficit?

Time to throw another tantrum like a child...

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

The reality is there are many factors that contribute to economic success. That being said there are sevral instances where tax increases on the wealthy do not hinder growth or jobs at all. As the article pointed out there are many reasons why Clinton had great economic success, but he still increased taxes on the wealthy and it resulted in increased government revenue and an economic boom.

Secondly there are many instances where tax cuts have not benefited the economy at all. I would point to the Bush tax cuts and the Kansas experiment.

As I said there are many factors that contribute to economic growth and lack of growth and tax policy is a very small aspect of that. That also means that tax cuts do little to help the economy, as we have seen in multiple instances.

Further they point to NAFTA, tariff reduction, and globalist policies as being a huge boost to the economy. I would agree, but currently the GOP is against NAFTA and globalism. Globalism is good as it reduces the cost of our goods and makes our exports more competitive. Unskilled laborers in S America or CHina should be making our simple items like furniture air conditioners cars etc etc and we should be making the high tech high skilled items. China's cheap steel is a big benefit to the US, but most people on the right can't understand that.

With regard to our current Trump tax cut, it is a disaster. It has produced a small sugar high that will lead to a crash and then we will be MUCH worse off with even larger deficits. They should have enacted Warner's tax policy that gave tax credits to companies that invest in Capex, Trump's tax cuts have predominantly gone to stack buybacks so we essentially have tax payer subsidized stock buybacks. Trump's tax cut is also front loaded so in a few years there will be a big increase on the middle class and the middle class will end up paying more in the long run, not good.

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

Since the Trump tax cuts our economy is unsurpassed. We have the lowest unemployment in almost a half a century. We have record employment in every category from women to minorities. We have an 18 year high in consumer and corporate confidence, and a 41 year high (new record) in small business confidence.

The clinton success can be summed up in one sentence: the technology era. And while he did raise taxes, he did so in an economy that was about to explode. His decrease in capital gains taxes put more fuel into the fire. It encouraged much more investing which people took advantage of. People were becoming millionaires overnight.

Bush's first tax cuts did work. In spite of 911, the economy did grow and more jobs were being created. His second tax cut was a failure because unlike the first one, everybody was predicting a disaster down the road.

 

[LaDexter]

Conservatism = the 180 degree opposite of what the GOP has done since 1998

 

[BluesLegend]

Republican Congress.

Republican President.

DOUBLED deficits.

And that's all you need to know about Republicans and how disconnected they are from conservatism.

In fact, you can't find a single pseudocon to bitch about Trump's deficits the same way they bitched about Obama's.

And that tells you how hypocritical and brain damaged they are.

Obama added $10 trillion to the debt, trillions to the Fed holdings, at 0% interest rates. Call us when Trump comes even close to that disaster.

I predict a BOOOOOOOOSH reply.

Obama inherited the Bush devastated country in total ruin. The Great Bush recession produced massive revenue shortfalls and gave Obama massive deficits. Second Obama then needed a stimulus plan, look at the 1930s AND Europe to see what would have happened if we had no stimulus. Obama definitely did a poor job with debt and some aspects of the stimulus were wasteful, but in the end the deficit dropped once the recovery began and Obama's deficits were close to Bush's pre-Bush economic meltdown.

 

[The Banker]

Republican Congress.

Republican President.

DOUBLED deficits.

And that's all you need to know about Republicans and how disconnected they are from conservatism.

In fact, you can't find a single pseudocon to bitch about Trump's deficits the same way they bitched about Obama's.

And that tells you how hypocritical and brain damaged they are.

Obama added $10 trillion to the debt, trillions to the Fed holdings, at 0% interest rates. Call us when Trump comes even close to that disaster.

I predict a BOOOOOOOOSH reply.

Obama inherited the Bush devastated country in total ruin. The Great Bush recession produced massive revenue shortfalls and gave Obama massive deficits. Second Obama then needed a stimulus plan, look at the 1930s AND Europe to see what would have happened if we had no stimulus. Obama definitely did a poor job with debt and some aspects of the stimulus were wasteful, but in the end the deficit dropped once the recovery began and Obama's deficits were close to Bush's pre-Bush economic meltdown.

Wow, you just revealed how ignorant you are.

