Amazing, isn’t it, that Dems were not the least bit worried during President Obama’s presidency as he doubled the debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in only eight years?
I’m sure glad that Democrats are such consistent and logical people.
Democrats are self-destructing.
- Thread starter Coach
- Start date
Amazing, isn’t it, that Dems were not the least bit worried during President Obama’s presidency as he doubled the debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in only eight years?
I’m sure glad that Democrats are such consistent and logical people.
Democrats only spend money on good things like BommaCare, BommaPhones, and welfare.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
Obama was handed a high deficit and brought it down. Since Reagan that is the difference between Republican Presidents
and Dems. Deficits rise under Republicans and shrink under Dems. Bush Jr. was handed a surplus and turned over a trillion
dollar deficit. The idea is to balance the budget and only Dems head toward that direction. Repubs talk a good game when
out of the Presidency but when in its increase spending and cut paying for spending.
and Dems. Deficits rise under Republicans and shrink under Dems. Bush Jr. was handed a surplus and turned over a trillion
dollar deficit. The idea is to balance the budget and only Dems head toward that direction. Repubs talk a good game when
out of the Presidency but when in its increase spending and cut paying for spending.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
I can assure you that is not true. If you look, historically from 1960, it seems to rise and fall significantly under each President. There are things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks for example where funding hasn't already been laid out. That said, the largest jump came from Bush's last year, $458.55 billion to Obama's first year $1.412 Trillion.
You mentioned Reagan. He started at $73.83 billion, it rose to a high of $221.23 billion, back down to $155.18 Billion his last year. Even under Obama it rose and fell almost annually, however it was greatly reduced 2012-2015, but went back up in 2016.
Look through the link. It goes up and down almost annually with every president. So your claim that deficits shrink under Dems and rise under Reps is only half true. Fact is, it rises and shrinks under all of them. One trend you will notice, however, is that SPENDING has never stopped increasing. Your issue should be with spending, not taxes.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1960_2021USb_XXs2li111mcn_G0f
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
Not true. When Bush took office in 2001, our government was running at a surplus of $128.23 billion dollars. W's highest budget deficit was $458.55 billion. Total deficit is $586.78 billion. That's not a trillion dollars.
In fact, the only President in our history to run a trillion dollar deficit is.........*drumroll*........Barrack Hussein Obama.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
Understand that 21 and most democrats don't understand the difference between annual deficits and the national debt. Hell I had to explain it to an economics professor one time.
The last year of Clinton the government ran a surplus because of the Reps. in congress not giving Clinton everything he wanted. Nobody wants to deal with either the yearly deficit or the national debt. I think Trump will get around too it. He said he won't sign another bill like the last one he signed.
Quit being racist.
https://www.dailynews.com/2018/07/1...inate-maxine-waters-for-president-answer-yes/
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters could become the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
Let me repeat that, so it can sink in: Maxine Waters could be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
Ok, let me blow into a breathalyzer, take a drug test and get psychologically evaluated before I say it a third time: Maxine Waters could be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
How is it possible that a radical congresswoman, who was just called “un-American” by the leadership of her own party for encouraging viral confrontations with Trump administration officials, could win the presidential nomination of a major American political party?
It’s easy. Mad Max is the only one dancing to the beat of the “Resistance,” and her album is about to go platinum.
Consider this, after musical icon Prince died in 2016, we learned a bunch of fascinating tidbits about the reclusive singer, including the fact that he had a wildly competitive rivalry with the King of Pop, Michael Jackson.
Apparently, Prince’s low opinion of M.J. stemmed from the fact that he thought that Jacko’s lyrics were low-brow.
In an interview with comedian Chris Rock, Prince was asked why he backed out of performing in the music video for “Bad.” “The first line of that song is ‘Your butt is mine.’ Now, who is going to sing that to whom? Cause [he] sure ain’t singing that to me, and I sure ain’t singing it to [him],” he quipped.
Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was less concerned with the lyrics, and more concerned with the beat. He felt that if people got into the beat of a song, the lyrics were almost irrelevant.
As it turns out, more music fans care about the beat than the lyrics.
A lot more fans.
To date, Michael Jackson has sold more than 750 million albums worldwide, compared to Prince’s 100 million.
There is no comparison.
The same rules apply to the world of politics.
