Democrats and Republicans are one

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Using current events and facts to blame or defend one of the parties is really a naively shortsighted activity. Both are one, the differences are limited to the details. Republicans blame what they call "Obama care" ignoring that this simple compulsory insurance was introduced before by the Republicans in an US state. This example should be enough to demonstrate the madness of this pseudo-competitive tandem.

Great points.

Maintenance of status quo is the historic ideal of the conservative or right wing.

Ever hear of patriotism? My country right or wrong? The first is a call to duty or an informal acknowledgment of the power of government, while the second is the neocon siren song that gulled nutballs onto the rocks of debt-fueled big government all the while believing they were supporting exactly the opposite. (And the biggest reason for their bitterness today. Buyer's remorse expressed as antipathy to honest, aware grifters.)

Maximum reasonable individual self determination is the historic ideal of liberals or the left wing.

Both parties have moved measurably to the right since Nixon. Reagan being the most influential rightward mover/shaker, tripling the debt as he did to build his debt fueled fake economy in which government borrowing and spending were the keys to the magic show. No surprise the fake liberal fascist element under Pusgut O'Neill followed that all the way off the cliff. By the time Clinton got to DC Democrats had sold their charter to the bar and do-gooder corporations.

In sum the competition between parties is down to which party's corporate sponsors get the most goodies for X years, rather than what is best for the nation or the citizens of the nation.

 

[AmazonTania]

ahoy oh acerbic AmazonTania,

well met again, matey.

So that would be a bad thing, aye? many 'o our Southern states (i live in one now, though i hail from Nor'eastern part 'o our nation) would experience severe pain if the Federal spigot were turned off.

Yes, it would be a bad thing for everyone, but that what needs to happen. These jobs being created in the economy are the product of stimulus and it cannot continue in perpetuity. The country has no money, and majority of the demand for the debt is coming from the Government itself. There is no way the Government can keep doing what it is doing without creating massive inflation and destroying the value of its dollar.

I don't think the Government will ever step on the brakes and I don't believe the Fed will tighten. Of course, these institutions will be forced to someday. When the stimulus goes, so does the jobs. We are 'all in' with no exit strategy.

Yes, it will be a terrible thing if tons of people lost their jobs but we need genuine market demand, not false signals created by the Government. How long will these people be unemployed for? No one knows. Could be months, or a couple of years.

So there was no health care in America before Medicaid?

Access to Disability Data: Chartbook on Work and Disability

i'd like government deficit spendin' to go down as much as the next swabby, but if we sail the course ye desire, the South will be keelhauled.

There are tons of people on disability who need it, but then again there are tons of people on it who don't. There are some parts of the country where 1/4 of the inhabitants are on disability (Hale County in Alabama). Most people are shifting from unemployment to disability being that their unemployment claims run out. This also skews unemployment statistics because people on disability are not counted among the unemployed.

What is especially ridiculous about how disability is being treated today, majority of disability claims are from people with back pain... In 1961, the number one issue was heart diseases. Anyone can claim that their back hurts. Just do a little manual labor or working out and someone can make that claim.

it was military spendin', aye, but it was alotta other things too, me hearty. Mr. Reagan doubled the spendin' at the Dept. 'o Education. he increased farm programs by 140%. foreign aid? doubled.

gross Federal debt? tripled.

Nope. He wasn't a small spending President like he claimed. But then again, which President was?

i'd rather have a low grade chronic ache fer now, rather than acute pain. i have but one life matey, and as i said, i be in me peak earnin' years. i don't want our vessel to run aground at this very moment.

*salutes*

- MeadHallPirate

Doing the right thing is always difficult, especially when it is just easier to postpone the pain. Because elected official believe it will be someone else's headache down the line. Bush tried to get out of dodge, but was unsuccessful. I don't think Obama will get out before the bubble burst in the same way Clinton did. We are willing to paper over the mistakes of the past with cheap money from the fed, until the cost of living increases for everyone (except banks, corporations, and people like me who work in hedge funds).

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Corporations of TODAY are absolutely NOTHING LIKE the corporations of the days of ADAM SMITH.

In ADAM SMITHS DAY..

1. they were created ONLY for a specific project and were not expected to exist forever.
2. they could not buy other corporations
3. They could not conglomerate.

The amount of ignorance spewed (mostly by the rightest but sometime the leftest, too) about this nations ECONOMIC HSTORY is astounding.

Pretty much everything some of you folks think you know about the history of economics and finance in the USA is pure nonsense

I don't think it should surprise anyone why critical thinking skills and economic history are missing in US public education....[snip]

Public education has become a union racket beyond the wildest dreams of people like Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[editec]

Corporations of TODAY are absolutely NOTHING LIKE the corporations of the days of ADAM SMITH.

In ADAM SMITHS DAY..

1. they were created ONLY for a specific project and were not expected to exist forever.
2. they could not buy other corporations
3. They could not conglomerate.

The amount of ignorance spewed (mostly by the rightest but sometime the leftest, too) about this nations ECONOMIC HSTORY is astounding.

Pretty much everything some of you folks think you know about the history of economics and finance in the USA is pure nonsense

I don't think it should surprise anyone why critical thinking skills and economic history are missing in US public education....[snip]

Public education has become a union racket beyond the wildest dreams of people like Jimmy Hoffa.

Thank you, Mr. Non Sequitur.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I don't think it should surprise anyone why critical thinking skills and economic history are missing in US public education....[snip]

Public education has become a union racket beyond the wildest dreams of people like Jimmy Hoffa.

Thank you, Mr. Non Sequitur.

That would be Mr. Perfect Sequitur.

You are welcome.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

......Both are one, the differences are limited to the details.....

I disagree. I think you are confusing the similarity of goals with the similarity of ideology.

They both have the same goals: to get and retain wealth and power.

They have very different ideologies in attaining those goals.

The Conservative/Right/GOP side want to use capitalism to bring their goods to market and make themselves more money, and money equals power. If taken to the extreme, this will result in abuse of "the people" as was recently seen in Bangladesh.

The Liberal/left/DEM side uses different tactics to make themselves money (and again, money equals power). Instead of bringing goods to market, their tactics often involve dipping into tax money and using regulations to prevent competition. If taken to the extreme, all political/financial power is held in the hands of select few (see communist Russia, or even today's Chicago/Detroit).

Yes, the Right sometimes uses the left's tactics, and vice versa, but this is the big difference between the two.

Like everything else in life, any extreme is bad.

 

[Bleipriester]

Well, not so much. Mitt Romney had a lot of money backing him and he still didn't win. In the end the "people" decide.

How the people decide largeley depends on the presence of the parties and candidates.
Bush was disliked and this is why Obama had a bomus. He had more bonuses, the "Change"-thing, his color and still is profiting from capitalist-critical movements, who are active everywhere now. The ammount of money both parties earned for their campaigns, doesn´t differ so much:

"The United States presidential election of 2012 broke new records in financing, fundraising, and negative campaigning. Through grass-roots campaign contributions, online donations, and Super PACs, Obama and Romney raised a combined total of more than two billion dollars. Super PACs constituted nearly one fourth of the total financing, with most of the total coming from pro-Romney PACs. Obama raised $690 million through online channels, beating his record of $500 million in 2008. Most of the advertising in the 2012 presidential campaign was decidedly negative: it was found that 80% of the ads put out by Obama and 84% of the ads put out by Romney were negative."
United States presidential election, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they spend their money mostly to blame each other...

Our system of Democracy is supposed to preclude that, but the more candidates that corporations can get in to do their bidding the less control the people have.

True.

It's going to take way more than 5 years of enforcing policies that help the poor do better, and every time a Republican takes over, we have to start back on square one.

Sure, but there should be some activity about this at least. What about employment protection and what about employment in general? Isn´t there a need to increase the industry share of your economy? I mean major changes.

We have to change the mind set of people that just being greedy and concerned with one's self doesn't benefit the country. We're all in it together, when the poor are doing well, the rich will be doing better.

Could be my words

 

[Bleipriester]

......Both are one, the differences are limited to the details.....

I disagree. I think you are confusing the similarity of goals with the similarity of ideology.

They both have the same goals: to get and retain wealth and power.

They have very different ideologies in attaining those goals.

The Conservative/Right/GOP side want to use capitalism to bring their goods to market and make themselves more money, and money equals power. If taken to the extreme, this will result in abuse of "the people" as was recently seen in Bangladesh.

The Liberal/left/DEM side uses different tactics to make themselves money (and again, money equals power). Instead of bringing goods to market, their tactics often involve dipping into tax money and using regulations to prevent competition. If taken to the extreme, all political/financial power is held in the hands of select few (see communist Russia, or even today's Chicago/Detroit).

Yes, the Right sometimes uses the left's tactics, and vice versa, but this is the big difference between the two.

Like everything else in life, any extreme is bad.

I rather would guess that some guys use wealth and power, are eating it up for their own interests.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Doing the right thing is always difficult, especially when it is just easier to postpone the pain. Because elected official believe it will be someone else's headache down the line. Bush tried to get out of dodge, but was unsuccessful. I don't think Obama will get out before the bubble burst in the same way Clinton did. We are willing to paper over the mistakes of the past with cheap money from the fed, until the cost of living increases for everyone (except banks, corporations, and people like me who work in hedge funds).

*warily sails alongside Amazon Tania*

ahoy AmazonTania,

as a GenXer, imma willin' to swallow me dose 'o medicine fer what we hath wrought, me bucko...imma just unwillin' to salve the fiscal lacerations 'o the Baby Boomers and the "Greatest Generation" also, all at once.

if i believed in heaven or re-incarnation or if i was 2 years old, aye, i might...but this be it. this be me one turn to be alive, and then 'tis o'er fer eternity.

i'd rather this pain be spread out o'er the next half century, evenly, than take the risk 'o seein' me life's work destroyed. frankly, i don't care so much 'bout future generations that imma willin' to sacrifice me own fer thar well bein' (i know this makes me less 'o a person than many who seem so eager to embrace disciplined and rigorous slashes in Federal spendin', so that future generations can start o'er again with a clean bill 'o economic health. imma not proud to admit this, but imma not the sorta swabby who will hurl himself on a live grenade so that folks i don't even know can live to fight another day. 'tis not the cut 'o me jib).

that sounds reasonable, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Mertex]

Yes, because Conservatism and Liberalism are the only ideologies in the world. It's impossible for anyone to be Libertarian, Volunterist, Keynesian, Austrian, Monetarist, Marxist, Anarchist or any of those other ideologies.

You can believe in any of those ideologies or all of them, but as far as political parties we only have 2 dominant ones, and the ideology/policies of the party in power is what is going to be pushed unless the people support a different ideology, then either through elections or convincing arguments the people's (majority) ideology will win out.

I don't defend all Conservative policies. So far, all you know about me is that I don't like taxes and I'm not a big fan of Government. So congrats, you've narrowed down my ideology to about 6 different ideologies it could be besides conservatism, but you're certain that I am a conservative because that's who you are trained to hate so much.

It looks like you're doing some presupposing on your own. I don't hate conservatives, some of my best friend are Republican/conservatives. What I hate is most of their ideology, and you seem to be supporting those particular ideologies that I dislike.

The world is much more interesting without MSNBC, I promise...

Spoken like a true Republican/conservative. I know you say you are not, but you continue to spout off the same talking points. MSNBC is definitely a lefty media source, but it doesn't pretend to be anything else, unlike Faux News, which claims it is fair and balanced and is neither.

If you understand basic economics then you understand that all spending is a percentage of GDP. As long as a country has economic activity, someone is consuming somewhere. And as long as someone is consuming, the country will have a GDP figure. Keep in mind that GDP in itself is misleading metric, so spending relative to GDP can be just as misleading. Spending can increase, but GDP can increase at a much faster rate. This will decrease spending as a percentage of GDP, although there is no de-funding going on at all...
Also, if you go to table 9.9, you can clearly see. Everything outlined there for you. Not that I have to outline it for you. Your own source does a good job of that perfectly...

If you understood basic economics you would recognize that there is spending in current dollars, and spending as a percent of GDP. And duh, of course there will always be a GDP figure, but since GDP is an indicator of how well a country is doing, when our level of growth rate of GDP increases, the quality of education, the average standard of living and the health of the population increases, too. Economic growth is important if you want enhanced living conditions, but its impact and how far it reaches depends greatly on what we do with increased incomes.

So as long as you understand that even if we were spending more in Education based on current dollars, when based on percentage of GDP, we may actually not be spending more but less.

And you are still hedging, instead of just copying/pasting the statement that you claim says we are actually increasing funding, you provide a link to a massive table and are expecting me to go looking for it. Generally when you make a statement, you back it up with facts, like a link and the actual comment that can also be checked out with the link. So, unless you are able to provide the actual statement (it's not that hard to copy/paste), I will assume you are just blowing smoke.

USGovernmentSpending.com is not a government source. It's just a blog website run by someone who records Government data.. I guess you can't even do research without sounding completely clueless. And according to your own website (which is a blog, not a government source), Education spending is projected (government estimated) to increase by $100 billion in 2014/2015 to $0.9 Trillion. By 2016, it will increase to a full $1 Trillion dollars.
Where is this de-funding you are talking about?

You really can't be that naive. You do realize that the states themselves provide the majority of funding for public schools, so even if what you say were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter because states have made steep cuts to education funding. You can continue to claim the opposite but the facts don't support your stance and you end up looking rather foolish.

States have made steep cuts to education funding since the start of the recession and, in many states, those cuts deepened over the last year. Elementary and high schools are receiving less state funding in the 2012-13 school year than they did last year in 26 states, and in 35 states school funding now stands below 2008 levels — often far below.
New School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding for Schools ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Education Funding Drops In More Than Half Of States

So because spending declined after a recession, that means Republicans are trying to de-fund education? A decrease in spending after the bursting of a massive asset bubble? Can't imagine why that would happened. Is it so hard to debate someone with a modicum of economic understanding?

So now, finally, you are admitting that spending for education declined? So now, you admit that it didn't increase (like you previously professed), but it actually declined. Geez, you've made a lot of progress in a matter of one day!

As for Republicans trying to defund education, you must have a very short memory. It has been an on-going effort on the part of the GOP to do away with public education and provide vouchers since the era of Reagan. You really need to keep up with what the party that you claim you're not part of but strongly defend. Honestly, there is enough information out there and the fact that you are not aware of it is indicative that you are either in denial or are yourself what you accuse me of, partisan hack.

Who is to blame for putting Utah’s schoolchildren in this position? It lies squarely on the shoulders of state government leaders — governors and the Republican majority of the Legislature for the past 15 years who have failed to make public education a priority in more than just rhetoric.
Richard Davis: Republicans keep starving Utah public education | Deseret News


Republicans have shortchanged education funding every session they have controlled the Texas Legislature. After cutting billions from public education in 2003, the 2006 Republican school funding plan froze per pupil funding, leaving local districts faced with increasing costs for fuel, utilities, insurance and personnel with little new state money. To make matters worse, that same plan placed stringent limits on local ability to make up for the state’s failures.
In 2009, Republicans hypocritically supplanted state support for our schools with the very federal “stimulus” aid they publicly condemned after state revenues plunged because of the Republican-caused recession and the structural state budget deficit they created. They reduced state funding for our schools by over $3 billion. Because our student population continues to grow, the combined reduction in state revenue per student was nearly 13%.
Education | Texas Democratic Party

1% of people on disability have returned to the labour force in 2011 after being on it since 2008. You're pretty good at using Google. You can research this.

And what is that supposed to prove for you? That some people recover from their disabilities and are able to come back to work and some don't?

I understand what it means, as my entire career is based around finance. I just never thought it would be this difficult to explain economic references to someone who hasn't taken a single course of economics.

Maybe you just have trouble expressing yourself, or perhaps you don't really know as much as you think you know, but you haven't explained anything, you have just rambled off comments unrelated to the gist of my original comments.

Are you essentially saying that Democrats are not the party of the rich?

Yes, even though Democrats may now be the party with more rich people, the Democratic party is not the party of the rich in that its policies do not favor the rich.

So you are saying that there are zero elites/wealthy who align with Democrats?

Read my response to the previous question. That's not what I am saying. There are now more rich Democrats than Republicans, yet the GOP's policies favor the rich.

Who exactly do you think Quantitative Easing has benefited, you?

Quit drifting off into unrelated topics.

More police wouldn't have prevented the bombing and the Chicago police force takes up 40% of the Chicago city budget. The police has plenty of funding. It just has better things to do with it's time. I am in well possession of the facts. All you've done was just link to me some puff pieces from articles. I'm not interested in their opinions, nor yours.

Nobody said that more police wouldn't have prevented the bombing. Geez, your reading comprehension problem is really serious. The fact remains that people in Boston were asked to stay inside their homes because Boston didn't have enough police to monitor the capture of the bomber and attend to other crimes at the same time, and all due to reduced from the Federal Government. So please, quit showing just how thoroughly clueless you really are by arguing against the facts.

Federal Public Safety Funding at Historically Low Levels
Over the past two years, federal support for the criminal justice assistance grant programs through the Department of Justice has been decreased by 43 percent.
http://www.navaa.org/budget/13/docs/NCJA-sequestration.pdf

'Almost everything' means what it means. As in, the Government does almost everything for individuals which they can do for themselves. I don't see how difficult that is to comprehend. But if you really can't get it, throw out an example, I'll dumb it down for you.

You made a statement, I asked you for an example, and you throw out a meaningless statement "almost everything". That doesn't explain anything, it just shows that you don't have a clue and can't back your bullshit with facts.

Only people with weak arguments create strawmen. All I said was that it's good that the wealthy are paying lower taxes because of tax shelters and loopholes. The poor/middle class have the same tax shelters and loopholes (i.e. laws which allow individuals to pay less taxes legally), as evident with the large amount of individuals in the bottom who currently pay zero taxes. I guess it's only problem when the wealthy tries to avoid taxes.

You sound like Mitt Romney. The only difference is that Mitt Romney was rich, had no association with middle-class or poor people while your lack of comprehension is not for the same reason, but just merely attributed to ignorance.
Yes, poor people can have their capital gains taxed the same as the rich, only difference is poor people don't have capital gains. Poor people can have their art work valued at 10 times what it is worth, donate it to a charity and claim it as a loss just like rich people, only difference is poor people don't have art work they can have valued at an inflated cost so they can donate it and claim it as a loss at the inflated value. You are terribly clueless.

Since you are so interested in who I am, I will tell you that I'm not uber wealthy. I do work in wealth management on the other hand and I do give my clients exposure in to foreign markets with sounder fundamentals than the United States. We are consistently giving clients leverage in Emerging Markets, Asian Markets, Commonwealth countries and a few European markets. This investment strategy is center around inflation, reckless government policies, weak market fundamentals and higher taxes.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was interested in who you were, but you seem to be extremely interested in telling me who you are. You can be anybody you want, after all, this is the internet and nobody has any way of checking to see whether or not you are telling the truth.

All the wealthy want to do is avoid higher taxes. Regardless of where they align, or which party they support. Warren Buffet, Oprah, Jack Lew, Bill Gates, etc. Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, they ALL do it. I just make money by helping other people keep more of their wealth.

That's a bunch of BS. There are many wealthy people who don't mind paying a higher rate and have even asked Congress to raise their taxes.

Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes - Nov. 16, 2011

I'm willing to bet that you've worked for someone else all your life (or most of your life rather). Your wages, as long as you work and are able to work, are guaranteed. Capital Gains, are not guaranteed. If all investments were guaranteed, then it really wouldn't matter which rate they were taxed at, but they're not. Some investments do not yield a return of 85%. Some investments don't even yield a return of even 50% (especially since not a single hedge fund has done better than flipping a coin in the last 30 years). Some investments even yield what we call, "LOSSES."

You can bet all you want, the fact is you know nothing of my finances, my wealth or lack thereof, which has nothing to do with my question. Capital gains is revenue and should be taxed the same, or at least at a higher rate.

Every great idea needs capital to get off the ground, and many would have never done it without the necessary funds to do it. This is why investments need to be encouraged and to only why to do this is to lower taxes on capital gains. As all investments are calculated and considered after their after-tax return.

There is evidence to suggest that raising the rates on capital gains would not discourage investors from investing and would profit the nation.

What does Roe v Wade and Unions have to do with the Trade Deficit, the value of the US Dollar, the Current Account Deficit, and the Balance of Payments? You shouldn't be referencing these topics if you can't understand them. Especially if all you are going to do is deflect on topics which weren't even mentioned before... It's better this way.

Talking to you is like talking to a rock. The only reason those things were brought up was to show you what side the GOP is on. It's obvious that you are not able to follow the gist of the conversation and I'm really getting tired of having to re-explain things to you.

Also, who is currently advocating (or advocating in the past) that we should get rid of Education? Is it possible to cite an example without the information coming from a talking head?

That was already explained up above, toward the beginning of this post.

I've just explain examples of how both parties have destroyed your credit worthiness, your trade surplus, the value of your currency and your education. Somehow, you've fooled yourself into believe it was only Republicans which caused these things. Maybe I was incorrect the first time. It's only the Democrats feeding off your ignorance, but that's common for most partisan hacks. If I were debating a Republican, I'd have to explain the bigger Government under Reagan and the Protectionism under Bush.

And you would be wrong, but there is no getting you to see the truth because it is obvious you are thoroughly brainwashed and continue to drink the KoolAid.

Wrong is wrong, and bad is bad. Regardless of which political official people decide to elect. This is called Objectivism, which is another philosophic/ideology aligned with the author Ayn Rand. It disagrees with your batch of rhetoric, and any point of view which does this is automatically Conservatism, for sure.

Ayn Rand? You mean Paul Ryan's hero which he tried to disassociate himself from when his "new" political views were completely opposite of hers? Ayn Rand whose ideology turned the US into the greedy nation that Republicans relate to and idolize?

Ayn Rand Made US a Selfish, Greedy Nation

I'm going to disregard the rest of your blather because you are rambling from one topic to another not making much sense, and truthfully I'm tired having to debunk your statements which so far you have not bothered to back with facts.

Don't bother to respond, because I'm truly exhausted of trying to have a meaningful debate but all you keep doing is denying what I say even after I present you with facts and links and instead you keep bringing up crap that has nothing to do with our original debate.

I don't waste my time with disingenuous people, and you have proven over and over that you cannot carry an honest conversation.

Adios!

 

[AmazonTania]

You can believe in any of those ideologies or all of them, but as far as political parties we only have 2 dominant ones, and the ideology/policies of the party in power is what is going to be pushed unless the people support a different ideology, then either through elections or convincing arguments the people's (majority) ideology will win out.

There is no "people's

If you understood basic economics you would recognize that there is spending in current dollars, and spending as a percent of GDP.

You don't relate spending in current dollars when you are comparing spending overtime. When that is done, it's called 'adjusted for inflation,' which requires a basis period. The spending you are talking about is just nominal spending. Anyone who understand basic economics knows that, but that's not you, is it...

And duh, of course there will always be a GDP figure, but since GDP is an indicator of how well a country is doing, when our level of growth rate of GDP increases, the quality of education, the average standard of living and the health of the population increases, too. Economic growth is important if you want enhanced living conditions, but its impact and how far it reaches depends greatly on what we do with increased incomes.

No, Simon Kuznets did not develop GDP as indicator of how well the country is doing. All it does is measures productivity. You can also at least learn about the terms you are using as well.

It looks like you're doing some presupposing on your own. I don't hate conservatives, some of my best friend are Republican/conservatives. What I hate is most of their ideology, and you seem to be supporting those particular ideologies that I dislike.

I don't care.

Spoken like a true Republican/conservative. I know you say you are not, but you continue to spout off the same talking points. MSNBC is definitely a lefty media source, but it doesn't pretend to be anything else, unlike Faux News, which claims it is fair and balanced and is neither.

Yeah, only a Republican and a Conservative would call out a partisan hack...

And you are still hedging, instead of just copying/pasting the statement that you claim says we are actually increasing funding, you provide a link to a massive table and are expecting me to go looking for it. Generally when you make a statement, you back it up with facts, like a link and the actual comment that can also be checked out with the link. So, unless you are able to provide the actual statement (it's not that hard to copy/paste), I will assume you are just blowing smoke.

I can't copy and paste a excel file, you dolt. If I could copy and paste it I would. It's table 9.9. All you have to do is just click on the PDF and see for yourself.

You really can't be that naive. You do realize that the states themselves provide the majority of funding for public schools, so even if what you say were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter because states have made steep cuts to education funding. You can continue to claim the opposite but the facts don't support your stance and you end up looking rather foolish.

The own source you have originally showed was for Federal Spending, not state spending. If you wanted to talk about state spending, you should have said that. All you've done was just moved the goalpost.

States have made steep cuts to education funding since the start of the recession and, in many states, those cuts deepened over the last year. Elementary and high schools are receiving less state funding in the 2012-13 school year than they did last year in 26 states, and in 35 states school funding now stands below 2008 levels — often far below.
New School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding for Schools ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Education Funding Drops In More Than Half Of States

Again, I have a hard time accepting data from sources which advocate for policy. Maybe you should do some real research and retrieve the actual budget from any of these states like I did. You know, real research?

Who is to blame for putting Utah’s schoolchildren in this position? It lies squarely on the shoulders of state government leaders — governors and the Republican majority of the Legislature for the past 15 years who have failed to make public education a priority in more than just rhetoric.
Richard Davis: Republicans keep starving Utah public education | Deseret News

Bad research is bad. According to the Utah 2012 budget summary, the general education fund is $2,293,037,900. Now it's $2,505,929,900 according to the 2013 summary. That's not defunding.

Republicans have shortchanged education funding every session they have controlled the Texas Legislature. After cutting billions from public education in 2003, the 2006 Republican school funding plan froze per pupil funding, leaving local districts faced with increasing costs for fuel, utilities, insurance and personnel with little new state money. To make matters worse, that same plan placed stringent limits on local ability to make up for the state’s failures.
In 2009, Republicans hypocritically supplanted state support for our schools with the very federal “stimulus” aid they publicly condemned after state revenues plunged because of the Republican-caused recession and the structural state budget deficit they created. They reduced state funding for our schools by over $3 billion. Because our student population continues to grow, the combined reduction in state revenue per student was nearly 13%.
Education | Texas Democratic Party

As far as Texas goes, they've spent more money on education in 2011 than they did in 2012. All they've done was recommend that education spending should be decreased. So far I am not seeing this defunding you are talking about. Then again, I actually did real research. I didn't just type in anything on an online search engine.

So now, finally, you are admitting that spending for education declined? So now, you admit that it didn't increase (like you previously professed), but it actually declined. Geez, you've made a lot of progress in a matter of one day!

No, you just put words in my mouth. And I just showed you a chart of Federal Spending declining and increasing again. You can't be this inept.

Aside from the fact that I have already shown two states which haven't decreased spending. I've shown that the Government isn't either...

As for Republicans trying to defund education, you must have a very short memory. It has been an on-going effort on the part of the GOP to do away with public education and provide vouchers since the era of Reagan.

That's nice.

You really need to keep up with what the party that you claim you're not part of but strongly defend.

Why would I do that if I don't defend them? Quit making moronic statements.

Honestly, there is enough information out there and the fact that you are not aware of it is indicative that you are either in denial or are yourself what you accuse me of, partisan hack.

Again, you showed a source which referenced federal spending, not state spending.

And what is that supposed to prove for you? That some people recover from their disabilities and are able to come back to work and some don't?

Really, you can't even so much as google simple references. Let me give you a hand.

Let me google that for you

Maybe you just have trouble expressing yourself, or perhaps you don't really know as much as you think you know, but you haven't explained anything, you have just rambled off comments unrelated to the gist of my original comments.

I already explained it here:

The lowering of the fed funds rate makes it cheap for businesses to operate, which is good for businesses which thrive on spending and speculation (like hedge funds and retailers) and bad for businesses which make a living off savings and investment (banks and manufacturing). I already told you, it's called a 'misallocation of resources.' If you picked up a economic text, you'll figure it out.

If you really don't get the gist of it, I can't really help that. There really is no why for me to dumb it down for you unless you have taken the time to learn basic economics. It's really not my job to be your economics teacher.

Yes, even though Democrats may now be the party with more rich people, the Democratic party is not the party of the rich in that its policies do not favor the rich.

Then who does Quantitative Easing benefit? It's a simple question for anyone who understands economics.

Read my response to the previous question. That's not what I am saying. There are now more rich Democrats than Republicans, yet the GOP's policies favor the rich.

Then you should be able to answer my question, no problem.

Quit drifting off into unrelated topics.

Quantitative Easing is related. If you can't understand what it means, you should ask. You are essentially suggesting that Democrats policies do not favor the rich. If this is correct, who exactly does Quantitative Easing benefited.

Nobody said that more police wouldn't have prevented the bombing. Geez, your reading comprehension problem is really serious. The fact remains that people in Boston were asked to stay inside their homes because Boston didn't have enough police to monitor the capture of the bomber and attend to other crimes at the same time, and all due to reduced from the Federal Government. So please, quit showing just how thoroughly clueless you really are by arguing against the facts.

People were asked to stay inside their homes for their own safety. Not because they didn't want anyone else to become a afraid someone else would become a victim of another crime. You're making things up.

Federal Public Safety Funding at Historically Low Levels
Over the past two years, federal support for the criminal justice assistance grant programs through the Department of Justice has been decreased by 43 percent.
http://www.navaa.org/budget/13/docs/NCJA-sequestration.pdf

This doesn't have anything to do with police funding in Chicago, or anywhere for that matter. Good to know your research still sucks.

You made a statement, I asked you for an example, and you throw out a meaningless statement "almost everything". That doesn't explain anything, it just shows that you don't have a clue and can't back your bullshit with facts.

It doesn't have to explain anything because it's generally a blanket statement, and still accurate enough to be true. If you wanted an example, you should have thrown one out like I suggested.

You sound like Mitt Romney. The only difference is that Mitt Romney was rich, had no association with middle-class or poor people while your lack of comprehension is not for the same reason, but just merely attributed to ignorance.
Yes, poor people can have their capital gains taxed the same as the rich, only difference is poor people don't have capital gains. Poor people can have their art work valued at 10 times what it is worth, donate it to a charity and claim it as a loss just like rich people, only difference is poor people don't have art work they can have valued at an inflated cost so they can donate it and claim it as a loss at the inflated value. You are terribly clueless.

Who is talking about capital gains? I'm talking about wages and salaries. You're very bad at reading. Explains all of the bad research you've brought fourth thus far.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was interested in who you were, but you seem to be extremely interested in telling me who you are. You can be anybody you want, after all, this is the internet and nobody has any way of checking to see whether or not you are telling the truth.

Then you shouldn't be so obsessed with what party I'm affiliated with. It's time to let go.

That's a bunch of BS. There are many wealthy people who don't mind paying a higher rate and have even asked Congress to raise their taxes.

Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes - Nov. 16, 2011

I suppose we can add tax knowledge and economics to your list of short comings. These people just want to be liked. They don't want to pay more taxes.

All the people I have mentioned have accountants. Why does anyone use accountants? They use it because accountants help people file their taxes according to the law. People also use accountants because accountants helps other avoid some income taxes. No one (and I mean no one) hires an accountant, if all they want to do is pay more taxes. All anyone has to do is fill out a 1040 EZ and you'll pay the maximum amount.

I'll just give you one common example of someone who is not being truthful about their taxes.

Warren Buffet is a long-term share holder. Being that he is a long term share-holder, he pays nearly 0% tax for being a long term share holder. If he truly cared about paying more taxes, he wouldn't hold those shares for more than a year. Also Warren Buffet chooses to take no salary. Most people don't get to make that choice.

Also Warren Buffet is the largest shareholder of Bershire Hathaway. The dividend income that he gets is diminished by the corporate taxes that this corporation pays on his behalf. If you add the taxes that he pays as a shareholder of Bershire and 17% he pays as in individual, his total tax burden is closer to 50%. That's a much higher rate than his secretary pays and the fact that he pretends that he pays less than his secretary is just not true.

Also the fact that Warren Buffet's company doesn't pay a dividend shows that

Like I said, all the wealthy want to do is avoid taxes. I've showed you one, and he is the biggest avocator of increasing the taxes of the wealthy. One thing you will learn (when you eventually become wealthy) is that rich people are very good at staying rich. And Warren Buffet is one of the richest, smartest people I know. He talks all this game about wanting to pay more money in taxes, when he has no intention of letting you touch his real money. He (like political parties) have played you for a fool. Being educated will prevent that in the future.

You can bet all you want, the fact is you know nothing of my finances, my wealth or lack thereof, which has nothing to do with my question. Capital gains is revenue and should be taxed the same, or at least at a higher rate.

I know you're not an investor, business person or entrepreneur. This would actually require some modicum of economical understanding.

There is evidence to suggest that raising the rates on capital gains would not discourage investors from investing and would profit the nation.

There is no such evidence. There is problem a theory aside from the ramblings of Warren Buffet, but there are no real world examples at all.

Talking to you is like talking to a rock. The only reason those things were brought up was to show you what side the GOP is on. It's obvious that you are not able to follow the gist of the conversation and I'm really getting tired of having to re-explain things to you.

Okay? And I don't care who's side the GOP is on. Roe v Wade and Unions were not the gist of the conversation. You merely brought those things up to hide your absolutely economic literacy.

And you would be wrong, but there is no getting you to see the truth because it is obvious you are thoroughly brainwashed and continue to drink the KoolAid.

The truth being a major political party keeps you from seeing things for yourself? That's noted.

Ayn Rand? You mean Paul Ryan's hero which he tried to disassociate himself from when his "new" political views were completely opposite of hers? Ayn Rand whose ideology turned the US into the greedy nation that Republicans relate to and idolize?

The nation isn't anything like Ayn Rand wants it to be, but it is exactly like how she invision in her book.

Ayn Rand Made US a Selfish, Greedy Nation

You're very good at googling, but still can understand basic economics. Can't see how that works at all.

I'm going to disregard the rest of your blather because you are rambling from one topic to another not making much sense, and truthfully I'm tired having to debunk your statements which so far you have not bothered to back with facts.

Why, because the rest of it is economically and goes way over your head? Yeah, I'd probably stop debating with someone like me to if that were the case.

And you haven't debunked a single statement. All you've done was Google stories online. That's really not considered evidence. Then again, with knowledge as limited as yours, grasping at straws is all anyone can really do.

Don't bother to respond, because I'm truly exhausted of trying to have a meaningful debate but all you keep doing is denying what I say even after I present you with facts and links and instead you keep bringing up crap that has nothing to do with our original debate.

Too late considering I already wrote all of this. And your facts (whatever you call them) are wrong. If you were good at research, you'd know to discern facts from opinion pieces online from a search engine.

 

[Mertex]

You can believe in any of those ideologies or all of them, but as far as political parties we only have 2 dominant ones, and the ideology/policies of the party in power is what is going to be pushed unless the people support a different ideology, then either through elections or convincing arguments the people's (majority) ideology will win out.

There is no "people's

So you think Americans are Martians?

Seriously, did you think I was going to bother reading all your gibberish, again? I told you I wasn't going to bother with you, you keep denying all the facts I provide you.

Get back to me when you are ready to debate honestly.

Adios! (that means "see ya" in Spanish)!

 

[AmazonTania]

There is no "people's

So you think Americans are Martians?

Idiots for the most part, but there is no 'people's ideology.'

Seriously, did you think I was going to bother reading all your gibberish, again?

I don't care if you read it or not. Either you have a rebuttal or you don't. Otherwise, you shouldn't respond any further. Not that you can rebut anything I have to say. Most of it goes over your head and you'd just be doing yourself a favor.

I told you I wasn't going to bother with you, you keep denying all the facts I provide you.

Get back to me when you are ready to debate honestly.

You're the one who has responded, but not with a response to anything I have cited because that would actually take real work to rebut, I gather.

Adios! (that means "see ya" in Spanish)!

I never would have guessed that. I guess I should take this as a signal that you cannot refute anything I've posted in the previous response, or in the response I have written before. I suppose there are much more shameful ways of running out of a debate. You've chosen the most upfront way. Good for you.

 

[georgephillip]

Is it fair to say the rich Democrats and rich Republicans serve the same 1% of US voters?

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001).

"It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

"With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

to blame or defend one of the parties is really a naively shortsighted activity. Both are one,

Actually, they are opposites. They have opposite philosophies and only Republicans sign the pledge to prove it.

 

[dblack]

to blame or defend one of the parties is really a naively shortsighted activity. Both are one,

Actually, they are opposites. They have opposite philosophies and only Republicans sign the pledge to prove it.

Oh, well, shit.. I didn't know they signed a pledge!

 

[georgephillip]

to blame or defend one of the parties is really a naively shortsighted activity. Both are one,

Actually, they are opposites. They have opposite philosophies and only Republicans sign the pledge to prove it.

Oh, well, shit.. I didn't know they signed a pledge!

Ready for the good news...they pledged your Social Security benefits to Wall Street (or the Pentagon)
Details to be announced after the Boston lock-down goes nation wide.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they pledged your Social Security benefits to Wall Street (or the Pentagon)

in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.

 

[Mertex]

they pledged your Social Security benefits to Wall Street (or the Pentagon)

in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.

Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.

 

[georgephillip]

they pledged your Social Security benefits to Wall Street (or the Pentagon)

in private Republican accounts 15% of an average Americans income would yield a $1.4 million estate, not the dog food money liberals give you in SS at retirement, if you live to collect a penny of it.

Yeah, and when another Republican (ala George Bush) puts the country in the crapper, and private companies go tits up, be sure and get up early so you can be the first in line at the Bread Pantry. Those getting SS will still be getting it.

Eb has already forgotten the Great Republican Looting of 2008.
Might be time to get his Alzheimer's meds adjusted?