What is wrong with 'division'?

[Dragonlady]

The reality is that few states are really red or blue. Most are some shade of purple, so you can't say that the reds are here and blue states are there. Furthermore, the blue states are in much better shape financially than the red states.

Republicans talk about being in favour of small government and balanced budgets, but the reality is that the Democrats are much better with the budgets, and reducing the size of government. The size of government went down under Carter, Clinton and Obama, and up under Reagan and W increased dramatically. W presided over the largest increase in the size of government since Roosevelt in the Great Depression.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe in balanced budgets and decreasing the size of government, but you don't do it by over regulating abortion, or who goes into and out of the women's washroom.

In terms of balancing the budget, Republicans are good at spending money, but they put it all on the credit card. Democrats at least fund their programs with taxes. Conservatives call the Democrats the party of "tax and spend". At least they tax BEFORE they spend and don't depend on magical thinking that the deficit will disappear if they cut taxes.

No, I don't think you can break the country apart and separate the disparate groups. But I seriously believe that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and the US is very divided. Not all ideas that the other party has are bad. That goes both ways. If you can't learn to compromise and get along, things will get worse.

Things don't get much worse than they are now. Democrats are for evil and Republicans are for good. So where is the middle ground between evil and good?

There is none, and that's why I would support a total separation of the country by political affiliation.

You talk about the presidency as if the president were the king. But we have a multi-layer of government that guides us. Congress makes the laws in our country along with taxation. Reagan was a President during a Democrat Congress. Clinton was President with a Republican Congress. Most of DumBama's term, you got it, under a Republican led Congress. Bush, also under a Republican Congress which got voted out because those Republicans started to act like Democrats.

We would have a balanced budget today if not for DumBama, however, the Republicans in Congress have limited our spending bringing us closer to that point. The only problem with the Republicans is their fear of a government shutdown which DumBama would be more than happy to provide because the MSM would promote it's all the Republicans fault and not DumBama or the Senate Democrats.

No you wouldn't have. Bush crashed the economy with his tax cuts and his wars, and the housing bubble. In order to balance the budget, you would have had to pull out of both wars, fully, stop spending on the military, and bring the troops home, and to what? An economy shedding 500,000 jobs a month?

In order to balance the budget, you would have to increase revenues, and/or cut spending. You spend during a recession, and cut during periods of growth. To increase taxes is unwise, as it tends to deepen a recession, as does cutting spending.

As an example, in the run up to the Canadian election last year, the Conservative government wanted to run on a balanced budget. Spending cuts would have balanced the budget by 2017, but the Conservative government was desperate to tell Canadians they had balanced the budget, so they made some very deep cuts to spending to achieve that goal. It put the country into a mild recession, and still failed to balance the budget because of reduced revenues caused by falling oil prices.

One has to wonder if Obama has been allowed to spend more to stimulate the economy, whether the recovery would have been quicker.

 

[Dragonlady]

You're stating that one should not vote for someone who isn't of their race.
And you're asking what is wrong with that.

Yes, you are the pure embodiment of precisely what is wrong with the nation.

No, I am stating what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The OP is suggesting that whites should vote white, and you libs come here saying that's racist. So why is it only racist one way is my question? Blacks vote exclusively for blacks because THEY DO vote on race and nothing more. If you wish to challenge me on that, then please explain how blacks voted for DumBama against Hillary (another Democrat) in the 90 percent range.

Damn that's stupid.

Black voters give EVERY democratic presidential nominee almost 90% of our votes.

Only once were those massive numbers for a black presidential candidate .. the rest were all for white democratic candidates.

But don't let facts interrupt your noise.

Only dumb WHITE voters cast votes which go against their own economic best interests. Which kind of puts the lie to the notion that white people are smarter than black people. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and women vote Democrat.

 

[RodISHI]

What's stupid is that you think blacks can't compete on a level playing field and you need the Democrats to promise you a lower bar. That's the completely worst solution and it's an insult to successful blacks who didn't need extra credit for being black

Why would I think that asshole when I'm obviously much smarter than you and most of the knuckleheads on this board?

Nothing special about me .. you're just dumb.

Then why do you agree with the Democrat siren song about lowering the bar rather than the Republicans saying you're as capable as anyone else, do it yourself?

