We can thank democrats for our debt

[JSt0rm]

I think the republicans have more expensive pet projects then the dems.

Welfare queens are nothing next to high grade military hardware.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, the op's contention is that the Democrat's are to blame for the debt. I simply disagreed, I think the Republican's are as well and you have the nerve to call me a liar? Fuck you and the high horse, err donkey, you rode in on. What I said is not a lie, you either read way too much into the simple comment, and/or are totally delusion for thinking only one party can be responsible for the ballooning debt.

I would say you owe me an apology for calling me a liar, but I am sure instead you will put me on one of your ignore lists for having the temerity to want to hold both parties feet to the fire for the mess we are in.

Let's be clear. I'm not saying 'you are a liar' for your post. I'm saying the claim you made is a lie - one I don't think you knew is a lie. I gave you corrected information.

If you continue to repeat it after getting corrected information, THAT would be lying. Note in my statement the word "if" immediately following the words, 'you are a liar if...'

You aren't on an ignore list yet - you haven't been uncivil enough - I'm sure you are being friendly with F*** you - or extremely clueless enough to the point discussion is pointless.

Your painting the parties as in any way 'equal' in responsibility for the debt problems is a lie, one you wrongly believed and repeated and have been corrected on. Did you listen?

I see that you seem to be arguing - without providing the numbers I said to if you argue.

You're right to disagree with the OP that 'debt is the Democrats' fault', but wrong to 'correct' him to it being 'equally shared'.

 

[Craig234]

Do you think the debt has risen under both Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses, or only under the Democrats? I am disagreeing with the OP, I think both parties are to blame for the debt.

And yet you STILL refuse to read or understand my post or respond with the numbers.

 

[heymrdj]

Both parties are at fault for the debt, I don't see any good coming out of trying to be partisan about it, just gives one party an excuse to continue running up the debt.

Smartest post in the whole damn P&N.

 

[davmat787]

Let's be clear. I'm not saying 'you are a liar' for your post. I'm saying the claim you made is a lie - one I don't think you knew is a lie. I gave you corrected information.

If you continue to repeat it after getting corrected information, THAT would be lying. Note in my statement the word "if" immediately following the words, 'you are a liar if...'

You aren't on an ignore list yet - you haven't been uncivil enough - I'm sure you are being friendly with F*** you - or extremely clueless enough to the point discussion is pointless.

Your painting the parties as in any way 'equal' in responsibility for the debt problems is a lie, one you wrongly believed and repeated and have been corrected on. Did you listen?

I see that you seem to be arguing - without providing the numbers I said to if you argue.

You're right to disagree with the OP that 'debt is the Democrats' fault', but wrong to 'correct' him to it being 'equally shared'.

Did I say "equally shared" Craig? No, I did not. To determine exactly what percentage of the debt is the responsibility would be extremely difficult, if not damn near impossible. Yet, that is what you appear to be claiming to do in your reply that called me a "liar, if".

Can we not agree that the debt has risen under both parties? That is all my statement said! You are either reading way too much into my comment combined with many assumptions, or looking for a fight. Which is it? Once I read the word "liar", I did not see the point in continuing to read your post really.

Again, just simply answer this: Can we not agree that the debt has risen under both parties?

 

[davmat787]

Smartest post in the whole damn P&N.

I'm certainly not the smartest person here, but apparently smarter than Craig who called me out on this, alluding to it be a lie, false equivalency or whatever. I am so sick of the partisan whores.

Why anyone can think that any single party or ideology has a monopoly on all the right answers and ideas boggles my mind.

But I thank you none the less. :thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell me this Craig... under what scenario -- Dem or Repub, does the debt actually get PAID THE FUCK DOWN or budgets cut (and by cut I don't mean slow the rate of growth, I mean lower absolute dollars year over year) ??

<cue crickets>

Right, thought so

I hate every last one of these motherfuckers from both parties

The truth is that it won't happen, nor would you really want it to. The only real answer is to reduce its value & % of GDP through controlled inflation while exercising reasonable controls over its increase & holding down maintenance costs.

Part of the fiscal genius of the Clinton years was that they paid off older higher interest debt & refinanced at lower rates. We can do the same thing today, but only if we increase revenues. The govt can pay off any particular obligation in advance when they have the liquidity to do so. Repubs want to make sure that won't happen, because their true constituents own the debt, and current borrowing rates for Uncle Sam are negligible, even negative. People currently pay the govt for a safe place to park their money. They'd much rather collect interest on old debt if they can, and keeping govt at short ends insures that.

There are also issues of the balance of payments deficit, currently ~$550B/yr, of a growing population, and of the accumulation of income at the tippytop of the economic foodchain. New money has to be created to cover that, to prevent the deflationary effects that would spell economic doom for many & political doom for the financial elite, even if htey're too short sihgted to see it. All of the money currently in existence was created either by govt spending it into existence, by "borrowing" it, or through the means of fractional reserve lending. Interest on the debt is essentially a fee paid to the wealthy for dilution of the value of the money they already have.

Spending less is profoundly deflationary, because it means fewer people will be employed & less money will circulate. Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't as much, because they'll just pay more in taxes instead of buying more govt bonds.

Deflation favors creditors over debtors hugely, and haves over have nots. It's what happened in the early 1930's, when the banking contraction left 40% less "money" in circulation, and the value of the dollar rose by 75% because of its scarcity. It's the easy way for rich people to become relatively richer simply through hoarding.

I say this as one of the "Haves", if only in a minor way. We have no debt, own our home free & clear, have savings & investments totaling several times our annual income. My employment situation is basically bulletproof & I could start drawing a real pension tomorrow if I wanted.

I don't like what's happening in the world around me, don't like to see the struggles of honest & hardworking people less fortunate than myself in a system that has changed to favor the rich over all others. The simple fact that all too many people unwittingly support it in adherence to "conservative" ideology says terrible things about our collective consciousness and the future of egalitarian democracy.

Project the income distribution trends of the last 30 years for another 30 years into the future and tell me what there'll be for the middle class, if it still exists at all. It looks like the middle of nowhere to me, and in some respects I'm glad that I probably won't live long enough to see it. Many of the raving Righties on this board will, although I doubt they'll have the sense to remember that they were warned.

 

[CallMeJoe]

We had a surplus under Democrat Bill Clinton

We had a reduced deficit with accounting tricks to make it look like a surplus under Democratic President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

Of course, that deficit exploded with a new Republican president and Congress...

 

[Spikesoldier]

Both parties are at fault for the debt, I don't see any good coming out of trying to be partisan about it, just gives one party an excuse to continue running up the debt.

QFMFT

you just enraged some partisan hacks

 

[davmat787]

And yet you STILL refuse to read or understand my post or respond with the numbers.

What the hell are you talking about? Oh, your strawman in bold below? You have the gall to call me a liar for something I never said. Again, I simply stated that both parties are to blame for the debt. I did not, nor am I interested in, splitting hairs to say one party is worse or more to blame for the debt.

Where did I say both parties are equal in responsibility as you state in the quote below Craig? Your hallucinating, and have the nerve to call me a liar. GFYS. And then you say that YOU correct ME? lol, go fuck your high horse.

Your painting the parties as in any way 'equal' in responsibility for the debt problems is a lie, one you wrongly believed and repeated and have been corrected on. Did you listen?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Now this is one of the smartest posts in P&N:thumbsup:

I am pretty much in the same economic postion as the OP but my business/income relies on middle class customers which group is getting smaller each year.

Where do the "1%" think they are going to get their income in 20-30 years from now if there is no middle class? Government spending or subsidies?

The poor spend for groceries and essentials, utilities etc.
The rich only spend a small portion of their income and bank the rest.
The middle class is what has driven the economy at least since WWII. If their share of the income pie goes away so does much of our consumer driven economy.

I guess the 1% can send their money to China or someplace and hope it doesn't get ripped off. At the same time living in the US or some nice liveable place and hope that they don't get caught up in the riots.

The truth is that it won't happen, nor would you really want it to. The only real answer is to reduce its value & % of GDP through controlled inflation while exercising reasonable controls over its increase & holding down maintenance costs.

Part of the fiscal genius of the Clinton years was that they paid off older higher interest debt & refinanced at lower rates. We can do the same thing today, but only if we increase revenues. The govt can pay off any particular obligation in advance when they have the liquidity to do so. Repubs want to make sure that won't happen, because their true constituents own the debt, and current borrowing rates for Uncle Sam are negligible, even negative. People currently pay the govt for a safe place to park their money. They'd much rather collect interest on old debt if they can, and keeping govt at short ends insures that.

There are also issues of the balance of payments deficit, currently ~$550B/yr, of a growing population, and of the accumulation of income at the tippytop of the economic foodchain. New money has to be created to cover that, to prevent the deflationary effects that would spell economic doom for many & political doom for the financial elite, even if htey're too short sihgted to see it. All of the money currently in existence was created either by govt spending it into existence, by "borrowing" it, or through the means of fractional reserve lending. Interest on the debt is essentially a fee paid to the wealthy for dilution of the value of the money they already have.