Banker? Bullshit artist.

You are one of those that think that was a bush economy?

Here are some questions for you.

What did the economy do after the democrats and pelosi took control of congress in 2007? They won the 2006 midterms, sound familiar? What did the economy do from 2007 to 2010? Look it up. Go ahead Mr Banker, tell us.

Who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and tell us what that did? Let me tell you since you are too ignorant to look it up. It exempted default swaps from regulation. What did that do?

Who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act? Do you know what that did? No, and for a "banker" to not know, it tells me you are a liar. Clinton rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act and that put significant pressure on banks to lend to low income neighborhoods. Go ahead, look it up and I dare you to say that was not true.

Now tell us who headed the Fannie and Freddie debacle. We are all waiting.

Meanwhile, you stupid losers take credit through typical left wing false propaganda, take credit for the recovery, when it was democrat policies that caused it.

The republicans took back control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. What happened to the economy since?

You are ignorant as hell.

AHAHAHA!!!
Wow more ranting and raving throwing a tantrum like a little child. Clearly you haven't gotten laid in at least 10 years. AHAHAHA!!!

So now you are trying to blame the incoming Democratic congress for a recession that officially started in 2007 after 7 years of Bush and the republican congress's failed policy!!! WOWWW!!!!!! Nice fantasy try entering reality!! Remember Bush inherited a surplus and he squandered that in months turning the surplus into massive deficits, but I am sure you will find some excuse for why that is not his fault because the GOP can't take any responsibility for their failures.

Conservatives claim that they are the party of personal responsibility, but all they do is make up excuses for their failures and blame democrats for all their failures!!! Nothing is ever their fault.

So the Commodity Futures Modernization act, yes I am familiar, a bill written and brought to Congress by the republicans specifically: Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL). They wrote, they pushed for it, and they passed it with a veto proof majority. But hey let's not let the facts get in the way of all your excuses. I am glad you reminded us all about how the GOP caused the great recession, thankyou.

This is what is so disgraceful about the republicans:
You claim you are the party of personal responsibility, but yet you try and claim credit for Bill Clinton's economic success when he pushed for the tax increase, used veto power to ensure a balanced budget, cut spending, and fought to increase wages and minimum wage for the middle class. But according to the party of personal responsibility the 90's was all due to the republican Congress.

Then Bush and the same republican congress passed a do nothing tax cut that went to the ultra wealthy and massive spending bills that blew up the deficit and the Bush Great Recession was all the fault of the 2007 Democrats in Congress, not the GOP who controlled and tanked the country for 6 years!!!!

But it gets even better, the Obama recovery and the 15 million jobs he created and stock market boom, were now all due to the new GOP congress, not Obama's economic and monetary policy.

BUT it gets even better!!!! The Commodity Futures Modernization act, written and lobbied for by 3 republicans that passed with a republican veto proof majority is all Clintons fault!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY LORD, what a complete and total fantasy world you have created. This all coming from the party of personal responsibility!!!! So I guess taking personal responsibility means blame democrats for all the problems the GOP created!!! Oh wait maybe you should blame the media, or maybe you should blame Hillary Clinton. What a complete joke from a complete bitch.

 

[The Banker]

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

Left-wing politfact has some issues about the data combined in your articles. Maybe you should give it a read. In the event you don't have time, allow me to point out the conclusion of their findings:

Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.

A look at Hillary Clinton's claim about Vermont's gun pipeline to New York

Now to those wonderful Australian policies:

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

If the gun ban in Australia was so effective, why did it take over six years before any signs of improvement?

View attachment 229710
And then there is this:

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator

I'm just wondering where did they talk about Hillary Clinton in my articles. My articles are pointing out how people are legally buying guns in states with weak gun laws and then bringing them to NYC Cali and committing crimes with them or selling them on the black market, this is extremely solid and easy to track data. That is a big problem and would be solved by enacting universal strict gun laws.

Again I am pro gun, but the evidence is overwhelming in states and countries with strict gun laws there is less gun deaths and gun crimes. I am pro gun because I am a true supporter of people's liberty even the liberties that i don't like or agree with. If you try and say we need laws to save people's lives this would do it.

You are extremely pro gun so you will never admit or accept anything that shows the negative of guns, no matter hiw solid the evidence.

