The problem with your statement is that both parties are not EQUALLY to blame. It is always a copout to say "both are to blame." Technically if one did 99% of the damage and the other did 1%, they are "both to blame."
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
We can thank democrats for our debt
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The problem with your statement is that both parties are not EQUALLY to blame. It is always a copout to say "both are to blame." Technically if one did 99% of the damage and the other did 1%, they are "both to blame."
It is a lie of omission... As craig said and you ignored, it is false equivalency.. do you understand this concept?
davmat787
Diamond Member
Go back to my very first comment that started this BS between Craig and I, it is below. The OP stated the Dem's are to blame for the debt. Silly statement, right? So all I said was that both parties are to blame. Where am I lying below or the the false equivalency (yes, I understand this concept. *yawn*)? To make the claim that both are to blame, must I datamine the history of our debt and determine the exact percentages of the debt that belongs to each party? That would be a monumental if not impossible project. See, I feel DC has become so messed up that I am no longer interested in playing this partisan bullshit game. If you accept my comments as such, and for a minute remove your partisan blinders, they will make much more sense.
Some of you guys are so hard core partisan that you cannot handle even the most basic of comment unless it slanders your opposition. FFS! D:
And again, can anyone say this comment that started this BS is WRONG? Without reading anything more into it, just the comment in and of itself?
davmat787
Diamond Member
What is the "lie of omission" in my original statement? And yes, I understand that concept. I don't feel that holding both parties accountable for our mounting debt, especially in the context of a reply to the lame OP, requires me to split the debt into percentages of each party.
The only acceptable criticism, even the most tangential, of the democrats (or R's) to some people is to always end it with... but the Republican's (or D's) are worse! That is the only way some can handle their partisan hackery, is with some lame qualification. Not saying you specifically, but think about if that is really the problem here or not.
Unless one thinks the Democrats are in no way, shape, or form, also responsible for the piling debt could that statement be a lie.
Do you think the Democrats are in no way responsible for the debt?
Last edited:
Neither of the articles you cite are particularly honest, but rather obfuscational, deliberately so. Neither account for the massive shift of income to the top 1% over the last 30 years, nor the radical cumulative reduction in their effective federal tax rate. Neither accounts for the reduction of federal revenue as a % of GDP achieved by non-trickledown starve the beast tax policy.
In practice, one of the chief features of Reaganomics is deficits. Cut taxes at the top, spend more money, cover the difference with borrowing from the tax cut recipients. That's just the way it works.
That's extended into the private sector via the expansion of credit rather than increases in wages, and in the expansion of the welfare state so hated by conservatives. Well, they profess to hate it, but their leadership profits enormously from it, because it's paid for with money borrowed from the financial elite, not from taxes. It masks the effects of Reaganomics, serves to stimulate the general economy while quelling economic & political discontent. We'd have rejected Reaganomics long ago w/o the welfare state.
The answer isn't in cutting spending, at all, but rather in increasing federal revenues, restoring the tax structure extant pre-Reagan. If we cut spending, we just decrease the amount of money flowing downward in the economy, further depressing it. If we raise taxes at the top, we just change the way it flows, reduce the tendency for it to accumulate at the top of the economic foodchain.
We need to remember that deficits weren't a problem prior to the Reagan era, understand that the changes made at that time are the root of our current imbroglio, act accordingly.
BoberFett
Lifer
It's mind blowing, isn't it?
Don't bother trying to have a meaningful conversation with shadow9d9 either. He's as nutty as Craig. He believes that telling your child what to eat for dinner instead of allowing them to eat whatever they want makes you a fascist.
werepossum
Elite Member
This. The two parties are mostly different in how they want to allocate the debt, not whether or not to have it. The Republicans are slightly better on average on spending, but slightly worse about paying for it. In the end, about all you can say about parties and debt is that each Congress is better than the next, no matter the respective party in control.
werepossum
Elite Member
Including many of the same Republican Representatives and Senators who had been instrumental in reducing the growth of government and balancing the budget. Politics trumps principle, and few people can spend more than a few years in power before accepting that government spending is the answer to all problems - as long as it's THEIR government spending.
palehorse
Lifer
These.
Last edited:
Wrong. Democrats certainly aren't perfect, but far better on this.
Put the statistics for the top 0.01% up next to the other numbers. They tell 'the rest of the story' that you don't and the bought and paid for propaganda Heritage group doesn't.
The issue is more complicated than aggregate statistics equating all types of spending, equating all income levels.
Other statistics tell far different stories, about taxes and the size of the federal workforce being at LOWS.
Do you understand that PRIVATE debt is up far more than the public debt? And that it's part of a larger story about the massive transfer of wealth from most Americans to a few?
Obama's increases are mainly stimulus, healthcare, the increased need for people in the downtime - the others are a minority of the increase.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/184257-obamas-spending-ideas-unbalanced
You have an article spending the numbers by an author:
"Rosen served as general counsel and senior policy adviser at the White House Office of Management and Budget during 2006-2009."
Shockingly, this Republican budget official says not a word about the increases in the debt, the overspending, under HIS administration; he attacks the 1970's, not the Reagan deficit.
The debt is a serious long-term issue. The economy is a serious issue right now.
We need to address the massive money grab by the top and re-balance the economy so it grows more, for more people, and we create the money to pay down the debt.
We do also need to cut a lot of the spending - in the right areas.
Define "better". If your definition of "better" is well over a trillion more than our revenue I guess you could be right. Kind of in the same sense that a heroin junky has a $200 a day habit but has cut back to a $199 a day habit has gotten "better".
Capt Caveman
Lifer
Shut-up troll. Different economic landscapes and you can thank Romney for the MA Health Care plan. Funny how you don't give Patrick credit for MA having lower unemployment and a growing economy compared to the majority of the rest of the nation.
The problem with the argument of "good debt" versus "bad debt" is generally valid but unfortunately not in this case.
If I borrow money to purchase a tractor and that tractor allows me to make more money, I pay off the tractor and continue to reap the increased income. That is definitely good debt.
The problem is that not only does our government NOT pay off the debt but we borrow money to pay the interest on the debt. Going back to my tractor analogy, it would be like getting an interest only loan on the tractor and then borrowing the money to pay the interest. Eventually the tractor is no longer useful due to age but I still owe the entire purchase price AND all of the interest and I am continuing to borrow money to pay the interest on the original loan for something that no longer provides a benefit. In this scenario the tractor was a huge drain even though it initially allowed me to generate more income.
If I borrow money to purchase a tractor and that tractor allows me to make more money, I pay off the tractor and continue to reap the increased income. That is definitely good debt.
The problem is that not only does our government NOT pay off the debt but we borrow money to pay the interest on the debt. Going back to my tractor analogy, it would be like getting an interest only loan on the tractor and then borrowing the money to pay the interest. Eventually the tractor is no longer useful due to age but I still owe the entire purchase price AND all of the interest and I am continuing to borrow money to pay the interest on the original loan for something that no longer provides a benefit. In this scenario the tractor was a huge drain even though it initially allowed me to generate more income.
Anarchist420
Diamond Member
Obama's spent way too much, but still, Bush was far more anti-market than Clinton could've been in his wildest dreams. Clinton sucked ass and he never had a true federal surplus, but he wasn't as tyrannical as Bush.
The Republicans generally are much worse than the Democrats and the OP is either lying or is misinformed (to put it nicely) as there was no $2B surplus with Romney. He spent much more than he took in even though he raised taxes. He wouldn't have raised taxes if there was going to be a $2B surplus.
Obama sucks, but at least he reduced the FICA tax which is something that Bush actually wanted to increase.
The Republicans generally are much worse than the Democrats and the OP is either lying or is misinformed (to put it nicely) as there was no $2B surplus with Romney. He spent much more than he took in even though he raised taxes. He wouldn't have raised taxes if there was going to be a $2B surplus.
Obama sucks, but at least he reduced the FICA tax which is something that Bush actually wanted to increase.
werepossum
Elite Member
That's not fair. You forgot to mention that now our heroin junky is in church! 😀
Very well said.
I think you're on a valid issue, the trick is to get it right which spending is 'good'.
My view has long been that the legitimate government spending is of two types:
- spending that pays off and it otherwise in society's interest, e.g., building roads
- spending that is morally justified, e.g., medical research
Cetainly not all spending meets either of these criteria. Much does.
In an economic crisis, a lot of spending can be useful just for preventing more of a crash.
That's where fixing the actual issues comes into play - things like how much of society's wealth is being drained for useless and harmful things, especially led by Wall Street.
We can argue about good spending and bad spending all we want but at the end of the day the real discussion needs to be, regardless of what we are spending it on, how to pay for the spending in the here and now and not pile on a bunch of bad debt (even if the outcome is good, it still eventually costs more than it helped in our current system).
The ONLY way that borrowing money right now can be considered good debt is if there is a serious plan in effect to actually pay that debt off at some point in the future. Otherwise it just continues to cost more and more as we borrow more just to pay the interest.
It is simply mathematically impossible to continue growing our debt faster than our GDP forever. To make matters worse, the more we grow government spending without paying for that growth the more it hurts when you finally stop. In 2007 we would have required a 20-25% reduction in the Federal Government to get us even, today it is 50% or double the pain.
On a side not Craig, I am happy to see you use the much more accurate .01% rather than the more common 1%.
What would it have been if federal revenue wouldn't have plummeted due to the "great recession" that was in full swing well before Obama took office?
Last edited:
cybrsage
Lifer
When your income goes down, you have to reduce your outgo.
Catch 22.
GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)
C = Consumption
I = Net Investment
G = Government expenditures
X = Exports
M = Imports
So you reduce government spending (G) and you reduce GDP by at least that amount which further pushes government revenue down which forces you to reduce G again, rinse and repeat.
I am in no way arguing for this massive expansion of G that we have seen in the last decade but you should know the implications of what you are asking for.
Ninjahedge
Diamond Member
Both parties are at fault for different reasons (specifically) but the same in the end.
They want to be re-elected.
All of them give us what "we" want. Nobody wants a 40% tax rate even if that means better schools, roads, free daycare, free medical care and an infrastructure that rates better than a "C+".
The Republicans have their own little plans that spend money indirectly on corporate interests, and then refuse to raise taxes on the same to help pay for it. They then give back a pittance in "tax relief" to the middle class (2%? Are you kidding me?) and say they are for cutting spending and lowering taxes...... Which is true.
Cutting corporate tax and public spending. So the middle class bears more of the overall tax burden and gets less from it.
The Dems? They are program happy. Their programs are routinely abused by their own supporters or done in locations that do not benefit the greater good. School spending plans that get baby grand pianos and computers when what is needed more is, ironically, nurseries and planned parenthood classes (which are blocked by the religious right).
They SAY they want the "rich" to pay taxes, but they just mean the upper portion of the middle class, not the actual 1%. Then they all get together and fail to agree on anything because they cant get their supporting factions to agree on anything they propose.
And BOTH parties tack on a bunch of useless riders to a bill that has little if anything to do with the original.
The OP is flaming spam. Attaching a party label to a national problem is only good for leading the sheeple.
They want to be re-elected.
All of them give us what "we" want. Nobody wants a 40% tax rate even if that means better schools, roads, free daycare, free medical care and an infrastructure that rates better than a "C+".
The Republicans have their own little plans that spend money indirectly on corporate interests, and then refuse to raise taxes on the same to help pay for it. They then give back a pittance in "tax relief" to the middle class (2%? Are you kidding me?) and say they are for cutting spending and lowering taxes...... Which is true.
Cutting corporate tax and public spending. So the middle class bears more of the overall tax burden and gets less from it.
The Dems? They are program happy. Their programs are routinely abused by their own supporters or done in locations that do not benefit the greater good. School spending plans that get baby grand pianos and computers when what is needed more is, ironically, nurseries and planned parenthood classes (which are blocked by the religious right).
They SAY they want the "rich" to pay taxes, but they just mean the upper portion of the middle class, not the actual 1%. Then they all get together and fail to agree on anything because they cant get their supporting factions to agree on anything they propose.
And BOTH parties tack on a bunch of useless riders to a bill that has little if anything to do with the original.
The OP is flaming spam. Attaching a party label to a national problem is only good for leading the sheeple.
The most obstinate political faction might be the ignorant centrist. Anyone who disagrees with their assumptions is 'partisan' and it's next to imppossible for facts to interfere.
It's not that they're often 'blatantly wrong', like 'the world is flat', it's that they fall for myths - such as exaggerating the importance of a little point, like 'bill riders'.
That's nothing - it's like saying the morality of the Nazi war was all about whether the rifles they used had any cronies profiting from them.
John Kennedy made this point well:
The parties have very different records on debt. Neither is perfect.
Implying there's little or no difference is false equivalency.
The facts - which no one spouting the 'they're both bad' myth has used - say otherwise.
Right-leaning 'centrists' are oh so happy when they get to 'prove' how 'non-partisan' they are with a 'they're both bad' comment. They defend it ferociously.
They're not 'corrupt' generally - but they're easy to manipulate by the political interests, making them more cynical about politics, 'hating them all'.
Which is just fine for the powerful interests who prefer citizens to 'hate all politics' rather than to be participants for their own interests.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