I agree with remedies and corrections to HUNDREDS of years of racist oppression and bars to opportunity.

You know .. like blacks aren't cerebral enough to play quarterback in the NFL .. or aren't smart enough to become president.

It isn't that you were any smarter or better .. just the only ones allowed to play.

Just curious but how do you plan on stopping the racists that are racist among the black community when you have so many that hate whites or any other race? That same principle if you get it figured out could work with muslims who hate muslims.

Pretty sure that you and I have very different perspectives on who and what is racist .. but I happily engage any and everyone on the question of race in America .. including black people who hate white people. More white people voted for Obama then black people. A good way to open the challenge.\

Throughout America there are vast numbers of white people who live in black and mixed-race communities and are welcomed there. Hate of white people is not as prevalent as you may think.

I have no idea what to tell Muslims that don't like other Muslims .. not my problem ..it's the problem of religion .. which is divisive by its very nature.

Like I told you before trying to force people to get along won't work. The rioters at Ferguson did not tear up their own neighborhoods. They took a riot into a neighborhood where blacks owned the businesses and even burnt the one bakery down solely owned by a black woman. Your 'black' problem is a problem that cannot be solved through legislation or by force. Hatred can only be changed by bringing people into agreement one person at a time. Having actual justice in courts is a start. Right now you have too many people in the courts that came through colleges that lowered their admission standards more than forty years ago. When a judge says he doesn't know anything about constitutional rights and he has been a attorney for fifty years that should be a flaming red sign he does not belong on the bench. Lawyers and cronyism have also contributed to a whole lot of the injustice and poor treatment of people that have been shafted with court actions and regulatory agencies. Our country is spending over three hundred million a year to help the poor supposedly get justice but that looks like a farce from my initial look-see at it. Just being able to buy a degree for that university can make more money through admissions does not improve society. Many of those kids who have sold a huge portion of their lives to in order to pay for the tuition charges have gotten degrees with substandard teachings or teachings that goes against having a civil society (teaching young people how to deceive another is ludicrous). For many who have those degrees they really think they have something even if they have no common sense or the ability to do a/the job they spent all those years in college getting.

Riots and unruly behavior just create more division and animosity in any society so force does not cut it there either.

You want to cut religion out of the conversation but if you do that you miss too much of the division today. We all have a "common core" that we are all created from and we all have basic common needs as humans. All may have that "common core" but not all have the same talents, desires, needs or desired religious beliefs. One size does not fit all in that aspect. Not all mature at the same time either so you have a lot of factors to deal with in humankind and all those factors cannot all be legislated a piece at a time into the mix or you have one huge mess.

I am in agreement with Donald Trump when he said 'we need to define who the enemy is' and 'we need to return to the rule of law'. For a whole lot of people they need to do a self examination and try to understand what it really is that makes them angry within themselves as it is not up to lawmakers to legislate or mandate 'love one another'. If I don't like you that would be my prerogative as a human. For many they will have to learn to deal with their own internal problems and anger because others do not have to adjust their precepts to fit their ideology of how another person should feel about them whether it is race, color, education, background or whatever. Belief that one criminal act is okay if another did it first or whatever their problem is not acceptable in a civilized society.

 

[RodISHI]

The reality is that few states are really red or blue. Most are some shade of purple, so you can't say that the reds are here and blue states are there. Furthermore, the blue states are in much better shape financially than the red states.

Republicans talk about being in favour of small government and balanced budgets, but the reality is that the Democrats are much better with the budgets, and reducing the size of government. The size of government went down under Carter, Clinton and Obama, and up under Reagan and W increased dramatically. W presided over the largest increase in the size of government since Roosevelt in the Great Depression.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe in balanced budgets and decreasing the size of government, but you don't do it by over regulating abortion, or who goes into and out of the women's washroom.

In terms of balancing the budget, Republicans are good at spending money, but they put it all on the credit card. Democrats at least fund their programs with taxes. Conservatives call the Democrats the party of "tax and spend". At least they tax BEFORE they spend and don't depend on magical thinking that the deficit will disappear if they cut taxes.

No, I don't think you can break the country apart and separate the disparate groups. But I seriously believe that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and the US is very divided. Not all ideas that the other party has are bad. That goes both ways. If you can't learn to compromise and get along, things will get worse.

