The Dem era of Big government and spending is over...

QP!

Verified User
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Welcome to the new era of MASSIVE gov't and spending on the Military, as Trump tries something new that America has never done before by taking money out of Domestic priorities that help citizens at home and instead send the money out to the Military Complex. :rofl2:


Trump asks Congress to supersize military budget, slash domestic programs

The president’s fiscal 2027 budget request calls for Republicans to use a partisan process for enacting billions for the Pentagon.

President Donald Trump called Friday for Congress to back a $1.5 trillion defense budget alongside yawning reductions to domestic programs — making official the ambitious military increase he’s been teasing for months....
 
what do Magats have to say about this?

They say '... another promise made... another promise kept by Trump who promised us a massive, expansive Military investment as the US goes on to Police the world and remove 'bad people', while cutting help for citizens at home...'

anbp02.gif


amhqxq.jpg


aleuhv.jpg


amg2dc.jpg


alh3zd.jpg


ilovethepoorlyeducated.gif
 
Last edited:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Welcome to the new era of MASSIVE gov't and spending on the Military, as Trump tries something new that America has never done before by taking money out of Domestic priorities that help citizens at home and instead send the money out to the Military Complex. :rofl2:


Trump asks Congress to supersize military budget, slash domestic programs

The president’s fiscal 2027 budget request calls for Republicans to use a partisan process for enacting billions for the Pentagon.

President Donald Trump called Friday for Congress to back a $1.5 trillion defense budget alongside yawning reductions to domestic programs — making official the ambitious military increase he’s been teasing for months....
So... He's planning on world conquest.

And the tRumplings still don;t see the similarities to a certain German from the 1930s?
 
Get the fuck out of here with Dem's being big spenders of federal dollars....we now have the largest deficit in our nations history, thanks to Trump. As a matter of record, no Republican has ever and I mean ever left the white house, without leaving this nation in huge deficits, it started with Reagan. Its the Democrats to all our dismay, who comes into office and have to shit all over the poor to help balance budgets that the GOP have left. Its only then, these GOP bitches start stressing over gov spending...so miss me on this Liberals be spending shit, its yall mf's that fuck up budgets...own it and shut the fuck up, btch.
 
Get the fuck out of here with Dem's being big spenders of federal dollars....we now have the largest deficit in our nations history, thanks to Trump. As a matter of record, no Republican has ever and I mean ever left the white house, without leaving this nation in huge deficits, it started with Reagan. Its the Democrats to all our dismay, who comes into office and have to shit all over the poor to help balance budgets that the GOP have left. Its only then, these GOP bitches start stressing over gov spending...so miss me on this Liberals be spending shit, its yall mf's that fuck up budgets...own it and shut the fuck up, btch.

All stripes of gov't are Big Gov't spenders. You will not escape that.

The question is what priorities will the gov't use the tax payer on.

Repulicans and Magats have historically and now with Trump, want to send all the Tax Payer out to INdustrial Military Complex and to Oligarachs while getting rid of all social services they provide at home.

Dems take tax payer money to grow gov't to provide more and more social services for the people who paid that money in.

That is the debate voters have to decide upon, as neither stripe of government will ever stop taking more and more of your money, so the question is where do you want that money to go.
 
All stripes of gov't are Big Gov't spenders. You will not escape that.

The question is what priorities will the gov't use the tax payer on.

Repulicans and Magats have historically and now with Trump, want to send all the Tax Payer out to INdustrial Military Complex and to Oligarachs while getting rid of all social services they provide at home.

Dems take tax payer money to grow gov't to provide more and more social services for the people who paid that money in.

That is the debate voters have to decide upon, as neither stripe of government will ever stop taking more and more of your money, so the question is where do you want that money to go.
Republicans can never and will never be able to equalize their spending to that of Democrats, NOT EVER!!! The government WASTE this administration has perpetrated on the American tax payers is beyond vile and pathetic and to compare the two is a gotdamn INSULT TO THE SENSES. $113 million wasted so the homeland security mop can take TikTok photo's of herself????? Vance flying around world on endless family vacation calling it business, Kash going to Soccer events on tax payer dimes, acting like a drunkin teen and lets not ever forget the entire Trump Klan all protected by SS by tax payers including their maids and cleaning ladies. No, we must never ever allow the GOP to hog time Democrats ever again with this balance budget bullshit. DOGE comes in to find gov. waste, while the state of MN and its Somali's were stealing millions by the truck load, meanwhile 300,000 vets and minorities tossed into the unemployment lines, like make it make sense??? It got so bad, the racist Musk quit, so much for saving us all from the big bad socialist gov. NEWS FLASH, I'D RATHER WASTE MY TAX PAYER DOLLARS ON SOME POOR LAZY WHITE SLOB IN THE SOUTH WHO'S PERMANENLY ON DISABILITY FOR A FUCKIN HEADACHE THAN WASTE IT ANY DAMN DAY OF THE FUCKIN YEAR ON TRUMPISM.
 
So... He's planning on world conquest.

And the tRumplings still don;t see the similarities to a certain German from the 1930s?
Trump is planning to take on all the worlds oil and is expecting them all to just sit back and get over it. 2 of the worlds largest oil producers, Ven. and Iran are suppose to just sit back and watch the big bad bullies in America strip them of their livelihood and and and LIKE IT??? Once this Trump nightmare is over, no place on this planet will that orange bastard nor his fuckin family should ever ever feel safe outside of Mar ologo. Payback will be a bitch and the Latino's and Muslims will see that Trump is jailed not only for war crimes, but for being a ass ho powered by greed and his racism
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Welcome to the new era of MASSIVE gov't and spending on the Military, as Trump tries something new that America has never done before by taking money out of Domestic priorities that help citizens at home and instead send the money out to the Military Complex. :rofl2:


Trump asks Congress to supersize military budget, slash domestic programs

The president’s fiscal 2027 budget request calls for Republicans to use a partisan process for enacting billions for the Pentagon.

President Donald Trump called Friday for Congress to back a $1.5 trillion defense budget alongside yawning reductions to domestic programs — making official the ambitious military increase he’s been teasing for months....
Trump is determined to bankrupt this nation and he's got 2 more fuckin years.
 
All stripes of gov't are Big Gov't spenders. You will not escape that.

The question is what priorities will the gov't use the tax payer on.

Repulicans and Magats have historically and now with Trump, want to send all the Tax Payer out to INdustrial Military Complex and to Oligarachs while getting rid of all social services they provide at home.

Dems take tax payer money to grow gov't to provide more and more social services for the people who paid that money in.

That is the debate voters have to decide upon, as neither stripe of government will ever stop taking more and more of your money, so the question is where do you want that money to go.
1775318638937.png
 
All stripes of gov't are Big Gov't spenders. You will not escape that.

The question is what priorities will the gov't use the tax payer on.

Repulicans and Magats have historically and now with Trump, want to send all the Tax Payer out to INdustrial Military Complex and to Oligarachs while getting rid of all social services they provide at home.

Dems take tax payer money to grow gov't to provide more and more social services for the people who paid that money in.

That is the debate voters have to decide upon, as neither stripe of government will ever stop taking more and more of your money, so the question is where do you want that money to go.
I take exception to that statement. The Democrats take taxpayer money to grow government to provide more and more social services for the people who have paid LITTLE OR NOTHING in. Those that are paying taxes for such services generally don't need them. They make sufficient wealth to pay their own way.
 
I take exception to that statement. The Democrats take taxpayer money to grow government to provide more and more social services for the people who have paid LITTLE OR NOTHING in. Those that are paying taxes for such services generally don't need them. They make sufficient wealth to pay their own way.
Your statement is only partially correct as the wealthy are almost never excluded from the social services even if you say they use them less as they prefer private options.

And yes that is how the bulk of first world societies operate by racking money from the more wealthy to provide a bare baseline of services for all.

That is because when you look at history allowing societies to become increasingly polarized into an oligarch rich with a growing percent of desperate poor (ie India) generally does not work out for anyone over the long term. Not the country, not the oligarchs and certainly not the poor.

Countries realize investing in the working poor actually uplifts the entire country including the oligarchs
 
Your statement is only partially correct as the wealthy are almost never excluded from the social services even if you say they use them less as they prefer private options.

And yes that is how the bulk of first world societies operate by racking money from the more wealthy to provide a bare baseline of services for all.

That is because when you look at history allowing societies to become increasingly polarized into an oligarch rich with a growing percent of desperate poor (ie India) generally does not work out for anyone over the long term. Not the country, not the oligarchs and certainly not the poor.

Countries realize investing in the working poor actually uplifts the entire country including the oligarchs
Not in Europe today they aren't! There, the socialized welfare systems are going broke like yesterday.




 
Not in Europe today they aren't! There, the socialized welfare systems are going broke like yesterday.




I counter that with America being the richest country in the history of the world by making a very concerted effort during reconstruction to take wealth from the top and redistribute to the middle class and below prompting a cyclical spiral of wealth growth as the working poor, as Henry Ford recognized, that society benefits when the workers can afford the products.
 
I counter that with America being the richest country in the history of the world by making a very concerted effort during reconstruction to take wealth from the top and redistribute to the middle class and below prompting a cyclical spiral of wealth growth as the working poor, as Henry Ford recognized, that society benefits when the workers can afford the products.
Henry Ford did that of his own accord. He also was getting something direct for his money in that the workers--those receiving that pay--were employed and encouraged to put it back in the system by buying a car from their boss. OF course, this can be done in stupid ways like Stellantis just did:


When the government does it the result is almost always failure. Aside from that, the wealth confiscation schemes underway in Europe have led to an overall decline in economic growth and even GDP as the wealthy have taken their money and run.
 
Henry Ford did that of his own accord. He also was getting something direct for his money in that the workers--those receiving that pay--were employed and encouraged to put it back in the system by buying a car from their boss. OF course, this can be done in stupid ways like Stellantis just did:


When the government does it the result is almost always failure. Aside from that, the wealth confiscation schemes underway in Europe have led to an overall decline in economic growth and even GDP as the wealthy have taken their money and run.
it was NOT just Ford workers uplifted who could buy cars and other discretionary and it was the ENTIRETY of NEW and UPLIFTED middle class that largely did not exist prior.

And that was not solely a consequence of 'Ford or like minded companies' simply paying more and came more from the very PROGRESSIVE taxation system implemented and imposed on the top tiers of wealth, with that money then distributed to social programs and infrastructure and other GOVERNMENT initiatives that CREATED AND UPLIFTED an enter class.

If you want contrast look to India where you see extreme wealth and desperate poverty with no real sustained MC in between, because the government stayed mostly out of the redistribution game and you see corporations cannot do it on their own.

China is following the US model, within their version of communism. Mass efforts to create a huge MC, recognizing the GDP gains over time with success, will make China the most dominant country in the world.
 
it was NOT just Ford workers uplifted who could buy cars and other discretionary and it was the ENTIRETY of NEW and UPLIFTED middle class that largely did not exist prior.

And that was not solely a consequence of 'Ford or like minded companies' simply paying more and came more from the very PROGRESSIVE taxation system implemented and imposed on the top tiers of wealth, with that money then distributed to social programs and infrastructure and other GOVERNMENT initiatives that CREATED AND UPLIFTED an enter class.

If you want contrast look to India where you see extreme wealth and desperate poverty with no real sustained MC in between, because the government stayed mostly out of the redistribution game and you see corporations cannot do it on their own.

India has so much poverty for reasons completely detached from government. The number one reason is there remains today a caste system in the country.

That is, your language and race determine your position in society. When you combine it with tribalism, roughly 70% of the population, mostly rural, are screwed by this system. The government has tried and failed to end it and has, off and on, been trying since roughly 1947.

Feeding off that is a very high illiteracy rate. The language you speak may not be the one taught in schools, that is if you can even go. This is particularly true with females who are seen as little more than breeding stock in many parts of the country, particularly ones with a high Muslim population.

Then there's the gender gap. Women are seen as almost second class citizens with limited access to many of the mechanisms of society, particularly financial.

One of the worst aspects of society there is that debt is inheritable. That means if a family goes into debt the cycle is endless. This can often result in what amounts to slavery on the part of the debtor.
China is following the US model, within their version of communism. Mass efforts to create a huge MC, recognizing the GDP gains over time with success, will make China the most dominant country in the world.
China is not following the US model. It is following the Nazi Germany model. Government spends like a drunken sailor on high visibility projects that have no chance of any positive ROI. It builds public and private projects that look great on paper so long as you don't look at the books and costs. They have a high-speed rail system that hemorrhages money and few use because the price of tickets is unaffordable. Stations often stand all but empty. It's like the grand public works projects Hitler's Germany embarked on.

They also have little regard for environmentalism while talking a good game. For example, the CCP wants to build a massive, ambitious, hydroelectric generation system in the Himalayas. The result will likely be India and Bangladesh get screwed while the project hemorrhages red ink.

At the same time, China is on a massive military buildup with obvious intent towards offensive war to take real estate they think is theirs. Taiwan is a clear example of that.
 
India has so much poverty for reasons completely detached from government. The number one reason is there remains today a caste system in the country.

That is, your language and race determine your position in society. When you combine it with tribalism, roughly 70% of the population, mostly rural, are screwed by this system. The government has tried and failed to end it and has, off and on, been trying since roughly 1947.

Feeding off that is a very high illiteracy rate. The language you speak may not be the one taught in schools, that is if you can even go. This is particularly true with females who are seen as little more than breeding stock in many parts of the country, particularly ones with a high Muslim population.

Then there's the gender gap. Women are seen as almost second class citizens with limited access to many of the mechanisms of society, particularly financial.

One of the worst aspects of society there is that debt is inheritable. That means if a family goes into debt the cycle is endless. This can often result in what amounts to slavery on the part of the debtor.

China is not following the US model. It is following the Nazi Germany model. Government spends like a drunken sailor on high visibility projects that have no chance of any positive ROI. It builds public and private projects that look great on paper so long as you don't look at the books and costs. They have a high-speed rail system that hemorrhages money and few use because the price of tickets is unaffordable. Stations often stand all but empty. It's like the grand public works projects Hitler's Germany embarked on.

They also have little regard for environmentalism while talking a good game. For example, the CCP wants to build a massive, ambitious, hydroelectric generation system in the Himalayas. The result will likely be India and Bangladesh get screwed while the project hemorrhages red ink.

At the same time, China is on a massive military buildup with obvious intent towards offensive war to take real estate they think is theirs. Taiwan is a clear example of that.
you got parts right but are mostly wrong, as always.

Caste system or not the Indian gov't could engage in programs to uplift those people and try and raise them into a lower MC. You can still think them inferior via castes while recognizing the entire country benefits when you create a MC from a poverty class. They become contributers.

And while i will not argue China is doing everything right and they have risks attached to their massive growth, it is also undeniable that they are lifting people out of the poverty class and into the working class at amazing rates, boosting GDP that gives the money to service the debt and grow. Are they pushing a bubble that could burst, sure. But that is not certain.

But it certainly DOES follow the US model of CREATING A MC based on the belief that will grow GDP, wealth and power.

What amazes me is your lack of understanding the US build out post reconstruction and that you think it had 'regard for environmentalism', and you are unaware of what they US spent on military build out. Much of which at the time was looked at with great skepticism as not sustainable.
 
you got parts right but are mostly wrong, as always.

Caste system or not the Indian gov't could engage in programs to uplift those people and try and raise them into a lower MC. You can still think them inferior via castes while recognizing the entire country benefits when you create a MC from a poverty class. They become contributers.

If you give a pile of cash to someone who is an outcast from society, and won't be accepted by society, and who has little or no ability to utilize that money effectively, that person doesn't become a "contributor." They become a mark. They are soon separated from that cash and no better off than they were before.

Money alone doesn't lift people up. Until you fix the inequities in society and get to a point where the poor are capable of moving up, it won't happen. That takes generational effort, often many generations of effort.
And while i will not argue China is doing everything right and they have risks attached to their massive growth, it is also undeniable that they are lifting people out of the poverty class and into the working class at amazing rates, boosting GDP that gives the money to service the debt and grow. Are they pushing a bubble that could burst, sure. But that is not certain.

China is doing stupid stuff. They have massive corruption--expected with a massive government--and what they build has more to do with politics and propaganda than sound economic reasoning. It's like California building their high speed rail line. If few use it once complete--assuming that ever even happens--and it hemorrhages money, at some point it will simply disappear from use.

Look at the BART system. Ridership is falling fast on that as remote work and cost of fares rise. It's at a point where the system is going bankrupt. Politician's solution is to raise taxes and fares more.

But it certainly DOES follow the US model of CREATING A MC based on the belief that will grow GDP, wealth and power.

It hasn't created a middle class so much as a YUPPIE and oligarch class. The same thing occurs in most dictatorships.
What amazes me is your lack of understanding the US build out post reconstruction and that you think it had 'regard for environmentalism', and you are unaware of what they US spent on military build out. Much of which at the time was looked at with great skepticism as not sustainable.

The US built out after the civil war on personal wealth and by work and individual investment. US military spending could certainly take a reduction, but that's unlikely. The rail system in the US from 1870 to 1900 (roughly) was primarily built out using private investment, not government funding.
 
Back
Top