Ok, so then don't vote for Republicans. NEITHER party does well with spending, and Republicans have talked a good game about wanting to control spending, but the only ones since Reagan who have done a good job at all have been Democrats (and the good job they did is only in relation to how poorly the Republicans have done...Democrats haven't really done a good job).
Reagan is the one who set the precedent for rampant pretty much unchecked spending. The national debt rose $7.8 TRILLION dollars while Trump was in office. I mean, be against Democrats and for Republicans if you want, but at least base that decision on reality.
We live in a 2 party system. I'm a libertarian and it would be insane to vote for Democrats. I've got no other option but Republicans. If the dinner options are sh*t and tuna salad. I'm going tuna salad every time. Republicans are tuna salad. I don't prefer it. I'd never order it. But I'll eat it if I don't have a better choice. Democrats are sh*t. And that's being kind.
Reagan's spending collapsed the Soviet Union which brought the capital flooding in which fueled the 90's boom Clinton takes credit for.
Obama added $8.3 trillion despite kicking the cost of Obamacare down the road until he was out of office. If Trump's $7.8 bothered you you must have really hated Obama.
I am in your camp. The Republicans have been pretty poor in running the Country, but these people are crazy incompetent. Plus weird.
could be worse. And improving just in time for midterms.
Conor Sen @conorsen Using the @FiveThirtyEight numbers, Biden approval at this point in his presidency is now above Reagan, Clinton, and Trump, and on par with Carter. Up 3.6% over the past month and flirting with his highest numbers of the year:
Presidential approval has very little to do with how midterms go...traditionally. In general, people are disgruntled and don't tend to like anyone who is in power.
In midterm elections, the electorate for the party in power is satisfied, and the losers from the previous election are angry and are motivated, so the losers vote against the party in power. Also, there is a percentage of people who ALWAYS vote against the party in power just as a matter of philosophy.
While I don't think this midterm will be MUCH different from the norm, I do believe Democrats will hold onto the Senate and will likely lose The House.
The two main things though that have turned the tide from what COULD have been a Red Wave (there won't be one now) are:
1) Roe v. Wade decision. Conservatives have really miscalculated here. Having abortion be illegal is a minority opinion...and by a long shot. We have already seen some election results that have been changed due to this Supreme Court decision.
2) Donald Trump's continued criminal behavior. 57% of Americans polled want investigations into him to be continued. His stock is dropping, and yet Americans recognize how dangerous he and his Trumper election denier morons are.
Will be interesting to see how the midterms shake out. It won't be a Red Wave, and anything less than that is a loser election for Republicans.
I'm not worried about the deficit. Infinite growth is maybe the only way forward. When you say cutting spending, imagine I'm a republican hearing you say "cutting carbon emissions." Similar mental response. It sounds impossible.
I think the biggest threat right now is income/wealth inequality. I think concentrated wealth at the top does not lead to job creation/wealth creation. I think trickle down is the biggest and most harmful lie we've told to the populace of this country.
It is impossible. Which is why limited government is the answer.
The richest guys in the world provide benefit to ordinary people.
The government has spent about $90 TRILLION in the last 20 years. And we're no better off than we were 21 years ago.
Government is out of control. Democrats want more government.
It's an obvious choice.
I do not believe the richest people in the world inherently benefit ordinary people. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that the richest people spend a lot of their money trying to avoid benefitting anybody other than themselves. When power is concentrated at the top so heavily, we don't get trickle down. We get rent seeking and monopolizing. We get less competition and less efficient markets. I'm not suggesting we redistribute money just because I think it's unfair. Fairness is completely beside the point. Extreme inequality is bad for the economy. Empires in the past have collapsed in part due to extreme inequality.
It is impossible. Which is why limited government is the answer.
The richest guys in the world provide benefit to ordinary people.
The government has spent about $90 TRILLION in the last 20 years. And we're no better off than we were 21 years ago.
Government is out of control. Democrats want more government.
It's an obvious choice.
I do not believe the richest people in the world inherently benefit ordinary people. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that the richest people spend a lot of their money trying to avoid benefitting anybody other than themselves. When power is concentrated at the top so heavily, we don't get trickle down. We get rent seeking and monopolizing. We get less competition and less efficient markets. I'm not suggesting we redistribute money just because I think it's unfair. Fairness is completely beside the point. Extreme inequality is bad for the economy. Empires in the past have collapsed in part due to extreme inequality.
You don't use Amazon? You don't have an i-phone? Never used Windows? Never been to Wal-Mart?
The only people getting filthy rich in America without having to put in any actual work while providing little or no benefit to anyone are politicians.
I do not believe the richest people in the world inherently benefit ordinary people. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that the richest people spend a lot of their money trying to avoid benefitting anybody other than themselves. When power is concentrated at the top so heavily, we don't get trickle down. We get rent seeking and monopolizing. We get less competition and less efficient markets. I'm not suggesting we redistribute money just because I think it's unfair. Fairness is completely beside the point. Extreme inequality is bad for the economy. Empires in the past have collapsed in part due to extreme inequality.
You don't use Amazon? You don't have an i-phone? Never used Windows? Never been to Wal-Mart?
The only people getting filthy rich in America without having to put in any actual work while providing little or no benefit to anyone are politicians.
Having 2 day shipping and an iPhone does not mean you are prospering. Personal freedom and financial stability are much better than Tiktok.
I do not believe the richest people in the world inherently benefit ordinary people. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that the richest people spend a lot of their money trying to avoid benefitting anybody other than themselves. When power is concentrated at the top so heavily, we don't get trickle down. We get rent seeking and monopolizing. We get less competition and less efficient markets. I'm not suggesting we redistribute money just because I think it's unfair. Fairness is completely beside the point. Extreme inequality is bad for the economy. Empires in the past have collapsed in part due to extreme inequality.
You don't use Amazon? You don't have an i-phone? Never used Windows? Never been to Wal-Mart?
The only people getting filthy rich in America without having to put in any actual work while providing little or no benefit to anyone are politicians.
Ok, so then don't vote for Republicans. NEITHER party does well with spending, and Republicans have talked a good game about wanting to control spending, but the only ones since Reagan who have done a good job at all have been Democrats (and the good job they did is only in relation to how poorly the Republicans have done...Democrats haven't really done a good job).
Reagan is the one who set the precedent for rampant pretty much unchecked spending. The national debt rose $7.8 TRILLION dollars while Trump was in office. I mean, be against Democrats and for Republicans if you want, but at least base that decision on reality.
We live in a 2 party system. I'm a libertarian and it would be insane to vote for Democrats. I've got no other option but Republicans. If the dinner options are sh*t and tuna salad. I'm going tuna salad every time. Republicans are tuna salad. I don't prefer it. I'd never order it. But I'll eat it if I don't have a better choice. Democrats are sh*t. And that's being kind.
Reagan's spending collapsed the Soviet Union which brought the capital flooding in which fueled the 90's boom Clinton takes credit for.
Obama added $8.3 trillion despite kicking the cost of Obamacare down the road until he was out of office. If Trump's $7.8 bothered you you must have really hated Obama.
1) Fine for you to decide that you need to vote for Republicans, but do it for correct reasons. Spending is not one of them. If you want to be against brown people or you want to support religious zealotry or you believe gay people should be treated differently than straight people, or you want our country to be run by an autocrat, by all means, vote for Republicans. But your assertion that Republicans are good stewards or even better stewards of our spending is bogus.
2) While I have said many times that NEITHER party is good at fiscal responsibility, your comment about Obama is disingenuous (I mean, of course it is) for MANY reasons...1) Obama spent that much in 8 YEARS vs. Trump spending almost the same in 4 YEARS. Good freakin' grief!...2) Obama had the burden of having to deal with The Great Recession that Bush left him. We were in deep, deep sh!it when Obama took office. The spending he did to combat that situation had bi-partisan agreement. Trump spent that kind of money despite being handed a great economy. Yes, he had to deal with a pandemic, but he was Mr. Spendy before that started...3) Trump said on the campaign trail prior to the 2016 election that he would wipe out our national debt in 8 years. Now, he didn't get 2 terms to prove that, but give me a freakin' break. He then made the enormously stupid comment about how a good stock market early on in his term nearly wiped out the national debt. Just an ignorant POS.
So again, vote for Republicans for any reason you like, but those reasons should be based on reality. Republicans have proven to be worse stewards of our money since Reagan...and actually even before him. You have to go back to FDR before you can find a Democrat who really spent more than other recent Presidents (as a percentage of adding to the national debt per term). Stop fooling yourself.
You don't use Amazon? You don't have an i-phone? Never used Windows? Never been to Wal-Mart?
The only people getting filthy rich in America without having to put in any actual work while providing little or no benefit to anyone are politicians.
Having 2 day shipping and an iPhone does not mean you are prospering. Personal freedom and financial stability are much better than Tiktok.
I didn't say it meant people were prospering I was simply pointing out that the richest men in the world got rich by providing something people actually wanted.
Amazon doesn't take any of my money unless I give it to them.
The government takes trillions of dollars from people and gives very little back and in many cases makes life WORSE for people.
We live in a 2 party system. I'm a libertarian and it would be insane to vote for Democrats. I've got no other option but Republicans. If the dinner options are sh*t and tuna salad. I'm going tuna salad every time. Republicans are tuna salad. I don't prefer it. I'd never order it. But I'll eat it if I don't have a better choice. Democrats are sh*t. And that's being kind.
Reagan's spending collapsed the Soviet Union which brought the capital flooding in which fueled the 90's boom Clinton takes credit for.
Obama added $8.3 trillion despite kicking the cost of Obamacare down the road until he was out of office. If Trump's $7.8 bothered you you must have really hated Obama.
1) Fine for you to decide that you need to vote for Republicans, but do it for correct reasons. Spending is not one of them. If you want to be against brown people or you want to support religious zealotry or you believe gay people should be treated differently than straight people, or you want our country to be run by an autocrat, by all means, vote for Republicans. But your assertion that Republicans are good stewards or even better stewards of our spending is bogus.
2) While I have said many times that NEITHER party is good at fiscal responsibility, your comment about Obama is disingenuous (I mean, of course it is) for MANY reasons...1) Obama spent that much in 8 YEARS vs. Trump spending almost the same in 4 YEARS. Good freakin' grief!...2) Obama had the burden of having to deal with The Great Recession that Bush left him. We were in deep, deep sh!it when Obama took office. The spending he did to combat that situation had bi-partisan agreement. Trump spent that kind of money despite being handed a great economy. Yes, he had to deal with a pandemic, but he was Mr. Spendy before that started...3) Trump said on the campaign trail prior to the 2016 election that he would wipe out our national debt in 8 years. Now, he didn't get 2 terms to prove that, but give me a freakin' break. He then made the enormously stupid comment about how a good stock market early on in his term nearly wiped out the national debt. Just an ignorant POS.
So again, vote for Republicans for any reason you like, but those reasons should be based on reality. Republicans have proven to be worse stewards of our money since Reagan...and actually even before him. You have to go back to FDR before you can find a Democrat who really spent more than other recent Presidents (as a percentage of adding to the national debt per term). Stop fooling yourself.
Yea but this Administration gets the award for incompetence and weird behavior.
Having 2 day shipping and an iPhone does not mean you are prospering. Personal freedom and financial stability are much better than Tiktok.
I didn't say it meant people were prospering I was simply pointing out that the richest men in the world got rich by providing something people actually wanted.
Amazon doesn't take any of my money unless I give it to them.
The government takes trillions of dollars from people and gives very little back and in many cases makes life WORSE for people.
This is sort of like comparing your sales department to your IT department. Sure, sales brings in all the money, but unless you spend the appropriate amount on IT infrastructure, the company will collapse in the inefficiency of a tech deficit.
I'm saying that the engine of capitalism can run even stronger if we focus on the middle class as opposed to the corporations and ultra rich.
1) Fine for you to decide that you need to vote for Republicans, but do it for correct reasons. Spending is not one of them. If you want to be against brown people or you want to support religious zealotry or you believe gay people should be treated differently than straight people, or you want our country to be run by an autocrat, by all means, vote for Republicans. But your assertion that Republicans are good stewards or even better stewards of our spending is bogus.
2) While I have said many times that NEITHER party is good at fiscal responsibility, your comment about Obama is disingenuous (I mean, of course it is) for MANY reasons...1) Obama spent that much in 8 YEARS vs. Trump spending almost the same in 4 YEARS. Good freakin' grief!...2) Obama had the burden of having to deal with The Great Recession that Bush left him. We were in deep, deep sh!it when Obama took office. The spending he did to combat that situation had bi-partisan agreement. Trump spent that kind of money despite being handed a great economy. Yes, he had to deal with a pandemic, but he was Mr. Spendy before that started...3) Trump said on the campaign trail prior to the 2016 election that he would wipe out our national debt in 8 years. Now, he didn't get 2 terms to prove that, but give me a freakin' break. He then made the enormously stupid comment about how a good stock market early on in his term nearly wiped out the national debt. Just an ignorant POS.
So again, vote for Republicans for any reason you like, but those reasons should be based on reality. Republicans have proven to be worse stewards of our money since Reagan...and actually even before him. You have to go back to FDR before you can find a Democrat who really spent more than other recent Presidents (as a percentage of adding to the national debt per term). Stop fooling yourself.
Yea but this Administration gets the award for incompetence and weird behavior.
I hope the Democrats win both houses. I don’t really see real change until it all blows up. That is much more likely with these nuts fully in charge.
1) Fine for you to decide that you need to vote for Republicans, but do it for correct reasons. Spending is not one of them. If you want to be against brown people or you want to support religious zealotry or you believe gay people should be treated differently than straight people, or you want our country to be run by an autocrat, by all means, vote for Republicans. But your assertion that Republicans are good stewards or even better stewards of our spending is bogus.
2) While I have said many times that NEITHER party is good at fiscal responsibility, your comment about Obama is disingenuous (I mean, of course it is) for MANY reasons...1) Obama spent that much in 8 YEARS vs. Trump spending almost the same in 4 YEARS. Good freakin' grief!...2) Obama had the burden of having to deal with The Great Recession that Bush left him. We were in deep, deep sh!it when Obama took office. The spending he did to combat that situation had bi-partisan agreement. Trump spent that kind of money despite being handed a great economy. Yes, he had to deal with a pandemic, but he was Mr. Spendy before that started...3) Trump said on the campaign trail prior to the 2016 election that he would wipe out our national debt in 8 years. Now, he didn't get 2 terms to prove that, but give me a freakin' break. He then made the enormously stupid comment about how a good stock market early on in his term nearly wiped out the national debt. Just an ignorant POS.
So again, vote for Republicans for any reason you like, but those reasons should be based on reality. Republicans have proven to be worse stewards of our money since Reagan...and actually even before him. You have to go back to FDR before you can find a Democrat who really spent more than other recent Presidents (as a percentage of adding to the national debt per term). Stop fooling yourself.
Yea but this Administration gets the award for incompetence and weird behavior.
We live in a 2 party system. I'm a libertarian and it would be insane to vote for Democrats. I've got no other option but Republicans. If the dinner options are sh*t and tuna salad. I'm going tuna salad every time. Republicans are tuna salad. I don't prefer it. I'd never order it. But I'll eat it if I don't have a better choice. Democrats are sh*t. And that's being kind.
Reagan's spending collapsed the Soviet Union which brought the capital flooding in which fueled the 90's boom Clinton takes credit for.
Obama added $8.3 trillion despite kicking the cost of Obamacare down the road until he was out of office. If Trump's $7.8 bothered you you must have really hated Obama.
1) Fine for you to decide that you need to vote for Republicans, but do it for correct reasons. Spending is not one of them. If you want to be against brown people or you want to support religious zealotry or you believe gay people should be treated differently than straight people, or you want our country to be run by an autocrat, by all means, vote for Republicans. But your assertion that Republicans are good stewards or even better stewards of our spending is bogus.
2) While I have said many times that NEITHER party is good at fiscal responsibility, your comment about Obama is disingenuous (I mean, of course it is) for MANY reasons...1) Obama spent that much in 8 YEARS vs. Trump spending almost the same in 4 YEARS. Good freakin' grief!...2) Obama had the burden of having to deal with The Great Recession that Bush left him. We were in deep, deep sh!it when Obama took office. The spending he did to combat that situation had bi-partisan agreement. Trump spent that kind of money despite being handed a great economy. Yes, he had to deal with a pandemic, but he was Mr. Spendy before that started...3) Trump said on the campaign trail prior to the 2016 election that he would wipe out our national debt in 8 years. Now, he didn't get 2 terms to prove that, but give me a freakin' break. He then made the enormously stupid comment about how a good stock market early on in his term nearly wiped out the national debt. Just an ignorant POS.
So again, vote for Republicans for any reason you like, but those reasons should be based on reality. Republicans have proven to be worse stewards of our money since Reagan...and actually even before him. You have to go back to FDR before you can find a Democrat who really spent more than other recent Presidents (as a percentage of adding to the national debt per term). Stop fooling yourself.
1. Trump was a disaster on spending. But he lowered my taxes. If I have to choose between the government wasting my money or someone else's money I'll always choose to keep my own money.
Who's "against brown people"?? If Republicans are the boogeyman for "brown people" why are minorities increasingly leaving the Democrats to vote for Republicans? Only 19% of hispanics approve of Joe Biden. Blacks are at 53% which is crazy low considering they vote 95% for Democrats no matter what. It seems destroying inner city schools has its benefits eh?
Both parties are a disaster on spending because GOVERNMENT is a disaster on spending.
Only 1 party wants to make government bigger.
2. You accuse me of being disingenuous and then immediately blame the housing bubble crash on Republicans. LOL! Democrats demanding home loans be given out based on feelings rather than credit score caused the 2008 crash. COVID was orders of magnitude greater than the 2008 crisis. The entire world economy basically shut down.
Over 60% of the Federal budget is entitlements created by Democrats. More than 60 cents of every dollar the federal government spends goes to fund "free stuff" Democrats gave away to buy votes. Once you give away the "free stuff" it is political suicide to take it away from the voters.
Voting for the party that wants to keep adding entitlements is INSANE.
It is impossible. Which is why limited government is the answer.
The richest guys in the world provide benefit to ordinary people.
The government has spent about $90 TRILLION in the last 20 years. And we're no better off than we were 21 years ago.
Government is out of control. Democrats want more government.
It's an obvious choice.
I do not believe the richest people in the world inherently benefit ordinary people. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that the richest people spend a lot of their money trying to avoid benefitting anybody other than themselves. When power is concentrated at the top so heavily, we don't get trickle down. We get rent seeking and monopolizing. We get less competition and less efficient markets. I'm not suggesting we redistribute money just because I think it's unfair. Fairness is completely beside the point. Extreme inequality is bad for the economy. Empires in the past have collapsed in part due to extreme inequality.
Just a strange economic philosophy when you think rich people can decouple their economic fate from everyone else. I’m not sure how that can work? They just make lots of stuff by themselves and sell it to each other? The stuff gets teleported between rich people? Totally illogical
Not even bringing up the abundant evidence that disputes your first sentence…good intentions are vastly overrated. The Dim party should adopt that as their mantra. And in regard to how this applies to minorities…your party undeniably owns what’s happening in inner city America. After 50-60 years and 3 or so generations of one party rule, it’s your responsibility.
The discussion was about the messaging. I don't think the Democrats messaging on race is divisive. I think the message of "diversity" is inclusive. I think it's a little silly that some white people take this as a threat.
A great read is “Hate Crime Hoax, How the Left Started a Fake Race War”. The author is a black college professor and fellow Illinois alum. Lots of examples from investigations of actual reported hate crimes. Most turn out to be fake. And lots of data about racism in American especially in regard to policing. The general conclusion there is that when normalized using the violent crime rate there’s close to zero racism in policing. Real in depth data analysis not the superficial stuff liberal schlep.
Yea but this Administration gets the award for incompetence and weird behavior.
I hope the Democrats win both houses. I don’t really see real change until it all blows up. That is much more likely with these nuts fully in charge.
Faulty reasoning there.
You call Democrats "nuts", but more Americans support Democrats than support Republicans. I realize your view is skewed because you live in backwards Idaho. So, wishing for what the majority already think to have complete control of both houses and the White House is not going to be the negative you think it will.
There are no Democrat policies that would make anything "blow up". Technically speaking, there aren't even any Republican policies that would make anything "blow up." There are BAD Republican policies that will have negative consequences if allowed to go on unchecked (views on abortion, guns, pollution, and keeping brown people out), but even those bad positions are just the normal consequence of elections.
The ONLY really bad thing right now is Donald Trump and his moron followers. He is an autocrat. He is dangerous. He is anti-American. The country will be better off (and we WILL get there) once Trump is completely out of the picture and his sycophants stop kowtowing to him and his moron supporters.
The discussion was about the messaging. I don't think the Democrats messaging on race is divisive. I think the message of "diversity" is inclusive. I think it's a little silly that some white people take this as a threat.
A great read is “Hate Crime Hoax, How the Left Started a Fake Race War”. The author is a black college professor and fellow Illinois alum. Lots of examples from investigations of actual reported hate crimes. Most turn out to be fake. And lots of data about racism in American especially in regard to policing. The general conclusion there is that when normalized using the violent crime rate there’s close to zero racism in policing. Real in depth data analysis not the superficial stuff liberal schlep.
As noted earlier Democratically administered cities become increasingly unlivable. The philosophy drives the unhinged behavior.
I didn't say it meant people were prospering I was simply pointing out that the richest men in the world got rich by providing something people actually wanted.
Amazon doesn't take any of my money unless I give it to them.
The government takes trillions of dollars from people and gives very little back and in many cases makes life WORSE for people.
This is sort of like comparing your sales department to your IT department. Sure, sales brings in all the money, but unless you spend the appropriate amount on IT infrastructure, the company will collapse in the inefficiency of a tech deficit.
I'm saying that the engine of capitalism can run even stronger if we focus on the middle class as opposed to the corporations and ultra rich.
Government is absolutely necessary. But we became a superpower with a government that wasn't even a fraction of the size it is today. The government spent almost $7 TRILLION just last year alone. That's over $21,000 for every single man, women, child, and non-binary amorphous human in the country.
More government is never the answer to any problem.
Step one is getting the money out of politics. The corporations and ultra rich buy all of the elections. Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 MILLION of his own money to ensure the 2020 election turned out the way he wanted.
Lobbyists and special interests are a symptom of big government.
Ok, so then don't vote for Republicans. NEITHER party does well with spending, and Republicans have talked a good game about wanting to control spending, but the only ones since Reagan who have done a good job at all have been Democrats (and the good job they did is only in relation to how poorly the Republicans have done...Democrats haven't really done a good job).
Reagan is the one who set the precedent for rampant pretty much unchecked spending. The national debt rose $7.8 TRILLION dollars while Trump was in office. I mean, be against Democrats and for Republicans if you want, but at least base that decision on reality.
We live in a 2 party system. I'm a libertarian and it would be insane to vote for Democrats. I've got no other option but Republicans. If the dinner options are sh*t and tuna salad. I'm going tuna salad every time. Republicans are tuna salad. I don't prefer it. I'd never order it. But I'll eat it if I don't have a better choice. Democrats are sh*t. And that's being kind.
Reagan's spending collapsed the Soviet Union which brought the capital flooding in which fueled the 90's boom Clinton takes credit for.
Obama added $8.3 trillion despite kicking the cost of Obamacare down the road until he was out of office. If Trump's $7.8 bothered you you must have really hated Obama.
Yep. I lean libertarian and voted for them. But on the stuff that matters most Republicans are much clear choice.