SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts warns of "disinformation" (LIES) infecting the internet and social media. Know what else he said?

Until, of course, the Democratic party takes control of the presidency and/or Congress.

At which point things will be horrible and the huge national debt/deficit will threaten our very existence again, and the huge military budget will be woefully insufficient to counter our enemies, and crime will be a horrible out-of-control social problem caused by permissive liberal social policies, and so on and so on....

Your words not mine. 

No, the words of dozens or hundreds of GOP politicians who conveniently change their views on deficit spending, the military budget, crime rates and so forth depending upon whether they are in power or in the political minority.

This is completely predictable and utterly understandable, as it is in their self-interest to do so.

What I find more difficult to comprehend is why millions of GOP voters (such as yourself) fall for their hypocrisy and scams decade after decade...

Both sides use the debt as a talking point when they are not in charge. Dems were happy with it under Obama just as Reps are happy with it under Trump.  Games both sides play.

The only one that I know of who cares about it are Rand Paul and his father Ron before him. 

I challenge you to find me a single Democrat who has complained about Trump's deficit spending, outside of one like me who complains that Republicans are perfectly fine with deficit spending when THEY do it, but bitch like crazy when Democrats do it.

Good luck.

 

 

 

I applaud that you made the effort, and I stand (somewhat) corrected.

I will, however, note that the primary complaints of those Democratic leaders was NOT the deficit spending per se. It was what the money borrowed was spent upon.

Deficit spending, either at the personal level or government level, is NOT NECESSARILY a bad thing. 

I recently "deficit spent" to purchase a car (borrowing 90%+ of the purchase price). That going into debt enabled me to get a promotion at work because I could reliably get to the location where I would have to work. The amount I have to pay back to the bank is more than made up by the greater amount of money I am making at my new job compared to my old one.

Similarly, a government can borrow money to build roads, or build schools and hire teachers, or to pay for health care so the population is less sick and injured. The gains in human happiness (and, often, economic productivity) more than pay back the money borrowed to make it happen.

In the quotes you found above, the Democrats referenced are complaining about deficit spending because the government "spent" that money on the governmental/societal equivalent of scotch, cocaine, and stripper pole dancers. Endless land wars in Asia and tax cuts for people/corporations who already have all the money they need is NOT a very productive use of borrowed money.

So I will, for now, stand by my assertion that it is almost impossible to find significant Democratic/leftist politician who says that deficit spending is inherently "a bad thing."  Unlike numerous Republicans who, as a matter of long-term political strategy, flip their opinion of it simply because of who happens to hold political power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast



P.S. It should also be noted that the exception to the above general trend was during the post-1994 Bill Clinton administration, where a combination of a (then-somewhat-fiscally-conservative) GOP Congress, a Democratic President, less political polarization than in the post-9/11 era, and rapidly increasing tax revenues because of the Internet boom, the US actually ran nominal budget surpluses and even appeared to be on a path towards substantially reducing or eliminating the national debt.

This post was edited by SaltyPebble at January 1, 2020 5:00 PM MST

Yes, both parties disagree on what to spend money on but neither has any problem spending it. And the debt is just a talking point.

There has not been one year under a Pres of either party who has not increased the debt in the last 40 yrs. Not one year. So no there was no surplus there.  This post was edited by my2cents at January 1, 2020 5:19 PM MST

:):):)

The GOP has not been timid when it comes to adding to the national debt/deficit.  Trump excoriated Obama for the rising deficit, yet he has and added to it.  I doubt Trump realizes just how much his tax reduction plan has played into the ballooning deficit.  He has not exactly been a model of fiscal responsibility.  

As far as the crime rate, I have to agree with you.  The latest "no bail" laws will do more harm than good, just as the virtual end of stop-and-frisk has done nothing more than show an increase of guns on the street.  

I do hope you will take the time to learn more about crime because I believe your views on bail reform and stop-and-frisk laws are not based on judicious study of discernible reality.

Do you actually know what the biggest crimes are in the United States (at least in terms of property loss)?

1) Tax fraud -- Not as in avoiding paying taxes by using every legal loophole available. As in people legitimately and legally owe taxes and do not pay them. Estimates are little fuzzy but range between $300 billion and $500 billion per year.

2) Retail "shrinkage" -- This can result either from employees making off with inventory, or from people defrauding the stores by returning items that are used, damaged, etc. (e.g. a woman buys a dress at Nordstrom, wears it once, then returns it claiming it's unused). Estimates range in the neighborhood of $60 billion

3) Insurance fraud -- Again, often it is not outright faking of insurance claims. But when that 32" CRT TV gets stolen, somehow it shows up as a 60" 4K QLED flat screen on the insurance claim form. Insurance companies estimate they lose about $50 billion/year to such fakery.

4) Wage theft -- Employers keep between $50 billion and $60 billion in legitimately owed wages from employees every year.

Care to venture a guess how much ALL common property crime (burglary, robbery, muggings, auto theft, etc.) costs each year?  Did you guess $15 billion. If so, give yourself a pat on the back.

So, which number is bigger: $450 billion or $15 billion?  And what effect do "no bail' and stop-and-frisk laws have on that $450 billion figure?

Are we as a society REALLY concerned about crime, or are we just "concern trollling?"

BTW, with respect to stop-and-frisk, empirical data says its effectiveness cannot be distinguished from the effect of sending more police to high-crime areas. In other words, sending more police to high-crime areas does tend to damp down crime, whether or not police stop and frisk people for arbitrary and often bigotry-driven reasons.

NICE

In terms of dollars, yes, the crimes you mention are serious, but some perpetrators here in NYC who have committed what I consider to be more than misdemeanors have been released without bail pending court appearance.  The cost in personal injuries and possible death cannot be measured in terms of dollars.  If someone has been arrested for stalking or domestic violence and they have a prior record, they are required to be released.  Would you rather have criminals such as those walking the streets or someone who has glommed a dress from a store?

You can send all the police you want to high crime areas, but you're still going to find that there are more guns on the street now than there were before.  

By the way, I don't troll and I don't like to be lectured.  If you want to present an opposing view, there's no need to make it sound like you're sneering while you type your comment.  Violent crime in NYC, where I live, is up 8% this year, so don't lecture me about how stop-and-frisk didn't work.