how many times have you seen a leftist call out a (D) politician?

[jc456]

Because Obama isn't going to be running in 2024. The democrats don't want Joe. The ONLY one so far who's a potential candidate is Trump. Trump is loved and worshipped by a bunch of republicans who want him back in office.
I don't, because Trump is a CINO. If Romney were a potential candidate, I'd be scrutinizing his CINO record. Same as McConnell or Pelosi or anyones, for that matter.

You want Trump back. I don't. You don't care about all of Trumps spending and his unconstitutional reauthorizations (FISA 702, patriot act, NDAA), I do. Those are things that liberals and CINO's do. Not fiscal and constitutional conservatives.

Not sure your point? Other than ignoring what demofks actually do.

 

[YoursTruly]

Just what it is. Why, do you disagree with what obammy's responsible for? Why? it's all trump too? hahahahahahhahaaha TDSing are you?

Let's talk about real TDS, shall we? The kind that you don't want to talk about. The kind that forces you to overlook important things like funding planned parenthood.

In an appropriations bill that Trump signed into law (new spending), there was funding for planned parenthood, who then used the money (as they've always done) to pay for abortions. When Obama did it, the right justifiably screamed bloody murder. It was killing babies with our tax dollars.
But when Trump does it, not a peep out of his supporters.
In one of those spending bills (the first one, IIRC. When there was a GOP majority) there was funding for gender studies.
If Obama or Hillary would've signed that bill, the right, justifiably, would've screamed bloody murder.
But not a peep out of the Trump supporters.
Had Obama or Hillary banned bump stocks, the right, justifiably, would've screamed "They're trying to take our guns."
But since it was Trump that did it, not a peep.

So the question to you is, since Trump has forced so much progressive BS and funding for progressive things, why no opposition? Why even support someone who did this? After all, had a democrat done any of this, you wouldn't vote for him. But since it's Trump, then you're still supporting him.

You see, I don't understand political loyalty. I used to be a loyalist for both R & D's. But a few who were not owned by their party's (Amash, Massie, Lee & Chip Roy) opened my eyes to how retarded I was for allowing my party to get away with things I didn't actually agree with. And I broke free from all that loyalist BS. It was a sobering and humble event. And it took me several months to "detox" from it all.
So now, when I see Trump supporters bashing liberals, while ignoring the liberal crap that Trump allowed, it reminds me of how wrong I was for being so loyal to politicians and their party.

 

[YoursTruly]

Not sure your point? Other than ignoring what demofks actually do.

I ignore nothing. I just don't preach to the choir as much as Trump supporters do. Biden is in office, the democrats have the majority, and there's nothing any of us can do about it, except plan for the future.
You folks are planning on a Trump presidency. So that's the "going thing" at the moment. Planning.
I'm planning on exposing Trump and his progressive ways. Hoping that a few might come to understand why and how Trump is actually not a good choice. And that maybe, just MAAAAYBE, we can get a fiscal conservative on the ballot, who'll do the opposite of what Trump, Biden, Obama and the rest of them have done.

It's called the "bigger picture."

 

[jc456]

In an appropriations bill that Trump signed into law (new spending), there was funding for planned parenthood, who then used the money (as they've always done) to pay for abortions. When Obama did it, the right justifiably screamed bloody murder. It was killing babies with our tax dollars.

Yep, tag along pork that he couldn't do a line item veto on.

 

[jc456]

I ignore nothing. I just don't preach to the choir as much as Trump supporters do. Biden is in office, the democrats have the majority, and there's nothing any of us can do about it, except plan for the future.
You folks are planning on a Trump presidency. So that's the "going thing" at the moment. Planning.
I'm planning on exposing Trump and his progressive ways. Hoping that a few might come to understand why and how Trump is actually not a good choice. And that maybe, just MAAAAYBE, we can get a fiscal conservative on the ballot, who'll do the opposite of what Trump, Biden, Obama and the rest of them have done.

It's called the "bigger picture."

dude, you keep going on about trump and trump and nothing about the nonsense by xiden. just live in your world and leave mine alone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're correct. But not absolutely. Minimum wage increases are just a symptom of the real problem. If minimum wages weren't increased (as the USD value drops), no one would work those jobs. Business owners would go out of business (0r completely automate). Which would lead to less tax revenue.

Again you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of macro economics.

Market forces regulate wages. If the worker finds wages too low, then they won't take the jobs, causing business owners to raise wages.

Adam Smith described this force as "The Invisible Hand."

To say that businesses will go out of business rather than taking obvious measures to gain and retain a work force is absurd.

Employers compete for labor. The more skilled the labor, the more fierce the competition. In unskilled labor, the competition is low, as there are greater numbers and less skill involved.

Base labor cost is the #1 driver of inflation. In a free market inflation tends to be driven by material scarcity - but in Keynesian markets, such as ours - government mandated wages are the primary driver.

The $4 to $6 trillion that Trump added can't be repaid either. Democrat and Republican spending is why I do not support either. (or at least one reason out of many)

Tell me, should the government have bailed out those who lost jobs due to Covid?

Since the overwhelming majority of Trump's spending was Covid related? PPE, extended unemployment, stimulus - should those have been used to try and stave off a market crash?

I don't watch the MSM's. None of them. I might catch a clip that someone posts here. But never just sit and watch the national news. And very little of the local news.
Just since Reagan, ( 4 republican presidents and 3 democrat ones) NONE of them have done anything to increase the value of the USD, Not one. Including Trump. So why TF support them? It's the same damn game with all of them. Borrow more than they can pay back, devalue the USD even more. Creating more inflation. And forcing more American companies either into outsourcing or just going completely under. Only those who are still on the government tit (like US oil companies with their billions in government subsidies) flourish.

Increasing the value of the US dollar would be deflation. Do you think that is a good thing?

What would that do to property values? What of mortgages? What of retirees depending on the value of a 401K?

You clearly are a Keynesian with no faith in free markets. But the government manipulation and control of the market has deep and lasting impacts, often times devastating.

No, that's the opposite of free market. You're trying to label me liberal.

A free market is one where the government does NOT regulate or manipulate it.

You seem very confused by terms.

And it's not going to work, moron. Not even close. This is some sort of liberal debate tactic you're using. When you can't refute what I say, just get personal and start slinging insults. Seriously, that's the same BS my ex used to try and pull.
If you can't debate this on the merits, then why even bother. I'm a fiscal conservative. Not a liberal. If I bash the republicans, its because they're CINO's. CINO's to almost exactly the same thing as liberals.

When you broach the subject of economics, you wander into my wheelhouse.

You spout Keynesian ideas whilst claiming they are somehow free market. Have you ever taken an introduction to economics course? I taught (facilitated) a 201 level Macro-Economics course for University of Phoenix for years, prior to entering my doctoral program - which consumed too much time to let me work and teach.

You remind me of a lot of students who had no actual knowledge, but heavy opinions driven by popular media, Who didn't know Adam Smith from Georg Hegel but were still convinced that they knew best how to run an economy.

I am upfront that I'm a Murray Rothbard level Austrian. But I suspect you have no clue what that even means.

 

[jc456]

Employers compete for labor. The more skilled the labor, the more fierce the competition. In unskilled labor, the competition is low, as there are greater numbers and less skill involved.

these stupid fks don't even understand Free Agency in sports. You know where the talented get mega millions and leave the team that didn't give that salary. It's like they live in their basements.

It will always be follow the money sonny

 

[Uncensored2008]

Reagan 8 years: 1.86 Trillion.
H.W. Bush 4 years: $1.55 trillion
Clintons 8 years: $1.4 trillion
W. Bush 8 years: $5.85 trillion
Obama's 8 years: $8.6 trillion
Trumps 4 years: $6.7 trillion
Biden 2 years: $4.8 trillion.

