Goddamn pink lovin’ Commies?
I think the ending of the deficit was a result, not a cause, of tax increases and a naturally booming economy. I think that other than the reasons you listed, ending “welfare as we know it” also had a tiny bit to do with the economic boom: I was afraid that it would be a disaster but it turned out to be good for the economy in an already robust unemployment situation, adding labor to a workforce that needed it. However, restrictive, bordering on onerous, welfare requirements and limits that work in times of 4% unemployment don’t apply to 12%, and we need flexibility in that realm.
This, however, is me playing “devil’s advocate” because welfare reform probably rounds out the bottom of the top 10 reasons for the 90s anomaly in a similar way to how “banks being cajoled into lending to poor people” was only a minor cause of the 2000s housing crash.
The National Mining Association also says in that broadsheet “When coal-supported jobs in manufacturing, power plants and freight rail are included, the toll on employment rises to between 113,000 and 280,000.”
I find this fascinating because it would be more jobs lost than actually exist[
](Coal and jobs in the United States - SourceWatch)
What was it we were supposed to find “reputable” about that broadsheet?? 
:dubious:
:rolleyes:
In my opinion, ultraliberal leftists are represented by thePelosi-Schumer-Reid-Obama-Warren wing of the Democratic Party, while its moderate side is represented by Jon Tester, Heidi Hetkamp, and Joe Manchin.
An ultraconservative, in my view, would be represented by people like the late Antonin Scalia, Sens. Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, John Cornyn, and the Republican Study Committee and House Freedom Caucus.
The Marxist government would be described by me as being hard-leftist. Note, I was using “ultraliberal leftist” only in connection with American politics compared to other political parties in the U.S., not with center-right parties in Europe. The U.K. Conservative Party, for example, is much more liberal than its American counterpart, the Republican Party.
In many marriages this sort of thing wouldn’t be available for long.
Rasmussen being an “outlier” is not evidence that its poll numbers are bunk. Again, the vast majority of polls in 2016 predicted Hillary Clinton would win the election; she lost it.
Rasmussen was the second most accurate pollster in 2016, as it predicted HRC would win by 1.7 points, rounded up that gives you two points, which is the margin she ended up winning by. Only the Investor’s Business Daily poll was better, which showed Trump both winning the election and predicting he’d win with 45 percent popular vote (he actually won with 46, so the IBD poll was very accurate).
Both the IBD and Rasmussen were outliers during the election. They turned out to be right, and they’re right now.
Again, there is a reason Trump appears so unpopular when he is in fact more popular then people think:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-popularity-polling-234630
Being popular does not make him: smart, qualified, honest, moral, or good for the country, or even his support base, despite their desperate need to believe otherwise.
I’m sure we can put together a long list of leaders who were popular for a time but ultimately disastrous. Trump is destined to be another name on that long ignonimous list that history won’t soon forgive nor forget.
The United States does not exist in a bubble, even if you do personally. If the Democrats are ultraliberal leftists, then by that standard Canada must be a full-blown communist country. If not, your standards of measurements are meaningless.
Canada is a socialist country, not a communist one; the latter term is way too strong. Trudeau is an ultraliberal leftist as well. He prevented any pro-life candidates from even running on his party line.
They have at least two other parties to choose from. They are not denied a voice or representation in parliament because the Liberal Party platform is a pro-choice platform.
If congressional Republicans were so dedicated to a balanced budget and holding the line on spending, why did spending and the deficit both start climbing as soon as Clinton was out of office, but Republicans still controlled Congress?
Well, based on that, you’re either trolling or so far removed from reason/knowledge that I have little expectation of productive conversation with you. It’ll just be mockery from me, if anything, for the near future.
I’ll give you that: as much respect as I have for George W., he did nonetheless allow spending to soar out of control on federal entitlements and education while two wars were going on, which lead to the monstrous deficit. Principled Republicans, like then-Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, opposed his Wall Street bailout, his governed the-expanding unpaid for Medicare prescription drug entitlement, as well as other free-spending measures.
Canada has universal, socialized healthcare, which entails massive government involvement and is one of the tenets of socialism. Pointing this out doesn’t make me a troll or removed from reality.
Public libraries and schools are also “socialist”, as are national highways etc. So by your definition isn’t America a Socialist country too?
A minute ago, you said it was socialist because Trudeau excluded pro-life candidates from his party. (Which I’m inclined to fact check.)
Which is it then?
Public libraries are not products of socialism, WTF? They can’t be consider socialist in any way. They are funded by taxpayer dollars and are public, however that is not synonymous with socialism
Who funds socialized healthcare? Magic woodland creatures?
That’s how socialized health care is funded too, and that’s public as well. So are you now saying that isn’t socialist either?
You have no idea what socialism is do you?
If you want to be charitable you could say he means social democracy. A lot of Americans equate welfare capitalism with socialism.