• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat's Spending Plans Don't Show Any Signs Of Sanity

Do you see Republicans putting forth multi-trillion dollar spending bills one after another after another?
No, but I do see them putting forth tax cuts for mostly the rich and big businesses.

Less revenue , no reduction in spending, means more debt.
Heck the US has not had a balanced budget since Bill Clinton was in office.
 
You are totally wrong about why Trump "lost".

Be that as it may, just like in 2016, Trump will appeal to ALL Americans...especially the middle class. That's why he won in 2016 and why he should have won in 2020. Trump has NEVER been arrogant toward the citizens...only toward the haters.

And yes...Trump does have "something". Something that the Dems do NOT have: The policies that are aimed for the benefit of Main Street USA.
He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes in 2016 and over 7 million in 2020. He was the most unpopular President in polling history and never reached 50% approval in the Gallup poll. Those are the sad facts. The middle class hates him and his appeal is mostly to the dregs of society who are looking for an excuse for being failures and anyone who says it is not their own fault. Losers love company and the one term mistake is the mother of all losers,
 
No, but I do see them putting forth tax cuts for mostly the rich and big businesses.

Less revenue , no reduction in spending, means more debt.
Heck the US has not had a balanced budget since Bill Clinton was in office.
You noticed that did you? Yes the Republicans will spend trillions as long as it does not benefit the average American. They see that as a waste of good money that they can put into the pockets of the 1% who will share some of it with them. They have admitted it many times too.

House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill “or don’t ever call me again”​

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...use-republicans-tax-bill-donors-chris-collins
 
Dems have a number of ways to pay for their plans but Republicans reject all of them.

They prefer that the IRS focus on folks like you and me.

Nice.
Have something to hide from the IRS do you?
 
He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes in 2016 and over 7 million in 2020. He was the most unpopular President in polling history and never reached 50% approval in the Gallup poll. Those are the sad facts. The middle class hates him and his appeal is mostly to the dregs of society who are looking for an excuse for being failures and anyone who says it is not their own fault. Losers love company and the one term mistake is the mother of all losers,
All of that is irrelevant and means nothing.

The popular vote is irrelevant. No President EVER got election by popular vote.

Popularity is irrelevant. It's the Electoral College that counts and the Electoral College is based on individual state vote counts.

The rest of your rant is a disgusting, lying insult to the American Citizenry and you should be ashamed for spewing that shit all over the forum.

You are dismissed.
 
You are blind as a bat or partisan as a bat. Republicans are part of a BIPARTISAN infrastructure plan.
So far 10 are (maybe, they haven't voted yet). Why aren't all 50 on board?
 
That's totally and completely untrue. Even Trump pushed for infrastructure. Republicans are on board with infrastructure but not by taxing more or adding to the debt, which is what Democrats want to do.
Right now maybe 10 R senators are on board. Why aren't all of them on board? Other than building part of a wall, what infrastructure programs did djt pass that were not already in progress when he came to power? djt increased the national debt to reward the richest of the rich.
 
Well then we need to ban feminism and encourage girls from kindergarten on that their goal should be to get married by 20 and have kids. Continually importing foreigners will not work because by generation three their kids endorse our degenerate culture and more diversity means more internal conflict.

The corporate overloads are screwing the worker, by lobbying for more immigration. We need a ban on all immigration for like 30 years
Worst idea ever. The rest of your post is apparently based on a fever dream.
 
Worst idea ever. The rest of your post is apparently based on a fever dream.
No, best idea ever. The immigration ban of the 20s created the society United enough to win world war 2
 
Could have written this one myself:


I notice a pattern. When Obama was president, Republicans were deficit hawks.
Then, Trump became president and not a word from Republicans about mounting deficits.
Biden gets elected and Republicans return to be deficit hawks.
Anyone notice this pattern?
 
I notice a pattern. When Obama was president, Republicans were deficit hawks.
Then, Trump became president and not a word from Republicans about mounting deficits.
Biden gets elected and Republicans return to be deficit hawks.
Anyone notice this pattern?

Under trump they suspended the debt ceiling to avoid discussing raising it before an election. They never talked about spending when Trump was president. Only about tax cuts.

When President Trump took office in January 2017, the national debt stood at $19.9 trillion. In October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion. That's an increase of almost 36% in less than four years.
 
No, best idea ever. The immigration ban of the 20s created the society United enough to win world war 2
The US was united in the 20's and 30's because of a nativist immigration policy? You're gonna need a source for that fat one.
 
The US was united in the 20's and 30's because of a nativist immigration policy? You're gonna need a source for that fat one.
Why else was that law passed?

World War Two, the civil rights movement, the beginnings of the space race, etc all took place during that time
 
Why else was that law passed?

World War Two, the civil rights movement, the beginnings of the space race, etc all took place during that time
Check your calendar, we were talking about the 20's-30's, and the unification of America that allowed them to win WW2.
 
The Dems know they have limited time with any kind of control. 2022 will cripple them and 2024 will finish the job. So they HAVE to go balls to the wall and damn the economy and the American people to get any of their liberal agenda items in place.

Trump's going to have a lot of work to do when he gets elected in 2024.
will you please, pretty please, make a wager of any dollar amount you would like, regarding trump being elected in 2024? lol.
 
That's totally and completely untrue. Even Trump pushed for infrastructure. Republicans are on board with infrastructure but not by taxing more or adding to the debt, which is what Democrats want to do.
So when Trump wanted to spend on infrastructure, how exactly was he going to pay for it without adding to the debt??
 
So when Trump wanted to spend on infrastructure, how exactly was he going to pay for it without adding to the debt??

Like always, health care, infrastructure, etc, if it is not tax cuts for the rich, deregulation to increase corporate profits or appointing right wing activists judges Mitch McConnell will shut it down.

Even Trump’s famous wall. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give trump the money for it.

Republicans protect the wealth of the wealthy. Their Donors.
 
So when Trump wanted to spend on infrastructure, how exactly was he going to pay for it without adding to the debt??
His plan was to privatize the roads. Private companies would own them and charge a toll for their use. Like the Chicago Skyway.

Dumb as hell IMO
 
Dems have a number of ways to pay for their plans but Republicans reject all of them.

They prefer that the IRS focus on folks like you and me.

Nice.
Dems control the house and senate and so why aren’t they including any mechanism to pay for the insane spending in their bills? The only response we get is an excuse about the Trump tax cuts that Dems won’t repeal.
 
If you give everyone who pays taxes a tax break, the GNP will grow and this will benefit all. For example, the Trump tax cuts grew the economy, which then lowered black, minority and female unemployment, thereby lowering the needed government spending for poverty. The reason for the growth, via a tax break, is by not giving that tax money to the knuckleheads in Washington, one can invest that extra money to get a positive rate of return; 1% in a bank account or higher in stocks.

If you give that same tax money to the government, you will always get a negative rate of return, which gets worse each time the knuckleheads deficit spend. Deficit spending requires paying ever increasing interest on that National debt, which skims money off the top of this years tax revenues, and creates a negative rate of return before anything is done. Taxes are a poor investment when knuckleheads like Pelosi and Schumer run the show. Until these incompetent people learn to balance the budget, taxes with a negative rate of return is a stupid investment.

The Trump economy grew because of the tax break and multiplier affect of the positive rate of return via the economy. Spending money in the economy trickles that money upward, where demand based investments appear that multiples that money. The Biden economy, if the Democrats are able to game the system and then rob and steal their way to larger deficits, will cause the economy to stall due to the negative rate of return. Their approach takes away the seed potato for a one time party, but destroys the hope of next years crop; negative return on investment.

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that says Government needs to create a positive rate of return on our tax investment or else the incompetent knucklehead can be fired, replaced and their personal assets seized. They have no problem seizing the assets with with higher taxes, and then spend it on bad investments with a negative return; middleman skim game.

Trump was good with the tax payer money and showed it was possible for government to get a positive rate of return. For example, he got the NATO allies to pay their fair share of international defense, thereby getting a positive rate of return; same protection for less tax money or the same money get us more. The China Tariffs also raised revenue with a small group of bureaucrats and bean counters. With investments like that and a tax break, government revenues increased due to the multiplier affect of the positive rate of return.

Trump did add to the deficit, but that was because he made the mistake of including the Democrats in all spending bill. They chose to squander their share of the tax money. Had Trump stayed firm on a positive rate of return, the knuckleheads would have stalled all i.........
You should try a different brand of Koolaid sorry. Trickle down economics like you describe has failed each time the Republicans have tried. Sure the economy initially improves, but only because of increased borrowing being injected into the economy. Take inflation and the additional borrowing out of Trumps gdp numbers and there was almost no real growth. If the govt borrows an additional $0.5T and spends it, the economy grows by ~2.5%. If the population grows by 0.5%, so does gdp. If inflation is 2%, gdp grows by ~2% etc. The only true growth that can be attributed directly to good economic policy comes from productivity increases (infrastructure spending, R&D support etc), and increased exports. Job growth is also good, but not if paid for by debt. Trump didn't do infra investment, and screwed up the export market potential through populist isolationist policies.

In real terms, Trumps "greatest economy" was a short term sugar hit of populist agendas that did more damage than good for the long term economy. Reagan was the first to go hard at tax cut driven trickle down theory. That started the rapid increase in govt debt, but people loved the economy because they ignored the debt. Trump tried to 'do a Reagan' and again people loved the economy, but ignored the debt. The core problem with that is not just how servicing that growing debt starts to slow the economy, but how the economy becomes addicted to ever increasing deficits. Like any addict trying to get clean, the economy will have to endure a world of pain to get rid of it's debt addiction, and most people won't accept that pain until an economic collapse forces it upon them. Then it will really hurt, and for a long time.

I am not defending the Dems crazy unaffordable spending plans either, but at least correctly targeted infra spending would make some real long term, sustainable difference.
 
His plan was to privatize the roads. Private companies would own them and charge a toll for their use. Like the Chicago Skyway.

Dumb as hell IMO
So effectively by increasing 'taxes' when you drive on the roads, including of course the additional profit that the private sector will need, plus of course paying for their financing costs which will be higher than the govts. That's a trick to fool the govts books rather than a real economic plan when talking about core public infrastructure.
 
So when Trump wanted to spend on infrastructure, how exactly was he going to pay for it without adding to the debt??

Most of his plan centered around the private sector doing the work and probably charging tolls, etc to pay for it.
 
Dems control the house and senate and so why aren’t they including any mechanism to pay for the insane spending in their bills? The only response we get is an excuse about the Trump tax cuts that Dems won’t repeal.

All of Biden's spending is paid for in his plan. All you have to do is read it.

Of course Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell, will fight the pay for it plan to the bitter end. It calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Now I really don't understand how Republicans can defend billionaires and huge multinational corporations paying zero taxes but they do.
 
So effectively by increasing 'taxes' when you drive on the roads, including of course the additional profit that the private sector will need, plus of course paying for their financing costs which will be higher than the govts. That's a trick to fool the govts books rather than a real economic plan when talking about core public infrastructure.
It’s just another move to privatize government
 
Back
Top Bottom