Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Frisivisia]

I'll take that as a yes.

Now tell me, why is debt bad?

Is that a serious question?

It sure is.

Why is debt bad?

[Sheltopolis]

Yes and no. Many republicans support minimum wage and also increasing the national debt as well as bailouts for industry. This has held us back.

Also many republicans support the trade embargo with N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba as well as restrictions on prostitution and marijuana which also hurts the US economy.

Democrats hold the USA back more than republicans though.

Erm, no.

[Frisivisia]

Yes and no. 1) Many republicans support minimum wage and also increasing the national debt as well as bailouts for industry. 2)This has held us back.

Also many republicans support the trade embargo with N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba as well as restrictions on prostitution and marijuana which also hurts the US economy.

Democrats hold the USA back more than republicans though.

1) Some Republicans are smart.

2) lolnope

[Sheltopolis]

Is that a serious question?

It sure is.

Why is debt bad?

Because, if you keep borrowing money (like the U.S. does from China), eventually, other countries that you borrow from will simply quit lending it. That's not good. Furthermore, it reduces investment and economic growth.

[Frisivisia]

It sure is.

Why is debt bad?

Because, if you keep borrowing money (like the U.S. does from China), eventually, other countries that you borrow from will simply quit lending it. That's not good. Furthermore, it reduces investment and economic growth.

Prove it.

[Sheltopolis]

Because, if you keep borrowing money (like the U.S. does from China), eventually, other countries that you borrow from will simply quit lending it. That's not good. Furthermore, it reduces investment and economic growth.

Prove it.

It's yet to happen, but quite obvious- just use that common sense thinking we talked about. Why would China want to keep giving us money if they know we won't pay them back?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Many republicans support minimum wage

Spoken truly like someone whose never lived in poverty.

[Frisivisia]

Prove it.

It's yet to happen, but quite obvious- just use that common sense thinking we talked about. Why would China want to keep giving us money if they know we won't pay them back?

You think that everyone in the world will just stop lending the US money? Do you know what the word "hegemony" means?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Prove it.

It's yet to happen, but quite obvious- just use that common sense thinking we talked about. Why would China want to keep giving us money if they know we won't pay them back?

Because their economy is dependent on the US, as is the world's economy.

Oh, and 'common sense' is just code of 'making things up', so please provide some actual sources.

[Sheltopolis]

It's yet to happen, but quite obvious- just use that common sense thinking we talked about. Why would China want to keep giving us money if they know we won't pay them back?

You think that everyone in the world will just stop lending the US money? Do you know what the word "hegemony" means?

Yes, if our debt continues to spiral out of control, which it most likely will.

[Frisivisia]

You think that everyone in the world will just stop lending the US money? Do you know what the word "hegemony" means?

Yes, if our debt continues to spiral out of control, which it most likely will.

I repeat, do you understand what the word "hegemony" means?

[Sheltopolis]

Yes, if our debt continues to spiral out of control, which it most likely will.

I repeat, do you understand what the word "hegemony" means?

Oh, you were serious; a hegemony is the economic or social dominance by a group over others.

[Frisivisia]

I repeat, do you understand what the word "hegemony" means?

Oh, you were serious; a hegemony is the economic or social dominance by a group over others.

Good, now, can you tell me what impact the fact that the US has hegemony over the world has on whether everyone in the world will stop lending to us?

[Sdaeriji]

It sure is.

Why is debt bad?

Because, if you keep borrowing money (like the U.S. does from China), eventually, other countries that you borrow from will simply quit lending it. That's not good. Furthermore, it reduces investment and economic growth.

None of the things in this post are truth.

[Freiheit Reich]

Many republicans support minimum wage

Spoken truly like someone whose never lived in poverty.

I live simpler than many people getting food stamps and welfare (although by choice). I have no fridge, no cable TV, no washing machine (must wash clothes by hand), and no car. I am able to survive. Many 'poor' people I have seen buy name brand clothes (brand new as well) when they could save by going to a thrift store. Hard to feel sorry for them.

People should have the freedom to work for whatever wage they choose. Minimum wage is anti-freedom.

[Lost Earth]

Yes and no. I feel that both parties are holding the nation back, specifically the current situation in Congress and the general atmosphere of our nation's highest elected council for the past few years.

[Frisivisia]

Spoken truly like someone whose never lived in poverty.

I live simpler than many people getting food stamps and welfare (although by choice). I have no fridge, no cable TV, no washing machine (must wash clothes by hand), and no car. I am able to survive. Many 'poor' people I have seen buy name brand clothes (brand new as well) when they could save by going to a thrift store. Hard to feel sorry for them.

People should have the freedom to work for whatever wage they choose. Minimum wage is anti-freedom.

I laughed when you said that the minimum wage was anti-freedom. Then I realized you were serious and shed but one, manly tear.

[Distruzio]

Are sporks holding the US back?

[Alien Space Bats]

Kindly accept defeat? You act as if we're losing everything. You don't see me running around, flipping tables screaming "ERMAHGERD!! WE LOST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!! WE'RE FINISHED!!" No, because you know as well as I know that this doesn't mean the end of anything. From 1981-1993 there was a Republican president in the White House, were Democrats running around, yelling defeat and all is lost? No, just as they had their chance again, we'll have ours. So accept it. We're not defeated.

What Democrats did was learn.

Some of the lessons they learned weren't good lessons. Some weren't lessons that a great many Democrats would have liked to have to learn. Some of those lessons were lessons they should start unlearning. But all in all, the only reason they ended up winning again is because they learned.

Take the death penalty. It's popular as Hell among Americans (or was, back in the 80's). The Democrats had to learn to nominate candidates who support the death penalty, even though many of us still oppose it.

Take abortion. Most Americans have ambivalent attitudes towards abortion. Back in the 80's, Democrats were unashamed in their support for "a woman's right to choose". Now it's virtually mandatory for every Democrat to say that they don't like abortion "on a personal level" before expressing support for its continued legality. Everybody follows Bill Clinton's mantra, and says that what they want is for abortion to be "Safe, legal, and rare".

Take welfare. Americans generally hate welfare; they think that people on welfare ought to have to do something for that check (my choice would be "go to school", "get job training", or "take an active role in raising your kids", but most of America wants something more involved than that). The Democrats had to buy into the notion of welfare reform and lifetime benefit caps before they could win again.

Take race. In the 80's, most Americans still harbored strong prejudices against urban blacks. The Democrats had to start nominating people who were clearly willing to put some distance between themselves and the more radical elements within African-American society (cf. "Sister Souljah moment"); to this day, even a black Democratic President can't suggest that we should start pouring money into our Nation's inner cities to keep them from being a continuing boat anchor against economic growth.

Take unions. Most Americans have unfavorable attitudes towards labor unions; to win, Democrats had to downplay their union ties so that they didn't look like they were "in the pocket" of Big Labor. Today, with labor under attack even in the industrial Midwest, we still can't get a Democratic President to speak out strongly in favor of the right to organize.

Take the military. Most Americans support the military and are extremely patriotic, almost to a fault. Democrats had to nominate hawks who were willing to spend whatever it took to make the U.S. military the most powerful in the world; only now are they beginning to question whether we're spending too much on arms and intelligence, and even the most dovish Democrats are proposing that we cut back no further than where we were (in spending terms) in the late 1990's.

Take deregulation. Democrats had a reputation for wanting to strangle business with regulations; now Democrats talk about "market-based solutions" to virtually every problem, and even in the wake of the greatest financial collapse in over 80 years, they still can't bring themselves to bring back those financial regulations (like Glass-Steagall) that they themselves helped repeal in the 90's. And God forbid any Democrat say anything in favor of "Big Government": After Bill Clinton declared that "the era of Big Government is over", the best Barack Obama could do in his 5th State of the Union was say that "we need smart government, not big government".

I could go on and on and on and on, but anyone younger than 35 here will probably not remember how big a break Bill Clinton was from Democrats who came before him. He came in and adopted so many moderate Republican positions that it was sometimes hard to tell the difference between his positions and those of his opponent, George H. W. Bush. The Party moved so far to the right that elements on its left wing defected and voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000 as a protest, claiming there was no longer any real difference between the two Parties.

The point is that some Republicans expect the rebound to occur without them actually having to change anything. Well, that's not going to happen: You're going to have to move back to the left if you want to win. That's why the Democrats did in 1992, and that's why Democrats have beaten Republicans in the popular vote in every single race since then, save one.

[Grenartia]

You're saying the republicans are doing it, and seem to be cheerleading for them. Unless you're just accusing the Repubs of destroying the country, which is what you seem to be accusing the Dems of doing. In which case, why is deliberately destroying the country better than accidentally destroying the country (although you seem to have unrealistic ideas of what Dem policy would result in, to put it mildly)

Cheerleading? The only redeemable aspect of the GOP is their social policy, which strangely enough is what NSG'ers seem to criticize most.

Because their social policy is fucking shit.

People should have the freedom to work for whatever wage they choose. Minimum wage is anti-freedom.

No, its pro-freedom. When you get a job, the EMPLOYER determines what you get paid for doing it. Taking away minimum wage means they could choose to pay you in company "fun" bucks (which can only pay for shit the company offers, because its not legal tender, and a day's worth would most likely not be worth much of that) only. Which is a form of SLAVERY.

[Polkopia]

By George, I think we got it.

no we dont.

if the so-called conservatives wanted to do what is best for the government they wouldn't have tried to fuck with the full faith and credit of the US by trying to stop the raising of the debt ceiling.

Oh please. If you compare the spending of a typical conservative and a typical liberal, it won't be that hard to see who ends up spending more. I consider myself a moderate, and have sided with Republican and Democrat presidential candidates in the past, but don't even try to say that Conservatives spend more than Liberals.

[Frisivisia]

Cheerleading? The only redeemable aspect of the GOP is their social policy, which strangely enough is what NSG'ers seem to criticize most.

Because their social policy is fucking shit.

People should have the freedom to work for whatever wage they choose. Minimum wage is anti-freedom.

No, its pro-freedom. When you get a job, the EMPLOYER determines what you get paid for doing it. Taking away minimum wage means they could choose to pay you in company "fun" bucks (which can only pay for shit the company offers, because its not legal tender, and a day's worth would most likely not be worth much of that) only. Which is a form of SLAVERY.

And which did, in fact, happen in the olden times.

[Quovis Celestis]

no we dont.

if the so-called conservatives wanted to do what is best for the government they wouldn't have tried to fuck with the full faith and credit of the US by trying to stop the raising of the debt ceiling.

Oh please. If you compare the spending of a typical conservative and a typical liberal, it won't be that hard to see who ends up spending more. I consider myself a moderate, and have sided with Republican and Democrat presidential candidates in the past, but don't even try to say that Conservatives spend more than Liberals.

Refer to this graph:



And this graph

[Polkopia]

Oh please. If you compare the spending of a typical conservative and a typical liberal, it won't be that hard to see who ends up spending more. I consider myself a moderate, and have sided with Republican and Democrat presidential candidates in the past, but don't even try to say that Conservatives spend more than Liberals.

<snip>

The primary reason for conservative presidents' spending is to protect American freedom. Bush's spending is always viewed as high because of the war he brought us in to. Same could be said for Reagan. Liberals spend taxpayers' money on useless bullshit that ends up hurting the economy in the long-run.

The last sentence is more of a generalization, but it can be applied to today's liberal presidents (Clinton, Obama, etc.)

[Grenartia]

Prove it.

It's yet to happen, but quite obvious- just use that common sense thinking we talked about. Why would China want to keep giving us money if they know we won't pay them back?

Because we practically own the fucking world. As the last few years have shown, when America's economy goes down the fucking toilet, EVERYBODY suffers. Therefore, its in their best interest (at least for now) for them to continue giving us money.

Because their social policy is fucking shit.



No, its pro-freedom. When you get a job, the EMPLOYER determines what you get paid for doing it. Taking away minimum wage means they could choose to pay you in company "fun" bucks (which can only pay for shit the company offers, because its not legal tender, and a day's worth would most likely not be worth much of that) only. Which is a form of SLAVERY.

And which did, in fact, happen in the olden times.

I'm aware.