Out of the Democrats and Republicans, which party has hurt the US economy the most? or better which party has benefited the economy through policies ect, past and present examples.
>>1125015
both parties more or less represent the same thing. theyre both in cahoots with each other. a president is just a face for people to put blame/praise when the business cycle
>>1125015
Democrats and Republicans are largely the same.
One president's term might yield one or two good changes though.
But generally politicians make shit go wrong towards the end of their term so the next president inherits some issues, making it really hard to judge anything.
Besides, the Republican and Democratic parties vary very little. It's just two different faces for much the same thing, really.
>>1125015
On all the issues that count democrats and republicans are inseparable. On shit that doesn't matter (fag marriage, guns, whatever) they're polar opposite to make a spectacle and attract the crowds.
They are not more of less the same. Anybody who says that is not paying attention and spouting memes.
You think Al Gore would have gotten us into Iraq? You see any Democrats running around trying to restrict access to abortion?
>more or less the same
>tear up your voter registration
>>1126046
>restrict access to abortion
Spotted the baby killer sympathizer
>>1126060
>Muh babies muh babies
Would you rather the child grows up in a shit family that doesn't love him and becomes a burden on the state?
>>1126074
Yes I would rather a baby is born into a less than ideal situation than murdered. What the fuck is wrong with you
>>1125024
>shit that doesn't matter
>guns
>>>/trash/
>>1126083
It's a fetus you retarded christfag, it's not even really alive yet.
Umad your way of thinking is outdated and irrelevant? Abortion is accepted everywhere in the world.
>>1126046
>You think Al Gore would have gotten us into Iraq?
Yes, yes I do.
>>1125015
just thinking about different polices passed in the last decade
Bush 2 years
medicare part D
No child left behind
TARP
Obama years
cash for clunkers
TARP2
Obamacare
what else is there? im sure im missing things from both sides. have either of these policies listed been a benefit/detriment?
>>1126091
Totally, two wings of the same bird. Has been for a century now. A Roman death cult vulture.
>>1126090
>heart beating
>brain activity
>not alive
You love to kill babies bro, just admit it
>>1126134
I do, I like to eat their soft, fleshy heads.
>>1126137
Ok well I'm glad you admit it. "
Everybody's doing it," isn't much of a moral argument. And murder is wrong regardless of religion.
>>1126142
Prove that's it's wrong. Protip: you can't
>>1126074
This is the primary reason why I am pro abortion in the U.S.A. The fact that the majority of abortions are performed on blacks is just a bonus.
>>1126090
You stupid cunt, a fetus is just what it's called when it's both in the womb and past being a zygote. A kicking baby in the womb immediately before being born is technically still a fetus.
I'm not religious but anyone that supports abortion unconditionally is a fucking sociopath.
>>1126164
>Everyone is a sociopath but me!
>Doesn't realize that is literally sociopathic behavior
Yeah everyone is wrong except for you. I'm sure.
>>1126149
A baby is a live human. Killing a live human indiscriminately is murder.
>>1126173
No it's not, and every major country seems to agree.
Looks like you're wrong bucko.
>>1126169
Most everyone acknowledges abortion is wrong, but leave a weird grey area where they allow the woman to choose whether to kill the child or not
You are in the vast minority of people who thinks there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing babies.
>you're a sociopath
>>1126181
>Child is not wanted
>Bad situation all around - mom needs to take care of him - child gets unsatisfactory care and potentially financial problems
>Very high risk of such unwanted children growing up to be fucked up in some way
>NO UR NOT ALLOWED TO ABORT EVEN IF U DONT WANT THE CHILD YOURE FORCED TO RAISE HIM SOMEHOW
You are retarded
>>1126187
>teenager is not wanted
>Bad situation all around - mom needs to provide for him - teenager gets unsatisfactory care and potentially financial problems
>Very high risk of such unwanted teenager growing up to be fucked up in some way
>NO UR NOT ALLOWED TO MURDER HIM EVEN IF U DONT WANT THE TEENAGER YOURE FORCED TO RAISE HIM SOMEHOW
This is what you sound like. Murdering children is not the answer to life's problems
>>1126192
Teenagers are already grown though.
Fetuses are not.
There's girls getting pregnant in highschool, are they murderers for having abortions or should they ruin both their lives AND the child's life?
Thanks to the two abortion retards for destroying any semblance of hope this thread had at having legitimate discussion.
The answer to teh OP question, however, is that neither has been better for the country and certain presidents and certain congresses have implemented beneficial programs and certain ones have implemented harmful programs without much of a correlation with party affiliation.
The fact is that since the 80s, the modern Republican party has been exactly as Keynesian in their policies as Democrats have been, so you can't even make the argument htat one is for less government intervention. Republicans continue to use tax cuts as stimulus and refuse to cut spending. Democrats continue to raise spending as a stimulus and rarely increase taxes. Running a government budget is a balancing act, something neither party has even attempted to do for 30+ years.
>>1126196
Replace teenagers with 5 year olds. It's the same thing. You cant kill children because you dont feel like accepting responsibility for your actions
>>1126196
>>1126208
Here's wehre you're both retarded.
If you believe that late term abortion is okay, then there's no logical reason why you shouldn't believe killing an infant after-birth is okay. You're defining things arbitrarily and there are plenty of premature birthed-babies at 8 months whose contemporaries are able to be murdered.
And at the same time, if you believe life begins at conception and it's immoral to kill a cluster of cells, then you must believe that for every one person there are 99 other souls out there in heaven or wherever considering the vast majority of conceptions result in a failure to attach to teh uterine wall and are simply washed out with menstruation.
Both of your ideals involve logical inconsistencies, so just fuck right off and let's discuss BUSINESS on the business board, okay?
The exogenous variables that affect the US economy greatly outweigh the actions of the US government.
A lot of fiscal and monetary policy is simply a reaction to these exogenous variables.
Unwise fiscal and monetary policy, can however, negatively impact economies, such as the Mexican peso crisis of the 90's or the stagflation during the 70's.
>>1126202
One could argue that Bill Clinton was the last president to tote that flag of balance.
>>1126220
>people die therefore it is ok to murder people
The fact that many conceptions result in failure is the same as all lives eventually resulting in death. This does not make murder ok.
>>1126227
Bullshit. Newt Gingrich shut down the government in demand of a balanced budget. Bill Clinton would have written a trillion dollar check to Goldman Sachs, signed Uncle Sam, if Congress had let him
>>1126232
The budget is not the state of the US economy. The US can continue to run a deficit until the end of time. Using the budget as a measure of the economy is wrong. Austerity is not always the answer in a healthy economy.
>>1126243
>The US can continue to run a deficit until the end of time.
Only as long as that deficit stays around 2% or lower in the long-run. The bigger the deficit, the less confidence lenders have in our repaying. The second credit-rating firms start downgrading us altogether, we can face some really devastating results.
DOn't get me wrong, I agree with everything you said, just thought the "can continue to run a deficit until the end of time" should have used an asterisk.
>>1126243
I never said that. And no one has ever said a balanced budget is in itself unhealthy, either.
Look at Obama's budget proposals and tell me those are healthy for the economy.
The point is Bill Clinton was just as big of a spender, but was largely held in check by a fiscally conservative Congress
>>1126259
>Obama's budget proposals
How bout the budget the Republican congress passed a couple of months ago that increased spending by 300 billion?
>>1126264
Yes that was part of my point. Dont play Democrat vs Republican with me thats so stupid. Current Republican leadership is weak kneed and lets anything coming out of the White House fly. Thats why I referenced Gingrich's fiscally conservative Congress in relation to Clinton. Obama has no such counterweight.
It would be like a fiscally conservative Congress with a fiscally conservative President. Also bad news for growth
>>1126271
But you're still playing Democrat vs. Republican by implying that it was all Obama's wreckless spending with the Republicans choosing not to stop it, but that's not true. The Republicans in congress contributed just as much to that bill as Obama did. The point is that every tax cut Republicans placed in it was exactly as bad for the budget as every spending hike Obama put. And it's not as if Republicans don't put spending hikes and Democrats don't put tax cuts.
I dont' know if I buy that Clinton was this giant spender reigned in only by the stalwart conservatives. The fact of the matter is that every president, Republican or Democrat, has raised the deficit except Clinton, and it's not as if the house was Republican for all 8 years.
>>1126280
Yeah youre totally right. Today's Republican establishment is all tax cuts not spending cuts and today's Democrats are all spend spend spend while Republicans block their tax hikes.
The establishment Republican way of thinking is, "dont do anything unpopular with anyone and hopefully people will like us." So they block tax hikes of any kind while not taking away anyone's precious funding.
As far as Clinton, he came in in 1992 with a Democrat house and senate and tried to go single payer with the nations healthcare. In response to that, Republicans took complete control of Congress and held it through the rest of his Presidency. If single payer isnt a prime example of Democrat spending programs I dont know what is
The good years started in 1995 with a complete Republican Congress. Im not sayimg either side isnt necessary. Im saying our system requires balance.
>>1126305
I dunno, man. HIllarycare failed for a lot of reasons, including not working with Congress at all to draft it and directly opposing the insurance and health care industries. It was a clusterfuck all around, but I still think it would have been better for the economy than Obamacare.
But yeah, you're right of course. It's definitely increased spending by the government, even if it potentially decreases individual spending on health care.
>>1126320
Obamacare is a fucking joke. Anyone still for that garbage legislation is a mindless Democrat shill. I didnt check one special box on the 5 hour sign up process when the site was crashing every 10 minutes. Then a year later get my subsidy dropped and owe blueshield $2100 dollars in premiums to be able to get my coverage back or face a 2% penalty on next years taxes and not have insurance till September thanks to the closed enrollment period. Then I file my taxes and they take $2500 out as an overpayment, a complete impossibility since I made $5k less than I had stated at the beginning.
Im all for singlepayer if someone can figure out how to make it right with all the equity and bond holders in giant public companies like United Health Group
>>1126335
>Obamacare is a joke
The United States Healthcare industry is a joke, but there is so much misinformation and political dogma on both sides that nothing will ever get done.
Let alone the fact that special interests in the US healthcare industry dump dark money into politics to keep the system broken.
>>1126202
>Republicans
>Keynesian
What?
>>1126335
I think Obamacare has some nice features, but the fact that it went from "public option" to "do whatever the insurance and drug companies want" is pretty ridiculous. I just find it funny how much people support it, saying it fights against the greedy insurance companies and big phrma, when it does the exact opposite.
>>1126360
Turns out that both tax cuts and increased government spending both, under the macro Keynesian model, have the same results in stimulating the economy through increasing Aggregate Demand.
>>1126360
Not the same guy.
Austerity and "Fiscal responsibility" isn't increasing the US's already bloated military spending.
Trump's plan of improving US infrastructure and that wall sounds like a hypothetical case problem out of an economics textbook.
1.) The U.S. President supports an expansionary fiscal policy program to improve US infrastructure by contracting US workers. Which theory of economics does this domestic policy reflect?
>>1126380
To be fair, his supporters seem deluded enough to think he actually will have Mexico pay for it, so it would only be a benefit to us in such a situation.
>>1126379
Except the tax cuts proposed by Republicans are mostly tax cuts to their donors ie the 1% so it is less Keynesian and more "Supply Side".
>>1126382
How would Trump force Mexico to build a wall?
US corporations have a vested interest in manufacturing in Mexico. Tearing the NAFTA apart and implementing sanctions would cause a shitstorm. The collapse of thousands of maquiladoras would collapse the Mexican economy.
>>1126384
Thats so misleading. You lower everyone's effective rate by a few percent and of course most of the money is going to be saved on the top end, but that hardly means it doesnt benefit the lower brackets. Bush's tax cuts were huge for just everyone
>>1126397
>$520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
>The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
>The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.
The average middle-class family received one-eighth of the tax breaks that a family in the top 20 percent of income earners received while the average working-class family reaped less than one-hundredth of the average tax cut received by a family in the top fifth of earnings.
>>1126408
Yes, but thats all relative to their share of the taxes they pay. Those numbers are so misleading. You cant pair dollar amounts in a progressive bracket system. Just look at the actual percentage of their effective rate, unless you are purposely trying to mislead
>>1126421
Everyone knows how a progressive tax works.
The fact of the matter is that Bush's tax cuts were comparatively high for the top percentage of earners and low for the rest. That is trickle down.
Jeb Bush recently ran with the same plans to implement tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to bring them down to the rates that prevailed under his brother.
This is how you kill the middle class.
>>1126442
Also, why Jeb Bush's campaign was financed by dark money.
>>1126408
>>1126442
Here.
So the bottom 20% actually recieved almost twice their share of tax cuts under the Bush plan.
Everything adds up according to percent of the overall taxes they pay. Why would the top vracket of earners not get most of the tax cuts in dollar amounts? They pay most of the taxes.
Anyone comparing dollar amounts like that instead of percentages is trying to mislead you. There's no other reason they wouldn't have published straightforward effective rates.
>>1126452
Yeah, that graph is from 2010. If you want to talk about Obama's continuation of Bush's tax cuts, we can but I am talking about Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/ignore.cfm
>>1126467
You just posted the same shill info in graph form. The chart I posted shows the percentage of all the tax revenue each bracket pays. The bottom bracket pays <1%. Why would the percentage of income tax paid have changed in any meaningful way between 2001 and 2010? You can say, "the richest tax payers got x% of the tax cuts!," but that's because they paid x% of the taxes. I dont feel like digging around for a 2001 percent of taxes paid chart, but I don't think thats necessary.
Most of your other posts ITT have been fairly intelligent. I don't know why you're falling for this so hard.
>>1126486
Be that as it may, I think that Jeb Bush's proposed tax cuts were geared towards cutting taxes for the highest earners in an effort to bring them down to 2001 levels.
>>1126384
There's no requirement that the government stimulus has to be to lower-class people in order for it to be consistent with Keynesian theory.
>>1126486
That guy doesn't know what he's talking about, but the Bush tax cuts were actually structured different for each bracket so that they were large initially for lower brackets while large later on for higher brackets.
>>1126568
Yes anyone saying Bush's tax plan didnt affect the middle class hugely is skewing the numbers to fit an agenda
>>1126582
Note that the share of overall income tax paid by the top earners actually went up
>>1126590
Doubtful. I worked in Revenue, with a tax system, and you would not believe how management manipulated and manufactured numbers to support any point they wanted to make.
>>1126142
>>1126134
>>1126083
>>1126060
Eh, most abortions are done by niggers so i think its a good thing.
Protip: When the nationwide crime stats dropped everywhere in 1991-93, this was due to Roe vs Wade in 1973. All those aborted niggers and white trash that would have been 18-20 year old thugs in 1991-93 got aborted instead, and thus crime decreased.
>>1126164
You fucking retard, no one is calling for third term abortion, the majority of abortions are first term,
>>1127247
Except Wendy Davis fillibustered for 20+ hours in a public show to stop a bill that explicitly banned abortions past 20 weeks. Not that theres a magic number where a child who already has a heartbeat and brain activity would ever be ok to kill indesciminately.
desu, mostly the difference now a days is just the social side. Repubs are weird and christian, and Dems are more chill, but looking at Hillary's posse I wouldn't call it "liberal". They do mostly the same stuff in office, just paperwork and shit. Another difference is the people they hang with.
Republicans do like to go to war and do international business, while Democrats like to change and progress things, and work on policy to help the issue atm.
They're both in bed with big business. Democrats will get your guns with door to door confiscation, Republicans will impoverish you so you pawn them off. If you're a working person with or without a small businees, they'll both fuck you to death to coddle the banks and foreigners.