Things don't get much worse than they are now. Democrats are for evil and Republicans are for good. So where is the middle ground between evil and good?

There is none, and that's why I would support a total separation of the country by political affiliation.

You talk about the presidency as if the president were the king. But we have a multi-layer of government that guides us. Congress makes the laws in our country along with taxation. Reagan was a President during a Democrat Congress. Clinton was President with a Republican Congress. Most of DumBama's term, you got it, under a Republican led Congress. Bush, also under a Republican Congress which got voted out because those Republicans started to act like Democrats.

We would have a balanced budget today if not for DumBama, however, the Republicans in Congress have limited our spending bringing us closer to that point. The only problem with the Republicans is their fear of a government shutdown which DumBama would be more than happy to provide because the MSM would promote it's all the Republicans fault and not DumBama or the Senate Democrats.

No you wouldn't have. Bush crashed the economy with his tax cuts and his wars, and the housing bubble. In order to balance the budget, you would have had to pull out of both wars, fully, stop spending on the military, and bring the troops home, and to what? An economy shedding 500,000 jobs a month?

In order to balance the budget, you would have to increase revenues, and/or cut spending. You spend during a recession, and cut during periods of growth. To increase taxes is unwise, as it tends to deepen a recession, as does cutting spending.

As an example, in the run up to the Canadian election last year, the Conservative government wanted to run on a balanced budget. Spending cuts would have balanced the budget by 2017, but the Conservative government was desperate to tell Canadians they had balanced the budget, so they made some very deep cuts to spending to achieve that goal. It put the country into a mild recession, and still failed to balance the budget because of reduced revenues caused by falling oil prices.

One has to wonder if Obama has been allowed to spend more to stimulate the economy, whether the recovery would have been quicker.

Bankers and politicians and Clinton's crappy foriegn policy caused the financial crash whether you can understand that or not. Predators were given free reign to rape and pillage not only the people but also the federal coffers through loan guarantees. Fraudulent papers flew through Wall Street like dime store candy and dumb asses at the federal reserve and congress let it happen as Democrats whined how the poor needed these loans so lets change the laws. The barrier to fraud was removed when the Glass Steagal Act was taken out for corporations could get their grubby little hands on everyone's retirement accounts while telling all the fools out there in lala land what a good deal they were going to get. The people fell for it and invested and every sale on Wall Street took a cut. Every greedy S.O.B. out there got high on getting a deal for a buck or two having no clue that they were going to take the country down with their bogus paperwork.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Only dumb WHITE voters cast votes which go against their own economic best interests. ......

Really? Want to think that one through again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only dumb WHITE voters cast votes which go against their own economic best interests. Which kind of puts the lie to the notion that white people are smarter than black people. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and women vote Democrat.

You mean like the whites that vote for a party hell bent on making them a minority in their own country?

 

[owebo]

I agree, divisiveness and the contest of ideas between liberal and conservative ideologies is a useful and necessary component of our democracy. I believe the President addressed that nicely in his speech at the DNC.

The problem in modern times is there is a lack of respect between both sides and an inability to civilly discuss the contrast of ideas. There are too many lies, posturing, manipulation, and distortion in our politics and media which is causing a blind and ignorant divisiveness which is very damaging. We should be able to honestly present and communicate facts and ideas, be heard and acknowledged by both sides, and reach reasonable compromises to determine our course.

We would be so much more powerful if we could support our leadership instead of constantly trying to block, contradict, and discredit... There is a time for debate and challenge but that seems to consume our political system and we are left with very little time for teamwork and productivity.

But division, which is you're real point, is not....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No you wouldn't have. Bush crashed the economy with his tax cuts and his wars, and the housing bubble. In order to balance the budget, you would have had to pull out of both wars, fully, stop spending on the military, and bring the troops home, and to what? An economy shedding 500,000 jobs a month?

In order to balance the budget, you would have to increase revenues, and/or cut spending. You spend during a recession, and cut during periods of growth. To increase taxes is unwise, as it tends to deepen a recession, as does cutting spending.

As an example, in the run up to the Canadian election last year, the Conservative government wanted to run on a balanced budget. Spending cuts would have balanced the budget by 2017, but the Conservative government was desperate to tell Canadians they had balanced the budget, so they made some very deep cuts to spending to achieve that goal. It put the country into a mild recession, and still failed to balance the budget because of reduced revenues caused by falling oil prices.

One has to wonder if Obama has been allowed to spend more to stimulate the economy, whether the recovery would have been quicker.

No, because none of DumBama's policies did anything for our economy. That's why our economy still sucks.

If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical.

DumBama is the most anti-business President of our lifetime. Had he just sat in the White House and did nothing the last seven years, our market forces would have driven our economy along the way and we'd be in much better shape today. But no. He burdened our businesses with more taxes. He inflicted his idiotic healthcare plan that not only stopped businesses from expanding, but prevented new businesses from starting. The people that lost their healthcare plans now have to pay for them with after-tax money. In many cases, that's a very expensive SUV or a small house payment. This is money that doesn't go into circulation in our society. The less money movement, the less economic activity. And to add insult to injury, we still have millions of people without healthcare and it's more expensive than before DumBama became President.

The only real bump we had in our economy was the results of fracking which DumBama and the Democrats are totally against. Lower fuel prices gives us more disposable income which has a stimulating effect. But people have to beware because at anytime, DumBama could send his henchmen in from the EPA to create regulations to burden that industry as well just like he did with our coal mining operations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only once were those massive numbers for a black presidential candidate .. the rest were all for white democratic candidates.

But don't let facts interrupt your noise.

I see we have a genius on our hands here.

Of course blacks vote for white Democrats but only when they have no other choice. That's an idiotic statement. It's like saying blacks vote against White Republicans every single time. Of course they do because they are Democrats and won't vote Republican no matter who it is.

But when they had the option, they chose to vote for a black candidate in a huge majority over a white candidate of the same party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I keep hearing this from the left and I want to know what is wrong with divisiveness? As a military commander I really did try to weed out divisive talk since it destabilized the military unit as a whole. I really don't know if that is good in society since individuals seem to want to operate as separate individuals who are free to choose what they want to be. Families really don't have any other consideration other than to themselves and not to the societal unit as a whole. It would just seem that if we applied the same military mentality to society we would have to weed out any kind of divisive talk and glorify unity because that strengthens our society.

People use division as a way of causing trouble. Look at Rwanda, the Belgians created a division that didn't already exist, then this division was used by nationalists to stir up hatred that ended up in genocide.

You can see where division is used for multiple different types of ways of getting people to support politicians.

For example in 1983 the Military Junta in Argentina used it to hide their ineptitude by waging war against the UK in the Falkland Islands. Other examples of this are China using Japan and what happened in WW2 in order to keep their people on their side. Forget that Mao killed far more people than the Japanese, just remember to hate the Japanese. They even let the people protest against the Japanese so they don't protest (well can't) against the CCP.

 

[kaz]

First and foremost, your assumption that I hate ANYONE is patently false. I do not give in to such a destructive emotion. I hate no one.

Secondly, unless, and until, the majority of our society accepts that first and foremost we are all humans, and in this country nearly all of us are Americans, there will only be separate and not equal. I judge people on the content of their character, gee where have I heard that before? Apparently you do not, at least not in a political sense.

Third, since you brought up African-Americans specifically (no the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not about race, it is about equal treatment despite differences in appearance and opinion/beliefs), are you aware of the FACTS that:

1. Slaves from Africa where brought here, originally, by the British (primarily)
2. That said slaves where "captured" by rival tribes (in many but not all cases)
3. And that under British rule it was illegal to free a slave as long as the original "owner" lived?

It's not in the text books, it's not taught in public schools, and it is widely unknown to those who have not done the study necessary to learn these things. Why do you think that is? And please leave political name-calling out of it, I desire a CIVIL discussion, and will tolerate nothing less.

First, I never suggested that you hate anyone .. my comment was about those who do.

Secondly, I don't hate white people .. I hate republicans and racists who demonstrate hate towards non-white people. THAT is their character, not their color. Maybe you should study King a bit better .. just as you should study other elements of what made civil rights possible.

Do not presume that you know more about the African journey to America than I do. I know all about what you've said .. and none of it makes any difference to anything today. The Brits abolished slavery long before the US did .. the Mexican government refused slavery and slave-holders .. which is what the Alamo was all about .. and they provided safe-havens for runaway slaves and refused to return them to slave-holders.

