Bitcoin Forum

The graphs below show that Democrats are incapable of managing the U.S economy.


http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee378/smellyBobbyb/us-government-debt.png


Republicans always inherit governments containing fiscal time-bombs. They battle against the culture created by the previous democratic government only to be thrown out of office. Democrats inherit a government of strong fiscal position. Bill Clinton in particular inherited the good works of Bush senior. The American people realized this and decided that they would remove Bill Clinton in favor of Bush Junior. Unfortunately Bush Junior inherited a fiscal mess from the Clinton administration. But the American people have made the same mistake again by electing President Obama.

Lets try to understand this more closely.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee378/smellyBobbyb/US-government-expenditure.png

This graph clearly shows consecutive Republican governments attempting to reduce the government spending created by the previous democratic governments. But to no avail. The American people realized that Clinton was secretly implementing programs of massive government spending. Luckily Bush Junior was elected, because if Clinton was allowed to continue the damage would have been much worse. Thank God for all of those fiscal conservatives that removed Clinton. And as it can be seen Bush is fighting a losing battle against the large spending programs started by Bill Clinton.


Now lets look at government revenues.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee378/smellyBobbyb/GeneralGovernmentRevenues.png

Republicans are very efficient operators. They extract the bare minimum from the American people, where as the Democrats are greedy and need lots of money to fund their big spending habits. Look at Bill Clinton, this guy thought he was clever, but he was wrong, the American people were on to him. He tried to extract significant sums of money from the American people and implement lots of secret big spending government programs. But he was undone! The Republicans were elected to return American to strong fiscal standing. Bush Junior was able to fight two wars and reduce taxes. Why can't the Democrats do this ? And they wonder why the American people are unhappy.




   

    
Outlaw the Democrats. Being a Democrat is unconstitutional. Its unlawful. Its evil. Americans must remove Obama before he commits the same evils as Clinton.  Americans must engage in a unrelenting battle to spread the message of the Republican Goodness. The media must be used to spread the word of the Republican message, at all costs, and even subliminally. The American people must have their senses saturated with the message of the Republican Goodness.

Only then will America be liberated of the perpetual Debt Disease caused by Democrats.

I think I've figured out who stinkyBilly is:

http://anewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Political-Satirist-Stephen-Colbert.jpg

False.

I am not a comedian. I am here with a serious and urgent message. That is all.


STOP THE DEMOCRATS.


American debt is a serious issue and Americans must do everything in their power to stop Obama. The graphs clearly show that the worst possible outcome is a Democrat government. Revolution is the only possible way to solve this. Americans must find the next Bush prodigy. Bush prodigy must be elected. Bush prodigy will return the American economy to its rightful position as global powerhouse.

Bush prodigy will do this by

(1) Reducing all tax rates to zero.

(2) Punish the selfish parasitic public service by making all public servants work for nothing until they die!

(3) Unify the American people by liberating a lucky country oppressed by a ruthless leadership.

These simple steps are all that is needed to solve America's debt crisis. None of this Bi-partisan nonsense. Obama, Democrats and the Republican traitors must all be publicly crucified. Americans must demonstrate that such behavior will not go unpunished.

Are you incapable of reading first the chart you provided?

Democrat Kennedy left the country in better shape then he got it in and left it in a positive trajectory. 

Republican Nixon and Ford added more debt.

Democrat Carter was close to neutral though added a minor amount of debt.

Republicans Regan and Bush added a huge amount of debt.

Democrat Clinton did what no other president has done on the modern era:
He brought us out of MASSIVE debt into savings. 

Republican Bush DESTROYED the economy and gave us crippling debt.

Democrats are neutral or pay off debt, republicans have added huge amounts of it and left the economy in shambles often.



 

Your kidding me right ? Your obviously a staunch democrat supporter with a strong unconscious bias that distorts your perception of reality.


Let me outline it in simple terms. Go back and observe the graphs. Clearly Republican administrations inherit governments with democrat created fiscal time bombs.


Lets look at Mr Clinton. It is obvious from the graphs that Mr Clinton created a reckless spending culture within the U.S governmental bodies. But the American people are extremely intelligent, and were able to stop Clinton's deceptive agenda. Imagine how much worse it would have been if the Democrats were elected for a third term!! Perhaps the data would show that the massive government spending programs implemented would start to plunge America into a massive debt! But no, Americans are much to smart to allow this. Instead they would rather reinstate a fiscally responsible Republican administration to uncover the Democrat induced mess and restore America to strong financial standing.


So please, I know facts can be hard to deal with. Especially these ones. But take a deep breath and you like me will realize the solution to this mess:

So the reason the Democrats are at fault is because they generally leave the budget in better shape than they left it, forcing the Republicans to cut taxes and overspend their way into debt, like the way a trophy wife with an enabling husband becomes a shopaholic.

Gotcha

Democrats certainly do not leave the budget in better shape. The American people are intelligent, and realized this. This is why they remove the Democrats before they create an even greater fiscal mess. But sometimes the American people have lapses in their thinking and mistakenly elect the evil Democrats. Sometimes they need to be reminded of the destruction the Democrats can cause. Look at what George Bush had to endure. If it were not for the secret big spending policies implemented by Clinton then Bush would not have needed to plunge the grand U.S of A into massive debt.

Look at the graph. Clearly Bush Junior was trying his hardest in the first term to reduce the debt. And luckily the intelligent American people realized that Bush needed another term to rescue America's financial situation. The American people are so smart, if only they had elected him for a third term. Imagine if every single citizen in the world was as smart as the average American citizen. The world would be a much better place!

You are stuck in the false Left Right Paradigm that there is a difference when it comes to Dems or Reps.  President don't control shit, they are controlled.  And the Congress and Senate are for the most part being paid and/or being threatened/blackmailed to tow the line they are told.

Plain and simple.

Would have told him this long ago, if I thought it would make a difference.

No, actually I am not a staunch democrat supporter.  I think the interests of the country are no longer being represented by either party.  Both parties are doing only what keeps them elected now.  They get elected by money that comes from big corporations or by bizarre religious nuts.

Your bias is quite clear, not just from your fonts and language but from your complete inability to look at a simple graph. 
Your bias has caused you not to look at your own data (or at least data you provided).  The graph is QUITE CLEAR. 

wow.  just wow.

You are wasting your time. He's just trolling. He loves the dems

LOL STOP.  :)

So lemme get this straight. Savings=bad. Debt=good.
http://genaud.net/bitcoin/inverse_gold_10years.gif

I wish.

The one GIGANTIC flaw in your premise is that you think the president has anything to do with the country's economy, which is what actually drives government debt.

Don't confuse us with facts. Australian Economic perspective:

http://genaud.net/bitcoin/australian-economics.png

That graph looks Chinese, and is thus communist propaganda!

Sure, a Bockman/Palin presidency sounds very responsible. ::)

You are absolutely right, Billy.

Are the Republicans prepared to pay that cost? Are they willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to destroy the Democrats?

Will they tear down the State to save the Economy?

Well, billy did type in the largest font... I guess I'm convinced.

i think i threw up in my mouth a little.  :)   seriously, those two would put the final nail in the american empires coffin.





as for the op, if  you actually think that bush inherited debt from clinton (under whom the country had a $230 billion surplus) as opposed to the debt being incured by major wars on multiple fronts, huge tax cuts to the upper 2%, corporate welfare, and the crumbling of the housing and financial markets,  then you are seriously beyond hope.

stop drinking the faux news kool-aid.....

You got to be a troll...

Anyway, easy way to debunk this bs-thread is to look at the area between the curve and the x-axis. Democrats have clearly less deficit spending if you look at the first chart (considerable amount nevertheless). Clinton even managed to rise US to savings from huge deficit which was left after Reagan and Bush I. Bush II managed to plunge the deficit back to the pre-Clinton levels. Republicans have bad habit starting wars and that explains a lot. % of something charts are not difficult to read.

ROFLMGDAO!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm not terribly 31337, so what does that mean? Rolling on the floor laughing my Grand Democratic ass off?

God Damned, actually, but I like your interpretation, too.

ROFL! 

yes it's god damned. What's 31337?

GIYF

OP seems to be jobless and is supporting the Republicans... Yes, Americans appear smart if OPs intelligence is below the 90% of the population.

Joking aside, to me the US is right-winged or more right-winged. There is no left-winged party in the USA.
From my point of view: Republicans always seem to get tax reductions for rich people/companies and spend it to military "toys for big boys". Democrats always seem to have to clean up the mess of the Republicans, being unable to to actually do something useful within the time they get.

But don't worry, I see the same here in The Netherlands with the only exception that we haven't had a left-winged government for quite come time. So instead of generating huge debts, our right-winged governments have been breaking down all the social security we have build up in the past and making everything more expensive.

OP is really funny  ;D

I went to the Republican Leadership Conference this year...and I can tell you this right now that even now the front-runners for the GOP are only kind of serious about what they say about the economy. But really their main issues seem to be: Israel, Stopping Gay Marriage, Keeping Big Military, Israel, Tax Cuts for *the* "Job Creators" (hey at least they accept that class exists!), Somehow Making Sure All Children Have a Father and Mother (Apparently that is the only way "Liberty" is allowed to exist without society crumbling!), Israel, Pleasing God by making America as Christian as possible (That's the only way our country can survive by receiving his blessing!), Letting Corporations Pollute the Air (So we can breathe Freedom!), Culture Warring Against Gaga and The Gays, and uh...something about Israel?

Of course Ron Paul is always an exception (to most of these at least) but he is not a front-runner, and there were some interesting things, like a push for natural gas. Most candidates/speakers did not make clear distinctions between themselves, although some are worst than others. I particularly despise Pawlenty and Sanford, who seem to be competing for the Familyocracy vote. At this point I feel like I am going to have to vote for Obama.

Voting grants the illusion of legitimacy to this whole fucked up system of coercion/control.  If you feel the need to vote, why not vote for the underdog?

Looking at wikipedia it seems the USA has more parties then the two big ones. Why not pick one of those and convince like-minded people to vote for them as well?

I'm voting to re-elect Thomas Jefferson (who is still eligible to serve a second term)

Because the election system (in the States) is based on plurality instead of majority and we have an electoral college system independent of the results of Congress. This makes voting for 3rd parties, especially on the national level, kind of useless. Very simplified example: In 2000 there were the two major candidates: Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. There was also a more liberal than Al Gore independent name Ralph Nader. In Florida, the state that basically decided the outcome of that close election, it was decided (kind of) that George W. Bush won the election there. However, there were more votes for Al Gore + Ralph Nader combined. So people like to blame Ralph Nader and his voters for making Al Gore lose to Bush. If there was a majority system, this would not be a problem and you could vote more confidently for a 3rd party candidate.

Also, despite the assumption that because we only have two major parties they must have more power, the parties on both sides really are very broad coalitions. Also I like the ability to split your vote for the different offices (so you can choose the individual) as opposed to the parliamentary system of voting for a party (even though that allows for a wider range of parties.)

Thank you for the explanation. The parliamentary system also allows to vote for individuals, but not many people do it. Works voting for other governmental bodies (senate?) work the same as for the president elections?  Or is that more direct?

Yes, all other elective offices you vote for individuals and there is a plurality system. Of course you vote for the two Senators for your state (which is on an interval, so some states, such as mine, have both a Democrat and Republican Senator.) In some ways it is more direct because there is not an electoral college, but the electoral college rarely gets in the way of things really.

I was not aware you could split your vote in a parliamentary system. It was my understanding that you voted for your party MP and whichever party holds the majority got the Prime Minister, such that the Prime Minister always had the majority of the legislature. Unlike here where we can have a Democratic President and a Republican legislature (and vice-versa.)

Ah, I thought you meant people could only vote for a party, not individual MP. Yes, the largest party delivers the Prime Minister.

In America we have a primary system so you can vote for who the party candidate will be in the final election (this goes for almost all elective offices.) To my knowledge, I am not aware that such a thing exists in parliaments. Doesn't the party itself choose who the MP candidates will be? So in my mind, you really are voting for the party instead of the individual, as candidates are unlikely to be far off from party policy, whereas here you could potentially choose a republican to be the democratic nominee in a Congressional race. There are some pros and and cons to both systems, I guess it just depends on your preference.

In the Netherlands it depends per party how candidates are placed on the voting lists. Normally everybody who wants can sign up to be on the list for that party, the chair of the fraction is often number one on the list and other current MPs follow, new people are added after that. During voting you vote for a person, normally the first on the list. If the seat is in the vote overflows to the next person. However if someone gets more votes then the person in front of that person he/she gets the seat (even if the party doesn't like it). In that case there are 3 options: the person can keep the seat, the party asks the person to give the seat away and in that case the person can choose to do it or not, or the person decides to become an independent MP (this is also the case if the person is thrown out of the party).
After elections the largest party gets the initiative to form a coalition, where the number 1 becomes the Prime Minister and ideally you want to have more then 50% of the seats in the parliament, although that isn't required. Our current Cabinet contains 2 parties, supported by a 3rd. That in most cases give >50% support.

That is fascinating. Thank you for the insight.

It is even possible to get on the list on your own (without a party). In that way the person gets a list number instead of a party name. Another thing is that after voting often remaining seats are left, which are given to the parties depending on the remaining unfilled votes. Sometimes 2 parties cooperate and link their lists in such way that one of the two parties would get the seat instead of one of the larger parties.

This type of election is for the Parliament and Cabinet. For the Senate we choose indirectly through voting for the province council. They often contain parties that are not in the Parliament and can give sometimes interesting situations (the Cabinet needs a majority in the Senate to pass a law or plans). We had the elections for the provinces recently and the Cabinet wasn't able to get a majority with the ruling parties. Despite the fact that they got a vote from a specific party from one of the provinces about a very controversial (for that province) agreement between the Netherlands and Belgium. In the end they also had to make agreements with a very conservative right-winged Christian party to get some things passed through the Senate (where a large part of the country got a WTF? moment).