Democrats & Debt

[myrkul]

Destroy the Democrats

At any cost

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?

[1713853045]

1713853045

[RodeoX]

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

[evolve]

Sure, a Bockman/Palin presidency sounds very responsible.

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.....

[Mittlyle]

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 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.

[NghtRppr]

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

NO

[GideonGono]

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:

ROFLMGDAO!!

[netrin]

ROFLMGDAO!!

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

[myrkul]

ROFLMGDAO!!

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.

[em3rgentOrdr]

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:

ROFL! 

[GideonGono]

ROFLMGDAO!!

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

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

[netrin]

ROFLMGDAO!!

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

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

GIYF

[BioMike]

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.

[grantbdev]

OP is really funny 

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.

[LokeRundt]

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?

[BioMike]

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?

[netrin]

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?

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

[grantbdev]

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?

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.)

[BioMike]

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?

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?

[grantbdev]

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.)

[BioMike]

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.