Spending less is profoundly deflationary, because it means fewer people will be employed & less money will circulate. Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't as much, because they'll just pay more in taxes instead of buying more govt bonds.

Deflation favors creditors over debtors hugely, and haves over have nots. It's what happened in the early 1930's, when the banking contraction left 40% less "money" in circulation, and the value of the dollar rose by 75% because of its scarcity. It's the easy way for rich people to become relatively richer simply through hoarding.

I say this as one of the "Haves", if only in a minor way. We have no debt, own our home free & clear, have savings & investments totaling several times our annual income. My employment situation is basically bulletproof & I could start drawing a real pension tomorrow if I wanted.

I don't like what's happening in the world around me, don't like to see the struggles of honest & hardworking people less fortunate than myself in a system that has changed to favor the rich over all others. The simple fact that all too many people unwittingly support it in adherence to "conservative" ideology says terrible things about our collective consciousness and the future of egalitarian democracy.

Project the income distribution trends of the last 30 years for another 30 years into the future and tell me what there'll be for the middle class, if it still exists at all. It looks like the middle of nowhere to me, and in some respects I'm glad that I probably won't live long enough to see it. Many of the raving Righties on this board will, although I doubt they'll have the sense to remember that they were warned.

 

[Spikesoldier]

What the hell are you talking about? Oh, your strawman in bold below? You have the gall to call me a liar for something I never said. Again, I simply stated that both parties are to blame for the debt. I did not, nor am I interested in, splitting hairs to say one party is worse or more to blame for the debt.

Where did I say both parties are equal in responsibility as you state in the quote below Craig? Your hallucinating, and have the nerve to call me a liar. GFYS. And then you say that YOU correct ME? lol, go fuck your high horse.

if you dont agree with craig youre a liar in his eyes.

then he will do his special move of typing a long ass response in full partisan rage

 

[davmat787]

if you dont agree with craig youre a liar in his eyes.

then he will do his special move of typing a long ass response in full partisan rage

He can be quite ridiculous, can't he? I made a very simple statement, that both parties are to blame. Craig takes that simple statement, reads a bunch of shit into it, and somehow I am a liar because he can't handle the truth. The increasing partisanship in our country is one of our biggest problems in my opinion, and Craig merely reinforces that point.

The irony is I was disagreeing with the OP's assertion that only the Dem's are to blame.

Of course Craig won't apologize for calling someone a liar when they did nothing of the sort, that would take integrity. Rather, I expect to end up on his ignore list which would be just fine with me. You can't have any kind of discourse unless you agree with him 100%.

 

[Spikesoldier]

He can be quite ridiculous, can't he? I made a very simple statement, that both parties are to blame. Craig takes that simple statement, reads a bunch of shit into it, and somehow I am a liar because he can't handle the truth. The increasing partisanship in our country is one of our biggest problems in my opinion, and Craig merely reinforces that point.

The irony is I was disagreeing with the OP's assertion that only the Dem's are to blame.

Of course Craig won't apologize for calling someone a liar when they did nothing of the sort, that would take integrity. Rather, I expect to end up on his ignore list which would be just fine with me. You can't have any kind of discourse unless you agree with him 100&#37;.

id say let him discredit himself. soon enough, only the hardest partisan hacks will be the only ones bothering to reply to his drivel. what a lonely circle-jerk that would be.

dont waste your time trying to have a logical discussion with this guy. despite putting my best foot forward, despite all forewarning and observed belligerence, i attempted the other day only to come to this same conclusion.

but craig is special, i get a good laugh out of him once in a while. mostly from all the rocks others throw at him.

 

[Jaskalas]

We can thank democrats for our debt

Well, the plan is tax and spend. Republicans are at fault for keeping taxes low.

 

[davmat787]

id say let him discredit himself. soon enough, only the hardest partisan hacks will be the only ones bothering to reply to his drivel. what a lonely circle-jerk that would be.

dont waste your time trying to have a logical discussion with this guy. despite putting my best foot forward, despite all forewarning and observed belligerence, i attempted the other day only to come to this same conclusion.

but craig is special, i get a good laugh out of him once in a while. mostly from all the rocks others throw at him.

I think that is sound advice, thank you good sir. :thumbsup:

My theory is that with the hard core partisan tools, they simply cannot fathom that there are those who don't subscribe to any single party or ideology. These type of people seem to want to have everyone neatly labeled and in their proper place. Why? I don't know, maybe it makes thinking less difficult, the same way being a partisan whore allows one to have their priests tell them what to believe. It is becoming almost religious to some people around here.

 

[Spikesoldier]

I think that is sound advice, thank you good sir. :thumbsup:

My theory is that with the hard core partisan tools, they simply cannot fathom that there are those who don't subscribe to any single party or ideology. These type of people seem to want to have everyone neatly labeled and in their proper place. Why? I don't know, maybe it makes thinking less difficult, the same way being a partisan whore allows one to have their priests tell them what to believe. It is becoming almost religious to some people around here.

IMO its more akin to the brand loyalty phenomenon where they attach their favorite corporation i.e. ford vs chevy, or ati vs nvidia; or even their favorite political party to their egos. say something bad about their favorite corp or party, and its a kick to their ego.

see this profound study circulated in the video cards forum earlier this year.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...f-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image.ars

really sheds a lot of light into fanboy-ism or partisan hacktivism.

 

[davmat787]

IMO its more akin to the brand loyalty phenomenon where they attach their favorite corporation i.e. ford vs chevy, or ati vs nvidia; or even their favorite political party to their egos. say something bad about their favorite corp or party, and its a kick to their ego.

see this profound study circulated in the video cards forum earlier this year.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...f-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image.ars

really sheds a lot of light into fanboy-ism or partisan hacktivism.

Interesting link, I just skimmed through the first page and will read it in detail shortly. Thanks!

 

[Spikesoldier]

Interesting link, I just skimmed through the first page and will read it in detail shortly. Thanks!

its a definite read. should be sticked in both VC&G forum and P&N forum IMO. i just fear that it would be ineffective to anyone who already is being exploited in this fashion.

 

[thobel]

Anyone who think's one party is at fault is a fool. Federal Spending is out of control. Bill Clinton got lucky with an economy going gangbusters (Although he did pretty good with slowing spending)

This is the root of our problem right here.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending

When federal spending grows faster than Americans' paychecks, the burden on taxpayers becomes greater. Over the past few decades, middle-income Americans' earnings have risen only 27 percent, while spending has increased 299 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau and White House Office of Management and Budget

This problem stems from Nixon/Ford Until now with not one president without blame.

For the nutty people

Bush was bad for debt and deficits
Obama has done nothing to fix it and if you think a massive growth in goverment spending (unrelated to the many so called jump starting the economy programs) They he has caused a MASSIVE jump in spending when we can least afford it.

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/184257-obamas-spending-ideas-unbalanced

Already under Obama, federal government spending has exploded by more than $600 billion per year. In President George W. Bush&#8217;s last full year in office, federal spending was just under $3 trillion; under Obama, it increased to approximately $3.6 trillion. That&#8217;s an increase of more than 20 percent, and it is set to rise even further

On Obama&#8217;s watch so far, the size of the cumulative federal debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.8 trillion &#8212; about 40 percent &#8212; and it continues to climb

I'm NOT trying to slam Obama and claim Bush/Republicans are great. I'm trying to point out that right now we are heading into the abyss at high speed... And to be honest I don't think anyone from either party can fix it. Both parties use our tax money more or less as bribes to get votes its what they know and it works..

 

[umbrella39]

seriosuly thank the democrats that we have for this debt. THink of obamas health care plan, since the republicans took over house, our spending is at better control!

Seriously... stop typing in the dark.

 

[trenchfoot]

seriosuly thank the democrats that we have for this debt. THink of obamas health care plan, since the republicans took over house, our spending is at better control!

LOL, and an extra hearty LOL at the folks who really believe this...this....this paper sack of steaming turd the OP set on fire on this forum's front porch is anything but the prank it was meant to be.

But hey, I do recall seeing here in this forum Limbaugh/Rove/O'Reilly/Beck inspired drivel worse than this OP's bowel buster. So maybe, just maybe, the OP is ignorant enough to think what he/she posted is the truth?

Either way, so so funny.😀

 

[thobel]

I now understand how people have 5000-1000 posts

 

[airdata]

Let's not ignore the 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Or the amount of money they and their acquaintances made in profit.

 

[shadow9d9]

100 billion per year for healthcare didn't cause our debt, considering our 2 occupations cost more than healthcare for americans...

Cutting taxes for the rich has certainly had much more of a negative affect on our debt...