The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I am not a Trump fan but voting for Hilliary is voting for the ''same old thing".  A lot of us here have said shame on us for voting the same old idiots back to office.

Short answer.  It's "the devil you know".  An outsider may be a good idea, but Trump is not the answer. 
And for the record, I'm voting Johnson.   It's a symbolic vote here in OK, because Trump is no-doubt going to win, but at least for this election his platform is the one I like the most.  #feelthejohnson

 

Every vote here is symbolic.

Johnson ain't that much different in positions than Clinton/Kaine. This is a funny little website. He can't spell "volunteerism" but still enlightening.
http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/there-is-no-logic-in-voting-for-gary-johnson/

Agree with you on every vote here being symbolic.  Sad, but true.

Glanced at the site.  First, I actually agree that there is no logic in voting for Johnson (hence the symbolic vote).  If I were in a swing state I wouldn't allow myself that luxury, as above all else Trump should not be president.

But I'm not a "hard Libertarian", and I think there are a lot of practical issues with pure Libertarianism.  Johnson is more old-school-Republican than Libertarian, and that is exactly why I think he's a valid (if not feasible) choice.  The author is (IMHO) confusing a lot of issues because he doesn't think, rightly, that Johnson is a pure Libertarian.  If anyone thinks there is little difference in Hillary (or the Dem platform in general) and Johnson then they aren't honestly looking at the platforms.

I'm probably living in a bubble, but everyone I know is voting for (or expressing interest in) Johnson. 
These people are coming from both sides of the isle. 
Very telling considering he's still virtually unknown. 
I'm guessing that the media may start mentioning his name this week.   

He's a symbolic AND reasonable vote.

If only you could replace those idiots with non-idiots, then this line of thinking would be justifiable.

Yep.

Okay.  Johnson isn't a pure Libertarian. In fact that party has as much conflict within its ranks as the others. Here are some issues one wing has with the Johnson Libertarian wing. Quotes from my link follow.:

     -Over the course of his campaign, Johnson has stated that Jewish bakers should be forced to make Nazi wedding cakes,
     -that he would continue to federally fund Planned Parenthood, scientific research, green energy, and NASA,
     -that he likes the idea of equal pay for equal work,
     -that he likes the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,

     -that he agrees with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time, (you know, the Socialist?)
     - that the free market bankrupted coal,
     -that North Korea is the greatest threat to our national security, that he supports humanitarian wars,
     -that he supports a carbon tax (which is ironically the type of policy responsible for bankrupting coal),

Are you sure this guy isn't a moderate Dem or moderate Repub? So far this is Hillary/Kaine/Sanders stuff.

     -that recessions are caused by consumers getting overheated, (um...more complicated than that, but okay)
     - that he wants the US to remain in the United Nations, (horrors!)
     - that he supports TPP, (so did Obama)
     -that he believes Hillary Clinton is no criminal, (get a rope!)
     - and that he supports a basic, government subsidized income. (Hellow Denmark. Oh well, Alaska does it too)

Okay so he’s not perfect, you’re probably saying. But things only get worse when you take a look at his VP, Bill Weld. As governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld proposed and supported:
     - some of the strictest gun control measures in the nation,
     -supported the Patriot Act, as well as the Iraq War and Trump style eminent domain.
     -In 2008, Bill Weld endorsed Barack Obama for President, and in 2012 endorsed Mitt Romney.
     -Prior to becoming the Vice Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 2016, Weld wasn’t even supporting his own running mate, but had instead endorsed John Kasich for President. (smart guy. What's he doing with symbolic politics?)

It gets worse if you think these Libertarians represent a different choice:
     -Weld made appearances on local television boasting about his lifelong relationship with Hillary Clinton.
     -He also went on local television and extolled that he has “always been in favor of the universal [Obamacare] mandate.”  (find a tree!)
     -Weld recently stated that he believes a libertarian foreign policy consists of having “superior air power and sea power projected around the world.” (Maybe imperial colonialism will have a rebirth...)     
     -Gary Johnson refers to Bill Weld as “the original libertarian,” as well as his “role model in politics.”

A month ago, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld had the biggest media exposure of their life, appearing on an hour long CNN Town Hall. Gary had the opportunity to open up millions of new minds to the ideas of liberty, but instead said,
     - “We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana.” When Chris Cuomo pressed him further, saying, “It seems to me that there’s an inconsistency here. Either you think drugs should be legalized or not,” Gary responded with, “Keep the drugs illegal.”
     -Gary Johnson called Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant,” and Bill Weld called Barack Obama “statesman like,” and complimented his second presidential term.
     -When asked about their views on gun control, Gary Johnson said, “I don’t think our position would be making it easier. We’re not looking to roll back anything.” Johnson and Weld also doubled down on wanting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. (the insanity! Arm the mental hospitals now!)

So, yeah. Based on Johnson and Weld's positions, I could vote for them. Or I could vote for the one they emulate.

On Trump, I am a single issue voter.  There is a vast array of things to not want him as President for, but this one sums it all up into one package - goes to the overall lack of character, feeling, empathy, or conscience.  Not to mention extremely low class, no taste - except that bad one in his mouth that gives such a horrible halitosis.  One can only hope that he will get to endure something of that scope and magnitude and have to learn to deal with both the problems of the condition/affliction AND the disgusting reactions from the type of ignorance he has in such abundance.   

Oh, wait...sorry...I forgot about that hair!!  He is in the same situation some kids find themselves - so ugly they have to tie a pork chop around their neck to get the dog to play with them.  In his case, he has to tie a billion dollars around his neck to get a woman next to him....and even that doesn't work forever.  Hence 3 wives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

Hillary is continuing the policy of Obama which has been a huge success. Easy vote for me.

Your "white privelidge" is showing. sarc

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/23/under_obama_blacks_are_worse_off_--_far_worse_127497.html

Only if you count GDP, unemployment (halved), total jobs (+10 mil!), the stock market (more than doubled), corporate profits (more than doubled), or real wages (up 4.2%). I guess the trade deficit is down 24% and exports are up 28%. Or, I guess, if you count the decrease military deaths, terror attacks claiming US lives, or deaths of US diplomatic personnel its been pretty good too. All the while killing more terrorists than any world leader in history including more leaders, and of course Osama. Or, perhaps, that the Federal budget has grown at the slowest pace since before Reagan was in office, tax revenues are up, and even the social welfare programs are on more stable ground.  Sure, I guess we have more border security than ever before and the number of deportations and enforcement actions is up too, the total number of new illegal immigrants is down 9%. Then again, I guess you could consider that more people have health insurance than ever before and the annual rise in the cost of health insurance has slowed for the first time in decades. And the fact that our domestic energy supply has hit an all-time high (+87%) and our imports have fallen (-61%). Of course, most of our closet allies and largest world economies have had a dramatic uptick in their favorable views of the USA at the same time (Japan, Italy, France, Britain, etc...). Other than that, thanks for nothing Obama.

Still waiting for him to come for my guns.

(I'd argue not a huge success on real wages, but reversed the trend anyway, also his diplomatic agenda has been a mixed bag, and well, plenty of other stuff to whine about too. And yes, much of that has little to do with the guy who is sitting in the White House - but he'd surely be blamed if it went poorly. The point is if a Republic was in the White House at the moment the conservatives would be howling with pleasure at what a great job he's done.)

Honestly, I don't think President Obama has any unique characteristics that led to any of that. Outside of deciding to commit less troops and more drones/air strikes, what decision did he make that led to any of thoese things happening?

What he does have is one of the most divisive personalities that is in my opinion is leading to the fracturing of our society. That more than anything is going to be the legacy of this president.

And usually you do so well....maybe it's because of your youth that you feel Obama has anything to do with the "fracturing of our society"....  You haven't experienced enough to know that this is just 8 more years of the same stuff of the last 50+ years.  If that is how you form an idea of legacy, then we just need to talk again in 30 years - and after you study some of the history of the 20th century....

His 'decision' that led to those things was to quit doing what the previous regime had done.  That's all it took...

That's like saying Bush had no unique characteristics that led to us going down the insane paths we went through his term - the guy sets the tone from the top.  The buck stops here syndrome....   You may be right - nothing unique about Republicontin approach of giving back to the richest while taking from the poorest.  And this batch is gonna carry on the tradition.

Like war crimes - waterboarding, rendition....  Big on Trumps list!
Lying to the US about things that got us into the wrong war, then not bothering to clean up any of the mess.  Especially Osama...  Killing 4,000+ of our kids and squandering $4 trillion off budget.
Massive increases in budget, and deficit.  While giving his richest buddies the biggest tax cuts in history.

Nice.  I am gonna plagiarize the hell out of this...at least parts of it....just thought you should know...  Just call me 'Melania'.!!

But I thought he was divisive?  ::)

You just described Obama as well. Again, what's the difference? He has reduced troops and employed a drone/air strike tactic, which reduces our casualties. But it kind of flies in the face of the whole anti-waterboarding crowd because instead of torturing we just deprive them of their breathing ability...permanently. But I guess if that's better, whatever.

And yes, I may be young and I have not "lived" it all. But can you tell me with a straight face that Obama has been a unifying force, or at least attempted to be one?

Oh, and Obama increased the budget (all though not as much as he had asked for thanks to congress) and all the while the rich are getting richer.

Cannon,  I too plan on swiping your remarks on the Obama record and its likely continuation under another strong Democrat. I think some of the unintended consequences of a do nothing Congress has actually helped us in many regards. They spent so much time saying "hell no" that they never accomplished much of their negative agendas.

Erfalf, its not your fault you are young, but it is your fault you're not reading history objectively and not listening to those who lived through it. The divisiveness is not from Obama, its from the weak link in our chain, the unreformed southern states. Its like blaming the assault of a woman on her beauty.

I have to ask. What is it that Obama did that fostered divisiveness during the last 8 years?

I sure didn't say he was divisive!  At least no more than any other President who has the other party against him.

Nooooo...it's not the same.  Killing an enemy in a war situation is kinda the whole point.  When that same enemy has been subdued, surrendered, or come into one's custody by whatever means, there are specific rules and laws of treatment that are required.  It's called "Rule of Law".  



Attempted to unify - yes!  Much more than most.  Successful?  No.  Not through lack of effort, but more through lack of participation by the Republicontins.  There are MANY cases in the last 8 years where Obama has agreed with and endorsed ideas advanced by Republicontins, which were then sandbagged and resisted by them.  Cap and Trade - Republicontin concept, developed by HW Bush and his cronies.  Then, when Obama said, yeah, that sounds like a good idea, all the right wing extremists were against it.

Another one - a small group of moderate Republicans endorsed/developed the idea of universal health insurance and implemented the plan in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney.  And then when the Dems said yeah, that would help, let's do it.... well, you know the story - it is now something to be against.   Granted, Dems have been in favor of this for decades - more than 5 - but have always been obstructed until the Repubes thought they could spin it to their benefit.

Tell me again about all your great 'unifiers' on Faux News...??


As for budget - well, the budget does go up every year.  And for the last 8 years, at the slowest rate of increase in a VERY long time - since before Reagan.  And more importantly - the increase in the national debt has gone down by hundreds of billions!  Baby Bush last unfunded debt increase was $1.9 trillion dollars.  Obama's first increase was down about $300 billion from that to about $1.5xx trillion.  And is now down to around $400 billion.  This is something I have talked about over and over again and obviously you missed it.  Perspective and sense of history moment...

Want the reference??  It's the US Treasury - the guys that have to count all those big numbers!

Again.  And again.  And again...until people pull their heads out of Roger Ailes a$$....

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Come on. This Alito-Obama 2010 State of the Union. Calls out every group that doesn't agree with him and paints them as either un-patriotic or bigots. That's a way to be inclusive. Again, I understand I haven't lived the history you have, but that doesn't mean you all somehow have some better understanding of it. The patronizing tone is off putting and incredibly disrespectful. I understand how Democrats work. Those that oppose their views do not just have differing views, they are wrong. That's not the case. I can't give you empirical evidence that Obama is the MOST divisive, but I can certainly point to anecdote evidence that says he is. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong entirely.

They are self imposed and by no means are our opponents afforded any type of rights. I'm not for or against either particularly. I just find it similar to those that are pro life and pro death penalty. They seem at odds with each other in my opinion. (key word opinion).



First, no where did I compare anyone to Fox news. That's a pretty low bar. Can you please stop caracturing everyone that disagrees with you as some Fox news watching, confederate flag waving, teeth missing rube. And judging by your tone, your divisive meter may be off somewhat. However, your examples of political back and forth are not examples of coming together. It's a cunning president trying to make the other side look bad (just like the Rs were doing by attempting to defeat it). Nevermind that both of those ideas, while at the time may have seemed good, are not really good plans. Cap and trade was initiated to stop acid rain I believe that was caused by sulfur emissions which in the end weren't really causing acid rain. And let's not go down the Obamacare way.



There are a lot of things to analyze when it comes to budget and actual spending, but I'll just say two things.

1. Often 2009 is used as a baseline. 2009 is an anomaly in that it included a TON of one time spending (stimulus). That is not a baseline.

2. If it weren't for congress and it's budget, Obama would not look nearly as good. Just as the case for all presidents (all though some hurt...Reagan). Reagan actually submitted budgets less impactful on the debt than congress ended up enacting, which I understand he then authorized.

(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4fea2b316bb3f7cd02000001/debt-vs-rates.jpg)

Somehow those "decreases" don't make me feel that much better.

Re spending...

The only spending that can really be considered in any short-term period is discretionary spending. Under Obama, discretionary spending has been falling fast a percent of  GDP. It is as low as it has been in 50 years and dropping fast.  Spending peaked under Reagan. The deficit is also falling, and should be down to less than 2% of GDP by the time Obama leaves the White House (6% under Reagan, 10% at the end of Bush II).

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/economy/spending-obama/
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_percent_gdp

Yes, the President does not dictate this metric. But he has a lot of influence (Bush II deficit was a combination of the wars, Medicare expansion, and the recession). Congress has more of an impact, and under Obama there have been more Democratic years than Republican.

My main point on my rant isn't that Obama is a rock star - it's merely that had a Republican been in the White House when all this happened, the GOP would crown him King for Life and sign his praises. While there is legitimate criticism, it's only because of the "D" that he is hated so much (I don't believe it is racism, they hated Clinton just as much).

Self-imposed??  I really want to know exactly what you mean by that before I reply in detail - it almost sounds like you think that we just decided not to torture out of the goodness of our hearts as opposed to being actual law.  Is that your meaning - that we don't torture only because we don't want to??  Not because it is the law of the land?

Edit;  And your statement is wrong about rights of prisoners


I don't have to caricature anyone - I couldn't do nearly as good a job as Faux News does anyway, so I will just let them take the lead and carry on in their own imitable way.


Cap and trade is a concept that is much more than that - always has been.  It is a tool - an umbrella covering a much wider range of topics.  Reagan used it for leaded gas.  HW sulfur dioxide, then was morphing into carbon sequestration about the time it became evil - or agreed to by the Dems.  Started by Repubes.

Scared of talking Obamacare?  Yeah...such a terrible thing that 20 million people are able to have affordable health insurance.  Plus the ones that Romney got on board in MA.

1.  Why 2009?  Baseline for you maybe but there are over 200 years before that.  Why not pick 1835 - all time low of $33,000 debt.   If you mean to ignore everything before 2009, well, there really is no hope.  2008 was the year with the biggest increase in a national debt deficit in the history of the world.  That is something I am sure all the Repubes wish could be ignored - and they have been successful in getting most to ignore that reality.  

As for a "ton" of stimulus - well, once again a knowledge of history would be nice.... The Obama stimulus that actually led to the end of that recession was about $700 billion dollars.  Much of it went to various entities, companies, and about $350 billion of it went to you and me (if you were working at that time) in the form of temporary tax cuts spread over several years.  That all happened early in the year - around Feb/March.  By July/Aug, we were out of the recession.

As opposed to when it started - Remember 2007/2008?  When Bush gave all his rich buddies trillions.  We gave banks $2.5 trillion dollars over a 2 week period.  Plus many more tens of billions to various other entities.  NONE of which stopped a recession that dragged on from late 2007, all the way through 2008 and into 2009 - until we got a real stimulus for real people.

If you look at the debt history (link below) you will see a leveling out of the increases during the Clinton years, the accelerated growth again, with another period of leveling out in the last 8 years.  It really is a very big difference and very clearly shows the absolute difference in what has happened in recent debt history.  And how even when Congress is in session throughout - it is the Presidential terms that show where the difference occurs.  Congress just keeps on blabbing/spending and yet, somehow Presidents can make a difference.  

The Republicontin lie for decades has been about Dems "tax and spend".  When you look at the reality, it's all about Repubes "tax cuts for the richest and spend more".  Excel is your friend!  The data IS all there.

If one's biggest concern is fiscal policy, as a single topic voter, then there is very clearly only one choice that could possibly be made for at least many decades past.  And that was Dem.


https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

I forgot the Medicare Part D welfare plan for big pharma....thanks for reminding me.

That's the one where we paid big pharma $900 billion over a 3 year period BEFORE any Medicare recipient received one penny or one pill of benefit from the program.  Front end loading the profits of the companies....

Nah. We do have a better understanding of "it". Not because we're older but because we have more direct experience with the insanity of politics. Question everything including your own (anecdotal) views. I got that from Thomas Jefferson. Such a radical. You haven't earned my respect by merely repeating boilerplate conservative stuff and saying both sides do it or there is no right or wrong. Or with your 3rd grade analysis of how Democrats work. You don't have empirical evidence, you probably don't have good reason to be repeating that he is the most divisive leader in history. That's Fox news stuff. Make good arguments supported with objective sources and old people will listen.

Of course Obama is the most divisive leader ever. He’s black.

That’s all that measure needs. No matter what he does a good percentage of the population hates him and another percentage distrusts him. Through no action of his own.

Obama, with his words, manner and demeanor has been about the most inclusive president I have ever seen. And that’s in the face of the most intractable political divisions I have ever seen. I actually think this has been to his detriment, he’s too aloof and cool and isn’t great at political combat. That 2010 State of the Union happened because Obama was completely rebuffed and reviled for his outreach efforts to Republicans. He held golf outings with Republicans, beer parties at the White House, met with leaders as much as he could and was confronted with utter hostility and questions from actual elected leaders about his being a secret Muslim born in Kenya as some kind of Manchurian Candidate style plant to end America. Obama has never been very good at dealing with confrontation.

The Republican party is about to relearn what it means to have a tough political operative in the White House is like.

*Like*

Half of my family is African-American. Next.

Stop scaring me with facts!

His legacy will be the best President in history.

That's the one of the funniest bucking things I have read this week.....

Ignore Breadburnt....he doesn't really read...!

While I don't think is the best Pres ever, he will be remembered a damn sight better than his predecessor and not nearly as bad as some would have you believe.  Under the circumstances, I think he did about as well as anyone in his position could have done.

Truth.

Best black president from Kenya we ever had!

Don't forget...best Mooslem President we've ever had too!

I've noticed that all the latest presidents are remembered for the jokes made about them instead of their deeds.

What do you remember about them as presidents?

Nixon - Crook
Ford - Air Force One stairs and football
Carter - Peanuts/Iran
Reagan - Alzheimer's and Jelly beans
Bush I - taxes and Iraq Pt 1
Clinton I - stains
Bush II - Fumbling and Iraq Pt 2
Obama - Black/Birthers et al

I wonder what Clinton II will be remembered for - Woman, I doubt stains...probably divisive battles with GOP legislators about Supreme Court nominees.

Why? Would love to hear something that isn't completely fabricated proving me otherwise.

Good luck with that.....

Any elaboration yet?


If what you mean or think is what it reads like, I am really looking forward to replying....

Busy day yesterday. Sorry.

Prisoners of War are afforded certain rights (no torture) under international convention. However, terrorists were not included as they are not a party to, well, pretty much anywhere. Which is why what happened at Guantanamo did not have the U.S. running afoul of the Geneva pepes. We are bound by nothing but ourselves (Hamden 2006 and Detainee Treatment Act by McCain) to treat terrorists any way we want. And even then the CIA appears to not be bound by McCain's act. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just commenting on it's legality.
I mean hell, we have the death penalty and are part of the Geneva Convention. How does that square?

And regarding your numbers. I haven't been able to round up my old analysis and doing it over takes time. But long story short, the debt numbers basically show nothing. If anything it would appear that congress has much more to do with them than the president (not shocking to anyone here I'm sure). That being said, even those results were misleading as Democrats have held this branch for most of US history. And what I mean is, only in short stretches have republicans held power, and budgets are long term documents so it is incredibly difficult to assign "blame" to one party or the other.

Look, you need to get off your high horse, and let up on the condescension. Less years in life does not mean a limited understanding of things. And I do numbers ALL fing day. Statistics I have found can be manipulated to show just about anything. The world is far too complicated to run single analysis and determine one cause.

Understand you choose to support certain causes because on some moral or ethical grounds you agree with them. That does not mean the are the absolute only possibly correct way to view the world. There is no empirical evidence to show that "Democrats are better" and there is just as little showing that "Republicans are stupid" as I have seen posted here countless times (on this board).

Thank you!

First, let's establish the truth of Treaties and the CFR - Code of Federal Regulations - they ARE the Supreme Law of the Land.  So many seem to be confused on exactly what constitutes the Supreme Law of the Land.  And they blather endlessly about things that aren't in the Constitution, so don't count.  I am not talking about you here - this is just general ground setting information.  The US Constitution states explicitly, Article 6;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


And just as an interesting side note to this discussion, more of Art 6;

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Interesting how the founders specifically stated NO religious test shall ever be required.... they specifically rejected the idea of the US being a Theocracy, both here and in other Constitutional sections.



First, you may want to go actually READ the Geneva conventions which not only covers the treatment of prisoners, but also DEFINES what defines a "prisoner of war".   Here;

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

One might make an argument regarding the status of all those we rounded up, and whether they were adhering to the laws and customs of war, but then there is that pesky Article 5.  This is where the treatment of terrorists IS included UNTIL status determined - "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."   Gotta have a trial before you can waterboard or execute.

This is where Bush and his cronies got so many in this country to subscribe to the idea that somehow war crimes aren't war crimes.  You see to believe that.  But they are.  And they were.  So why is there no impeachment for high crimes?  And prosecution and imprisonment for his cronies?

And now Trump calls for expanding the program.  Yeah, not only is my view - as well as many others - on torture and treatment of people held in custody not just valid based on moral or ethical grounds that I agree with, but it IS the absolutely the only possibly correct way to view this little part of the world on a LEGAL basis!   But that requires us to be a country run on the rule of law.

Death penalty?  Nothing in the international treaty law says we can't have the death penalty.  Even for enemy combatants.  The ONLY prohibition relates to protected persons (under the convention) who were under 18 at the time of the event they are charged with.  We executed DOZENS, is not hundreds of Japanese after WWII - under these conventions and before - for the single crime of waterboarding!  Now we consider it to be a national 'virtue'....


On to the numbers!!

They are not my numbers - they are the real numbers right there on the Federal debt history site.  You can copy/paste and put them into a spreadsheet and see what has happened.  Long story short - yeah they do show something - lots of things!  Congress BETTER have much more to do with it - by definition, it is their job to do so.  There is nothing misleading about the record of the US debt.  It shows what it is and has been.

As for what that means - well, it can also be seen that since 1981 it has skyrocketed beyond all comprehension.  Under predominately Republican controlled conditions.  And when a Democrat was in office - and here is the really interesting part....even when Republicans controlled Congress - we ended up with either surpluses (Clinton) or dramatic reductions in the increases of Federal debt (Obama).  Most extreme example - Baby Bush last budget busting increase of $1.9 trillion dollars, contrasted to the first Obama increase of about $1.5 trillion - the increase DOWN by about $400 billion.  (At these numbers there is rounding effect to nearest few tens of billions).  And those increases in debt got lower every year thru today.

Analyze the debt numbers.  Since you do this all day, I would love to see if you get different results.

Blame?   Huh...well, yeah, it really is easy to assign blame to individuals and parties.  It took over 200 years, until 1980 to get to $900 billion in debt.  By end of Reagan, 8 years later, $2.9 trillion.  By end of HW Bush, 4 years later, $4.4 trillion.  And since tax cuts and spending increases by Republicans had disproportionate effect on the next few years, it took 4 years to get it back "under control".  Then we got W'ed.  Still trying to recover from that.  As I have said before, Dems are accused of being "tax and spend" (which they really aren't if you look at the record), and Repubs are actually "tax cut and spend much more", which IS the real record.  Remember Star Wars?  The military program, not the movies!

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm


Oh, noooo...playing the condescension card!!  The plaintive bleat of ageists around the country!  (You wouldn't happen to be a Typro would you?) 

You are right, less years does NOT have to mean a limited understanding of things.  I am literally surrounded by young adult people - both friends and family - ranging from as young as 17 to 40 somethings who do have exceptional understanding of things.  (There are younger ones, too, but their political awareness is limited...under 10 or 11 years old now.)  And they have open minds that listen to, absorb, gather, and analyze an immense range of information from their kids up to other family friends way older than me....  And no, they definitely do not all agree with me, but that's ok, too, as long as they use their brain and don't just go the easy 'sound bite' route of Faux News Fanboy Clubism.  (And again, NO, I am not accusing you of being that either - you have shown mostly to have a thinking nature.)

I kinda wish I did have a high horse at times...one of these would be nice.
https://www.google.com/search?q=high+horse&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicnsK-yJbOAhVFlSwKHawxAy0QsAQILA&biw=1410&bih=709

I had done an analysis years ago on debt & congressional/presidential party control. I thought at the time it would be something, but ended up being a whole lot of mixed bag. I still haven't found it. It's several computers ago. May be lost to time.

You also have to consider that not all Congress and Presidents had the same pallet to work with. For example (just one for now), the Clinton years are viewed as an incredibly fiscally responsible time (rightly so I would say, but then again, who do you credit more? Clinton or the R in Congress). But people fail to recall the incredible wealth (tax revenue) that was being generated by a bubble forming tech boom. Which busted just in time for W to take office. I don't know the exact impact that would have made (and no one else does to the penny either), however I know it made balancing a budget a heck of a lot easier. You just can't place blame/credit on one group of people or one person.

Totally anecdotaly, but just reminded of this, the company I work for has a huge awards celebration every year. The top producers nationally are recognized in front of the whole company. 99 out 100 begin their acceptance speeches with "I have to thank my team" or "I couldn't have done it without my team". It is an incredibly refreshing perspective. And these producers are definitely type A go getters too, but realize their place at the same time. I really wish that same perspective was a little more pervasive in society.

Wasn't just tax revenue that occurred from a static situation - it's the tax revenue that appeared due to tax increases by Reagan (twice).  H W Bush.  And Bill Clinton.  Reagan by far had the biggest increases of the bunch.

As opposed to every single RWRE who blasted Obama for month after month after month when he said that the 1% didn't do it without a team. 

And Trump who said he is the ONLY one who can <fill in the idiotic comment blank>.



You already know these 'truths' - you see them in action even at work - now all we gotta do is help you get your internal knowledge aligned with your best interests and outward manifestations, thereby ridding your body, mind, and soul of the toxins that are infecting/affecting every aspect of your life!   (Mild hyperbole moment...)