OK real conservatives, here is your chance. Denounce Trump for his deficit spending

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Nah, it's a meaningless "denunciation" that is actually quite common in your tribe. Anyway, you're ducking the point--your statement has no real content; it's just a mind-clearing mantra uttered by right-wing tribalists. As I said, the tax cuts are functionally identical to just borrowing money to give to rich heirs and some high earners.

You're being an idiot here, again, because you are tribal. Inga said X, so let me quickly find a way to criticize X. You also commonly confuse disagreement with your views with dishonesty or "ducking". It's narrow.

My denunciation of Trump and the GOP Congress did have a point. I think the US government spends too much money. That's a concrete statement. You can disagree with that statement, but to say it is meaningless is stupid. It has a simple and obvious meaning.

I also think the US government should take less of my money from me in the form of taxes. Again, feel free to disagree, but it is a meaningful statement.

Finally, my views on deficit spending aren't partisan, despite tribal being your new, shiny buzz word. I criticized Bush, Obama, and Trump for it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well 1 page in and Viva letting him self get derailed.

Lots of right wingers dancing around the debt question.....

There's also the predictable bullshit half-assed "denunciation" from Inga and Nosta. The fact is that only one party has been doing anything at all to reduce debt in the past 30 years. But since apparently revenue is irrelevant to (revenue-spending) and the party that is always increasing debt also blusters about it, they're equal and thus it's a non-issue.

 

[Deffid]

He has to run on the economy. Ditching questions with the Trump incoherent rumblings won't work when you are the sitting president IMO.

You are overestimating a lot of people then.

 

[Gandhi]

There's also the predictable bullshit half-assed "denunciation" from Inga and Nosta. The fact is that only one party has been doing anything at all to reduce debt in the past 30 years. But since apparently revenue is irrelevant to (revenue-spending) and the party that is always increasing debt also blusters about it, they're equal and thus it's a non-issue.

One party used debt ceilings and held the entire economy hostage during a recession, taken actions that were tantamount to treason (ok not quite, but is was fn despicable). Now that same party is racking up debt at the worst possible time in the economic cycle, and we should just chalk it up to “both parties are the same”.

One party gets a C+ on the debt and it’s not even their core issue while the other gets solid F while it screams about debt non stop when it suits them.

Not the fucking same, at all.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I denounce Trump's deficit spending, but really. .Bernie?

I'm not joking. The revolution is not being televised.

Bernie is a juggernaut now. The MSM is just trying to pretend that a party outsider isn't about to hi-jack the Democratic party.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're being an idiot here, again, because you are tribal. Inga said X, so let me quickly find a way to criticize X. You also commonly confuse disagreement with your views with dishonesty or "ducking". It's narrow.

My denunciation of Trump and the GOP Congress did have a point. I think the US government spends too much money. That's a concrete statement. You can disagree with that statement, but to say it is meaningless is stupid. It has a simple and obvious meaning.

I also think the US government should take less of my money from me in the form of taxes. Again, feel free to disagree, but it is a meaningful statement.

Finally, my views on deficit spending aren't partisan, despite tribal being your new, shiny buzz word. I criticized Bush, Obama, and Trump for it.

The last sentence makes my point perfectly. It's a utterly empty "denunciation" if you don't distinguish between Obama, who essentially fixed our long-term debt issues, and Trump, who again created an unsustainable path.

And you're conflating unrelated issues. You can oppose spending on the grounds that the poor have it too good in America or something, but when you talk about debt specifically, that is accumulated revenue minus spending so they are both relevant parts of the discussion.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The last sentence makes my point perfectly. It's a utterly empty "denunciation" if you don't distinguish between Obama, who essentially fixed our long-term debt issues, and Trump, who again created an unsustainable path.

Lol. Denouncing Trump doesn't count unless you admit that Obama > Trump and come to fully share Jack's views; and denouncing Bush, Obama, and Trump consistently for their deficit spending is tribalism.

Excessive partisanship has made you a narrow person.

 

[glenwo2]

Will Bernie even be ALIVE in 2020, let alone take office?


He has a better shot at the former than the latter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol. Denouncing Trump doesn't count unless you admit that Obama > Trump and come to fully share Jack's views; and denouncing Bush, Obama, and Trump consistently for their deficit spending is tribalism.

Excessive partisanship has made you a narrow person.

Weird that you'd make a post like that and then accuse anyone else of excessive partisanship (and, yeeesh, what's with the personal ugliness you're inserting into all your responses? Does that make you feel good?). And I don't agree with your implied view in this post (and nowhere else) that lower debt is synonymous with better. It's an objective fact that changes brought on by Obama put the U.S. debt on a path to indefinite sustainability, and that the recent tax cuts have put it on a path to requiring a fix. You can look at any analysis and reach the same conclusion. You can still hate Obama and still defend Trump while acknowledging the facts there.

The point I made is that if you're making no distinction between vastly different approaches to the issue and saying that they're all equally bad, you're not denouncing anyone. You're just chanting emptily.

 

[IGIT]

Title says it all.