I am engaging in a civil conversation, but you don't get to dictate what I say in that conversation. I'm not a democrat, haven't been for many years .. but if you're trying to convince me that democrats are just as evil as republicans on the issue of African-Americans, you're barking up the wrong tree. That's an argument you cannot win

Damn Republicans, going around thinking everyone should play by the same rules, that's just pure hatred of black people, I fell you.

Why is it you think blacks can't compete on a level playing field again? You think you're not smart enough? Or you're just too lazy. Maybe it's just you, not all blacks, did you ever consider that? I've seen no evidence blacks can't compete fine on a level field

Incredibly stupid.

What's stupid is that you think blacks can't compete on a level playing field and you need the Democrats to promise you a lower bar. That's the completely worst solution and it's an insult to successful blacks who didn't need extra credit for being black

Even Michelle who was an extraordinary black lady had learned that life and business can be very discouraging for blacks in America. It is no joke.

I think the BHO presidency has given more credibility to black professionals. The past 7 years has been a great shot in the arm for humanity.

Next will be Hillary's decade of the woman.

"Even" the dependency whore Moochelle? LOL.

You're full of shit. The only color we care about in the business world is ... green ...

 

[kaz]

What's stupid is that you think blacks can't compete on a level playing field and you need the Democrats to promise you a lower bar. That's the completely worst solution and it's an insult to successful blacks who didn't need extra credit for being black

Why would I think that asshole when I'm obviously much smarter than you and most of the knuckleheads on this board?

Nothing special about me .. you're just dumb.

Then why do you agree with the Democrat siren song about lowering the bar rather than the Republicans saying you're as capable as anyone else, do it yourself?

I agree with remedies and corrections to HUNDREDS of years of racist oppression and bars to opportunity.

You know .. like blacks aren't cerebral enough to play quarterback in the NFL .. or aren't smart enough to become president.

It isn't that you were any smarter or better .. just the only ones allowed to play.

Just curious but how do you plan on stopping the racists that are racist among the black community when you have so many that hate whites or any other race? That same principle if you get it figured out could work with muslims who hate muslims.

Hate is NOT the answer.

That's what he said, I mean duh. You couldn't read that?

 

[kaz]

What's stupid is that you think blacks can't compete on a level playing field and you need the Democrats to promise you a lower bar. That's the completely worst solution and it's an insult to successful blacks who didn't need extra credit for being black

Why would I think that asshole when I'm obviously much smarter than you and most of the knuckleheads on this board?

Nothing special about me .. you're just dumb.

Then why do you agree with the Democrat siren song about lowering the bar rather than the Republicans saying you're as capable as anyone else, do it yourself?

I agree with remedies and corrections to HUNDREDS of years of racist oppression and bars to opportunity.

You know .. like blacks aren't cerebral enough to play quarterback in the NFL .. or aren't smart enough to become president.

It isn't that you were any smarter or better .. just the only ones allowed to play.

Just curious but how do you plan on stopping the racists that are racist among the black community when you have so many that hate whites or any other race? That same principle if you get it figured out could work with muslims who hate muslims.

Pretty sure that you and I have very different perspectives on who and what is racist .. but I happily engage any and everyone on the question of race in America .. including black people who hate white people. More white people voted for Obama then black people. A good way to open the challenge.\

Throughout America there are vast numbers of white people who live in black and mixed-race communities and are welcomed there. Hate of white people is not as prevalent as you may think.

I have no idea what to tell Muslims that don't like other Muslims .. not my problem ..it's the problem of religion .. which is divisive by its very nature.

Are the people who voted against Obama not giving a shit that he's black racists?

 

[Slade3200]

No you wouldn't have. Bush crashed the economy with his tax cuts and his wars, and the housing bubble. In order to balance the budget, you would have had to pull out of both wars, fully, stop spending on the military, and bring the troops home, and to what? An economy shedding 500,000 jobs a month?

In order to balance the budget, you would have to increase revenues, and/or cut spending. You spend during a recession, and cut during periods of growth. To increase taxes is unwise, as it tends to deepen a recession, as does cutting spending.

As an example, in the run up to the Canadian election last year, the Conservative government wanted to run on a balanced budget. Spending cuts would have balanced the budget by 2017, but the Conservative government was desperate to tell Canadians they had balanced the budget, so they made some very deep cuts to spending to achieve that goal. It put the country into a mild recession, and still failed to balance the budget because of reduced revenues caused by falling oil prices.