If you don’t believe me, go back to the 2016 Republican primary.
Many of the 17 major candidates in the race understood the “lyrics” of the race just fine. Whether you’re talking about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz … all of them said and did the right things, and even dressed the part.
However, only one candidate understood the “beat” of the electorate: Donald Trump.
Pundits were quick to call him a reality show buffoon, and write him off as a shameless self-promoter who had exactly zero chance at winning the election.
Well, that turned out to be fake news.
It didn’t matter that then-candidate Trump was using salty language, or challenging Republican orthodoxies in any number of ways — he understood the mood and frustrations of the electorate better than anyone in the race.
He didn’t need to back the Brinks truck to the loading dock outside the offices of overpaid consultants, to know that the American people were furious over illegal immigration and believed the U.S. was getting screwed in our trade deals with other countries. He just knew it.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, I challenge you to find a politician or media personality who has better expressed the anger, frustration and rage of the “Resistance” better than Maxine Waters.
Joe Biden? Puh-leeze.
Kamala Harris? No way.
Hillary Clinton? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Nope, the woman who is the biggest rock star with liberals right now is Auntie Maxine. And since she gets their beat, they don’t care if her lyrics are profane or off key.
So, let me say it one final time: it is very possible that in the summer of 2020, Maxine Waters could be the Democratic nominee for president.
John Phillips is a CNN political commentator and can be heard weekdays at 3 p.m. on “The Drive Home with Jillian Barberie and John Phillips” on KABC/AM 790.
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters could become the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
Let me repeat that, so it can sink in: Maxine Waters could be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
Ok, let me blow into a breathalyzer, take a drug test and get psychologically evaluated before I say it a third time: Maxine Waters could be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
How is it possible that a radical congresswoman, who was just called “un-American” by the leadership of her own party for encouraging viral confrontations with Trump administration officials, could win the presidential nomination of a major American political party?
It’s easy. Mad Max is the only one dancing to the beat of the “Resistance,” and her album is about to go platinum.
Consider this, after musical icon Prince died in 2016, we learned a bunch of fascinating tidbits about the reclusive singer, including the fact that he had a wildly competitive rivalry with the King of Pop, Michael Jackson.
Apparently, Prince’s low opinion of M.J. stemmed from the fact that he thought that Jacko’s lyrics were low-brow.
In an interview with comedian Chris Rock, Prince was asked why he backed out of performing in the music video for “Bad.” “The first line of that song is ‘Your butt is mine.’ Now, who is going to sing that to whom? Cause [he] sure ain’t singing that to me, and I sure ain’t singing it to [him],” he quipped.
Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was less concerned with the lyrics, and more concerned with the beat. He felt that if people got into the beat of a song, the lyrics were almost irrelevant.
As it turns out, more music fans care about the beat than the lyrics.
A lot more fans.
To date, Michael Jackson has sold more than 750 million albums worldwide, compared to Prince’s 100 million.
There is no comparison.
The same rules apply to the world of politics.
If you don’t believe me, go back to the 2016 Republican primary.
Many of the 17 major candidates in the race understood the “lyrics” of the race just fine. Whether you’re talking about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz … all of them said and did the right things, and even dressed the part.
However, only one candidate understood the “beat” of the electorate: Donald Trump.
Pundits were quick to call him a reality show buffoon, and write him off as a shameless self-promoter who had exactly zero chance at winning the election.
Well, that turned out to be fake news.
It didn’t matter that then-candidate Trump was using salty language, or challenging Republican orthodoxies in any number of ways — he understood the mood and frustrations of the electorate better than anyone in the race.
He didn’t need to back the Brinks truck to the loading dock outside the offices of overpaid consultants, to know that the American people were furious over illegal immigration and believed the U.S. was getting screwed in our trade deals with other countries. He just knew it.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, I challenge you to find a politician or media personality who has better expressed the anger, frustration and rage of the “Resistance” better than Maxine Waters.
Joe Biden? Puh-leeze.
Kamala Harris? No way.
Hillary Clinton? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Nope, the woman who is the biggest rock star with liberals right now is Auntie Maxine. And since she gets their beat, they don’t care if her lyrics are profane or off key.
So, let me say it one final time: it is very possible that in the summer of 2020, Maxine Waters could be the Democratic nominee for president.
John Phillips is a CNN political commentator and can be heard weekdays at 3 p.m. on “The Drive Home with Jillian Barberie and John Phillips” on KABC/AM 790.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
THERE WAS ONLY A SURPLUS FROM THE CLINTON REGIME WHEN YOU USED ENRON STYLE ACCOUNTING!
Stop telling that lie, the only way there was a surplus under ******* Billy Blythe is if you cooked the books and extended everything with no changes for ten years.
It was a projected surplus, not actual, but a surplus nonetheless. Slick Willy lucked on on a couple of fronts. The internet and tech boom happened on his watch, also the economy was still slow until the GOP took over Congress in 1994. They kept the spending down but also cut the capital gains tax rate so all those new tech millionaires weren't afraid to sell their stock and do something with the money. End result was A LOT MORE MONEY came into the government. To his credit, Slick resisted Democrat calls to tax the internet somehow, lotta Dems were concerned that people were making money and they weren't getting a cut, but he knew the capital gains tax was giving him money to play with. One good thing about Slick, he didn't care if you got yours as long as he got his. Modern Democrats just want to take yours.
To expand on that, Slick was more of a Pragmatist like Trump and not an Ideologue -- he just didn't have a spine and kow-towed to the Liberal interests of the day. But Slick wasn't a bad President, at least IMO. Obama was the real nightmare.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Socialists on the march!
California Democratic Party Snubs Feinstein and Endorses Kevin De Leon
LOS ANGELES -- Six weeks after winning an overwhelming victory among California primary voters, Senator Dianne Feinstein suffered an embarrassing setback as the state Democratic Party officially endorsed her rival for election this November.
Kevin de Len, the Democratic leader in California's State Senate, won the support of the party leadership despite an effort by Ms. Feinstein to convince the party not to offer an endorsement.
The vote for Mr. de Len reflected the rise of younger liberal activists in the California Democratic leadership, some of whom regard Ms. Feinstein as a moderate compared with the intensely progressive voices who are coming up through the party ranks. These activists tend to be younger and more left-leaning than the state party at large.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/feinstein-california-democrats.html
California Democratic Party Snubs Feinstein and Endorses Kevin De Leon
LOS ANGELES -- Six weeks after winning an overwhelming victory among California primary voters, Senator Dianne Feinstein suffered an embarrassing setback as the state Democratic Party officially endorsed her rival for election this November.
Kevin de Len, the Democratic leader in California's State Senate, won the support of the party leadership despite an effort by Ms. Feinstein to convince the party not to offer an endorsement.
The vote for Mr. de Len reflected the rise of younger liberal activists in the California Democratic leadership, some of whom regard Ms. Feinstein as a moderate compared with the intensely progressive voices who are coming up through the party ranks. These activists tend to be younger and more left-leaning than the state party at large.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/feinstein-california-democrats.html
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Moderates fight back!
Democrats Need To Abandon 'Wild-Eyed' Race to Left
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware called on the Democratic Party to move beyond the politics of grievance and abandon its "relentless race to the left" that's been triggered by Donald Trump's presidency.
"If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism," Coons said in a speech in Washington. "And we've got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions."
Coons' speech was designed to spur a pushback against the more vocal, progressive wing of his party that has dominated media attention in reaction to Trump and his slate of contentious policies.
Despite forecasts for a "blue wave" that would hand Democrats control of Congress in November's midterm elections, Coons said he is worried that far too many in his party are squandering the opportunity by "engaging in a relentless race to the left, with more and more outrageous proposals."
He listed abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, promising free health care, guaranteeing jobs through government and attacking energy companies as hyper-liberal policy positions that are undermining the party's chances at winning back the voters it lost in 2016.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ocrats-need-to-abandon-wild-eyed-race-to-left
Democrats Need To Abandon 'Wild-Eyed' Race to Left
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware called on the Democratic Party to move beyond the politics of grievance and abandon its "relentless race to the left" that's been triggered by Donald Trump's presidency.
"If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism," Coons said in a speech in Washington. "And we've got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions."
Coons' speech was designed to spur a pushback against the more vocal, progressive wing of his party that has dominated media attention in reaction to Trump and his slate of contentious policies.
Despite forecasts for a "blue wave" that would hand Democrats control of Congress in November's midterm elections, Coons said he is worried that far too many in his party are squandering the opportunity by "engaging in a relentless race to the left, with more and more outrageous proposals."
He listed abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, promising free health care, guaranteeing jobs through government and attacking energy companies as hyper-liberal policy positions that are undermining the party's chances at winning back the voters it lost in 2016.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ocrats-need-to-abandon-wild-eyed-race-to-left
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
If true Liberal Democrats have any hope whatsoever of rescuing their party from the rabid, militant Socialist party it is becoming, more of these Dems better start speaking up because they are chasing the sane people are leaving the party in droves. Pretty soon only the lunatics will be all that remains on the Left.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
https://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm
You guys might want to get checked for Alzheimer's. TARP was signed into law on 10/3/2008 by Bush and this added approx. 700billion to Fiscal Year 2009
1.4 trillion deficit. Fiscal year 2009 went from Oct 1 2008 to Sept 30, 2009. That was Bushes budget year. That mess was cooked into the books before Obama
became President.
You guys might want to get checked for Alzheimer's. TARP was signed into law on 10/3/2008 by Bush and this added approx. 700billion to Fiscal Year 2009
1.4 trillion deficit. Fiscal year 2009 went from Oct 1 2008 to Sept 30, 2009. That was Bushes budget year. That mess was cooked into the books before Obama
became President.
One step closer to the moderate party of my dreams....
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Ha ha ha I just noticed that I typed rapid instead of rabid. Oops, time for an edit.
Most of us Conservatives here were not big fans of W. Bush. There are big government and globalist Republicans too. He was just better than the alternative. I voted for Dr. Alan Keyes in the 2000 and 2004 primaries.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
I don't really credit Clinton with a surplus because he needed the Social Security surplus to have more receipts than
expenditures. But that is also the reason why Reagan deficits were much higher. The government was using social
security surplus receipts to mask what the real deficit was.
expenditures. But that is also the reason why Reagan deficits were much higher. The government was using social
security surplus receipts to mask what the real deficit was.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
Social security was put into the general fund in 1969 under the LBJ administration. Reagan created a tax on social security, 50%. Clinton raised that tax to 85%. In fact, Al Gore cast the deciding vote as the senate was split 50-50. Maybe you should look into this stuff. Deficits rise and fall in every presidency. Maybe by raising the tax to 85%, Clinton was able to mask what his real deficits were, because they were much higher and he needed that extra tax to hide it.
Scary **** huh Coolie ?
meanwhile, over on the other side of town.......
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
73% of Democrats Want ‘A Fresh Face’ As 2020 Nominee
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are among those touted as serious Democratic presidential contenders in 2020, but three-out-of-four Democrats think their party needs to turn to someone new.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely Democratic Voters believe their party should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2020. Just 16% disagree and think the party should promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...f_democrats_want_a_fresh_face_as_2020_nominee
--------------------------
Don't take that **** Bernie!
Run left, hard left!
Third party! Greeny party!
hahahahahahaha
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are among those touted as serious Democratic presidential contenders in 2020, but three-out-of-four Democrats think their party needs to turn to someone new.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely Democratic Voters believe their party should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2020. Just 16% disagree and think the party should promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...f_democrats_want_a_fresh_face_as_2020_nominee
--------------------------
Don't take that **** Bernie!
Run left, hard left!
Third party! Greeny party!
hahahahahahaha
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
I say they should go with that commie who just got elected in NY.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
She got 16,000 votes, should be enough
but wait, it gets better!
She says Abolish all energy from coal, gas, oil and nuclear!
hahahahahaha, what a moonbat!
------------
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Will Be The Leading Democrat On Climate Change
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning primary victory over powerful U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley in the working-class New York district stretching from the Bronx to Queens is likely to propel her avowedly left-wing platform into the Democratic mainstream as the 2018 midterm elections heat up.
Ocasio-Cortez outlined plans to transition the United States to a 100 percent renewable energy system by 2035.
It’s a goal hailed by environmentalists as the last best hope of staving off the most catastrophic effects of human-caused planetary warming, and it’s one already adopted by a coalition of mayors representing 42 percent of U.S. electricity use and representing major cities such as Atlanta and St. Louis.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ange_us_5b3307a5e4b0b5e692f25e18?guccounter=1
Last edited:
Similar threads
