https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/p_93ESfeQqNGo33wwgMz2CNQIEM=/500x0/https%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2Fae09fb2e-2be3-4c6d-90cd-a364cf32a431

some not so veiled insults not just for the US but for Australia, India, Taiwan, Japan, interesting they should use a Christian iconic painting to lampoon

so I see once again anything beyond your borders is of no interest

That is not the vision that came to my mind. This 1910 portrait is more fitting
The portrait of the Euro monarchs at the funeral of King Edward VII . In a few years the empires would commit fratricide . The G 7 once represented 70 % of the world's wealth . Today it is 40% .

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/may-1910-nine-kings-assembled-at-buckingham-palace-for-the-funeral-of-picture-id3280270?k=6&m=3280270&s=612x612&w=0&h=LAfOaW3ec8hLGJM4hEMDSzrddU1kgMjE6_dIGt7zeMA=

Ah yes but whose head could you put on which body to typify the current hegemony

Merkel ,Macron ,Quid ,Trudeau ,Boris Johnson ,Yoshihide , Draghi ,and the EU clowns that attend. Macron welcomed Quid back to the "club" . What is the club ? Well it is recognition of Quid's desire to bring America towards the Euro - welfare state .

we know who the leaders of the club are Tom, they are the same nine who attended and were lampooned by the Chinese. The US is far from the welfare state Tom, so no fear there. The last attempt ended in regime change, so more caution this time

Quid has proposed no less than 4 new permanent entitlements in the 5 months he has been in office . If all his wish list passed he would be well on his way to exceeding FDR and Johnson combined.

yes but he has yet to out do Obama and the health care initiative

Obamacare is a Fabian first step . The Dems have long desired Euro cradle to grave freebees .

Obamacare is a Fabian first step . The Dems have long desired Euro cradle to grave freebees .

The myth of Democrats being radical socialists is nonsense. Socialism is against the private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). That seems to have escaped the Repub members who have embraced the far-right.

That is not the position of the Democratic Party, the Democrats in Congress, or of Biden, Harris, or even of Sanders. Many Republicans in Congress know better, but unfortunately they have to go along to please the extreme far-right Republican base because they need their votes to win primary elections.

What almost all Democrats advocate is what even conservative parties in the UK and European democracies advocate: a capitalist economy with proper regulation of business and social programs to provide healthcare, education, and economic security to their citizens. The Republican Party has no large counterpart in any other free, democratic, industrialized nation. It is an anomaly in modern politics, stuck in a time warp that conservative parties in other free democracies left in the early to mid twentieth century.

Today the Democratic Party is made up of a much broader coalition of political views than the Republican Party. For example, while the Democrats advocate healthcare coverage for all, there are differing policies on how to best achieve that. The Republicans have basically one position, repeal Obamacare.

Obamacare is a Fabian first step . The Dems have long desired Euro cradle to grave freebees .

Oh come on it was a stumble, a kowtow to vested interests

partly true . The emperor made a Faustian deal with the insurance industry . However it was built to fail so that the Dems could introduce the next step ;so called universal health care . Yes it is very clever the industry you want out of the process to initially run it . Without mandates ,and with exchanges being poorly designed ,the insurance companies began leaving the exchanges ,and increasing rates .The headlines read insurance industry waging war .


The Dems know the mandate is unconstitutional . Without the mandate there is not enough funding for it . The emperor urged his party to campaign on blaming the Repubs . for the failure /partial repeal .

They are now poised to introduce the next step. They lie about it calling it "Medicare for all " . When in fact Medicare is an earned entitlement . What they really mean is 'Medicaid for all 'which is a government funded entity .
The next Fabian step is documented here .
Plan to Protect and Build on Obamacare | Joe Biden (https://joebiden.com/healthcare/)

The myth of Democrats being radical socialists is nonsense. Socialism is against the private ownership of the means of production (capitalism).

What almost all Democrats advocate is what even conservative parties in the UK and European democracies advocate: a capitalist economy with proper regulation of business and social programs to provide healthcare, education, and economic security to their citizens. The Republican Party has no large counterpart in any other free, democratic, industrialized nation. It is an anomaly in modern politics, stuck in a time warp that conservative parties in other free democracies left in the early to mid twentieth century.
.

Yes Tom I live in one such economy, and it didn't bring the economic disaster the conservatives in your nation thinks it would, rather it has reigned in the excesses of capitalism while allowing it to prosper. I agree that your nation appears to be stuck in a time warp

partly true . The emperor made a Faustian deal with the insurance industry . However it was built to fail so that the Dems could introduce the next step ;so called universal health care . Yes it is very clever the industry you want out of the process to initially run it . Without mandates ,and with exchanges being poorly designed ,the insurance companies began leaving the exchanges ,and increasing rates .The headlines read insurance industry waging war .[/QOUTE]

That's not even half true. The biggest impediment for health care is repubs refusing to expand medicaid and having half baked plans instead that results in closed hospital in mainly rural areas. The popularity of the ACA has grown steadily despite Repubs best shenanigans and court failures.

[QUOTE]The Dems know the mandate is unconstitutional . Without the mandate there is not enough funding for it . The emperor urged his party to campaign on blaming the Repubs . for the failure /partial repeal .

Tell SCOTUS how they missed that and upheld the law for a 3rd time recently and Obama has been gone what 4/5 years now? The law survives!


They are now poised to introduce the next step. They lie about it calling it "Medicare for all " . When in fact Medicare is an earned entitlement . What they really mean is 'Medicaid for all 'which is a government funded entity .
The next Fabian step is documented here .
Plan to Protect and Build on Obamacare | Joe Biden (https://joebiden.com/healthcare/)

You may not like it but it's the next logical step in making us like every other civilized country in the friggin' world. You trying to be a nog head all your life?

You may not like it but it's the next logical step in making us like every other civilized country in the friggin' world. You trying to be a nog head all your life?

Yes but you don't always take the logical path

Tell SCOTUS how they missed that Roberts created created his own version of language to invent a constitutional premise

The most recent case was decided on so called "standing " . BTW ,the biggest objection to Barrett was that she would be the vote to kill Obamacare .BUT she was part of the majority that voted against standing in the case .They did NOT rule on the constitutionality of the law.

who doesn't, Trump had his own version of language

As the so called final arbiters on what is constitutional law ,a Chief Justice changing the clear wording of the law to give it a rationale for legitimacy is a much bigger issue .

As the so called final arbiters on what is constitutional law ,a Chief Justice changing the clear wording of the law to give it a rationale for legitimacy is a much bigger issue .

What wording did Roberts change?

He changed "mandate " to "tax" . He changed Obamacare from the unconstitutional idea of forcing people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty ,to a tax for not purchasing health insurance . There are plenty of taxes for behavior . Only one for not engaging in economic activity . In every other instance that is called a penalty except in the twisted logic of Chief Justice Roberts .

He changed "mandate " to "tax" . He changed Obamacare from the unconstitutional idea of forcing people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty ,to a tax for not purchasing health insurance . There are plenty of taxes for behavior . Only one for not engaging in economic activity . In every other instance that is called a penalty except in the twisted logic of Chief Justice Roberts .

Thanks/

but it was a convenient decision

yes guaranteed to insure Roberts place in the swamp cocktail circuit .

That penalty amounts to "0" so whatever you call it no harm comes of it so the mandate is null and void. Repubs did that. States can run the ACA anyway they see fit so what are you righties squawking about? Or is it just squawking you like.

Squawk? admit it tal, the ACA was a mistake, just another camel by a committee trying to breed a thoroughbred horse

no harm ? The emperor said that the plan would cut premiums . Instead premiums have more than doubled in the decade.

We were told that the number of uninsured would drastically reduce and yet we still have the same number uninsured as before the plan . People who do not have the subsidies of the plan can not afford Obamacare .

The emperor sold the plan by saying 'if you like your plan you can keep it ' .(Politifact's lie of the year 2013) That was not true .By adding new mandated coverage ,most people were not able to keep their plans . Instead there were millions of plans completely eliminated as an option.

He also said 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor ' . But doctors have either voluntarily or been forced out of many networks due to Obamacare . There are many plans where no doctors are available for specialty care .

Some of the largest networks have quit providing care for Obamacare patients altogether including Aetna and UnitedHealthcare . Some districts offer only one choice of coverage . Those who have no choice but Obamacare now are basically Medicaid patients .

But of course the unstated goal of Obamacare was the universal Medicaidization of American health care . So the first Fabian step has been a success .

This link may be helpful understanding Obamacare (ACA).

It lists 13 myths about the ACA, then gives the truth about them.

https://www.thebalance.com/the-truth-about-obamacare-3306075

like I said ;expanded Medicaid ... a Fabian step towards universal care .

I tried the "helpful" link. It claimed, "Obama meant that the ACA itself did not cancel anyone’s plans." Well, Obama said on MANY occasions statements like these. ""If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." That quote was, in fact, on the White House website. Or again, " Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: 'If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.' " It is difficult to view the underlined sentence as anything other than a lie. Either that, or he had no clue about what ACA was really about.

So the site linked in post 27 was rather clearly put up by Obama apologists.

https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

like I said ;expanded Medicaid ... a Fabian step towards universal care .

fm The Balance

3. Obamacare Is Socialized Medicine, Like in Canada

Truth: Not really. In Canada, the government pays most medical bills.3 In the United Kingdom, doctors are employees of the federal government.4 That's similar to America's Medicare and Medicaid. The ACA does expand Medicaid to middle-income families, but most of the expansion is in the private insurance market.

Why do many Americans think the ACA is socialized medicine? President Barack Obama’s initial proposal included universal health care (https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211). Congress rejected this proposal, preferring one based on America's health insurance model. Ironically, Obamacare now forces Congress onto the private exchanges, just like everyone else. So, in that particular case, the ACA reduced socialized medicine.

So the site linked in post 27 was rather clearly put up by Obama apologists.


Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting:Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

In review, when reporting on political issues related to economics, The Balance maintains neutrality and presents both sides of the argument. For example, in the article Donald Trump on Immigration, Pros, and Cons of His Policies (https://www.thebalance.com/donald-trump-immigration-impact-on-economy-4151107), The Balance looks at both sides and fairly presents its arguments. This article is also perfectly sourced from credible media outlets and sources such as Whitehouse.gov (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/whitehouse-gov/), USA Today (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/), and Pew Research (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pew-research/). In general, The Balance is actually quite balanced in reporting and mostly sticks to its expertise of reporting on finance and investing.

Failed Fact Checks

None to date



Overall, we rate The Balance Least Biased based on minimal use of loaded language and balanced reporting of financial news. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 12/05/2017) Updated (3/24/2021)

Kind of hard to explain this from such a wonderfully neutral and balanced site. I imagine what is posted above is simply one lib website bragging on another lib website.


I tried the "helpful" link. It claimed, "Obama meant that the ACA itself did not cancel anyone’s plans." Well, Obama said on MANY occasions statements like these. ""If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." That quote was, in fact, on the White House website. Or again, " Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: 'If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.' " It is difficult to view the underlined sentence as anything other than a lie. Either that, or he had no clue about what ACA was really about.

I'll add this. Trying to conjure up what "Obama meant" as opposed to what he said on more than two dozen occasions is practically the very definition of bias. How would they know what Obama "meant"? Wouldn't that have to based on statements from Obama? And if they had those statements, shouldn't they have listed them? And since they didn't list them, then why should we not think they simply pulled the "Obama meant" narrative out of thin air?

My autistic son bought ACA health insurance. It was everything Obama had said it would be -- including affordable. Then Trump wandered into the picture. The cost doubled and the coverage was laughable, so we found our son an expensive but better plan with BC/BS.

We had this debate years ago and all your right wing talking points were debunked with facts copy and pasted from the actual bill and fact is more people have more coverage than ever before and the popularity of the ACA has grown and is here to stay despite all the fringer misinformation and shenanigans.

Still waiting for the repub plan...but nobody not even you is holding their breath.

My autistic son bought ACA health insurance. It was everything Obama had said it would be -- including affordable. Then Trump wandered into the picture. The cost doubled and the coverage was laughable, so we found our son an expensive but better plan with BC/BS.

Trump, like a reverse Midas, turns everything he touches into dog excrement.


We had this debate years ago and all your right wing talking points were debunked with facts copy and pasted from the actual bill and fact is more people have more coverage than ever before and the popularity of the ACA has grown and is here to stay despite all the fringer misinformation and shenanigans.

Still waiting for the repub plan...but nobody not even you is holding their breath.

Those who oppose Obamacare simply dislike it because it's Obama's. Trump promised a plan for 4 years and never delivered the smallest inkling of one.

The Balance is an excellent and very highly rated fair website. Naturally, the fringe right-wing objects to anything that is accurate and fair.

Trump, like a reverse Midas, turns everything he touches into dog excrement.



Those who oppose Obamacare simply dislike it because it's Obama's. Trump promised a plan for 4 years and never delivered the smallest inkling of one.

The Balance is an excellent and very highly rated fair website. Naturally, the fringe right-wing objects to anything that is accurate and fair.
That Trump failed to deliver is not the fault of Trump but the demonrat opposition who opposed everything he tried to do. When a country is divided it isn't possible to bring forward reform. Even now they are reaping what they have sown and Biden will find it is very hard to do anything. Being president is really being a figurehead and a mouthpiece and Biden hasn't been successfull in either so far

That Trump failed to deliver is not the fault of Trump

You can't be serious.


Biden will find it is very hard to do anything.

True, as long as McConnell plays obstructionist and says the hell with the country.


Being president is really being a figurehead and a mouthpiece and Biden hasn't been successfull in either so far

Being president is far more than that. Here's a short list of Biden's successes so far.

Provided $1.9 trillion of relief to the American economy.

Increased federal minimum wage to $15/hr.

Restored funding to veterans programs that had been cut under Trump.

Money to the airline industry saving thousands of airline jobs.

Started process to remove Postmaster Louis DeJoy.

Revoked a Trump order that suspended federal funds from going to purported “anarchist jurisdictions.” Included were New York City, Portland and Seattle.

Returned the United States to the Paris Climate Accord.

Invoked the Defense Production Act to accelerate vaccine development, securing 200 million extra doses of vaccine for a total of 300 million available vaccine doses by July 2021.

I love this one.

BARRED Donald Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, citing his erratic behavior and the possible danger to U.S. Security. !!!!!!!!!!!!

Just a sampling. There are more.

I am indeed serious, a house divided cannot prosper

It all depends upon your point of view obviously your point of view follows the demonrats and Biden

I am indeed serious, a house divided cannot prosper

My "serious" comment referred to your finding Trump faultless.


It all depends upon your point of view obviously your point of view follows the demonrats and Biden

My point of view follows the FACTS as I've laid them out above. Each statement I bolded is a FACT!!

My "serious" comment referred to your finding Trump faultless.

When did I say he was without fault, but not everything he did was bad and he was hamstrung by a hostile congress.




My point of view follows the FACTS as I've laid them out above. Each statement I bolded is a FACT!!

yes facts from your perspective

Provided $1.9 trillion of relief to the American economy.
Increased federal minimum wage to $15/hr.
Restored funding to veterans programs that had been cut under Trump.
Money to the airline industry saving thousands of airline jobs.
Revoked a Trump order that suspended federal funds from going to purported “anarchist jurisdictions.” Included were New York City, Portland and Seattle.With no idea of how to pay for any of it, thus accelerating the growth of the federal debt past 30 trillion dollars. Thanks, Mr. Biden.


Returned the United States to the Paris Climate Accord.Sacrificing the national interests of the United States upon the altar of climate change.

When did I say he was without fault,

You said, "His failure to deliver was not his fault".


but not everything he did was bad and he was hamstrung by a hostile congress.

Trump understood nothing about running a country. His major, and only, platform was reversing anything Obama did because Obama humiliated the narcissist at a televised public dinner.

Donald the Dips**t was the biggest mistake this country ever made.

Anyone who thought a morally bankrupt conman and washed up reality TV personality would be a good president needs to seek professional help, especially after inciting an insurrection and endlessly lying about the election being “stolen” from him. Pathetic.


yes facts from your perspective

True.

Trump understood nothing about running a country.Except that he had a better economy by far than Obama ever dreamed about having???

Except that he had a better economy by far than Obama ever dreamed about having???

He had nothing to do with the economy, except to damage it with tariffs that he completely misunderstood.

The economy he inherited from Obama was already recovering after the disastrous ruination of it due to Republican malfeasance under Bush II. It's about time you stopped promoting this falsehood.

He had nothing to do with the economy, except to damage it with tariffs that he completely misunderstood.

The economy he inherited from Obama was already recovering after the disastrous ruination of it due to Republican malfeasance under Bush II. It's about time you stopped promoting this falsehood.Just the usual anti-Trump, "Obama was wonderful" liberal dem view. The fact remains that the economy set records with Trump as pres. He did more in three years than Obama did in eight.

The fact remains that the economy set records with Trump as pres.

This is true, but one does not follow the other.


He did more in three years than Obama did in eight.

This is demonstrably false. Obama inherited a disaster - the Great Recession. Trump inherited Obama's legacy - putting it all back together.

This is true, but one does not follow the other.Funny how you refuse to give Trump any credit, but in your next comment you fall all over yourself in flattering Obama. Bias??? Clearly.

Reagan walked into a worse situation than Obama and accomplished more without having to increase the debt by 10 trillion dollars. And the fact remains that the Trump economy far out-performed the Obama economy.

And the fact remains that the Trump economy far out-performed the Obama economy.
And why was that?

Better leadership from someone who understood business.

Better leadership from someone who understood business.

Better leadership from someone who understood business.
Why have so many of his businesses failed? As far as our economy is concerned, he merely stayed on the same growth track Obama had put it on after W tossed it into a firepit.

He “merely” set records for low unemployment. You do realize that Obama is the only eight year Pres who never had a single year of 3% or better GDP growth?

Now to be clear, I am no worshipper of Trump in the manner that you practically worship Obama. I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. The economy with Trump was fantastic. Case closed.

He “merely” set records for low unemployment. You do realize that Obama is the only eight year Pres who never had a single year of 3% or better GDP growth?
Do you realize what a mess W left him?!

The economy with Trump in control surprisingly didn't plunge again. Who was really in charge?

So you are trying to make a point bout what did NOT happen? Hmm.

Might have surprised you. Didn’t seem to surprise business owners.

With no idea of how to pay for any of it, thus accelerating the growth of the federal debt past 30 trillion dollars. Thanks, Mr. Biden.

Mr. Biden saved the lives and fortunes of untold American citizens and their families. All you can see is the cost and you would have preferred mass never-ending misery for your neighbor. I'll leave you to work out how that fits in with The Greatest Commandment.


Sacrificing the national interests of the United States upon the altar of climate change.

No, trying to save the planet and all its inhabitants.

And that was true for Bush and Obama and Trump and now Biden. Always the same. We must spend more than we take in. It’s the mantra of the political class and people will keep falling for it until disaster arrives.

And that was true for Bush and Obama and Trump and now Biden. Always the same. We must spend more than we take in. It’s the mantra of the political class and people will keep falling for it until disaster arrives.
What would you do?

And that was true for Bush and Obama and Trump and now Biden.

Certainly not true for Bush II. In a fair universe he would be a war criminal for invading a sovereign nation without justification and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and many more times that number injured.


until disaster arrives.

Thanks to Obama disaster was averted. I'm sorry your taxes went to saving people - maybe you could ask for them back.

And that was true for Bush and Obama and Trump and now Biden. Always the same. We must spend more than we take in. It’s the mantra of the political class and people will keep falling for it until disaster arrives.

Yes you are right deficit economics can only bring long term disaster in the form of inflation which is crippling to the low income group

Obama doubled the national debt. Sorry if I don’t brag on him about that. He was mediocre.

The question is always what the money is being spent on

Obama doubled the national debt. Sorry if I don’t brag on him about that. He was mediocre.
How did he double the national debt? (Psst -- Obama fought Bush II's Great Recession with an $831 billion economic stimulus package and added $858 billion through tax cuts.)

When the national debt goes from 10 tril to 20 tril, that's what we call a doubling of the national debt. I know you practically worship the man, but good grief, that's a well known truth that even liberal dems have to acknowledge.

When the national debt goes from 10 tril to 20 tril, that's what we call a doubling of the national debt.
Thank God he cleaned up W's mess and helped a lot of people!

No, I don't worship the man, but he is very smart and quite good looking. He can hop and skip down ramps too.

Thank God he cleaned up W's mess and helped a lot of people!He doubled the national debt, produced a tepid economy, and became the only eight year pres who never had a year with 3% gdp growth.

Yeah. Real smart.

How GDP Growth Under Trump Compares To Clinton, Obama And Other Presidents (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-gdp-growth-under-trump-compares-to-clinton-obama-and-other-presidents/ar-BB1avrjH)


Here’s a look at average GDP growth rates under the last six U.S. presidents: Jimmy Carter (D): 3.25% Ronald Reagan (R): 3.48% George H.W. Bush (R): 2.25% Bill Clinton (D): 3.88% George W. Bush (R): 2.2% Barack Obama (D): 1.62% Donald Trump (R): 0.95% In his first four years in office, Trump has had by far the lowest average U.S. GDP growth rate of any of the last seven U.S. presidents.

Tal you are lying with statistics again

During his first three years in office, President Trump oversaw an annual average growth of 2.5%

Amazing to want to use Carter as a comparison. He did have good GDP growth, but it was accompanied by very high inflation (averaged above 8%) and high unemployment. (never below 6%). His economic problems were why Reagan beat him so handily. By comparison, Trump had unemployment down to 3.5%, the lowest figure in fifty years, substantial growth in manufacturing jobs (far greater than Obama), and an inflation average of a little over 2%.

Trump had unemployment down to 3.5%, the lowest figure in fifty years, substantial growth in manufacturing jobs (far greater than Obama), and an inflation average of a little over 2%.

Trump had nothing to do with it - he was riding on Obama's coattails.

A completely foolish reply driven by nothing more than political jealousy. No one gets those results without good leadership. It is like saying that Eisenhower had nothing to do with the successful invasion at Normandy, or that Washington had nothing to do with the victory at Trenton. Obama had eight years. Reagan started from a deeper hole than Obama and accomplished much more.

What I find "interesting" about these exchanges is this. Someone asks, "How did he double the national debt?" When the question is answered, instead of getting a response to that answer, all we get is, "Thank God he cleaned up W's mess and helped a lot of people!" It's like the person says, "Oh? Well, let's just move on then. No point in dealing with such unpleasantness."

A completely foolish reply driven by nothing more than political jealousy.

The foolishness is all in your constant claim that Trump was an economic genius. The bozo couldn't even make a success out of all the businesses he started - all failed or went bankrupt. Even his touted "empire" has but a handful of employees. His money comes from the real estate rental income his father left him. And whatever he can grift from his stay in the WH. He even refused to let the GOP use his name for fund-raising purposes unless he got a piece of the pie.


No one gets those results without good leadership.Trump a good leader? Huh? The clown didn't know his arse from his elbow about governance or economics. Or pretty much anything else, for that matter. The latest truth-tellers about what a madman Trump was are Barr and Chris Christie. A little late, but better late then never.


It is like saying that Eisenhower had nothing to do with the successful invasion at Normandy, or that Washington had nothing to do with the victory at Trenton.

Calm down - you're acting like Trump. Washington at Trenton?? Good lord!


Obama had eight years. Reagan started from a deeper hole than Obama and accomplished much more.

No one in US history started from a lower point than Obama after the Bush administration set the country almost as far back as the Great Depression. Reagan learned a hard lesson when his failed Laffer philosophy caused him to raise taxes.

It's all academic now, all of these bozos are gone, and now sleepy Joe is in charge with the potential to add quidzillions to the national debt

It's all academic now, all of these bozos are gone, and now sleepy Joe is in charge with the potential to add quidzillions to the national debt

...and save quadzillions of citizens from despair and ruin....

Yeh, it's only money

...and save quadzillions of citizens from despair and ruin....So running the country bankrupt is now the liberal dem plan on how to, "save quadzillions of citizens from...ruin?" Hmm.

Yeh, it's only money

Money is not as important as a human life.


So running the country bankrupt is now the liberal dem plan on how to, "save quadzillions of citizens from...ruin?" Hmm.

The liberal dem plan is to save families from ruin. The Repub plan is to let them starve to death to save money.

As usual, you make up stuff - the country is not bankrupt.

the country is not bankrupt.Yet.

The liberal dem plan of how to "save families from ruin" is to accumulate a national debt equivalent to about 90,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America, and then accelerate the accumulation of even more debt. And while they're at it, they can print money by the hundreds of billions of dollars thus ensuring a rise in inflation.

Yeah, boy. That's a great plan for saving families from ruin.

The liberal dem plan of how to "save families from ruin" is to accumulate a national debt equivalent to about 90,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America, and then accelerate the accumulation of even more debt. And while they're at it, they can print money by the hundreds of billions of dollars thus ensuring a rise in inflation.

Your attempt at predicting the economy is a joke. You're not qualified.


Yeah, boy. That's a great plan for saving families from ruin.

Far better than your plan, which is to let them starve.

Your attempt at predicting the economy is a joke. You're not qualified.
Not being qualified certainly has not stopped you.


Far better than your plan, which is to let them starve.Typical liberal dem. You're all for passing out funds from borrowed/printed money. Your approach is basically this. "I love poor people so much that I'm willing to let the feds borrow and print money to help them." That way it doesn't cost you anything. If you really care about starving people, then get off your rear end and get out there and help them. Try spending some of your own money. Get your hands a little dirty helping others. Otherwise your protests are hollow and meaningless.

Typical liberal dem. You're all for passing out funds from borrowed/printed money. Your approach is basically this. "I love poor people so much that I'm willing to let the feds borrow and print money to help them." That way it doesn't cost you anything. If you really care about starving people, then get off your rear end and get out there and help them. Try spending some of your own money. Get your hands a little dirty helping others. Otherwise your protests are hollow and meaningless.

Worshiping the almighty dollar is your idol. God forbid you should help your neighbor. In light of the pandemic tragedy, all you can offer is smart-a*s remarks about taxes and inflation.

You sound exactly like those Republicans and white supremacists who deny any attack ever occurred on the Capitol. A day of tourists and cameras as one idiot put it. All of you are about DENY - DENY - DENY, aka gaslighting.

I've got to go take a shower now after listening to your disgusting comparisons between people suffering and your love of money.

Yeah, boy. That's a great plan for saving families from ruin.
Your family is one of those facing ruin. Now what?

I am responsible for my family. We are responsible for ourselves. But if I know of a family facing ruin, then it becomes my responsibility to help them.

What have you done with all of that money you recently received? Have you given it out to families facing ruin? If not, then have you borrowed money to give to them? And if you haven't, then why on earth would you be comfortable with the feds borrowing money in your name for that supposed purpose?

Your position is very foolish.

I am responsible for my family. We are responsible for ourselves.
So your family has no food, loses the home they live in, you have lost your job, covid has enveloped our world so that many small businesses have closed, big businesses aren't hiring, so a job is nearly impossible to find -- and now what?

What have you done with all of that money you recently received? Have you given it out to families facing ruin?
Yes, I have. So far I have given about 2/3 of it to charities approved by Charity Navigator, to a homeless man who has used the money wisely and now has a good job in construction and a small but decent apartment, to no-kill cat shelters (my husband and I have been cat rescuers and adopters during our entire marriage), to long-time internet friends (one in Washington and one in Iowa) in desperate need of a vehicle, and so on.

So your family has no food, loses the home they live in, you have lost your job, covid has enveloped our world so that many small businesses have closed, big businesses aren't hiring, so a job is nearly impossible to find -- and now what?Same answer. I am responsible for my family, and I am responsible to help other families from my own personal resources which, incidentally, we are doing.


Yes, I have. So far I have given about 2/3 of it to charities approved by Charity Navigator, to a homeless man who has used the money wisely and now has a good job in construction and a small but decent apartment, to no-kill cat shelters (my husband and I have been cat rescuers and adopters during our entire marriage), to long-time internet friends (one in Washington and one in Iowa) in desperate need of a vehicle, and so on.Then my congratulations to you. You are doing exactly as I described above. We agree!!

How much money have you borrowed to give to charity?

How much money have you borrowed to give to charity?
Why would I borrow money?

Well, we are electing pols who routinely are borrowing money for which you and I are responsible, so if you are comfortable with that, then why not borrow money personally? After all, think of all the good you could do! Wouldn't that be a, "great plan for saving families from ruin???" Are you so interested in money that you would refuse to borrow money that other people desperately need??

Well, we are electing pols who routinely are borrowing money for which you and I are responsible, so if you are comfortable with that, then why not borrow money personally? After all, think of all the good you could do! Wouldn't that be a, "great plan for saving families from ruin???" Are you so interested in money that you would refuse to borrow money that other people desperately need??
I don't need to borrow money to save familes from ruin.

That's what you say your government needs to do. If's it true for the feds, then why not true for you? Is it not true that you could borrow 50K and do a lot of good? Shoot, that's chicken feed compared to what the feds are doing. Why not do it?

That's what you say your government needs to do. If's it true for the feds, then why not true for you? Is it not true that you could borrow 50K and do a lot of good? Shoot, that's chicken feed compared to what the feds are doing. Why not do it?
First of all, I never said that about the govt borrowing themselves into the ground. I believe in fiscal responsibility. Why on earth would I borrow 50k???

First of all, I never said that about the govt borrowing themselves into the ground. I believe in fiscal responsibility.I'm glad to hear that, though I've never, ever seen you make that point other than now. You have never been, for instance, critical of Obama doubling the national debt, or of the incredible borrowing/printing spree Biden is engaging in. And yes, Trump was also guilty. The difference is that I readily am critical of Trump, but you would never issue a call for Biden or Obama to have been, as you very well put it, fiscally responsible.

I'm glad to hear that, though I've never, ever seen you make that point other than now. You have never been, for instance, critical of Obama doubling the national debt, or of the incredible borrowing/printing spree Biden is engaging in. And yes, Trump was also guilty. The difference is that I readily am critical of Trump, but you would never issue a call for Biden or Obama to have been, as you very well put it, fiscally responsible.
I stay off those threads as much as possible. I have no interest in govt spending or how it accumulates money. I like Obama for many reasons and am not fond of Trump for many reasons. Apparently, after his Ohio rally and his boring, bombastic speech that went on for hours, he divested himself of many fans.

I have no interest in govt spending or how it accumulates money.OK. You just said you did ( I believe in fiscal responsibility.) and now you said you have no interest in it. I just find it interesting how no one would go out and borrow 90K as a, "great plan for saving families from ruin," but then have no problem at all with allowing the feds to do it for them. And bear in mind that it's 90K for you, your hub, and your son.

OK. You just said you did ( I believe in fiscal responsibility.) and now you said you have no interest in it. I just find it interesting how no one would go out and borrow 90K as a, "great plan for saving families from ruin," but then have no problem at all with allowing the feds to do it for them. And bear in mind that it's 90K for you, your hub, and your son.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. To me, fiscal responsibility is paying our family's bills on time and balancing the checkbook. I have no interest in learning about or figuring out what our govt is doing.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. To me, fiscal responsibility is paying our family's bills on time and balancing the checkbook. I have no interest in learning about or figuring out what our govt is doing.And thus we see the problem. It just amazes me constantly that people like you, intelligent and responsible, see the urgent necessity of managing their own money well and paying their bills, and yet are perfectly content to watch the feds do the exact opposite. That's why they continue to get away with it. Sad.

And thus we see the problem. It just amazes me constantly that people like you, intelligent and responsible, see the urgent necessity of managing their own money well and paying their bills, and yet are perfectly content to watch the feds do the exact opposite. That's why they continue to get away with it. Sad.
Nooooooo, I submit to my husband's acumen because he understands all that stuff about govt spending and then advises me about it accordingly.

And if a taxpayer doesn't like what's being done in Washington, what can he do?

because he understands all that stuff about govt spending and then advises me about it accordingly.And he's telling you that everything is wonderful and 30 tril of national debt is no problem?


And if a taxpayer doesn't like what's being done in Washington, what can he do?
Vote for fiscal conservatives.

And he's telling you that everything is wonderful and 30 tril of national debt is no problem?
He's a Republican.

Vote for fiscal conservatives.
I do. Unfortunately, too many politicians with big money behind them win. If only more (responsible) women would run for office, we'd clean up this govt real fast!

If only more (responsible) women would run for office, we'd clean up this govt real fast!You mean like HC, KH, NP, or AOC? Heaven spare us. Kristi Noem would certainly have potential. If only Margaret Thatcher was still available.

You mean like HC, KH, NP, or AOC? Heaven spare us. Kristi Noem would certainly have potential. If only Margaret Thatcher was still available.
And Gretchen Wilmer and Nikki Haley and Karyn Polito.

NY is definitely a consideration. GW...joke. Not familiar with KP.

so back to China. 100 years of the CCP, they have achieved much. The only really successful communist society. It is a shame they taint it with jingoism. It must be remembered that China before the communist takeover was a very corrupt society with an ongoing civil war. Many years on the issues are different. It is difficult for us to understand that capitalism cannot lift a peasant society out of poverty easily. Communism didn't succeed in Russia, dictatorship took over, and China is in the dictatorship phase

capitalism cannot lift a peasant society out of poverty easily. Capitalism alone can't do it . There also needs to be liberty . The Chinese prosper by exporting the goods that slave labor produces . All the Green New Deal proponents should know that their vision cannot hope to succeed without the goods that the Uyghur slaves make . 40 % of the world's polysilicon is produced in Xinjiang region where the Chinese government is perpetrating a genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur and other ethnic minorities.
Chinese Solar Companies Tied to Use of Forced Labor - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/business/economy/china-solar-companies-forced-labor-xinjiang.html)

82 major corporations benefit from this . All free nations are complicit .

Uyghurs for sale | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI (https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale)

Surviving the Crackdown in Xinjiang | The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang)

Opinion | Ban on Chinese solar panels signals we can’t fight climate change using forced labor - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/24/china-solar-panels-biden-ban-uyghurs-human-rights/)

As far as communism ;the Chinese abandoned that a long time ago . They are ruled by a diminishing cult that made a Faustian bargain that said they would provide a degree of prosperity in exchange for total obedience. This diminishing cult is down to a rule of one .....Xi . He is old and there are no plans for succession .One party rule without a mandate from the people is too long. China is overdue for a revolution against the tyranny of the CCP .

The Chinese Communist Party at 100 | City Journal (city-journal.org) (https://www.city-journal.org/chinese-communist-party-at-100)

Capitalism alone can't do it . There also needs to be liberty. Exactly. Free enterprise.

It will be interesting to see what happens once Xi departs. He's 68 and seems to be in good health, so it might be some time yet.

China is overdue for a revolution against the tyranny of the CCP .

Good luck with that, there are 95 million party members

Only 10% of the country, and many of them are likely lukewarm at best.

It is like the Nazi Party in Germany . Many were not true believers . It was like joining a labor union.

It is like the Nazi Party in Germany . Many were not true believers . It was like joining a labor union.

Yes but just like Nazi Germany they are a pool of informers, reeducation camps are real, ask the Uyghurs

Only 10% of the country, and many of them are likely lukewarm at best.

Now he's an expert on China. Being an expert on hell wasn't enough for him. He can find more babies to torture.


It is like the Nazi Party in Germany . Many were not true believers . It was like joining a labor union.

Joining the Nazis was like joining a labor union? Did you really say that, tomder?

indeed I did . Hitler banned unions in 1933 because he wanted the loyalty of the labor movement . He replaced that with the DAF German Labor Front .Nazi members advanced further than non-members in the workplace . For many , the decision to join the Nazi Party was a pro-active calculation of the benefits they would derive from the Nazi program.

The Berlin Document Center holds registration cards for about 11 million Germans who joined the party (some are duplicates because people who dropped out and rejoined were issued new cards )
They did NOT join because of their antisemitism They joined for economic considerations . Many joined before 1933 and well before the purge of Jews became the Nazi cause . A disproportionate number of people who joined the party worked in industries, such as construction or food production, that benefited from policies intended to protect the domestic market.

They joined for economic and social reasons, but I imagine they stayed in out of fear of reprisals.

For many , the decision to join the Nazi Party was a pro-active calculation of the benefits they would derive from the Nazi program.

They did NOT join because of their antisemitismns . Many joined before 1933 and well before the purge of Jews became the Nazi cause .

The Nazi Party was antisemitic from its founding by Anton Drexler. I'm sure Germans also had other reasons for joining the Party but let's not whitewash what was always a despicable organization. The Parry was composed of far more than a lukewarm 10%.

In no way do I whitewash the party . What I am saying is that most members joined because having a job depended on it. DAF membership was "voluntary, " But any workers in any area of German commerce or industry would have found it hard to get a job without being a member. No not 10 % . Affiliates like the DAF had 25 million .In total about 45 million Germans were officially enrolled in Nazi programs .

In no way do I whitewash the party . What I am saying is that most members joined because having a job depended on it. DAF membership was "voluntary, " But any workers in any area of German commerce or industry would have found it hard to get a job without being a member. No not 10 % . Affiliates like the DAF had 25 million .In total about 45 million Germans were officially enrolled in Nazi programs .

Ok. Understood.

In no way do I whitewash the party . What I am saying is that most members joined because having a job depended on it. DAF membership was "voluntary, " But any workers in any area of German commerce or industry would have found it hard to get a job without being a member. No not 10 % . Affiliates like the DAF had 25 million .In total about 45 million Germans were officially enrolled in Nazi programs .

Sounds like the current GOP under the disgraced dufus.

Ok I apologise for using the word nazi thereby allowing you to sidetrack the thread once again. As the british used to say of the DAF you would have to be daft to own one

The comparison is valid . The CCP in reality is a secret society; an elite Xi cult .Membership numbers are deceptive . Leadership is less than a dozen and the ranks of potential successors is shrinking as Xi purges the party . When I was a kid I knew many people who would join a political party for the potential patronage job opportunities . As an example ;New York City was controlled by the Democrat Tammany Hall for many years (I would argue they still do) .

Sometimes it is hard to tell the capitalist from the communists.

The comparison is valid . ........................................ ;New York City was controlled by the Democrat Tammany Hall for many years (I would argue they still do) .

Those damn Democrats - sending their tanks down Fifth Avenue killing thousands.

Yes this must stop, no more presidential motorcades