"Palestinian" guide for jounalists, what words and definitions to use...

[Stryder50]

Yeah, Medicare. Social Security. Medicaid. These are successful programs when run with competency.

Otherwise you must believe that the system itself is dysfunctional, such that no matter who is in there things will still fail. That's a systemic failure, and if you believe there is a systemic failure then it doesn't matter who you put in there.

That is a pretty extreme belief to have. It's an ideological rejection of democratic governance. I mean, maybe that's what you want, who knows? Maybe you don't believe in democratic governance. If that's the case, then what type of governance do you think would be successful, and are there any examples you can point to that show that success?

System fail/succeed by more than just administrator/leadership. Operational structure, members/workers, funding, resources, many other factors in a matrix.

I prefer a more representative than democracy form of government, since democracies tend to be unwieldy and subject to easy collapse, replaced by more authoritarian regimes.

My historical perspective makes the USA Constitutional form the most successful to date.

 

[Stryder50]

You asked for programs, but fine.

Government types like social democracies all have better outcomes than ours.

Considering their current higher Deficit and Debt loads, verge of economic collapse, and other drawbacks, you have sold me on "social democracies", the slow road to communism.
National Debt Loads to GDP;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

 

[Stryder50]

You asked for programs, but fine.

Government types like social democracies all have better outcomes than ours.

I suggest investing about 10 &1/2 minutes and watch this;

 

[Stryder50]

There is no doubt that when Conservatives get power, outcomes get worse.

It has been that way since the founding of this country.

There is no metric Conservatives can point to as a successful byproduct of their minimal efforts when it comes to governance. It's laziness. Conservatives are lazy and entitled.

You need to learn, or re-learn basic economics.
In the USA Conservatives are the political faction for Wealth Creation.
USA Democrats/pseudo-liberals/social democrats, etc. are the faction more focused on wealth redistribution. They fail to grasp one can only redistribute so little before there is nothing left to redistribute, nor to make more to redistribute.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

System fail/succeed by more than just administrator/leadership. Operational structure, members/workers, funding, resources, many other factors in a matrix.

Programs succeed based on leadership. How those leaders navigate the system Congress set up is what determines the failure of a program.

I prefer a more representative than democracy form of government, since democracies tend to be unwieldy and subject to easy collapse, replaced by more authoritarian regimes.

Democracy is representative, we vote for Representatives and Senators. That's the whole point.

My historical perspective makes the USA Constitutional form the most successful to date.

What do you mean by that?

 

[AnOrangeCat]

I suggest investing about 10 &1/2 minutes and watch this;

Save it because I've seen that video before. Everything about it just touches the sides of the topic. Generic apathy. Laziness. Entitlement. Those are the themes of that video.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

You need to learn, or re-learn basic economics.

Oh boy, is this gonna be like health care where you guys just make it all up as you go?

Again, no metric that shows success. Not GDP growth, not employment growth, not deficit reduction, not tariffs, there is no Conservative policy that has improved our economy. Ever. Every time in the last 50 years that a Republican becomes President, there is some kind of economic collapse that gets blamed on Democrats, who never had any say into those policies that caused the collapse.

Every. Conservative. President. They always leave office with an economy worse than when they started.

Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Dumber, and Trump.

You have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican President who didn't leave office with a stinking, wrecked economy. And Ike was no Conservative, so you guys don't even have that.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

In the USA Conservatives are the political faction for Wealth Creation.

Sure, but not for every American, just a few of them.

USA Democrats/pseudo-liberals/social democrats, etc. are the faction more focused on wealth redistribution. They fail to grasp one can only redistribute so little before there is nothing left to redistribute, nor to make more to redistribute.

Well, if you're not going to support a middle class, then that's necessary.

Conservative policies do not support the middle class. Everyone except for the most wealthy have to spend more out of pocket for essential services because Conservatives cut those services or their funding. So if a middle class person has to pay more for their health care, that means they have less to spend in the consumer economy, and the consumer economy is the biggest part of the whole economy, is the biggest driver of growth, and also creates the most jobs.

 

[Stryder50]

Sure, but not for every American, just a few of them.


Well, if you're not going to support a middle class, then that's necessary.

Conservative policies do not support the middle class. Everyone except for the most wealthy have to spend more out of pocket for essential services because Conservatives cut those services or their funding. So if a middle class person has to pay more for their health care, that means they have less to spend in the consumer economy, and the consumer economy is the biggest part of the whole economy, is the biggest driver of growth, and also creates the most jobs.

First rule of economics you fail to grasp or understand;

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Every Good and Service has a cost that must be paid by someone.

 

[Stryder50]

Save it because I've seen that video before. Everything about it just touches the sides of the topic. Generic apathy. Laziness. Entitlement. Those are the themes of that video.

