Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-24-2019, 03:29 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Can you link to the thread?

ETA: Have I been whooshed again? If you're referring to this thread, my uninformed opinion is that the democratic platform doesn't put forward a balanced budget, which is destructive to the country.

I guess, is the burden on me as a Republican to show that the Democratic platform doesn't put forward a balanced budget?

~Max
I mean... this isn't that hard, Max.

Table S-10, page 142, line item "Total, gross Federal debt"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...get-fy2020.pdf

I do think your estimation as to the nature of your own opinion is, in fact, spot on.

Last edited by JohnT; 10-24-2019 at 03:30 PM.
  #152  
Old 10-24-2019, 03:32 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
One thing I find amusing is that Republicans and conservatives on this board talk constantly about how they're unfairly demonized by the mean liberals here. But when there's a thread that asks a simple, direct question about oft-stated beliefs that should have a fairly simple factual answer, there's deafening silence. Vague insinuations that the Democrats are going to destory the country are common, but a simple "Platforms C, E, and F are what I'm talking about" seem to be rather lacking.
First - this isn't a direct question with a factual answer.
Second - the way the thread is framed is not aligned with being demonized or not - fairly unrelated.

For me, I don't find the Democratic Party platform destructive. That seems hyperbolic. I have many disagreements on policy proposals though. You know, like a normal person.
  #153  
Old 10-24-2019, 03:42 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Oh, and Max?

Here is the last Democratic Platform which produced a balance budget within your lifetime. Your challenge... should you choose to accept it... is to find the same for Republican Presidents in the post-1929 period.

Eh, fuck it:

The budget was balanced/in surplus in the following years:

1929 - Hoover (R)
1930 - Hoover (R)
1931 - Hoover (R)
1947 - Truman (D)
1948 - Truman (D)
1949 - Truman (D)
1951 - Truman (D)
1956 - Eisenhower (R)
1957 - Eisenhower (R)
1969 - Johnson (D) ('twas Johnson's budget in effect for 1969. Nixon's first budget was for 1971)
1998 - Clinton (D)
1999 - Clinton (D)
2000 - Clinton (D)
2001 - Clinton (D) (See Johnson, 1969)

I mean... education in facts is always superior to the education you receive via Broadcasting. I learned that a long, long time ago.

Cite: https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Last edited by JohnT; 10-24-2019 at 03:43 PM.
  #154  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:19 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Can you link to the thread?

ETA: Have I been whooshed again? If you're referring to this thread, my uninformed opinion is that the democratic platform doesn't put forward a balanced budget, which is destructive to the country.
It's this thread. The Democratic Party's platform is a matter of fact. Whether pieces are destructive is a matter of opinion or debate, but which ones 'you' consider such isn't.

Quote:
I guess, is the burden on me as a Republican to show that the Democratic platform doesn't put forward a balanced budget?
So your assertion is that the Democratic Party's platform is as destructive as the Republican Party's, as neither puts forth a balanced budget. In practice, if a non-balanced budget is 'destructive', the Democrats are the way to go as they've at least had some since the modern incarnation of the parties, unlike the Republicans. (If you check John T's post, Eisenhower was the last Republican to manage it, and that was in 1957, which was before the major realignment of the parties caused by the "Southern Strategy" from 1963 on.)

I think the real burden is to show not only that the Democratic Party's platform is 'destructive' in some way, but that said destructiveness is a reason to vote for Republicans instead, since the original post was created specifically in response to a person who stated that they would vote Republican because the Democratic Party's Platform is destructive. "The Democrats have the same plank as the Republicans on this issue" technically answers the subject line question, but dodges the real question.
  #155  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
This thread isn't about Republicans. It's not about your whatabout-isms either.
  #156  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:32 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
True. When you get right down to it, it's about how the Democratic party's platform works under the faith-based economics of supply-side, post-Reagan conservative economics, and yes: Against that belief system, the Democratic party platform is hell on Earth.

But when you actually look at the numbers and history... i.e., the facts, not the faith.... this contention collapses under the weight of it's own baselessness.

Last edited by JohnT; 10-24-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #157  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:43 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Oh, OK.

And the Republicans don't either.
Admitted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Not going to bother with the Clinton fact, but if this is your criteria, you're not really paying attention to American government financing post 1783.
No, I am well aware that the Clinton budgets were balanced, and that we have a terrible track record as a nation for achieving that.

~Max
  #158  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:53 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I mean, I look at charts like this and I wonder where you're getting your information from. You don't have, er, an education in broadcasting, do you?

https://www.thebalance.com/national-...events-3306287
I'm not really getting my information from anywhere, because as I said I'm not an expert on the Democratic platform. I haven't done the legwork to support my assertion and I'll admit that - I have admitted that upfront. I occasionally listen to radio but most of the time it's music, and the only television I watch is cartoons. I occasionally read a local newspaper and news aggregators like Google News. I read threads here, and occasionally people talk about current events and I overhear them.

But keeping a balanced budget is something I've held as desirable since grade school. That comes from my parents, and I naturally extend the concept to government. Yes, I did learn about expansionist policies and Keynesian economics in high school. But I think it's dangerous to run a large deficit for years and years on end. At some point, creditors may lose faith in the government, especially without a gold standard backed up by reserves, and without faith the only way to avoid default is hyperinflation.

~Max
  #159  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:56 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I mean... this isn't that hard, Max.

Table S-10, page 142, line item "Total, gross Federal debt"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...get-fy2020.pdf

I do think your estimation as to the nature of your own opinion is, in fact, spot on.
Alas, pointing out how unbalanced the Republican budget is says nothing about whether the Democratic budget is balanced.

~Max
  #160  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:57 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
And many folks think that it's not fair that smart, well educated people who are willing to move get all of the opportunities and advancement.

They want someone to promise them that they can do really really well for themselves, and they don't have to get a good education, move, or change in any way.

Not. Fair. You have to do something for me.

Kind of like it's not fair for people to make more money than someone else, or investors to grow without much actual work.

To all those "its' not fair" people, I would tell them that the world isn't fair, you make the best of what you can.
  #161  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:59 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Oh, and Max?

Here is the last Democratic Platform which produced a balance budget within your lifetime. Your challenge... should you choose to accept it... is to find the same for Republican Presidents in the post-1929 period.
I readily admit that Democrats have passed more balanced budgets than Republicans in the last 90 years. What's your point? Does this somehow invalidate my want for a balanced budget in 2021?

~Max
  #162  
Old 10-24-2019, 05:11 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
No, it invalidates your position and argument for purposes of this topic.

Last edited by JohnT; 10-24-2019 at 05:11 PM.
  #163  
Old 10-24-2019, 05:13 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's this thread. The Democratic Party's platform is a matter of fact. Whether pieces are destructive is a matter of opinion or debate, but which ones 'you' consider such isn't.
Whooshed twice in one thread. At least I caught myself this time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So your assertion is that the Democratic Party's platform is as destructive as the Republican Party's, as neither puts forth a balanced budget. In practice, if a non-balanced budget is 'destructive', the Democrats are the way to go as they've at least had some since the modern incarnation of the parties, unlike the Republicans. (If you check John T's post, Eisenhower was the last Republican to manage it, and that was in 1957, which was before the major realignment of the parties caused by the "Southern Strategy" from 1963 on.)
I wouldn't say the party platforms are equally destructive by way of the budget. Certainly the actual budget proposal fails by this standard; the platform itself at least claims to reduce the national debt (I don't know how, haven't read the whole thing in three years).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I think the real burden is to show not only that the Democratic Party's platform is 'destructive' in some way, but that said destructiveness is a reason to vote for Republicans instead, since the original post was created specifically in response to a person who stated that they would vote Republican because the Democratic Party's Platform is destructive. "The Democrats have the same plank as the Republicans on this issue" technically answers the subject line question, but dodges the real question.
Then the real question is one that I answer in the negative: it doesn't. I'm not a Republican because they are better on the budget in practice than Democrats. I'm a Republican because my parents were Republicans, because my friends are (for the most part) Republicans, because my city, county, and state are Republican, because with one exception*, every single elected official that won elections I could vote in, ever since I could vote, has been Republican, because we have closed primaries, and because I actually agree with a number of so-called Republican principles.

So I'm different from HurricaneDitka in ways that prevent me from answering on his behalf. You will have to ask HurricaneDitka directly, he's already made one post in this thread.

*the exception was our commissioner of elections, which is now also a Republican

~Max
  #164  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:58 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
In hardcore democrat strongholds, according to the article. So whats that saying about the Democrat party. They cant even fix their own hardcore areas.
You understand supply and demand, right? It's saying that more and more people want to live in democratic strongholds. More than there is housing for. Republican backwater shitholes are cheap because there isn't demand to fill the housing supply that is there.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017