Let me know when you find a republican who gives a shit about any examples like this. It might take a while.
Ball's in your court, Dems
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
I imagine that you think I will disagree with you, don't you?
Sorry, I can't. We are not screwed because of one party. We are screwed because we have been asleep at the wheel as voters, and voting for people who will give "us" more $$ for decades.
The popular vote doesn't matter and a simple majority doesn't either for a good reason. We are a representative republic because true democracy sucks as a political system.
I doubt the Democrat platform is in line with the majority of people too.
But there’s only one party that consistently threatens the full faith and credit of the United States and potentially crashing our economy.
No one here is arguing that both parties don’t spend money.
And that would be the Democrat party. Just wait until the tidal wave of open hands coming across the border overload the social safety net.
Political hypocrisy is naturally inherent but sometimes it jumps the shark, to the point of shamelessness.
We knew after driving the deficit to the moon in the previous four years that republicans would pivot back to being concerned about debts and deficits...but this is obviously a shameless POS win win move for them to get their way or to crash the economy and push us into a recession that we've been able to avoid because they think it will 'make Dems look bad' to the uninformed.
A f'd up win win....even though the wealthy and the close to retirees would feel it.
Sure but one time over thirty years means your message resonates with a minority and man, that's exhausting to stay in power nationally when you are a minority. It's much easier to try to game it vs adopting a platform, or influencing why your platform is better.
It actually kind of cracks me up that conservatives say they're going to move to conservative states.
Good.
Yes leave purple Colorado and go to red Florida.
As much as it cracks me up that conservatives have bought into voting by mail is bad (because ya see it's much more efficient to ensure everyone gets their vote counted when you have time to vote vs doing a massive cattle call in one day). So what happened last time and at the mid terms, Republicans in general tried to do the cattle call and suppressed their own vote.
As far as the electoral college that devalues the city density voice, maybe we need to think about how to take away the massive tax advantage that high density areas provide to everyone. Let's have the sparse populations and poor states get back what they put in.
Example, the isolated suburbs are too spread out can't afford to sustain themselves. While yes, higher incomes are in the burbs, the density isn't there. It's especially not there in rural areas. You get tax density from cities and major metropolitan areas.
Since our taxes are treated as an overall general fund, maybe it's time rural areas start getting back what they put in, especially since they have a louder voice that decides our political leaders and legislators.
Since we are a representative republic and all.
The rural areas grow and produce the food that the cities need to subsist. We mine the materials needed to provide energy and build the products people use. Where do you think all the materials needed to build the megastructures and all the housing people need?
Don't act like rural people sit on their ass and don't provide anything.
“Tax cuts for the rich” is the sure sign or a moron. Disengage. The rich pay all the taxes so of course they benefit most when taxes are cut.
It’s that kind of asinine thinking that makes one want to subsidize sub prime mortgages by punishing those with good credit.
Democrats as a whole are largely fiscally illiterate.
It’s that kind of asinine thinking that makes one want to subsidize sub prime mortgages by punishing those with good credit.
Democrats as a whole are largely fiscally illiterate.
The problem is Democrats largely dismiss the idea of incentivisation and trade offs. They take for granted that they can bilk the wealthy until forever and the wealthy will never do anything about.
That you can incentivize bad credit and people will still maintain good credit anyway.
At their core a Democrat is someone who believes any problem can be solved with government intervention. But it is self evident that every time the government helps one person it hurts another, or multiple others.
They’re morons.
That you can incentivize bad credit and people will still maintain good credit anyway.
At their core a Democrat is someone who believes any problem can be solved with government intervention. But it is self evident that every time the government helps one person it hurts another, or multiple others.
They’re morons.
The majority of the tax benefits went into stock buybacks...not the trickle down investments that were supposed to raise the middle and lower class average salaries.
It didn't happen. It just exacerbated the wealth gap. Therefore the blanket statement...tax breaks for the rich.
The point wasn't to discuss the Trump tax cuts, it was throwing out the one thing that Republicans tried to do that had the intent to help people.
How do culture wars help people?
Crazy fired back at me that things aren't good for the middle and lower class, which I agreed.
What are you guys doing for that? Scapegoating?
Democrats started the culture wars. Maybe you should stop.
20 years ago a man in a dress reading to children or a young girl chopping off her tits would have been unacceptable.
Yet you now push that shit. And you say we’re the ones who started it when in reality you have just completely lost your mind.
Look on the mirror. You’re a disgrace.
There would be less culture war stuff if the left would quit pushing boundaries of logic and nature. Most people don't know the crap even exists until the left starts screaming.
Stock buybacks benefit anyone who holds stock. Pension funds, 401K’s, etc.
Plus they give corporations more cash with which to invest and innovate. When corporations invest and innovate the economy grows. When wealth is transferred from the wealthy to low income people that money is spent on rudimentary goods and services.
There is an economic philosophy based on the idea that everyone should be able to afford rudimentary goods and services. And it’s terrible. But you believe in it.
Like I said, you’re an illiterate.
Ahh the capitalist mantra (which I believe a majority in principle).
Everyone is accountable for their success and everyone has the same opportunities as everyone is wonderful in principle.
It's not reality unfortunately and never has been.
More to it there have been some pretty corrupt measures taken to ensure some succeed while others fail....which is most likely where we disagree politically.
You and I, we did or are doing fine. Both probably grew up in a home that our parents and grandparents were able to aquire and sell and build some wealth which will transfer to us and provided us with the means to not only get a great education but also to make mistakes and get second and third chances.
Simply change our skin color or our sex and it's a completely different story for us.
I mean our grandparents and/or parents weren't even allowed to buy property during the post WW2 economic boom so no acquired wealth, no college education, living in very poor neighborhoods.
So yeah, good luck to both of us.
You're little legal issue with the bar....yikes good luck with that also.
I agree, stock buybacks are good for me personally but the majority of my wealth is in investments.
It's also better for me to have a disciplined and quiet labor class who serves me, a winner of the pure capitalism game.
The rest is just speculation, a re-wrapped version of trickle down.
The results have been predictable. I've done well, but it's Maga that's all of a sudden complaining about the working class.
It was crazy who got on my ass like he represented the working class.
You just said that concept that everyone should be able to afford basic needs is terrible.
That's not in line with the grievance. Your stance is well known.
This is not racially exclusive. People of all stripes experienced the same.
It’s not speculation. The majority of investment and innovation comes from well capitalized organizations as a rule. Without investment and innovation there is no growth.
As a rule if you support higher corporate taxes you support slower growth. And that hurts everyone.
Agree, but there were specific covenant laws that specifically forbid the sale of property to blacks along with forbidding them the ability to get mortgage loans even if they had the means.
Last edited:
The only woman on here makes lazy, unthoughtful posts, and feels her perspective deserves more consideration because of her gender.
Crayfish and Hickory receive the same amount of hate because they’re equally lazy and unthoughtful.
back to saying the same lies over and over.
conservatives are unabashed pathological liars, see it as just being smart, and competitive, and can't fathom why anybody would be any other way.
and you can't explain it to them any more than you can explain music to a deaf person, or the color red to a blind person.
they just didn't get certain genes at birth that libs did, so i suppose it's not really their fault, but it sure makes life miserable for everyone else.
which they also have absolutely no problem with, for the same reason.
Please explain how taking money from corporations and giving it to the government is going to increase growth? Let’s start there.
You're painfully unaware. The House voted this week to increase the debt ceiling on basically a straight-party vote. Republicans passed it.
Then the government has been violating the Constitution for a long time regarding payments. Just ask any business who has contracted with the government. Have a client who has been waiting 3 years for that payment.
Is the Debt Limit Constitutional? Biden Aides Are Debating It.
A standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation’s borrowing limit has administration officials debating what to
dnyuz.com
3 equal branches.Is the Debt Limit Constitutional? Biden Aides Are Debating It.
A standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation’s borrowing limit has administration officials debating what to
Who holds the checkbook?
The Treasury Department. They're the ones who have to pay the bills the Congress keeps racking up.
Last edited:
Yup, that's the way it's set up now. Congress racks up the bills, but won't allow Treasury to pay them unless Congress promises to rack up fewer bills in the future.
Not only that, but default is not a requirement if the debt level is not increased. Revenue - and lots of it - will be coming in. It's the Treasury's choice to pay bills with what it's got.
Default would be Joe's fault.
Beside, the Republicans have already passed a bill to increase the debt ceiling, so what's the big deal?
The Treasury doesn't have enough coming in to cover all the bills that are due. That's the whole point.
If the govt owes money to companies that have provided goods and services to it, but won't pay the bill, how is that not a default?
Then decisions have to be made don't they? If we don't want decisions to have to be made, maybe it is a good thing that Biden and Schumer realize they got outmaneuvered last week and are coming to talk.
The amount our deficit and debt are increasing every year is unsustainable. So much so that rolling back the bull shit and misnamed debt reduction act and setting the baseline budget just 1 year ago with incremental increases is demagogued as beyond the pale. Nah, **** that. If it is that important, the Democrats can raise taxes on everyone to cover the deficit and then we can have a real talk with the public about what their government costs instead of living the high life while expecting our kid's kid's kids to pick up the bill.
Fretting that this fight will wreck the US faith and credit is just refusing to accept our piece in this whole thing while calculating we'll be gone before it matters.
I'm trying to remember, has a Dem Congress ever held the debt ceiling hostage during a Republican administration? And has a Pub Congress every held the debt ceiling hostage during a Republican administration?