Republicans: $15.96 trillion
Democrats: $14.8 trillion

What this boils down to is both parties suck.

Not that I question your numbers - considering the $11 Trillion by Biden that you put down as 4.8 - but can you provide the link to DailyKOS or DemocraticUnderground where you got these numbers?

 

[task0778]

Reagan 8 years: 1.86 Trillion.
H.W. Bush 4 years: $1.55 trillion
Clintons 8 years: $1.4 trillion
W. Bush 8 years: $5.85 trillion
Obama's 8 years: $8.6 trillion
Trumps 4 years: $6.7 trillion
Biden 2 years: $4.8 trillion.

Republicans: $15.96 trillion
Democrats: $14.8 trillion

What this boils down to is both parties suck.

But the Repub presidents' time on office was 24 years, while the Democrats' was 16 years. So, what I see is the GOP at roughly $.67 tril/year while the Dems at just under $1tril/year, so it looks to me like the Dems are the bigger spendthrifts. Every time a spending issue comes up in Congress over all those years, it is always the democrats who want to spend more money. Much of Trump's spending was less than the Democrats wanted; I defy anyone to show me the time where they wanted to spend less than Trump did, or when Bush 43 was in office. How much more money would the Democrats have spent under Biden if they had managed to abolish the filibuster? Remember the Build Back Better Bill? $3.5 trillion that Manchin and Sinema wouldn't vote for, and some say the true cost was over $5 tril. How much worse would Biden's have spending been?

So, one might say that both parties are not fiscally conservative and I would agree. BUT - one party is worse than the other as a whole, both presidents and Congress and that party is the democrats. I think of it this way: would you rather have somebody steal $100 or someone else steal $200? Some people don't see the difference cuz it's still stealing and that is true. It shouldn't happen, no doubt about that but I think we have to deal with the reality that one party IS worse than the other.

 

[YoursTruly]

Not that I question your numbers - considering the $11 Trillion by Biden that you put down as 4.8 - but can you provide the link to DailyKOS or DemocraticUnderground where you got these numbers?

Their sources are listed.

US Debt by President: By Dollar and Percentage​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Their sources are listed.

US Debt by President: By Dollar and Percentage​

Did you read your own link?

It doesn't exactly support your claims...

 

[YoursTruly]

But the Repub presidents' time on office was 24 years, while the Democrats' was 16 years. So, what I see is the GOP at roughly $.67 tril/year while the Dems at just under $1tril/year, so it looks to me like the Dems are the bigger spendthrifts. Every time a spending issue comes up in Congress over all those years, it is always the democrats who want to spend more money. Much of Trump's spending was less than the Democrats wanted; I defy anyone to show me the time where they wanted to spend less than Trump did, or when Bush 43 was in office. How much more money would the Democrats have spent under Biden if they had managed to abolish the filibuster? Remember the Build Back Better Bill? $3.5 trillion that Manchin and Sinema wouldn't vote for, and some say the true cost was over $5 tril. How much worse would Biden's have spending been?

So, one might say that both parties are not fiscally conservative and I would agree. BUT - one party is worse than the other as a whole, both presidents and Congress and that party is the democrats. I think of it this way: would you rather have somebody steal $100 or someone else steal $200? Some people don't see the difference cuz it's still stealing and that is true. It shouldn't happen, no doubt about that but I think we have to deal with the reality that one party IS worse than the other.

Bigger? Does it even matter. Neither of them are fiscal conservatives. And at the rate this is going, from both parties, it won't be long until BRIC's forms their own damn currency, ties it to the petro dollar and sends us into a 1991 USSR/Russia type crash. You morons want to tout Trump as your lord and savior, and he did the same exact thing as the rest of them did. You stupid F'ing morons. What they (Trump, Biden and the others) are doing, is exactly how and why the USSR fell. They spent too damn much money.

