A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 53 of 725
Quote:lol. "Non-partisan". Hallmark term for ultra-Libtards who wish to hide their bias and disguise their imbalance. Not even much of a hearty attempt.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Then Trump is going in the wrong direction. He is doing worse than Obama.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I forgot to point out that Obama's pretend Revenue growth was $255 Billion in one year, despite his record of extended Recession and stagnant economic growth.
A minor amount of actual, Real growth would, by comparison, generate real Revenue growth, erasing projected deficits.
Last May, the Trump administration released a budget projecting the United States would swing from a deficit of $440 billion in 2018 to a surplus of $16 billion in 2027. The budget called for deep cuts to domestic programs and a robust increase in military spending.
Instead, the opposite has happened.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Quote:
projects that the United States will run $2 trillion annual budget deficits by 2027 and have a debt-to-gross domestic product ratio of 105 percent — a level not seen since the end of World War II.
“With this deal, we will experience trillion-dollar deficits permanently,” said Andy Roth, vice president of the conservative Club for Growth. “That sort of behavior, the last time I checked, is not in the Republican platform.”
The seeds of this ballooning debt load are already taking root — the Treasury Department said last month that it expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year (not the $440 billion previously projected) and more than $1 trillion in both 2019 and 2020. That money appears set to get only more expensive to borrow, as the Federal Reserve looks to continue raising interest rates and investors demand higher returns from an increasingly debt-laden government.
Indeed, the borrowing spree is contributing to recent volatility in financial markets, as investors fret that the additional fiscal stimulus, paired with a strengthening economy, could fuel inflation and translate into higher interest rates more quickly than anticipated.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-learn-to-love-deficit-spen
ding-they-once-loathed/ar-BBITo1p
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Moldova: official asks Russia to keep out of local politics
BUCHAREST, Romania
A top Moldovan official on Friday accused Russia of meddling in domestic politics in an election year and called on Moscow to respect the former Soviet republic.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article199267474.html
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:JewelStaiteFan didn’t check so much as one damn thing before writing about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, did you?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:lol. "Non-partisan". Hallmark term for ultra-Libtards who wish to hide their bias and disguise their imbalance. Not even much of a hearty attempt.
Originally posted by second:
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
www.crfb.org
www.crfb.org/debtfixer
https://twitter.com/BudgetHawks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budg
et
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We like to imagine American politics as a kind of scored debate, with political actors as the debaters, the media as the judge, and the public as the audience. Much of cable news is based on this metaphor. Panelists from different sides of issues are introduced to “debate” an issue; shows sell themselves as “no-spin zones”; networks brag that they’re “fair and balanced” or place “facts first.” Under this conception of American politics, a memo that proves a fraud, an argument that proves a bust, a politician who is seen to lie — all of it is revealed and punished, the system self-regulates.
But that metaphor is often wrong, and it’s particularly wrong in the ecosystem driven by Fox News and Trump’s Twitter account. If you’re just trying to activate your tribe, you don’t have to win the argument, you just need to have an argument; you need to give your tribe something to believe.
There are plenty of outlets trying to fact-check the claims, working hard to align their reporting with reality, trying to explain what’s actually happening. But explaining takes some time, it takes dates, and it takes an interest in the explanation and some interest in the people delivering it. This work never reaches most of the people convinced by the original stories, and it likely wouldn’t be credible to them even if it did. As David Roberts wrote in his important essay on tribal epistemology:
Information is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one.
You don’t need to win the argument. You don’t need to even have the facts. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy. All you need to do is craft a semi-plausible (if not entirely coherent) counternarrative, so that those who don’t want to look past the facade of Trump’s Potemkin village don’t have to.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/9/16991410/trump-fox-nunes-fbi-
warner-texts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Republicans wouldn’t spend to save US jobs until the crisis was over. Then it was too much, too late.
In 2018, with unemployment at 4.1% and interest rates on the rise, the GOP has enacted tax breaks and spending increases to the tune of $3 trillion, far more than the $800 billion included in the stimulus bill Obama and the Democrats passed over objections of every Congressional Republican in 2009.
In 2011, with unemployment at 9% and borrowing costs falling, the GOP forced a fiscal showdown that ultimately put strict caps on US borrowing, limiting the government’s ability to invest and create jobs at a critical time. Not satisfied, representative Paul Ryan proposed $5 trillion in budget cuts the next year, criticizing then-president Barack Obama’s desire to invest in infrastructure and energy projects as “looming crisis” that would bring a “crushing burden of debt.”
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
Americans had to suffer through years of unemployment and slow growth while Republicans delayed opening the fiscal spigot and borrowing more money. The GOP is now set to borrow trillions at ever higher interest rates. Do you see what is wrong with the GOP’s strategy? If you don’t, then read https://qz.com/1203958 for more details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you again lying to Fans of Firefly?
Originally posted by second:
Republicans wouldn’t spend to save US jobs until the crisis was over. Then it was too much, too late.
In 2018, with unemployment at 4.1% and interest rates on the rise, the GOP has enacted tax breaks and spending increases to the tune of $3 trillion, far more than the $800 billion included in the stimulus bill Obama and the Democrats passed over objections of every Congressional Republican in 2009.
You refer to the $800 Billion Stimulus Act in 2009, which was a complete failure due to all of it paid as kickbacks to his Donors.
Then there was the $600 Billion QE1.
Then was another $600 Billion for QE2.
Then another $480 Billion per year for QE3, which quickly got changed to $1 Trillion per year for 2013 and 2014.
Due to the failure of the Stimulus Act, Bobo demanded that he get his Stimulus Plan of 2011 passed, but reasonable people weren't buying it.
So more than $4 Trillion to prop up his failed Obamanomics, over 8 years, an average of $500 Billion per year.
And you compare this to Trump's $3 Trillion over 10 years, an average of $300 Billion per year?
Quote:yah, sure. "Investing" in more McJobs, Silindra kickbacks for the Obama campaign, and nonexistent "shovel ready" jobs to benefit Democrap Donors, that would have been a genius plan.
In 2011, with unemployment at 9% and borrowing costs falling, the GOP forced a fiscal showdown that ultimately put strict caps on US borrowing, limiting the government’s ability to invest and create jobs at a critical time. Not satisfied, representative Paul Ryan proposed $5 trillion in budget cuts the next year, criticizing then-president Barack Obama’s desire to invest in infrastructure and energy projects as “looming crisis” that would bring a “crushing burden of debt.”
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
Americans had to suffer through years of unemployment and slow growth while Republicans delayed opening the fiscal spigot and borrowing more money. The GOP is now set to borrow trillions at ever higher interest rates. Do you see what is wrong with the GOP’s strategy? If you don’t, then read https://qz.com/1203958 for more details.
Just because King and Queen Obama needed to siphon more Federal funds for their bank accounts, and Clinton Crime Family Foundation needed more kickback money doesn't mean it would have been beneficial to America.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Forget the GOP’s obvious hypocrisy on spending — ever since the Bush era, it’s been clear that elected conservatives do not really care about deficits, except insofar as they make a handy club for whacking Democrats. Instead, worry about the lessons Republicans might draw from this experience. During Obama’s presidency, the GOP’s mania for spending cuts — and its ability to wring budget concessions out of the president — was an anchor on the economy at a critical moment when millions were suffering from the aftermath of a financial catastrophe. Yet, the party suffered precisely zero political consequences. Instead, they’re in power in part because of the slow, post-crises economy at the end stages of a recovery that could help them hold onto Congress in 2018. Moreover, it's clear that nobody actually expects them to make good on their rhetoric about fiscal prudence. They’ve abandoned it pretty much without punishment. Pushing austerity during a downturn and priming the pump when the economy is near full health might turn out to be an incredibly canny political strategy, even if it may have been unplanned. If there ever comes another time when sabotaging the economy might work to Republicans’ advantage, they have every incentive to do it again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Baseless pablum. Were you referring here to Bush era as Bush43? Elected Republicans since then have been Congressmembers wringing Budget cut concessions from spendaholic Obamination, all that they could do. Appears you are allergic to facts and truth here.
Originally posted by second:
Forget the GOP’s obvious hypocrisy on spending — ever since the Bush era, it’s been clear that elected conservatives do not really care about deficits, except insofar as they make a handy club for whacking Democrats. Instead, worry about the lessons Republicans might draw from this experience.
But wait:
Quote:Are you subverting sense with the premise that spending Cuts are an anchor on the economy, and the corollary that only Government spending can allow economic growth or expansion, and Federal Debt is not the actual anchor on the economy? You should put a warning label in when you slip that nonsense in the middle of a paragraph. "Entering the rabbit hole" might be good.
During Obama’s presidency, the GOP’s mania for spending cuts — and its ability to wring budget concessions out of the president — was an anchor on the economy
Quote:
at a critical moment when millions were suffering from the aftermath of a financial catastrophe. Yet, the party suffered precisely zero political consequences. Instead, they’re in power in part because of the slow, post-crises economy at the end stages of a recovery that could help them hold onto Congress in 2018. Moreover, it's clear that nobody actually expects them to make good on their rhetoric about fiscal prudence. They’ve abandoned it pretty much without punishment. Pushing austerity during a downturn and priming the pump when the economy is near full health might turn out to be an incredibly canny political strategy, even if it may have been unplanned. If there ever comes another time when sabotaging the economy might work to Republicans’ advantage, they have every incentive to do it again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The U.S. is not one two-party nation, but two one-party nations
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-is-more-partisan-now-but
-its-not-more-divisive/amp/
Remember when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill would supposedly come to compromise over drinks?
Here’s the thing: By some measures, the United States is more partisan than ever, but that more peaceful and unified past, that golden age of unity, was … pretty much never.
Let’s think for a moment about what the nature of political division looks like right now in the U.S. Using presidential election results, my FiveThirtyEight colleague David Wasserman found that elections are getting less and less competitive at the county level; a record number of counties in 2016 voted for either Trump or Hillary Clinton in a blowout. This is consistent with findings in political science that even when national presidential races are competitive, many individual states are not. Political scientists have characterized the polarized U.S. as “two one-party nations,” instead of one two-party nation.
The issues we fight over — gender, race, immigration, culture and the role of government — divide Americans neatly and consistently under party labels. The current moment feels divisive because major policy and political questions are “sorted” between the parties — Republicans are mostly unified around one set of answers, and Democrats are mostly unified around another.
American history is also riddled with divisions, including over many of the same questions that divide us now. In particular, race and immigration have long fueled intense fights. The difference is that much of the historical conflict on these issues occurred within parties, so we have to look beyond the tensions between Republicans and Democrats to understand it. Or, often these fights remained outside of electoral politics altogether, and thus those issues went unaddressed. While they might have made for some quieter presidential election years, these dynamics masked serious problems, like inequality, exclusion and violence.
Historically divided parties
For a sense of how much more political division used to play out within each party, look at presidential conventions. A few hundred party faithful gathered every four years to pick their presidential nominee. In many years, it took multiple ballots to come to agreement – in one case, 103. Ten or more ballots were hardly standard, but they weren’t unheard of. Even a few presidents whom we often look back on as unifying — like Lincoln and FDR — took multiple ballots to win the nomination.
Since 1952, of course, every Republican and Democratic convention has been settled on the first ballot. In part, that’s because of rule changes that tied delegate voting to caucus and primary results. But it also reflects the degree to which — especially after the South shifted toward the Republicans — the two major parties no longer have highly contentious factions that disagree on central policy questions. Had modern parties faced more internal division, more presidential conventions might have started without any candidate having reached the minimum delegate threshold needed to win. Indeed, there have been a few close calls, like 1964 and 1980. Things don’t always go smoothly. But more typically, presidential nominations are tied up well before the convention begins.
Before 1952, on the other hand, party members were more likely to duke it out among themselves. Some of the squabbles at these conventions reflected tensions between candidates and factions, but they usually mapped onto some of the same issues that divide us today.
Race and immigration
Lots of evidence suggests that race and immigration are two of the main drivers of our current divided state. Political scientist Michael Tesler found that racial attitudes mattered more in 2016 than in any recent election — even 2008, when the presence of an African-American candidate shaped the political conversation.
Racial divisions between parties haven’t exactly been unheard of in U.S. history. The Rep
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
America lost a war to Russia in 2016.
Trump’s fantasy of a military parade and Trump’s choice to release or block congressional memos about the Russia probe were the two big stories of last week. At first glance, they have nothing to do with one another. In fact, they are part of the same story: a grand cover-up of American defeat.
In the past, the United States has organized grand military parades: but always after a victory in war, and always as a way of welcoming soldiers back to civilian life. So it was after the Civil War, the First World War and the Second World War. Such parades marked a moment and made perfect sense.
The problem today is that the United States has not just won a war, but lost one. Carl von Clausewitz, the great student of war, defined its aim as altering the will of the enemy. America lost a cyberwar to Russia in 2016. Defeat is hard to face; but every delay in facing the hard facts makes matters worse. This is no time for parades.
A country that treats defeat as a victory invites calamity. The only serious American response to Russia’s violation of its sovereignty, the Mueller investigation, is now also a target of Russian cyberwar. As reporting by Politico has shown, the very strange decision to release a highly partisan (and very partial) hit memo against Mueller was in large part a consequence of a cyber campaign in which Russian bots played a major part.
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-rele
ase-the-memo-216935
No array of tanks, whether at their bases or on parade in Washington, can protect us against cyberwar. Serious national defense would involve a serious defense against actual threats to sovereignty, rather than costly gestures meant to change the subject.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/america-cyberwar-russia-
2016-memo-truth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME