Is the Republican Party dying?
Yes
47.1% (65)
47.1% (65)
No
52.9% (73)
52.9% (73)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is the Republican Party "Dying"? Will it "Die" Sometime In The Near Future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

farson135:

Lilani:
Even if it's all the tea party's fault, I don't think that's any reason they shouldn't apologize for what has gone on in the last 4 years. Either they need to take a lot of action and prove they are willing to meet in the middle, or they should be prepared to apologize for all the negotiations they have refused to engage in (like the way they held the debt ceiling and the country's AAA rating over the heads of the Democrats to get what they wanted last year).

You are aware that Rand Paul was willing to give the DNC everything it wanted (in terms of raising the debt ceiling) IF they would pass a balanced budget amendment out of the Senate. In other words you give us the chance to get what we want (because there are still several more steps it has to go through) and we will give you exactly what you want. Sounds like a compromise to me.

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

recruit00:
It does sound like a compromise but too bad the amendment is an awful idea.

Tyler Perry:
A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

First of all I was directly refuting the idea that even the Tea Party refuses to compromise.

Second of all a balanced budget amendment is a good idea.

farson135:

recruit00:
It does sound like a compromise but too bad the amendment is an awful idea.

Tyler Perry:
A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

First of all I was directly refuting the idea that even the Tea Party refuses to compromise.

Second of all a balanced budget amendment is a good idea.

What if there is a war with North Korea and our economy is at 20% unemployment? What are we gonna do? The problem with it is that to stay at balanced budget, so many cuts will need to be made to deal with that, causing many problems. Sometimes, you just have to deficit spend. We couldn't have gotten out of the depression or fight World War Two without it.

farson135:

recruit00:
It does sound like a compromise but too bad the amendment is an awful idea.

Tyler Perry:
A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

First of all I was directly refuting the idea that even the Tea Party refuses to compromise.

Second of all a balanced budget amendment is a good idea.

Bullshit. It's a horrible fucking idea. It would basically Constitutionally mandate that Congress could authorize no emergency spending. That's a TERRIBLE idea. One of the worst ever.

arbane:

I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

Tyler Perry thinks you were just funning with me and the magenta was supposed to be a tip off.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Arbane called me an anarchist for suggesting government sometimes spends and does more than it should.

Does the pink sarcasm font mean nothing to you????

I don't think Arbane was seriously calling you an anarchist. Unclench.

Well, it was magenta!!! But seriously, is that a thing? Using another color is meant to suggest levity?

Gorfias:

arbane:

I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

Tyler Perry thinks you were just funning with me and the magenta was supposed to be a tip off.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Arbane called me an anarchist for suggesting government sometimes spends and does more than it should.

Does the pink sarcasm font mean nothing to you????

I don't think Arbane was seriously calling you an anarchist. Unclench.

Well, it was magenta!!! But seriously, is that a thing? Using another color is meant to suggest levity?

The hot pink is kind of like the stereotypical idiotic response that usually comes out of mainly republican idiots that don't know what they are talking about.

For example: Why listen to them libruls. They ain't nuthin but a buncha commies

Gorfias:

arbane:

I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

Tyler Perry thinks you were just funning with me and the magenta was supposed to be a tip off.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Arbane called me an anarchist for suggesting government sometimes spends and does more than it should.

Does the pink sarcasm font mean nothing to you????

I don't think Arbane was seriously calling you an anarchist. Unclench.

Well, it was magenta!!! But seriously, is that a thing? Using another color is meant to suggest levity?

From what I gather, it's to signify parody. Poe's Law or something. I've only been here two months and I figured that out pretty quick.

recruit00:
What if there is a war with North Korea and our economy is at 20% unemployment? What are we gonna do?

How about you cut spending and build up a surplus for rainy days (you see what I did there)?

The problem with it is that to stay at balanced budget, so many cuts will need to be made to deal with that, causing many problems.

