What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans and what are the similarities?

[Halbhh]

If I thought this was a attack everyone on the right thread I would have stayed away..

Good day. I'll keep in mind that threads like this are just another reason and excuse to attack everyone we don't agree with and stay my distance in the first place if not looking to debate.

If someone you know says an idea you have offered is incorrect for specific reasons, that's not an attack against you.

Also, pointing out an idea is wrong, disagreeing about an idea, isn't hate.

But....suggesting another Christian is attacking when they are not is itself an accusation.... An accusation can be an attack.

Please read Romans chapter 2.

 

[Albion]

If someone you know says an idea you have offered is incorrect for specific reasons, that's not an attack against you.

Very often it becomes one if somebody like our friend replies to the first post.

Also, pointing out an idea is wrong, disagreeing about an idea, isn't hate.

In principle, that's so. However, when it comes to what's found on online discussion groups, that very often is hateful.

 

[Halbhh]

Very often it becomes one if somebody like our friend replies to the first post.


In principle, that's so. However, when it comes to what's online discussion groups, it very often is hateful.

Ok, so you're saying we all at times get the...fallout from other discussions that we didn't participate in? I think that's true.

 

[Albion]

Ok, so you're saying we all at times get the...fallout from other discussions that we didn't participate in? I think that's true.

I didn't say that, and I wouldn't confine it to other discussions that we didn't participate in, nor do I think that is what our colleague Hazelelponi was referring to. Not exclusively, anyway.

 

[Halbhh]

I didn't say that, and I wouldn't confine it to other discussions that we didn't participate in, nor do I think that is what our colleague Hazelelponi was referring to.

Ok, then I don't know what you meant yet.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As for the burden of repaying the borrowed money, the previous administration ran the debt up by almost 10 times as much as this one has done so far. Did I miss your post about how much you opposed that turn of events?? Apparently so.

There was no post about it, because it didn't happen. The federal debt at Q1 2009 was $11.1T and at Q1 2017 was $19.8T, for an increase of $8.7T over 8 years. (not adjusted for inflation) As of Q3 2019, it was $22.7T, for an increase of $2.9T over 2.5 years.

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt

If you run the numbers, Obama's debt grew at a rate of 0.6% per quarter while Trump's has grown at a rate of 0.46% per quarter. Yes, Obama's debt rose faster, but again, he took office near the beginning of a once-in-a-lifetime recession when adding debt is the correct measure, whereas Trump took office with a healthy, growing economy.

 

[Halbhh]

As for the burden of repaying the borrowed money, the previous administration ran the debt up by almost 10 times as much as this one has done so far.

Federal deficits always go up in a severe recession -- due to decreased tax revenues.

The severe recession already deepening before Obama took office in Jan 2009 was already causing a large deficit before Obama and Congress then intervened with emergency stimulus spending to try to prevent an accelerating economic collapse from the burst real estate speculation bubble.

That was a temporary special situation, an economic Depression that was fought off.

But, under Trump's tax cuts and increased spending, we've seen the deficit get larger from where it was when Trump took office, even while the economy has been good. See the problem?

Deficits are most accurately measured as a % of the GDP (economy):

Trump's Big 'Win': The Largest Budget Deficit With A Strong Economy

 

[Albion]

Federal deficits always go up in a severe recession -- due to decreased tax revenues.

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I didn't say that, and I wouldn't confine it to other discussions that we didn't participate in, nor do I think that is what our colleague Hazelelponi was referring to. Not exclusively, anyway.

I'm just sick of the near constant bickering... especially about issues that used to be universally agreed upon here.

 

[iluvatar5150]

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

Not true. As a percentage of GDP, US debt was higher during WW2.
US Federal Debt for FY2020 will be $23.9 trillion according to federal budget.

And, again, your boy Trump is on track to outpace Obama's 2nd term.

 

[Halbhh]

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

Interesting claim.

Let's check.

As you can see, the proposition you hypothesized doesn't fit the numbers:

File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President (1940 to 2015).png - Wikimedia Commons

 

[Halbhh]

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

While you can see just above WWII resulted in a higher federal debt as a % of GDP than the keynesian spending in 2009-2012, what matters even more though is now!

What's happening now???

2019 on the graph is the dotted line -- where you see our debt NOT going down even though the economy is strong(!), but going up:

U.S. National Debt Is Growing Rapidly [Infographic]

 

[Albion]

Interesting claim.

Let's check.

Try it again and try disproving what I pointed out to you, not something else.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Try it again and try disproving what I pointed out to you, not something else.

He did, as did I. If there's a specific metric by which you wish to make this claim, perhaps you could specify it and also link to some numbers that support your case. Because thus far, most of what you've claimed in this thread regarding federal debt/deficit has been wrong.

 

[Albion]

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

I hear you. One would think that members here would not feel obliged to carry water for the people who wouldn't accept the results of the 2016 election, but it hasn't worked out that way.

Meanwhile, the moderates here feel compelled to correct all the disinformation. It's exhausting as well as frustrating and I don't blame you for feeling as you do.

 

[iluvatar5150]

They never before went up as they did under Obama who increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents.

I hear you. One would think that members here would not feel obliged to carry water for the people who wouldn't accept the results of the 2016 election, but it hasn't worked out that way.

Meanwhile, the moderates here feel compelled to correct all the disinformation. It's exhausting as well as frustrating and I don't blame you for feeling as you do.

Oh wow. This post is a lot funnier that you intended it to be. That bolded part... It gets me so well and here I didn't think you were even reading my posts.

 

[stevil]

For now...The witch hunt designed to take "Trump" down, and how it turned out to be just that, that is the subject.

There was no witch hunt designed to take Trump down.
The Special Council investigation was on Russia and Trump campaign members. It never focused on Trump and had a rule that it wasn't going to indict a sitting president, so they were never after Trump. When they investigated the obstruction of Justice it was to get anyone that helped Trump, but they were ignoring Trump himself and his criminality.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The key difference between the Republican and Democratic parties has to be the voters, whom they will support and whom they won't.

I think I have some understanding of this because in 2016 I switched from Democratic to Republican, but I'm usually surprised by the different takes others people have on the same thing.

They are both the 'war party.' Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson turned this nation into a perpetual war machine. One was a Republican, one was a Democrat.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I guess you could say that as with men and women the interesting parts are the differences

When I started the thread I was thinking of Andrew Yang who appeared to satisfy the requirements of both parties.

For business he had a plan to allow unlimited improvements of efficiency without producing chaos in the nation,

and for the people his UBI gave a safety net that was not ridiculously complex like for example Medicare or Medicaid and the entire healthcare system.

If it didn't work quite right here or there it could be adjusted, and as automation continued more money would be available, the idea was quite ingenious.

 

[MorkandMindy]

They are both the 'war party.' Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson turned this nation into a perpetual war machine. One was a Republican, one was a Democrat.

You are right about that, sorry I posted at the same time you did.

Pro war we had Cheney & W gunning for Iraq, and Hillary came through with enough Democrat senators to start the war. Later Hillary also clearly enjoyed the murder of Col. M Qaddafi and supplied weapons to rebels with Obama's agreement in Syria leading to the present humanitarian crisis there

As you said, both parties.

The hitch is we are likely to fall off the other side of the horse, weakening the armed forces to the point where the rich and powerful will be able to push us around and on declaring the nation bankrupt, take the oil reserves and everything else they want and sell it to other countries.

What we need is a strong military that is only used in legitimate ways and for legitimate causes.