One has to wonder if Obama has been allowed to spend more to stimulate the economy, whether the recovery would have been quicker.

No, because none of DumBama's policies did anything for our economy. That's why our economy still sucks.

If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical.

DumBama is the most anti-business President of our lifetime. Had he just sat in the White House and did nothing the last seven years, our market forces would have driven our economy along the way and we'd be in much better shape today. But no. He burdened our businesses with more taxes. He inflicted his idiotic healthcare plan that not only stopped businesses from expanding, but prevented new businesses from starting. The people that lost their healthcare plans now have to pay for them with after-tax money. In many cases, that's a very expensive SUV or a small house payment. This is money that doesn't go into circulation in our society. The less money movement, the less economic activity. And to add insult to injury, we still have millions of people without healthcare and it's more expensive than before DumBama became President.

The only real bump we had in our economy was the results of fracking which DumBama and the Democrats are totally against. Lower fuel prices gives us more disposable income which has a stimulating effect. But people have to beware because at anytime, DumBama could send his henchmen in from the EPA to create regulations to burden that industry as well just like he did with our coal mining operations.

RE: "If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical"

Come on Ray, you know better. The economics of our national debt is completely different than a household debt. Don't spread those lies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

RE: "If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical"

Come on Ray, you know better. The economics of our national debt is completely different than a household debt. Don't spread those lies.

Not a lie at all. And here's why it failed:

We have a system where people go to work and create income. Some of that income is taxed which is used to support our government operations. In other words, the private sector financially supports the public sector.

DumBama thought he would try an experiment. He would borrow money and use it to support the government sector instead of the private sector. In other words, the public sector trying to stimulate the private sector. It was a complete failure.

You can't stimulate an economy of 300 million people by giving money to your union friends and hand picked government outlets. It didn't work and can't work. To stimulate an economy, it has to be widespread across the country. Everybody has to have money to spend, otherwise only the selected groups can spend which doesn't do jack.

As already mentioned, the private sector was threatened with Obama Care which was a huge expense. Not only that, but nothing was written in stone because many of the decisions would come after it was implemented, so nobody in the business world knew how to plan.

The only break we had was the lowered cost of fuel which had nothing to do with DumBama. People across the country could save a lot of money between their gasoline and natural gas bills; some saving hundreds of dollars every month.

 

[Unkotare]

I always hated long division.

 

[bripat9643]

No you wouldn't have. Bush crashed the economy with his tax cuts and his wars, and the housing bubble. In order to balance the budget, you would have had to pull out of both wars, fully, stop spending on the military, and bring the troops home, and to what? An economy shedding 500,000 jobs a month?

In order to balance the budget, you would have to increase revenues, and/or cut spending. You spend during a recession, and cut during periods of growth. To increase taxes is unwise, as it tends to deepen a recession, as does cutting spending.

As an example, in the run up to the Canadian election last year, the Conservative government wanted to run on a balanced budget. Spending cuts would have balanced the budget by 2017, but the Conservative government was desperate to tell Canadians they had balanced the budget, so they made some very deep cuts to spending to achieve that goal. It put the country into a mild recession, and still failed to balance the budget because of reduced revenues caused by falling oil prices.

One has to wonder if Obama has been allowed to spend more to stimulate the economy, whether the recovery would have been quicker.

No, because none of DumBama's policies did anything for our economy. That's why our economy still sucks.

If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical.

DumBama is the most anti-business President of our lifetime. Had he just sat in the White House and did nothing the last seven years, our market forces would have driven our economy along the way and we'd be in much better shape today. But no. He burdened our businesses with more taxes. He inflicted his idiotic healthcare plan that not only stopped businesses from expanding, but prevented new businesses from starting. The people that lost their healthcare plans now have to pay for them with after-tax money. In many cases, that's a very expensive SUV or a small house payment. This is money that doesn't go into circulation in our society. The less money movement, the less economic activity. And to add insult to injury, we still have millions of people without healthcare and it's more expensive than before DumBama became President.

The only real bump we had in our economy was the results of fracking which DumBama and the Democrats are totally against. Lower fuel prices gives us more disposable income which has a stimulating effect. But people have to beware because at anytime, DumBama could send his henchmen in from the EPA to create regulations to burden that industry as well just like he did with our coal mining operations.

RE: "If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical"

Come on Ray, you know better. The economics of our national debt is completely different than a household debt. Don't spread those lies.

The only difference is that the Federal government can print money. When the fed does that, it screws all of us.

 

[Slade3200]

RE: "If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical"

Come on Ray, you know better. The economics of our national debt is completely different than a household debt. Don't spread those lies.

Not a lie at all. And here's why it failed:

We have a system where people go to work and create income. Some of that income is taxed which is used to support our government operations. In other words, the private sector financially supports the public sector.

DumBama thought he would try an experiment. He would borrow money and use it to support the government sector instead of the private sector. In other words, the public sector trying to stimulate the private sector. It was a complete failure.

You can't stimulate an economy of 300 million people by giving money to your union friends and hand picked government outlets. It didn't work and can't work. To stimulate an economy, it has to be widespread across the country. Everybody has to have money to spend, otherwise only the selected groups can spend which doesn't do jack.

As already mentioned, the private sector was threatened with Obama Care which was a huge expense. Not only that, but nothing was written in stone because many of the decisions would come after it was implemented, so nobody in the business world knew how to plan.

The only break we had was the lowered cost of fuel which had nothing to do with DumBama. People across the country could save a lot of money between their gasoline and natural gas bills; some saving hundreds of dollars every month.

How we manage our stimulus spending is a good debate to have. Whether to spend during a recovery with interest rates as low as they are is basic economics, and comparing the national debt to a household debt is just ignorance or deception.

 

[Slade3200]

No you wouldn't have. Bush crashed the economy with his tax cuts and his wars, and the housing bubble. In order to balance the budget, you would have had to pull out of both wars, fully, stop spending on the military, and bring the troops home, and to what? An economy shedding 500,000 jobs a month?

In order to balance the budget, you would have to increase revenues, and/or cut spending. You spend during a recession, and cut during periods of growth. To increase taxes is unwise, as it tends to deepen a recession, as does cutting spending.

As an example, in the run up to the Canadian election last year, the Conservative government wanted to run on a balanced budget. Spending cuts would have balanced the budget by 2017, but the Conservative government was desperate to tell Canadians they had balanced the budget, so they made some very deep cuts to spending to achieve that goal. It put the country into a mild recession, and still failed to balance the budget because of reduced revenues caused by falling oil prices.

One has to wonder if Obama has been allowed to spend more to stimulate the economy, whether the recovery would have been quicker.

No, because none of DumBama's policies did anything for our economy. That's why our economy still sucks.

If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical.

DumBama is the most anti-business President of our lifetime. Had he just sat in the White House and did nothing the last seven years, our market forces would have driven our economy along the way and we'd be in much better shape today. But no. He burdened our businesses with more taxes. He inflicted his idiotic healthcare plan that not only stopped businesses from expanding, but prevented new businesses from starting. The people that lost their healthcare plans now have to pay for them with after-tax money. In many cases, that's a very expensive SUV or a small house payment. This is money that doesn't go into circulation in our society. The less money movement, the less economic activity. And to add insult to injury, we still have millions of people without healthcare and it's more expensive than before DumBama became President.

The only real bump we had in our economy was the results of fracking which DumBama and the Democrats are totally against. Lower fuel prices gives us more disposable income which has a stimulating effect. But people have to beware because at anytime, DumBama could send his henchmen in from the EPA to create regulations to burden that industry as well just like he did with our coal mining operations.

RE: "If you were in debt in your household, do you think you could spend your way out of it? It just doesn't make any sense. It's illogical"

Come on Ray, you know better. The economics of our national debt is completely different than a household debt. Don't spread those lies.

The only difference is that the Federal government can print money. When the fed does that, it screws all of us.

The majority of new money is created by the banks not the printing press

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How we manage our stimulus spending is a good debate to have. Whether to spend during a recovery with interest rates as low as they are is basic economics, and comparing the national debt to a household debt is just ignorance or deception.

Not if you're spending money just for pure politics and not to stimulate anything it isn't. It's really the same thing. Nearly 10 trillion dollars spent the last eight years. Where did it all go? What do we have to show for it?