Jump to content

Is Trump a racist...it's offical


DBP66

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, PJR said:

Control spending

Increase revenue by cutting the tax rate 

The revenue is one thing, but unless they control spending, there will be a permanent problem with the deficit.

With all respect, WTF?

This is fairy land. We have lived it since the 80's. 

But this does not speak to teh issue of at hand. How can you support Trump when he has created a larger deficit than any other president if you are a conservative?

 

You really can;'t see the obvious contradiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2019 at 10:10 AM, noonereal said:

With all respect, WTF?

This is fairy land. We have lived it since the 80's. 

But this does not speak to teh issue of at hand. How can you support Trump when he has created a larger deficit than any other president if you are a conservative?

 

You really can;'t see the obvious contradiction?

Not when Congress keeps spending. Besides, Obama ballooned the deficit more than anyone.  

I mentioned what needs to be done and it's the proper course.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PJR said:

Not when Congress keeps spending. Besides, Obama ballooned the deficit more than anyone.  

I mentioned what needs to be done and it's the proper course.  

What do you think of the following articles?  It seems that a bit of hypocrisy from what Republicans have said and what they do.  Trump is much worse...so far at least as far as spending and revenue.

A good way I use to determine what politicians really think is by how they vote and not by what they say.  

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/10/08/the-gop-is-a-deficit-fraud/#7ddebfc7263d

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, World Citizen said:

What do you think of the following articles?  It seems that a bit of hypocrisy from what Republicans have said and what they do.  Trump is much worse...so far at least as far as spending and revenue.

A good way I use to determine what politicians really think is by how they vote and not by what they say.  

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/10/08/the-gop-is-a-deficit-fraud/#7ddebfc7263d

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

Only looked at the first link - I have to say the economy was as strong with Reagan as with anyone, maybe more. He eventually had his tax bill passed the second or third year, as it was blocked by a Democratic Congress. Clinton had success as a continuation of Reagan's policies, with a slight interruption of Bush 1. Clinton benefited from a newly-elected Republican Congress with their "Contract for America." After two years with a Democratic-controlled Congress, Clinton's first two years were bad. 

The economy had strong years in the mid-60's BECAUSE of Kennedy's tax cuts - he was dead by the time it took effect and Johnson reaped the rewards. Kennedy could not run today as a Democrat with his platform as president. 

The 1970's economy had sluggish moments with Nixon, Ford, and Carter - presidents of both parties. The 50's were pretty solid with Eisenhower, a Republican. 

As for Princeton economists, I get cynical, as so many college professors are very liberal. 

For the record, I am not Republican; I am an independent conservative. I may vote like a Republican, but I am not and I admit to voting for the Republican at times because it is the lesser of two evils. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PJR said:

Only looked at the first link - I have to say the economy was as strong with Reagan as with anyone, maybe more. He eventually had his tax bill passed the second or third year, as it was blocked by a Democratic Congress. Clinton had success as a continuation of Reagan's policies, with a slight interruption of Bush 1. Clinton benefited from a newly-elected Republican Congress with their "Contract for America." After two years with a Democratic-controlled Congress, Clinton's first two years were bad. 

The economy had strong years in the mid-60's BECAUSE of Kennedy's tax cuts - he was dead by the time it took effect and Johnson reaped the rewards. Kennedy could not run today as a Democrat with his platform as president. 

The 1970's economy had sluggish moments with Nixon, Ford, and Carter - presidents of both parties. The 50's were pretty solid with Eisenhower, a Republican. 

As for Princeton economists, I get cynical, as so many college professors are very liberal. 

For the record, I am not Republican; I am an independent conservative. I may vote like a Republican, but I am not and I admit to voting for the Republican at times because it is the lesser of two evils. 

Thanks for the reply.  If you have the time or the inclination, check out the other 2 links.  Lol @ Princeton economist.  You get 20 economist in a room and ask them a question, you get 20 different answers.

The point of the links was to say that even Republicans say they stand for certain things but at the end of the day, there is little evidence that they indeed support those things.  Namely deficits and debt.  IMHO, what they are consistent about are tax breaks for the rich and no regulations for business.  And they want to get a their hands on SS $.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, World Citizen said:

Thanks for the reply.  If you have the time or the inclination, check out the other 2 links.  Lol @ Princeton economist.  You get 20 economist in a room and ask them a question, you get 20 different answers.

The point of the links was to say that even Republicans say they stand for certain things but at the end of the day, there is little evidence that they indeed support those things.  Namely deficits and debt.  IMHO, what they are consistent about are tax breaks for the rich and no regulations for business.  And they want to get a their hands on SS $.  

Agree on Republicans running on conservatism and doing what they want when they run for office. Both parties have politicians that say they "cut spending" when they only cut the PERCENTAGE of the INCREASE in spending (example: instead of the original 12% incresae, they settle for a 9% increase). Any tax break will affect those who pay the most taxes the most and the top 10 % pay over 50% of the taxes. Nonetheless, if my tax cut means $500, I will gladly take it. SS money to me is bipartisan. I would also say they are for limited regulation - not no regulation. 

 

Also, these politicians are friends with many members of the other party, making i easy to cut deals that are mutually beneficial to both sides at cocktail time in Georgetown - a lot of time at the public's expense. I remember the 1992 VP debate with Quayle and Gore going at it intensely. But they were basketball playing buddies since they entered Congress the same year. It's all about The Club in Washington DC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...