I'm inclined to think you are lying. Never have seen and refuse to see.
And/or your mind is not capable of true objective and rational thinking.

 

[Stryder50]

Oh boy, is this gonna be like health care where you guys just make it all up as you go?

Again, no metric that shows success. Not GDP growth, not employment growth, not deficit reduction, not tariffs, there is no Conservative policy that has improved our economy. Ever. Every time in the last 50 years that a Republican becomes President, there is some kind of economic collapse that gets blamed on Democrats, who never had any say into those policies that caused the collapse.

Every. Conservative. President. They always leave office with an economy worse than when they started.

Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Dumber, and Trump.

You have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican President who didn't leave office with a stinking, wrecked economy. And Ike was no Conservative, so you guys don't even have that.

"Time Machine" of this site;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

... goes back to 1980 and shows both sides equally ir-responsible.
Other sources could be found to counter your claims, which you have failed to document, cite sources, and/or prove.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

First rule of economics you fail to grasp or understand;

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Exactly, which is why the rich should pay their taxes.

They're getting the free ride, not the person who needs Medicaid.

They also aren't trickling any of it down and never have.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

"Time Machine" of this site;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

... goes back to 1980 and shows both sides equally ir-responsible.

Did you happen to notice that Clinton produced a surplus by raising taxes on the rich, and then Bush wiped that out with his tax cuts? Reagan tripled the size of the debt and produced the largest deficits ever (at the time, Trump holds the all-time record for highest deficit).

Obama reduced the deficit by about $500B, Trump grew it by $1.5T.

Again, every time a Conservative is President, the country's budget and economy suffer.

Every. Time.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Other sources could be found to counter your claims, which you have failed to document, cite sources, and/or prove.

Here ya go:

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2029.

taxpolicycenter.org

Now you can see exactly which years the deficit was reduced, and which years it grew.

Conservatives set record after record of deficit growth and total deficit.

Democrats reduce deficits. That's what the data shows.

Conservatives know nothing about economics, which is why their economic policies always fail.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

I'm inclined to think you are lying. Never have seen and refuse to see.
And/or your mind is not capable of true objective and rational thinking.

I watch pretty much everything Conservatives make because I find most of it hilarious.

The fundamental principle of economics is supply and demand.

Demand drops if consumers don't have money to spend on consumer goods because they're spending it on health care, energy, and education, none of which generates wealth for the middle class.

Supply chases demand, not the other way around. Too much supply reduces demand, and you're stuck with inventory that loses value.

Conservatives do not understand this very basic principle, and that is why their policies always fail.

Always.

 

[Stryder50]

Here ya go:

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2029.

taxpolicycenter.org

Now you can see exactly which years the deficit was reduced, and which years it grew.

Conservatives set record after record of deficit growth and total deficit.

Democrats reduce deficits. That's what the data shows.

Conservatives know nothing about economics, which is why their economic policies always fail.

Going by the first chart shown;

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2029.

taxpolicycenter.org

I see that 77 of those 89 years show deficits. Which would suggest both D and R are fairly good at generating deficits.
Of the 12 years with no deficit the R=5 and D=7.

However, 3 of those 'D' years are from Clinton who drastically cut the Defense/Military budget to point of much 'make up' required the next several years. Clinton cut R&D programs midstream, reduced procurement of new and replacement gear, cut repairs and maintenance of equipment, and similar negative funding reductions that left our military seriously debilitated in wake of Sept. 11, 2001 need to respond and ramp up. Clinton's folly in making illusion of a non-deficit budget actually incurred more increase deficit thrust upon his successor.

I'm having serious doubts on quality of your reading comprehension and basic arithmetic skills.

 

[Stryder50]

I watch pretty much everything Conservatives make because I find most of it hilarious.

The fundamental principle of economics is supply and demand.

Demand drops if consumers don't have money to spend on consumer goods because they're spending it on health care, energy, and education, none of which generates wealth for the middle class.

Supply chases demand, not the other way around. Too much supply reduces demand, and you're stuck with inventory that loses value.

Conservatives do not understand this very basic principle, and that is why their policies always fail.

Always.

Conservatives understand that "basic principle" quite well since they are the majority of those involved in wealth creation.
Pseudo-liberals and Leftist like you actually don't understand which is why few of you are in wealth creating free enterprise/business, why you don't understand and hate profits, and why you are focused more on wealth distribution, actually re-distribution since you steal from the productive and give to the non-productive, yourselves part of that deadwood.

 

[Stryder50]

Did you happen to notice that Clinton produced a surplus by raising taxes on the rich, and then Bush wiped that out with his tax cuts? Reagan tripled the size of the debt and produced the largest deficits ever (at the time, Trump holds the all-time record for highest deficit).

Obama reduced the deficit by about $500B, Trump grew it by $1.5T.

Again, every time a Conservative is President, the country's budget and economy suffer.

Every. Time.

Clinton produced a "surplus" by cutting Defense/Military part of budget drastically. Which meant that the next President would have to cover that damage done and then some excess to get our Defense/Military back to where it should have been had Clinton allowed for routine maintain, replace, and renew of equipment.

Obama nearly doubled the National Debt and that is the more meaningful number since it is consequence of Deficit.

Just the opposite of your delusion. Every time a "liberal"/Democrat is POTUS our economy suffers because most of them have no grasp on how to create wealth, since they have little to no experience doing such.

You are starting to confirm you are in the same league of ignorance and incompetence.

 

[Stryder50]

Exactly, which is why the rich should pay their taxes.

They're getting the free ride, not the person who needs Medicaid.

They also aren't trickling any of it down and never have.

The rich not only DO PAY their taxes, but they also pay the majority of the government's income from personal taxes.
They are not getting a free ride, those in the lower income bracket who pay little to no taxes are the ones getting free ride, or more than they put in, courtesy of the "rich".

The "rich" are also the ones who invest into businesses that provide jobs, and other ventures that will grow/create more wealth to expand the economy.

I see you are just another idiot commie minion parroting the party pravda and hence no longer worth wasting my time and effort on.
Chao ...

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Going by the first chart shown;

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2029.

taxpolicycenter.org

I see that 77 of those 89 years show deficits. Which would suggest both D and R are fairly good at generating deficits.
Of the 12 years with no deficit the R=5 and D=7.

Ah but having a deficit is different from growing one.

And if you look at the data, you see the deficit go down during Democratic Presidents.

During Clinton, the deficit was erased. How was it erased?

However, 3 of those 'D' years are from Clinton who drastically cut the Defense/Military budget to point of much 'make up' required the next several years.

Right, he cut spending. it just wasn't the spending you wanted to cut. Also, CLinton raised taxes in 1993 and Republicans then spent the next 7 years trying to erase them. They did manage to get one tax cut through, the tax cut on Capital gains, but the bad news about that is that it prompted the dotcom recession thanks to increased volatility, proving once again that Conservative policies never succeed:

This paper presents an empirical investigation of the effect of changes in capital gains tax rate on stock return volatility. We focus on two observable cross-sectional variations in the extent to which changes in capital gains tax rate affect return volatility — unrealized capital gains and dividend distributions. For both cross-sectional variations, we predict that the more stock returns are expected to be subject to capital gains taxation, the greater the increase in return volatility following a capital gains tax rate reduction. Consistent with these predictions, after passage of the 1978 and 1997 capital gain tax rate reductions, we find larger increases in the return volatility for more appreciated stocks than for less appreciated stocks and larger increases in the return volatility for non-dividend-paying stocks than for dividend-paying stocks, after controlling for an extensive set of firm characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, domestic and foreign stock market performances.

Clinton cut R&D programs midstream, reduced procurement of new and replacement gear, cut repairs and maintenance of equipment, and similar negative funding reductions that left our military seriously debilitated in wake of Sept. 11, 2001

The Conservatives did not take Richard Clarke seriously when he warned of al Qaeda attack in January 2001. Clinton's National Security team presented the Conservatives with detailed analysis of al Qaeda and their capabilities. Conservatives did not take it seriously because they never do and their policies always fail. Bush got that August 2001 PDB memo warning of an imminent al Qaeda attack, but didn't take it seriously.

9/11 was an intelligence failure, not a military one. The size of the army and the bases around the world had no bearing on 9/11 because 9/11 was a terrorist attack. But if you want to draw that connection, you can look at Bin Laden's Fatwa in the 1990's that was explicitly about US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. The jihad is literally "Declaration of Jihad against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holiest Sites." Those bases weren't the ones Clinton closed.

Clinton's folly increased beginning in 2001, after the Bush Tax Cuts started, and then went into overdrive when all the taxc cuts went into effect in 2003.

Bush literally said during his campaign that "A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged. And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Clinton's final budget had a surplus of $236.2b. Bush's first budget reduced that surplus down to $128.2b and then the next year it was -$157.8b. Proving once again that Conservative policies always fail. Always. That deficit was thanks to the first round of tax cuts that went into effect in 2001. By 2003, when the rest of the tax cuts started, the deficit grew to -$377.6b and from there, Conservatives set 4 record deficits in 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009. Then Obama reduced the deficit from $1.4T in 2009 down to $584.6B in 2016.

I'm having serious doubts on quality of your reading comprehension and basic arithmetic skills.

Classic projection. You have absolutely no idea what you're saying.