WIth regard to Australia you are cherry picking data to try and back your point, here is the ultimate chart that shows how effective it was:

Pretty straightforward and dramatic, Gun deaths reduced a lot after the gun law

I couldn't find any fact check on your articles except for when Hillary used your statistics in a debate against Sanders. That's when Politifact looked into it. You and Hillary both used the same numbers and sources.

What the article pointed out was that there is no significant data on the so-called Iron Pipeline. While it's true many of the guns that were used in crime originated from other states, NY also has a lot of people from other states moving in or working in NY. They bring their guns with them and it's quite possible that because they are such a commodity, they are stolen and then sold on the market. It's also a possibility that they just sold their guns as they would in their own states. Or they were sold several times and eventually ended up in one of those states.

My chart displays all homicides while yours displays gun homicides only. Yours comes from an organization called Gun Policy. org. My source is the Australian Institute of Criminology. So I guess it's a matter of which source you trust more. I don't know who Gun Policy.org is, but it certainly sounds like an American anti-gun organization whereas mine is from the Australian government themselves. My source also pointed out the huge increase in other violent crimes since the ban such as rapes, robberies and physical assault. If you don't want to believe that either, it's being reported all over Europe where strict gun bans are in effect. It only goes to reason criminals will take advantage of people who cannot legally defend themselves. And if both our charts are accurate, what it shows is the guns were never the problem--people were because even without guns, the murder rate increased for several years after the ban.

I am not "guns are all good" in any way or form. I've said repeatedly that firearms are like the internet. They are mostly used for good things, but a small percentage of people take advantage of them and use them for evil.

On the internet, people have been scammed out of money, their personal and financial information has been ripped off, children have committed suicide from social media attacks, people have been set up for murder via placing ads on the internet, people download child porn and learn how to make bombs for terrorism attacks. But because of the small percentage of bad things that go on here, would you want to see your internet abilities restricted because of those people?

Well I have this too:
Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

It is from Australian Institute of Criminology and shows all homicides and shows how homicides have decreased substantially AND population has increased substantially so I would say that is pretty compelling.

As far as the Iron pipeline I can list literally 100 sources proving it's existence. It is very easy to trace as law enforcement can track where guns are purchased and the ATF is actively breaking up these gun trafficking rings. This is pretty straightforward.

'Iron Pipeline' a conduit for illegal weapons to New York
https://nypost.com/2017/03/31/cops-bust-prolific-gun-runners-known-as-the-iron-pipeline/

Law enforcement officials say 90% of the guns seized in connection with New York City crimes come via the Iron Pipeline from Virginia, Georgia, Florida and other states linked by Interstate 95.

We have a spigot that's wide open down there," Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said at a Tuesday news conference, which was called to announce the takedowns of two more gun-smuggling rings.

Lets be honest here and use some of that "personal responsibility" that conservatives talk about, you can't comprehend this occurring when the evidence is overwhelming, these rings are being busted at a high rate, and there are countless suspects admitting to this happening?

 

[The Banker]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

I wore a uniform and served my country in combat. I love the fact that the United States of America is a grand experiment in self rule. I stood up for this principle with my very life. That’s what conservatives stand for. I’m sorry...I’m Old School..do I need a mic drop at the end of that?

I would love to have a country with smaller government and much less government spending. I think we need to

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Hey, stupid fuck. Let me ask you about that surplus, since you are a "fucking banker."

Who controls the spending in government? Is it the President or the House? Let me clue you in. The House controls spending. Who controlled the House AND Senate for the last 6 years of clintons Presidency?

Go ahead and take a guess. I will give you a hint. Newt Gingrich.

Hey stupid ass, let me ask another thing, since you are a "smart banker." What did president clinton NOT have to deal with, that every other President had to deal with dating back to February 1945 (Yalta Conference?) Take a wild guess Mr "Banker." Oh, that is right. The fucking COLD WAR where YOUR SIDE LOST. The ussr and their glorious marxist proved to be a failed system. All under the crying commie eyes here.

Did open trade have any impact on our economy? Yes or no?

While you are at it, Mr Banker, tell me who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act did. Do you know who even rewrote it? When did that happen and what impact did that have on our banks?

Well, Mr "banker" I will be waiting for your explanation. You already showed how ignorant you are in your pathetic post, so I will not be expecting anything from your stupid ignorant ass.

WOW!!!!! What a childish rant filled with childish name calling, what happened did your mommy take away your fox news? You are acting like a 5 year old and you look stupid.

As far as spending input comes from both the legislative and executive branches as they work together to pass budgets. Clinton's agenda was to cut spending and balance the budget, he used veto power to ensure a balanced budget. Additionally he raised taxes on the wealthy which was opposed by Gingrich, but went a long way to balancing the budget. Remember this:
"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment"

Then on top of that the same GOP Congress approved all the reckless spending and tax cuts of Bush, so lets not try and claim that the GOP likes balanced budgets. Bill Clinton likes balanced budgets. Obama had a GOP congress for 6 years does that mean all of Obama's shortcomings are a result of that Congress?? We have had a GOP congress under Trump and the deficit has almost tripled since Trump took over. The cold war has long been over so why did we have massive military spending increases?

I know reality is a tough pill for you to swallow. How can conservatives claim they are for balanced budgets and spending cuts when they have absolutely blown up the deficit?

Time to throw another tantrum like a child...

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

The reality is there are many factors that contribute to economic success. That being said there are sevral instances where tax increases on the wealthy do not hinder growth or jobs at all. As the article pointed out there are many reasons why Clinton had great economic success, but he still increased taxes on the wealthy and it resulted in increased government revenue and an economic boom.

Secondly there are many instances where tax cuts have not benefited the economy at all. I would point to the Bush tax cuts and the Kansas experiment.

As I said there are many factors that contribute to economic growth and lack of growth and tax policy is a very small aspect of that. That also means that tax cuts do little to help the economy, as we have seen in multiple instances.

Further they point to NAFTA, tariff reduction, and globalist policies as being a huge boost to the economy. I would agree, but currently the GOP is against NAFTA and globalism. Globalism is good as it reduces the cost of our goods and makes our exports more competitive. Unskilled laborers in S America or CHina should be making our simple items like furniture air conditioners cars etc etc and we should be making the high tech high skilled items. China's cheap steel is a big benefit to the US, but most people on the right can't understand that.

With regard to our current Trump tax cut, it is a disaster. It has produced a small sugar high that will lead to a crash and then we will be MUCH worse off with even larger deficits. They should have enacted Warner's tax policy that gave tax credits to companies that invest in Capex, Trump's tax cuts have predominantly gone to stack buybacks so we essentially have tax payer subsidized stock buybacks. Trump's tax cut is also front loaded so in a few years there will be a big increase on the middle class and the middle class will end up paying more in the long run, not good.

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

Since the Trump tax cuts our economy is unsurpassed. We have the lowest unemployment in almost a half a century. We have record employment in every category from women to minorities. We have an 18 year high in consumer and corporate confidence, and a 41 year high (new record) in small business confidence.

The clinton success can be summed up in one sentence: the technology era. And while he did raise taxes, he did so in an economy that was about to explode. His decrease in capital gains taxes put more fuel into the fire. It encouraged much more investing which people took advantage of. People were becoming millionaires overnight.

Bush's first tax cuts did work. In spite of 911, the economy did grow and more jobs were being created. His second tax cut was a failure because unlike the first one, everybody was predicting a disaster down the road.

Our economy is good, but it not unsurpassed. We have a low unemployment rate, but that is not the only measure of an economy. growth has only been good for what 2-3 quarters. Unemployment was low when Trump took over and the job gains have continued at the same rate as under Obama. I'll give Trump some credit as his policies have boosted the economy, but you need to give this more time, if it blows up badly in a year it will be terrible. All Trump did was borrow an insane amount of money 8 years into an economic expansion and pump it into the economy. His ridiculous deficits will cause another meltdown and we will then have permanent $2+ Trillion deficits and a major problem on our hands. Remember everyone thought the economy was great in 2006 and how'd that turn out?

Bush's tax cut did little to boost growth and added to the deficit massively. When the crash came we were much worse off, with even bigger revenue shortfalls. If we never had Bush's tax cut then we would be in the same place, but with much less debt. This is exactly what is going to happen with Trump. A small pop and then a much worse situation. Check this out: