We are screwed with either of them being elected. We already have been screwed by both parties over the years and now we have a 20 TRILLION dollar debt which neither party cares about reducing. They both keep spending and that will eventually wind up with a recession or depression , it's not if it's when.
Probably because he would prefer another war in Iraq to a worldwide nuclear war. Ask yourself and answer honestly if you can - would you prefer a nuclear war over a regional one? Because those are your choices. Trump, who wants to know why we have nuclear weapons if we can't use them, and who is willing to use nukes if there are terrorist attacks. And Clinton, who likes regime change.
Blaming "both sides" is the current ass-covering deception of the Republican media support operations. The current US government debt is almost entirely of Republican Party creation. To reduce the debt, we would have to restore the pre-Reagan tax rates, seriously cut back on military spending, and allow what government health insurance we have (Medicare etc) to use its market leverage to cut costs. The Dems will do all that. The Reps won't.
When Obama was first elected, the Democrats held majorities in the House, Senate and Executive branches. This allowed Obama and the Democrats to set the agenda, which led to the beginning of the doubling in the national debt. The Republicans fought all the changes, but the Democratic majorities, backed by a corrupt press, were able to get their way. One can go back and count the votes on the budgets and things like ObamaCare. If you also remember, Senator Cruz led a coup to shut down the government as a way to save money. His attempt at fiscal constraint was used by the Democrats to spook the herd, by painting all the Republicans as evil. The Republicans blinked and the borrowing was able to continue. Since this level of borrowing was impacting the future of the US, a group of concerned citizens formed the Tea Party. The original Boston tea party was against taxation without representation. In this case, it was the Democrat majority in Washington, creating a huge national debt, that would eventually fall on the backs of the middle class. The middle class had no effective representation against this unwanted burden. The Tea Party helped the Republicans win the House. The Republicans had what they needed to stop the madness; power of the purse, but they did not use the power, but continued to complain we still couldn't do anything unless they also have the Senate. They said that Obama will veto any departure from waste and then use the media to blame the evil Republicans, for stealing food from old ladies. The Tea party worked hard and helped the Republicans win the Senate. This second mandate showed that the America people were for reigning in spending and fixing the problems created by the Democrats. What ended up happening is Obama once again got all the debt and spending he wanted; last budget, with the Republicans going along. This showed the concerned citizens that the two parties were in bed, with each other and the donor class. It appeared the fight between the two parties was all show for the clueless masses. They pretend be enemies, while ripping off the country like a team. This environment of no accountability and above the law set the circumstances for why Trump got into the race. The unholy alliance is also why members of both parties, who sleep in the same bed, are against Trump. He is an agent for the middle class and will not take the same path of corruption and waste. Hilary has demonstrate her willingness to be corrupt and appeals to the thieves in both parties.
Ask yourself, would you rather have this spike driven through your hand, or chest? Regional wars that destabilize the countries involved do not keep us safer. What they mostly do is stroke the egos of those who control them, and enrich the military industrial complex to the detriment of all other possible programs. Regime change(what a benign phrase for murdering hundreds of thousands and forcing millions more to live in a hell we've created): What in hell gives us the right to dictate what governments we will tolerate or destroy? We really need to stop and consider what harm we are doing, and why. How would you feel if a multinational corporation decided that we needed a regime change? as/re nukes: "Why we have them if we won't use them?": Nuclear weapons and weapons-related spending accounts for about: ■ 67 percent of the DOE budget; ■ 8.5 percent of the budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; ■ 7.1 percent of the DOD budget (excluding the supplemental costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq); and ■ 1.7 percent of the Department of Homeland Security budget. Why waste the resources? Why spend more for the nukes than is spent for diplomacy? By way of comparison, the 2008 nuclear weapons and weapons-related “budget” exceeds all anticipated government expenditures on international diplomacy and foreign assistance ($39.5 billion) and natural resources and the environment ($33 billion). It is nearly double the budget for general science, space, and technology ($27.4 billion), and it is almost fourteen times what the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated for all energy-related research and development. Moreover, the allocation of funds among the five categories reveals troubling realities about current government priorities in the nuclear arena. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/nuclear_security_spending_low.pdf Voting for a known hawk is voting for the killing of thousands of people who mean us no harm to support the interests of foreign countries and donors. Frittering away your children's futures both financial and safety to enrich a very few and aggrandize a sociopath's ego is a damned waste. ........................ That being said, I really do not expect to change anyone else's preconceptions.
Prior to the Vietnam War America was not in any debt. Since that time both Republicans and Democrats have increased the debt load by spending more than they took in. The Democrats were in charge of the Congress for about 30 plus years, 1960's thru 1980's and they spent more just as the Republicans did when they were in charge.
Hand. Neither if I could avoid it - but if I had to make the choice, it would be hand. Now, again, which would you rather have? A regional war or an all-out nuclear war?
Except, that's just flat out not true. The United States has been indebted virtually every year of its existence. The nation was born in debt. Were it not for debt, there would be no United States. Debt financed the US revolution. Keep in mind current US debt level is significantly inflated/overstated by some accounting quirks which didn't exist in previous periods. Democrats and Republicans have also acted to pay down US debt. The real question here is has the US lost the ability to responsibly govern itself? Republicans don't want to increase taxes on the nation's wealthiest residents. In fact they don't want them to pay any taxes at all e.g. the Kochs in Kansas. Historically, that's how the nation has paid down its debts. It increased taxation especially on its richest residents. There was a time when the highest US tax rate was 94%. Today, it's 39.6%. The capital gains rate was 40%, now it's 20%. And that's only on income that's actually taxed as income. Today, much income isn't taxed at all e.g. Trump and Romney. Below is a chart depicting US Debt over time: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
neither and We can avoid it if we have leaders who will stand up to the financial and political might of the military industrial complex. Their sales tool is now and has always been fear.
Agreed, and it seems to fit their standard pattern of late. Before they do something dumb, they own it. "We are going to be seen as liberators in Iraq! The war might take six days or six weeks - not six months. And heck, this will be cheap. Iraq can finance its own reconstruction. Casualties will be minimal, and we'll find those WMD's and save America in the process." Anyone who didn't support the war was a coward and a traitor. This was to be a glorious _Republican_ war and the left, it was hoped, would be seen as US-haters. Then it didn't turn out so well. And the rationale changed almost instantly. "Well, Democrats voted for it too. And you know, I was never really for it. So don't blame us! Blame the left. They could have stopped us!"
Well you know nuclear war has its upsides. A bit like a forest fire it lays new foundations for the new purer generations to come. And where would we be without radioactive decay? Isn't that what makes the clocks run on time?
While it is true that when Obama was sworn into office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch of government, it's not true that they were responsible for doubling the national debt. And this has been previously explained to you numerous times, so this is flat out dishonesty on your part. What you are doing is analogous to the thief who steals his victims credit card and uses them to spend like there is no tomorrow and when the bills come due he blames his victim. That's basically what Republicans have done. Georgie Bush II, Obama's predecessor, used the nations credit card to fund his profligate spending. Georgie's fiscal profligacy was so bad his first treasury secretary resigned in protest. I can think of no other instance in US history where that has happened. Georgie Bush and his merry band of Republicans inherited a huge budget surplus from his Democratic predecessor and turned it into a trillion dollar plus deficit, a deficit he passed on to Democrats. That's one of the many facts you like to ignore. You forgot to mention when Obama and Democrats took office the nation inherited a trillion dollar plus deficit, a nation in deep recession, and active wars in two nations on the other side of the planet. Yes Republicans did fight everything Democrats attempted to do, even when they favored those changes. Where is the evidence the press is or was corrupt? Just because the press reports the truth and that truth isn’t consistent with Republican Party dogma, that doesn’t make the press corrupt. Honestly, Republicans sound like autocrats. They don’t like the free press. Is it any wonder autocrats like Putin like them? Something like birds of a feather seems apropos here. As for Senator Cruz, shutting down the government was the least of his transgressions. And actually, he led the government shut down in an effort to repeal Obamacare and deny 15 million Americans access to healthcare. Cruz on multiple occasions attempted to cause a government debt default which led to a first ever downgrade of US government debt. That was irresponsible. And Cruz did it in an effort to deny healthcare to millions of Americans and advance his political career. That’s just flat out immoral in my book. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should every risk the full faith and credit of the United States government, and Republicans led by Cruz did that on multiple occasions. That’s not only fiscally reckless and irresponsible, it’s extremism. And where is your evidence that this “level of borrowing was impacting the future of the US”? It wasn’t. A group of ill-informed wackos fueled by right wing entertainers formed the Tea Party. And we have already discussed your errors with respect to the national debt. The unfortunate fact for those like you and the entertainers who lead you is that the US debt level is very manageable. The US spends less than 2% of GDP on debt service. That’s very modest by any measure. Most Americans are more indebted than that. Well, it was more than the Tea Party that helped Republicans win the House and Senate. It was the undemocratic aspects of the American system of government which helped Republicans win the House and Senate. It’s the very undemocratic way in which senate seats are allocated and Republican gerrymandering of congressional districts which allowed Republicans to control both houses of Congress. Republicans lost the popular votes, but still managed to obtain control of both houses of Congress. So for you and those like you to act as if Republicans had a mandate is a fraud. It simply wasn’t true and it remains true to this day. The fact is, in the only truly democratic election, the election for POTUS, Republicans lost twice. The American people elected a Democrat not once but twice to the highest office in the land. So you think a Trump is an agent for the middle class? And just when in Trump’s 70 years has he ever acted in the interest of the middle class? His record clearly says he has repeatedly fleeced the middle class e.g. Trump University. What has he ever done to help the middle class? What has he ever done to fight corruption and waste? Which of his policies will help the middle class? Which of his policies will reduce corruption and waste? Can you say none? You want people to believe that after 70 years Trump has suddenly changed his stripes? You cannot point to even a single Trump policy which will reduce corruption and waste, and that should be a problem for Trump devotees. But it isn’t, and that speaks volumes.