I want a list of posters that I will accept talking about deficit spending, when Bernie takes office in 2020.

If you aren't willing to denounce Trump over deficit spending, then you need to shut the fuck up when Democrats take office.

For the deficit spending Trump is creating we could have Medicare for all, and debt free college education.

You got slightly better economic growth then Obama did instead. Tired of winning I'm sure.

hi Viva,

i like your idea - but i think your efforts will come to naught.

you know, when Mr. Obama was POTUS and the GOP were going ballistic about the debt (a replay of their hysteria under Mr. Clinton), i'd bringup the freewheeling spending of President W Bush.

the reply was always the same.

a) "Bush wasn't a conservative"

and...

b) "i was one of the ones speaking about that shit!"

you'll see the same propaganda foisted upon you when a Democrat takes the reigns, count on it.

- IGIT

 

[Lead]

Not only do I oppose his level of spending but I think what the increases have been going to is unnecessary.

Keep in mind though, I'm less about small government and more about funding whatever size government you have with some differences in booms/recessions.

 

[VivaRevolution]

hi Viva,

i like your idea - but i think your efforts will come to naught.

you know, when Mr. Obama was POTUS and the GOP were going ballistic about the debt (a replay of their hysteria under Mr. Clinton), i'd bringup the freewheeling spending of President W Bush.

the reply was always the same.

a) "Bush wasn't a conservative"

and...

b) "i was one of the ones speaking about that shit!"

you'll see the same propaganda foisted upon you when a Democrat takes the reigns, count on it.

- IGIT

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light

 

[Jack V Savage]

hi Viva,

i like your idea - but i think your efforts will come to naught.

you know, when Mr. Obama was POTUS and the GOP were going ballistic about the debt (a replay of their hysteria under Mr. Clinton), i'd bringup the freewheeling spending of President W Bush.

the reply was always the same.

a) "Bush wasn't a conservative"

and...

b) "i was one of the ones speaking about that shit!"

you'll see the same propaganda foisted upon you when a Democrat takes the reigns, count on it.

- IGIT

Bush raised deficits more with revenue reductions than freewheeling spending. Debt was legitimately a problem under Bush 41 and Clinton.

 

[IGIT]

Bush raised deficits more with revenue reductions than freewheeling spending. Debt was legitimately a problem under Bush 41 and Clinton.

ahoy JVS,

am i reading this chart wrong?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

President Bush seemed like the furthest thing from a $mall government conservative, in terms of the Federal outlays that occurred on his watch.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

ahoy JVS,

am i reading this chart wrong?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

President Bush seemed like the furthest thing from a $mall government conservative, in terms of the Federal outlays that occurred on his watch.

- IGIT

Chart looks right. I don't think that's the best way to look at the issue or to measure spending. Should be scaled. Not the best way to measure the president's specific impact either.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

If you don’t see the GOPs hypocrisy you never will.

It’s that simple.

 

[AndroidRage]

I will say that we could use some cutting to our massive military defense budget. The problem with that, is that the military is kind of like insurance. You spend money on it hoping that you'll never need it.

In regards to the tax cuts, unless you have some innate power to predict the future, you have no way of knowing what the negative or positive consequences will be.

To me, the consequences of moral decisions are largely irrelevant. After the Civil War, the economic consequences that was going to result from the freeing of the slaves was irrelevant in the face of the moral decision of ending the institution of slavery.

It's a more moral decision to allow individuals to keep more of the money that they earned.

Don't need the power to predict the future when we can see how it all worked out in the past. And it has never workes in the past. Trickle down economics does not work. Never has. And never will.

 

[AndroidRage]

Tiger actually won events, though. Your problem is that you're advancing two contradictory views: Your bet is a likely winner (wrong) and it's a sucker's bet (right).

Sanders had the DNC working against him alongside the media who tried thier best to ignore him. All while Hillary rigged the primaries against him. He was an outsider the most people had never heard of and now he and his policies are very popular. Many more democrats have changed thier stances on them as a result. He has changed the Democratic party like it or not.

Oh not to mention that he did this without the backing of the super wealthy or corporations via super pac. And that most super delegates voted against him even tho he won the popular vote in thier district. So yeah, Tiger won. But Tiger didnt have to deal with all of this bull shit either.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sanders had the DNC working against him alongside the media who tried thier best to ignore him. All while Hillary rigged the primaries against him. He was an outsider the most people had never heard of and now he and his policies are very popular. Many more democrats have changed thier stances on them as a result. He has changed the Democratic party like it or not.

Oh not to mention that he did this without the backing of the super wealthy or corporations via super pac. And that most super delegates voted against him even tho he won the popular vote in thier district. So yeah, Tiger won. But Tiger didnt have to deal with all of this bull shit either.

Wow is this overdramatic. He was an underdog candidate who did OK. Nothing was rigged, the media covered him the same as any similar candidate, and the primary wasn't even that close.

He also outspent his opponent.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Ok democrats, here's your chance, support Trump for the economic policy that protects America's workers long term.