You can't put webDip people in jail until you clean non-violent druggies out of the jails. Deal?

You need to have space for them, after all.

Which actually looks like something that is a lot more likely from Clinton than "law and order (eg racist) Trump.

And no, it isn't for having an opinion it is for advocating violence against a whole community that has been opposed for hundreds of years

Ironic that someone who wants to "end" a peaceful protest movement complains about violations of the first amendment. I guess he thinks the Bill of Rights only applies to white people, just like the second

He specifically said riots. Like Charlotte as opposed to Tulsa.

@ Ogion

Missed the point again.

In response to this,

"but he has sharply decreased the national deficit to *below* the $400-500 billion range that Bush held it in during his first term. Last year, the deficit was $327 billion, down from over $1 trillion in 2014."


I said, this.

Which is still spending more than you take in.

Which is ultimately unsustainable.

Which is why our leadership should be more accountable to us.

Which This,

"Obama has done nothing to control spending? You mean except reducing the deficit by over 70%. Sheesh. You get you own opinions. You don't get you own facts. "

Does absolutely nothing to refute because you basically just said “So What? My guy wasted less money than the other guy!” When the other guy was fighting a war on credit, so I should absolutely HOPE your your guy could waste less money.
My point all along was BOTH parties have kept us in deficit spending for far too long. And you came back with “Oh yeah! The deficit is smaller with my guy!”. Okay yeah, but it is still a deficit. You would think with access to the best economists in the world, these two parties could balance a budget if even one of them wanted to.
Before you throw Bill Clinton’s surplus at me, remember HE did that with a Republican Congress. Which was about the last time I recall the two parties working together. Which is why I am loudly calling for third parties to step up.
Your argument style belies the basic problem, you believe the democrats to be right and all others to be evil (racist, stupid, looney or whatever label you’d like to apply). Republicans want to apply the same labels to you. It has devolved into a foolish waste of time. No wonder people like me (not perfect, but fair minded, and quite sane) are getting fed up with it. If both parties ignore this trend, it will bite them.

In response to the making up facts charge. Get real, I cited sources and accepted bo_sox's numbers, you check them out.

And remember that bo_sox showed a reduction from $1 trillion (2014) to $327 billion (2015). At which YOU said he reduced the deficit by 70%

You don't get bonus point for reducing YOUR OWN deficit spending (which was DOUBLE the deficit that George Bush carried in his first term) when you know good and well an election year is coming up!

Which is why I maintain the BOTH parties are mishandling funds in a way that would get them fired in any reasonably run business, and say that we should (as responsible citizens) throw the bums out. THAT is an American tradition that it is high time we bring back.

I am thinking that I am about to see more ad hominems from Ogion and some more blaming things on the Republicans. Funny that Bill Clinton will get full credit for the surplus and Obama will get zero credit for the deficit.

Actually, the only reason there is a deficit is because the GOP refused to let tax rates on the rich return to where they were under Clinton (when we had a surplus) the fact remains that republican presidents explode the deficit you seem to care about and democrats reduce or eliminate it. The difference is so stark that if you actually care about the debt them there is a clear difference.

This false equivalency is tiresome. And clearly if you think both parties are the same you are white.

And again you are completely ignoring the existence of the Bush deficit ($1.2 trillion) in 2009. And the recession. The fact that you ignore these facts show your intellectual dishonesty.

"Actually, the only reason there is a deficit is because the GOP refused to let tax rates on the rich return to where they were under Clinton (when we had a surplus) the fact remains that republican presidents explode the deficit you seem to care about and democrats reduce or eliminate it. The difference is so stark that if you actually care about the debt them there is a clear difference."

Item #1 Blaming Republicans. check

"This false equivalency is tiresome. And clearly if you think both parties are the same you are white."

Item #2 stating to talk about race check minus (Red Herring more than ad hominem this time)

Still. I called it pretty close.

"The fact that you ignore these facts show your intellectual dishonesty."

oh wait! There it is! Check plus!


Since I accepted to every number you threw at me and made it crystal clear that I was using the years YOU cited (and bo_sox's numbers).

And once again 1 trillion deficit down from 1.2 trillion (highest for both parties according to you) BRAVO! you fiscally responsible people you :-)

"And clearly if you think both parties are the same"

Who said they were the same? I said they're both irresponsible and should both be thrown out. Does that still mean I'm white?

Quick fact check said the numbers you guys were throwing at me were wrong anyway. Go figure.

Still deficit spending on the part of both parties though.

I have no idea what CA is babbling about, excpet that he seems to have forgotten the crash of 2008 and what that means. He thinks that running a deficit in a big depression is "irresponsible" even though balancing the budget at such a time would be economic suicide (just ask Greece!). But yeah, he's apparently not an economist.

But for me, here's the big kicker. Clinton is the first US candidate to call the racist assholes to the carpet in a big way. That's a long way from Willie Horton. It'd be a terrible thing if she lost for that reason alone.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, CA thinks race is a non-issue. Go figure.

Some math. The deficit Obama inherited when he came into office was $1.4 trillion (9.8% of GDP). The deficit for 2016 is $590 billion (2.4% of GDP).

In pure terms, Obama has brought the deficit down about 60% in absolute terms, and by 75% in GDP terms. Those are just the facts that Obama has addressed the deficits (as far as the GOP congress would allow, since of course they are the ones who actually, you know, pass the budget), just as Clinton took the giant deficits of the Reagan and Bush Era and turned them into big surplusses which Bush immediate blew on tax cuts. If you're trying to argue that those are equavalent, you're terrible at math. If you're arguing that small deficits are inherently irresponsible, you don't understand economics, and if you're arguing for austerity during a recession you REALLY don't understand economics.

And yes, I blame Republicans and republican polices for the great recession, because they're so clearly the cause of it. So, duh, yes of course I do. That's the reality.

You can't blame Republican policies SOLELY for the crash, Clinton did nothing to help it, and Carter was the actual first president it began under, not Reagan like many assume

that said, yes Republicans are to blame, but Democrats do NOT come off scot free

Also @Ogion,

lowering the deficit is in terms of government spending. So after the crash, Obama made a conscious decision to pump trillions in Stimulus, knocking up the federal debt.

That wasn't necessary, and the fact that he used much of the gov'ts money to bail out the big banks is ridiculous, they should have been allowed to fail.

Balancing the budget is not the most difficult thing ever, it's just both political parties are to incentivized NOT to balance it. Gary Johnson balanced a deficit in New Mexico. He's shit at foreign policy so he may no get my vote, but he's honest at least

@TrPrado

I think Ogion muted me, can you copy and paste what i just said?

Good economies are the cause of recessions. When economies recover, legislation frees them up to do what they do. Corporations and companies come in, take advantage of every sliver they can, and don't give anything back. People across all income levels do the same thing. By its nature, an unrestricted economy under a system like ours is going to come back down, and often times, it comes back down hard. No amount of political acumen or leverage is going to change that.

And using the excuse

"governments at any time can simply print the cash, and pay off the debt"

is a cop out. The MASSIVE inflation that would occur due to that, would be devastating upon our economy.

Okay,

Once again Ogion's argument style belies the problem.

#1 assume that anybody who disagrees with you is stupid, ill-informed, a lunatic, racist, sexist (or any other insulting label) you can attempt to affix.
I absolutely understand the situation right now. However, for thirty years we've been in deficit 90% of the time, and the 2008 crash doesn't explain that. I acknowledged Clinton was in office for those three years with a Republican congress. Still, 90% of the time in deficit spending isn’t good, and I got over being worried about your type of argumentation on the playground in elementary school. So, by all means think of other names to call me 

#2 Shift the blame: Republicans cut taxes under Reagan-Bush, blah blah blah. Right, but where do money bills come from? The House of Representatives, controlled by the democrats all through the Reagan-Bush era. There is plenty of blame to go around, and I already said I am not in favor of Republican tax cuts. I am in favor of politicians refraining from spending more than they take in. An emergency measure is understandable, but we have not been in an emergency situation since the 1980’s. One thing has been constant though, two political parties with a stranglehold on power in this country.

So yeah, the economy is the fault of both the democrats and the republicans, and yeah it is irresponsible to run up a 19.5 trillion outstanding national debt and still talk about small deficits being good. No, they are just status-quo.

#3 Try your absolute hardest to throw in yet another Red Herring to get the opponent off of the obvious problems with Clinton
a) Let’s see his username in Anglican, I’ll bet if I talk about abortion and insult his religion I’ll get him into an irrelevant side discussion.
b) Let’s see if I make it about Hillary being a woman (No, he likes Jill Stein. Dang.)
c) Okay Race! Let’s assume he’s white and make it about race!
All to distract from my two main problems with Hillary Clinton and the democrats WHICH happen to be my two main problems with Donald Trump Too. That’s a coincidence, not a false equivalence.
a: I don’t trust her / him
b: Her / his party has had a hand in running the budget in deficit for more than thirty years.

@Crazy Anglican

Ogion muted me, but YOU should know that Clinton's max tax rate on the upper class was 36%, and we still had a surplus. so we don't need to take all the rich peoples money just to pay off the debt

If we get a 3rd part candidate even ON STAGE, that'll be massive.