 

[YoursTruly]

Did you read your own link?

View attachment 717167

It doesn't exactly support your claims...

Obama, Bush and Reagan had 8 year terms. Trump spent more than W did in just 4 years. Those percentages don't mean anything. It's just a way to skew the fact that Trump spent like all the others did. Way too damn much.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama, Bush and Reagan had 8 year terms. Trump spent more than W did in just 4 years. Those percentages don't mean anything. It's just a way to skew the fact that Trump spent like all the others did. Way too damn much.

Those percentages mean everything.

Those are also not inflation adjusted numbers.

 

[YoursTruly]

Those percentages mean everything.

Those are also not inflation adjusted numbers.

The actual numbers mean more. $6.7 Trillion in new debt, created with the help of Donald Trump. (AKA Reagan reincarnated) That means NOTHING to you, because you're a Trump bot. The $31 trillion we owe now, you think it was all democrats. Even though the numbers prove you wrong.
Trump is a north eastern liberal disguised as a conservative. And you and your ilk want him back for more big spending.
Yall are just retarded.

 

[YoursTruly]

This thread is hilarious. Trumpbots trying to blame the debt, inflation and all our economic woes on democrats. No wonder we can't get any actual fiscal conservatives elected in the GOP. You people don't even know what one is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The actual numbers mean more. $6.7 Trillion in new debt, created with the help of Donald Trump. (AKA Reagan reincarnated) That means NOTHING to you, because you're a Trump bot. The $31 trillion we owe now, you think it was all democrats. Even though the numbers prove you wrong.
Trump is a north eastern liberal disguised as a conservative. And you and your ilk want him back for more big spending.
Yall are just retarded.

IN unadjusted numbers?

They mean very little.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This thread is hilarious. Trumpbots trying to blame the debt, inflation and all our economic woes on democrats. No wonder we can't get any actual fiscal conservatives elected in the GOP. You people don't even know what one is.

You never answered; should the government have bailed out those who lost jobs due to Covid?

Since the overwhelming majority of Trump's spending was Covid related? PPE, extended unemployment, stimulus - should those have been used to try and stave off a market crash?

 

[YoursTruly]

You never answered; should the government have bailed out those who lost jobs due to Covid?

Since the overwhelming majority of Trump's spending was Covid related? PPE, extended unemployment, stimulus - should those have been used to try and stave off a market crash?

Sorry, I didn't reply to that.

They could have. Considering how government money, that's pumped into the economy gets taxed over and over, it's not like they'd be losing money. Where the money gets lost is when it's borrowed, with interest. Especially to the point that they cant even make the interest payments and pay down the principle.
If the Fed was used only in cases of emergencies, the debt would not be near as high. Interest payments would be much lower. And if the government lived within it's means, it could afford to borrow from time to time. But only in cases of real emergencies.

With our current situations, during the height of the so called epidemic, I think keeping the people afloat wasn't a bad idea. Where the corrupt part of it came was all the money that went to corporations, the greedy and the frauds. Take away all that money and give it to people and small business's who actually needed it, the money would've been a lot more useful. And probably not even half of all the covid money would've been spent.

There is no simple answer to your questions, if you're going to look at all those fine details. I mean, sure, we can just pick a knee jerk answer. But that would only create more questions for those who do focus on those fine details.
Government spending is so willy nilly now a days. It's been that way since at least Reagan.
And is showing no signs of slowing down.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see conservatives call out corrupt, life long (R)s all the time. We consistently say certain politicians are corrupt and criminal all the time.

When was the last time you saw a leftist call out the corruption of Schumer? Pelosi? Waters? or any number of (D) criminals?

Its clear to see the Ds are lock step and will protect their own no matter how obvious the corruption is.

Oh they are brutal to people like Manchin or Sinema or Gabbard when they go against the Democrat mandates of how to vote. Otherwise no.