A few thousand bureaucrats get fired and millions get saved in the red tape that the government does not have the money to maintain. Sounds good.

Sometimes, you just have to deficit spend.

No, you really don't.

We couldn't have gotten out of the depression or fight World War Two without it.

We did not get out of the depression by having people dig ditches for a decade. Germany tried that and it failed miserably. In fact many historians have theorized that Hitler launched Barbarossa sooner than he planned because he needed excuses for why the economy was stagnating. Deficit spending hides the effects of a depression and makes people feel better long enough for the market to fix itself. It does not physically do anything (for the good at least).

As for fighting WWII if we had spent wisely then it would have been fine. Do you have any idea how much money we wasted?

Tyler Perry:
Bullshit. It's a horrible fucking idea. It would basically Constitutionally mandate that Congress could authorize no emergency spending. That's a TERRIBLE idea. One of the worst ever.

Really? So how exactly did Texas (which is constitutionally required to maintain a balanced budget) pay for those wildfires that happened last year? What about the tornados? What about all the other disasters that have taken place during down times? THEY MAINTAINED A SURPLUS OVER A PERIOD OF DECADES AND WHEN BAD TIMES CAME THAT SURPLUS WAS PUT INTO USE (partially because we still have money LEFT OVER).

farson135:

Really? So how exactly did Texas (which is constitutionally required to maintain a balanced budget) pay for those wildfires that happened last year? What about the tornados? What about all the other disasters that have taken place during down times? THEY MAINTAINED A SURPLUS OVER A PERIOD OF DECADES AND WHEN BAD TIMES CAME THAT SURPLUS WAS PUT INTO USE (partially because we still have money LEFT OVER).

Texas also doesn't have to pay for a military. It's far easier to cut spending on a state level.

Of course, there's also the inconvenient truth that Texas' "balanced budget" is a bunch of bullshit.

When Texas has to fork over billions to cover the costs of two bullshit wars and a vital stimulus package to clean up the mess after President Larry the Cable Guy fucked the country over for eight years, call me.

farson135:

recruit00:
What if there is a war with North Korea and our economy is at 20% unemployment? What are we gonna do?

How about you cut spending and build up a surplus for rainy days (you see what I did there)?

The problem with it is that to stay at balanced budget, so many cuts will need to be made to deal with that, causing many problems.

A few thousand bureaucrats get fired and millions get saved in the red tape that the government does not have the money to maintain. Sounds good.

Sometimes, you just have to deficit spend.

No, you really don't.

We couldn't have gotten out of the depression or fight World War Two without it.

We did not get out of the depression by having people dig ditches for a decade. Germany tried that and it failed miserably. In fact many historians have theorized that Hitler launched Barbarossa sooner than he planned because he needed excuses for why the economy was stagnating. Deficit spending hides the effects of a depression and makes people feel better long enough for the market to fix itself. It does not physically do anything (for the good at least).

As for fighting WWII if we had spent wisely then it would have been fine. Do you have any idea how much money we wasted?

Tyler Perry:
Bullshit. It's a horrible fucking idea. It would basically Constitutionally mandate that Congress could authorize no emergency spending. That's a TERRIBLE idea. One of the worst ever.

Really? So how exactly did Texas (which is constitutionally required to maintain a balanced budget) pay for those wildfires that happened last year? What about the tornados? What about all the other disasters that have taken place during down times? THEY MAINTAINED A SURPLUS OVER A PERIOD OF DECADES AND WHEN BAD TIMES CAME THAT SURPLUS WAS PUT INTO USE (partially because we still have money LEFT OVER).

Someone doesn't know their history. Germany invaded Russia for the oil and resources, not because they were stagnating. In fact, when Hitler was in power, their economy was actually doing real well and going up. You know the autobahn? That was Hitler's idea and it gave the economy a huge boost, just like our Eisenhower interstate highway plan. And launching an attack would make the economy worse? Somebody also doesn't understand their economics. If government spending increases, aggregate demand increases, raising price levels, output, and unemployment. If he attacked to prove the economy was bad, he was an idiot and I guarantee that the "many" was very few. Also, deficit spending may cause some crowding out but the economy will still be improving. Again, learn your economics.

And do you seriously expect the government to run a surplus. We can't even run a balanced budget properly, let alone a surplus. And how will making cuts SAVE jobs?! That makes no sense whatsoever. And how long did that surplus take to build up and how much of it was used in it? If they had to make cuts elsewhere, then deficit spending would have made more sense there.

Tyler Perry:

farson135:

Really? So how exactly did Texas (which is constitutionally required to maintain a balanced budget) pay for those wildfires that happened last year? What about the tornados? What about all the other disasters that have taken place during down times? THEY MAINTAINED A SURPLUS OVER A PERIOD OF DECADES AND WHEN BAD TIMES CAME THAT SURPLUS WAS PUT INTO USE (partially because we still have money LEFT OVER).

Texas also doesn't have to pay for a military. It's far easier to cut spending on a state level.

Of course, there's also the inconvenient truth that Texas' "balanced budget" is a bunch of bullshit.

When Texas has to fork over billions to cover the costs of two bullshit wars and a vital stimulus package to clean up the mess after President Larry the Cable Guy fucked the country over for eight years, call me.

Yeah, states do have easier times of balancing budgets like the reasons mentioned by Tyler.

Anyway, how would you propose balancing the budget and saving jobs at the same time? This will be a laugh.

Tyler Perry:
Texas also doesn't have to pay for a military.

Yes it does. Texas funds several military and paramilitary units including the Texas State Guard (not the National Guard) which includes land, sea, and air units.

It's far easier to cut spending on a state level.

No it isn't. More necessary spending occurs on the state level.

Of course, there's also the inconvenient truth that Texas' "balanced budget" is a bunch of bullshit.

First of all Perry has nothing to do with it (Texas actually has one of the weakest governor positions in the country).

Second of all the constitution requires the budget to be balanced for 2 years at a time. It is. They can shift the funds however they want as long as they are all paid eventually and they will be next session.

When Texas has to fork over billions to cover the costs of two bullshit wars and a vital stimulus package to clean up the mess after President Larry the Cable Guy fucked the country over for eight years, call me.

So you are trying to argue against a balanced budget by arguing that the government wasted a shit ton of money it didn't have without accountability. That actually sound like an argument in my favor.

recruit00:
Someone doesn't know their history.

You better have something really good to back that up.

Germany invaded Russia for the oil and resources, not because they were stagnating.

So much so that they obliterated half of western Russia. Down the line that was the plan but not the immediate plan. It was the immediate plan of Ludendorff during the 1st World War but that didn't work. Most of Germany's upper echelon remembered that debacle.

In fact, when Hitler was in power, their economy was actually doing real well and going up.

No, the effects were hidden. Read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze.

You know the autobahn? That was Hitler's idea and it gave the economy a huge boost, just like our Eisenhower interstate highway plan.

First of all most Germans at the time considered the autobahn a waste of money.

Second of all no, it didn't give the economy a huge boost because few people were using it at the time (not very many cars in Germany at the time).

And launching an attack would make the economy worse? Somebody also doesn't understand their economics. If government spending increases, aggregate demand increases, raising price levels, output, and unemployment. If he attacked to prove the economy was bad, he was an idiot and I guarantee that the "many" was very few. Also, deficit spending may cause some crowding out but the economy will still be improving. Again, learn your economics.

Learn to read. He launched the attack because the economy was stagnating and he wanted an excuse for it (if you actually listened to a few of his speeches he in fact made many excuses for the poor economy). Do you honestly think that the Axis could have sent 4 million soldiers into combat without any economic repercussions? That does not even include the occupying forces and the far rear echelon. The economy was not improving and it was getting worse. By launching the attack he hoped to hide the effects of what he was doing further and at the same time rally the people to his cause.

You realize that FDR told Americans that they would sacrifice (and we did) in order to fight WWII? The US economy and population was far larger than that of Germany and yet Americans had lots of rationing.

And do you seriously expect the government to run a surplus. We can't even run a balanced budget properly, let alone a surplus.

Texas managed it. Are you saying the feds can't?

And how will making cuts SAVE jobs?! That makes no sense whatsoever.

By decreasing red tape.

And how long did that surplus take to build up and how much of it was used in it?

The surplus has existed since 1989 but it has been dipped into several times. As of now about 3 billion in total was used and there is about 6 billion left over.

If they had to make cuts elsewhere, then deficit spending would have made more sense there.

No, it wouldn't have.

recruit00:
Yeah, states do have easier times of balancing budgets like the reasons mentioned by Tyler.

No they don't.

Anyway, how would you propose balancing the budget and saving jobs at the same time? This will be a laugh.

Cutting useless departments and combining redundant departments combined with caps to non-major spending bills, combined with caps to salaries and benefits combined with a few thousand other things. For the love of Christ do you honestly need me to tell you that the government wastes a lot of money?

As for saving jobs decrease red tape including (for example) the requirement that all barbers must have a college degree.

farson135:
snip

You stated that he needed an excuse for why the economy is stagnating. Going to war doesn't make stagnation, it will boost aggregate demand. And yeah, those state guardsmen are nowhere near the cost of the federal military. And how does one state have a weaker governorship than any other? That makes no sense. As for the wars argument, Tyler was saying that the costs Texas has should not be complained about because federal costs are huge relatively. Even if we didn't have Iraq, we would still be in a ton of debt. Again, someone doesn't know their history. Resources weren't in western Russia. They were in the eastern part near Stalingrad and in Siberia so the West was insignificant. And 100,000 people working on the autobahns is nothing to scoff at when they have 66 million people in their country and many of the non oppressed were getting those jobs. And after I did some reading, he started the war to get the economy going, not to show the people the economy sucked. There is no way the Feds can do it. Have you seen them? Texas may have been able to do it but in stupid ways. And again, how is cutting red tape going to create jobs and where may I ask? I do agree that some of the red tape is stupid. But first, what departments do you want eliminated and find out whether they are all the ones Perry recommended eliminating, including the Department of Ummmmm...

recruit00:
Going to war doesn't make stagnation, it will boost aggregate demand.

Wow, boosting government spending will increase a number that is calculated using government spending. Who would have expected such an improbable effect?

And yeah, those state guardsmen are nowhere near the cost of the federal military.

Duh, but they are a military force.

And how does one state have a weaker governorship than any other? That makes no sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense because each state has its own constitution and they structure the government how they want. Are presidents as powerful in every single republic on earth? We are talking about Nazi Germany and Hindenburg had a shit ton more power than even our modern president.

As for the wars argument, Tyler was saying that the costs Texas has should not be complained about because federal costs are huge relatively. Even if we didn't have Iraq, we would still be in a ton of debt.

The feds costs are huge but they also have more to draw from.

Again, someone doesn't know their history. Resources weren't in western Russia. They were in the eastern part near Stalingrad and in Siberia so the West was insignificant.

WHAT? Are you fucking kidding me? Western Russia is where everything is. By the time the Germans had advanced to their furthest extent they had taken over 45% of the Russian population. Hell one of the reasons that Hitler wanted to attack was because Stalin was moving all of Society Industry TO the east to form a buffer zone. The Ukraine, Leningrad, the Caucasus, the majority of iron and coal, oil, a majority of the factorie. So was a majority of the rails and roads in the Soviet Union. Also the Tula arms factory which is one of the most important arms manufacturing areas in the entire Soviet Union. All were in the west

And after I did some reading, he started the war to get the economy going, not to show the people the economy sucked.

How exactly does taking away millions of workers and massive amounts of raw materials and cutting off trade with a majority of the world's economy make an economy get going?

There is no way the Feds can do it. Have you seen them? Texas may have been able to do it but in stupid ways.

They did it and it is successful.

And again, how is cutting red tape going to create jobs and where may I ask? I do agree that some of the red tape is stupid.

By making it easier to get a job and create businesses.

But first, what departments do you want eliminated and find out whether they are all the ones Perry recommended eliminating, including the Department of Ummmmm...

The CIA, NSA, DHS, and half a dozen other agencies can be folded into each other.

The vast majority of federal departments are either redundant (how many different agricultural departments does the government need?) or exist for the sole purpose of the bureaucracy. The majority of them can be cut or folded into other departments and in the process you can decrease costs.

Seekster:

We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

No, the S&P downgrade was The Republicans' fault.

farson135:
snip

Just because they are a military force doesn't mean they cost as huge a percentage as the federal military. And do you even know what aggregate demand means? I don't know the differences between state constitutions so that I can't really make an opinion on. Honestly, I am not going to explain basic economic principles and why supply side is a bad idea. I will be here forever. If arbane or Tyler want to, that's fine by me.

recruit00:
Just because they are a military force doesn't mean they cost as huge a percentage as the federal military.

Tyler said that Texas does not have to pay for a military. He is wrong it does.

And do you even know what aggregate demand means?

AD=C+I+G+(X-M)

I don't know the differences between state constitutions so that I can't really make an opinion on.

It is not an opinion it is basic fact that different states give different powers to the governor. The state of Texas has gone through 7 different constitutions. The last one was adopted in 1876. They adopted it after the governorship of Edmund Davis who was so despised that he was the last Republican governor elected into office for over a century.

Honestly, I am not going to explain basic economic principles and why supply side is a bad idea. I will be here forever.

If you do not have the ability to defend your position then don't say anything.

farson135:

recruit00:
Just because they are a military force doesn't mean they cost as huge a percentage as the federal military.

Tyler said that Texas does not have to pay for a military. He is wrong it does.

And do you even know what aggregate demand means?

AD=C+I+G+(X-M)

I don't know the differences between state constitutions so that I can't really make an opinion on.

It is not an opinion it is basic fact that different states give different powers to the governor. The state of Texas has gone through 7 different constitutions. The last one was adopted in 1876. They adopted it after the governorship of Edmund Davis who was so despised that he was the last Republican governor elected into office for over a century.

Honestly, I am not going to explain basic economic principles and why supply side is a bad idea. I will be here forever.

If you do not have the ability to defend your position then don't say anything.

Oh I have the power to defend my side for a long time but I'm not going to sit through an argument when someone refuses to understand the economic effects of a government's actions. And I know states have different constitutions, I'm not stupid. I don't know what powers each state has, especially Texas since I am from Pennsylvania and I don't even know our constitution. And again, yes you may have to pay for a military but its relative cost is nothing compared to federal.

recruit00:
Oh I have the power to defend my side for a long time but I'm not going to sit through an argument when someone refuses to understand the economic effects of a government's actions.

I recognize its effects and I am not impressed.

And I know states have different constitutions, I'm not stupid. I don't know what powers each state has, especially Texas since I am from Pennsylvania and I don't even know our constitution.

But you should have known that each governor has different powers. To my comment about how different governors have different levels of power you said- "That makes no sense."

And again, yes you may have to pay for a military but its relative cost is nothing compared to federal.

Irrelevant to my point.

farson135:

recruit00:
Oh I have the power to defend my side for a long time but I'm not going to sit through an argument when someone refuses to understand the economic effects of a government's actions.

I recognize its effects and I am not impressed.

And I know states have different constitutions, I'm not stupid. I don't know what powers each state has, especially Texas since I am from Pennsylvania and I don't even know our constitution.

But you should have known that each governor has different powers. To my comment about how different governors have different levels of power you said- "That makes no sense."

And again, yes you may have to pay for a military but its relative cost is nothing compared to federal.

Irrelevant to my point.

And your point is what exactly? And I did make mention of not thinking about different constitutions so there is no need to bring it up anymore.

As for the economy, how do YOU propose we fix this economy? And how can you recognize the effects when you don't see how going to war can improve the economy.

recruit00:
And your point is what exactly? And I did make mention of not thinking about different constitutions so there is no need to bring it up anymore.

Then don't.

As for the economy, how do YOU propose we fix this economy?

The economy is not broken. It stopped functioning correctly and a realignment of resources was necessary. No more.

Four-fifths of all our troubles would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still.
-Calvin Coolidge

And how can you recognize the effects when you don't see how going to war can improve the economy.

Let me ask you something, did the war in Iraq help the economy? Would you suggest going to war with Iran or maybe start an even bigger war by attacking North Korea in order to help the economy? I doubt it.

farson135:

recruit00:
And your point is what exactly? And I did make mention of not thinking about different constitutions so there is no need to bring it up anymore.

Then don't.

As for the economy, how do YOU propose we fix this economy?

The economy is not broken. It stopped functioning correctly and a realignment of resources was necessary. No more.

Four-fifths of all our troubles would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still.
-Calvin Coolidge

And how can you recognize the effects when you don't see how going to war can improve the economy.

Let me ask you something, did the war in Iraq help the economy? Would you suggest going to war with Iran or maybe start an even bigger war by attacking North Korea in order to help the economy? I doubt it.

It depends on how the war is being done. If it is like the world wars where we have lots of factories building stuff, then it can help but since we have such a large military as it is, we need to do very little production and basically just have to send the troops. And I would never ever recommend a war to fix the economy. A good economy is nice but an unnecessary war is really bad.

Oh, and how are these resources realigning. Considering the economy is very slowly changing and a good amount of people left the labor force, how do you explain that?

farson135:
Four-fifths of all our troubles would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still.
-Calvin Coolidge

Calvin Collidge does not help your case. He presided over a time that led up to the crash of 1929 and did nothing while troubles built until that point.

recruit00:
It depends on how the war is being done. If it is like the world wars where we have lots of factories building stuff, then it can help but since we have such a large military as it is, we need to do very little production and basically just have to send the troops.

Actually no. We are producing billions of dollars in ammunition, firearms, accessories, and other equipment. A friend of mine works at LaRue Tactical. One of that company's main purposes is adding special modifications to AR-15s and military m-16s. In other words their business is built around the fact that the military needs their main battle rifle to be better equipped for desert warfare (among other things). Thousands of businesses have cropped up to fulfill the needs of the military. The majority of the accessories the military uses were pioneered by civilians. There are also many more companies that rely on the used surplus the military is providing. A friend of mine knows someone who works in Iraq and took used US military equipment, refurbished it, and sold it to civilians in the US (mostly).

Oh, and how are these resources realigning. Considering the economy is very slowly changing and a good amount of people left the labor force, how do you explain that?

Because those people were in unnecessary areas and the resources have not been given the chance to realign. The government's actions hindered the realignment of resources into necessary areas.

Think about it this way did the recession hit everywhere at once or did it hit different areas in different ways? Obviously the latter. Why? Because different areas had industries that were necessary and others did not. As the resources realign (people's money flows down the pipe and funds the right areas) the recession ends. Right now money is flowing away from the housing and other industries and going elsewhere where other industries are growing.

Naheal:
Calvin Collidge does not help your case. He presided over a time that led up to the crash of 1929 and did nothing while troubles built until that point.

Actually the troubles had nothing to do with Coolidge. Half were there before he got into office and he could not have done anything about them anyway (unless he had a time machine) and the other half happened after he got out of office.

farson135:

Naheal:
Calvin Collidge does not help your case. He presided over a time that led up to the crash of 1929 and did nothing while troubles built until that point.

Actually the troubles had nothing to do with Coolidge. Half were there before he got into office and he could not have done anything about them anyway (unless he had a time machine) and the other half happened after he got out of office.

His term was from 1923-1929. By doing nothing over an eight year period while he was easily one of the most powerful men in the country, it could easily be considered his fault, and rightly so. Considering how long it takes anything to happen within a democratic society, the first year of a presidency is likely an effect from the previous term.

Edit: Apologies. 6 years. I can math.

recruit00:

farson135:

recruit00:
It does sound like a compromise but too bad the amendment is an awful idea.

Tyler Perry:
A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

First of all I was directly refuting the idea that even the Tea Party refuses to compromise.

Second of all a balanced budget amendment is a good idea.

What if there is a war with North Korea and our economy is at 20% unemployment? What are we gonna do? The problem with it is that to stay at balanced budget, so many cuts will need to be made to deal with that, causing many problems. Sometimes, you just have to deficit spend. We couldn't have gotten out of the depression or fight World War Two without it.

1. North Korea is as much of threat to us as an ant colony. The nation has extremely little amounts of ammo, gas, and modern armor (the lion share of their air forces are made up with the same migs they fought the Korea war in and BIPLANES), with the nations reserve troops being old men and children with bladed weapons. I doubt they have enough fuel (sold to them at extra cheap prices by the chinese, who I think would cut the supplies if North Korea declared war on it's main exporter) to invade South Korea, let alone mount an effective attack on a nation an ocean away.

2. How does war suddenly create unemployment? Yeah, every bomb dropped could of gone to something else, destroying wealth. However, weapon companies will be hiring a LOT of people, because war means they sell off a lot of equipment very fast.

farson135:
You are aware that Rand Paul was willing to give the DNC everything it wanted (in terms of raising the debt ceiling) IF they would pass a balanced budget amendment out of the Senate. In other words you give us the chance to get what we want (because there are still several more steps it has to go through) and we will give you exactly what you want. Sounds like a compromise to me.

Imagine if you will that the opposition parties are the democrats and the Nazi party of America (still a real thing). The Nazi party is being extremely ornery and refusing to build any form of coalition government, but one member supposes that if the democrats push the "Jews are not citizens" amendment to the constitution, they would basically cave on every other issue. Is that "willing to compromise"? Or is that "Hey, we'll do stuff you want to do if you suck our dicks"? I think it's the latter, personally. Why? Well, because a balanced budget amendment is, in this current environment, completely unreasonable, ridiculously unrealistic, and destructive beyond belief. And no, I'm not going to debate that with you, because if you disagree, you are wrong.

Oh, and for the record? The german economy going into World War 2 was absolutely amazing. Hitler used deficit spending and totalitarian labor policies to ramp up an economic recovery basically unlike any other the world has seen.

I don't think that the republicans will die. Hell, the dems split 3 ways during the cold war, and they survived. The conservative dems just switched to the republican side. So maybe the liberal and moderate republicans will just do the same and jump ship to the dems. I mean, let's face it this isn't the first time a party has been hysterical and survived.

But I think it may be safe to say this is all the Dixiecrats' fault.

*shakes fist*

Stagnant:

Oh, and for the record? The german economy going into World War 2 was absolutely amazing. Hitler used deficit spending and totalitarian labor policies to ramp up an economic recovery basically unlike any other the world has seen.

I don't know man, the Japanese economic growth before WWII was pretty fucking absurd. May give them a run for their money

EClaris:

Stagnant:

Oh, and for the record? The german economy going into World War 2 was absolutely amazing. Hitler used deficit spending and totalitarian labor policies to ramp up an economic recovery basically unlike any other the world has seen.

I don't know man, the Japanese economic growth before WWII was pretty fucking absurd. May give them a run for their money

The German economy going into WW2 was superficially amazing, but in truth had considerable underlying problems. Good growth should have been natural as well: it had suffered heavy decline in the 1920s which left it very lean and competitive to rebound in the 1930s.

Japan would grow like crazy in that period because pretty much all countries do during their period of industrialisation. See 1700s UK, late 19th century USA, 1920-1930s USSR, postwar South Korea, or China now.

Agema:
The German economy going into WW2 was superficially amazing, but in truth had considerable underlying problems. Good growth should have been natural as well: it had suffered heavy decline in the 1920s which left it very lean and competitive to rebound in the 1930s.

Yes. "Hitler at least fixed the economy" is among those really old faulty ideas that still float around (especially our elders), despite historians and economists pretty much agreeing that what he created was a house of cards aimed at the war effort. This economic "miracle" was unsustainable.

arbane:

Seekster:

We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

No, the S&P downgrade was The Republicans' fault.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg...

The Gentleman:

arbane:

Seekster:

We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

No, the S&P downgrade was The Republicans' fault.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg...

Yeah yeah I can find editorials too. The problem wasnt just one party or the other, its that nobody could come up with a serious proposal to fix the problem because everyone was too busy trying to push blame off on the other person...kind of like what some people are still trying to do, ignoring the larger issue in the process.

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

arbane:

No, the S&P downgrade was The Republicans' fault.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg...

Yeah yeah I can find editorials too. The problem wasnt just one party or the other, its that nobody could come up with a serious proposal to fix the problem because everyone was too busy trying to push blame off on the other person...kind of like what some people are still trying to do, ignoring the larger issue in the process.

I'm not saying it's not an editorial, but when guys from Brookings (Liberal think tank) and AEI (their conservative counterpart) are on the same page, it may be worth actually considering their arguments.

When S&P downgraded the US's credit rating, they released a statement justifying the move. Of critical concern was this statement:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

This is scared your credit raters. Yes, the large sovereign debt is a problem, which is mentioned repeatedly in the statement, but they are more terrified that your politics have reduced basic operations of a government, such as the debt ceiling increase, to become a matter of political debate. There were stories about how when Freshmen House Republicans were told "this is seriously a bad thing to bargain over" by the very Paul Ryan you gush over. There are other stories, referenced in the linked article, about how House Freshmen Republicans straight up didn't listen to conservative economists when they said the same thing. The GOP caucus opted to put on a suicide vest and were threatening to push the button if they didn't get their way and your market's reacted to this insanity the only way they could. All the House had to do was raise the debt ceiling like every time before, and they decided to play economic chicken with it.

Your party has become dangerously detached from reality and your still refusing to acknowledge that their intransigence and brinkmanship are not just preventing problems from being dealt with, but are actively making them harder to deal with and more disastrous in their consequences. Shifting blame isn't the problem. The problem is that you have a party held hostage to members who actively make the situation worse through their stubbornness and unwillingness to work with the other party.

Seekster:
Yeah yeah I can find editorials too. The problem wasnt just one party or the other, its that nobody could come up with a serious proposal to fix the problem because everyone was too busy trying to push blame off on the other person...kind of like what some people are still trying to do, ignoring the larger issue in the process.

Err... Seekster, Standard and Poor specifically cited the inability of congress to work together and ensure that the country wouldn't go bankrupt as pretty much the number one reason for the downgrade. Now ask yourself - if one party specifically is responsible for tying up those negotiations, how the fuck is the downgrade not that party's fault? Yeah, yeah, you can throw around ideas like "well, the overarching problem wasn't solved", but the fact remains: it is 100%, entirely the republicans' faults. You can't claim that they had a good reason for it and then turn around and claim it wasn't their fault.

And you know what? We've been over this. This isn't news. This is a story that is done. Time for interpretation is over, you are wrong. The only way that the debt ceiling debate can be interpreted as anything other than the republican party inserting partisan bullshit into a crucial element of keeping the government running is historical revisionism.

And, I might add, this is part of why we see you as a republican partisan. This isn't a difficult issue.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked