*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[BananaStand]

ALSO SOMEONE WHO'S RIGHT WING SAID IT WAS AND THEY'RE WRONG!!!!!!

EVERY FUCKING TIME !!!!! WHY DO THEY DO IT!!!!!!?????

I'M GOING TO GO CRAAAAAZYZYYZYZYZYZYYZ!!!!!!

Well, let me know if there becomes a right-wing consensus on that, and I'll join you in your outrage.

In the meantime, if you're prone to going crazy like this, then I suggest you do NOT look into socialists like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's answer to deficits. That might give you an aneurysm.

[Poopadoop]

Well, let me know if there becomes a right-wing consensus on that, and I'll join you in your outrage.

There already is; Ong and Wuf.

In the meantime, if you're prone to going crazy like this, then I suggest you do NOT look into socialists like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's answer to deficits. That might give you an aneurysm.

You're failing to see the crux of my point: deficits themselves aren't necessarily bad, printing loads of money to combat the deficit is.

The problem isn't too much spending, Ocasio-Cortez says, but rather that the funds are being channeled into tax cuts for the wealthy rather than anti-poverty measures like a government jobs guarantee.

Ya, that's just nuts. She didn't even mention the amount wasted on the military.

[Poopadoop]

I mean, it's hard to imagine how this kind of message can be popular.

Asked about her definition of socialism, Ocasio-Cortez, who identifies as a Democratic Socialist, told Chris Hayes on MSNBC: "In a modern, moral, and wealthy America, where we have the capacity to ensure that every American can have healthcare, an education, and access to dignified housing, we should try to do that as a society by whichever means we can."

Clearly, she doesn't understand that what makes America great is giving more money to rich people. Donald Trump does.

[BananaStand]

There already is; Ong and Wuf.

Ong isn't right wing. That's your libtard reflexes again telling you anyone to the right of Lenin is automatically a nazi.

You're failing to see the crux of my point: deficits themselves aren't necessarily bad, printing loads of money to combat the deficit is.

I'm not failing to see that. I just don't dispute it. And it's no fun talking to you if you're not blinded with rage.

I'm making a tangential point about AOC. When asked "who pays" for her socialist ideas, her answer was "well, republicans don't pay for anything either". In other words, rather than have a fiscally responsible plan, she just thinks "it's OUR TURN to spend our balls off"

Ya, that's just nuts. She didn't even mention the amount wasted on the military.

Actually, read it again. IT IS NUTS!!!!

A deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. AOC is saying if we spend the money on something different, then there won't a deficit. That math doesn't check out.

If you make $1000 a week, and spend $1200 on cocaine, you're in debt. If you make $1000 a week and you spend $1200 on used chemistry lab equipment from ebay, then you're still in debt.

[Poopadoop]

Ong isn't right wing. That's your libtard reflexes again telling you anyone to the right of Lenin is automatically a nazi.

Ong wants Brexit, doesn't want immigrants, especially muslims, likes Trump. He's right-wing. The only things missing are the homophobia, supporting the NRA, and going to church, and well, this is Britain. Right-wing here is not the same as right-wing there.

[Poopadoop]

I'm making a tangential point about AOC. When asked "who pays" for her socialist ideas, her answer was "well, republicans don't pay for anything either". In other words, rather than have a fiscally responsible plan, she just thinks "it's OUR TURN to spend our balls off"

So what? The country has been running a deficit for decades afaik. Why is it suddenly such a bad thing that a socialist doesn't want to balance the budget either?

[BananaStand]

So what? The country has been running a deficit for decades afaik. Why is it suddenly such a bad thing that a socialist doesn't want to balance the budget either?

Well you really have to look at the stat sheet. Bush fought two wars and only racked up half the deficit that Obama did.

It's not "suddenly" such a bad thing. It's always been a bad thing. You stomach it when you have to, like when you're at war. And when you're not at war, you don't push through trillion dollar stimulus packages, you don't bail out failing corporations, and you don't implement a healthcare system that increased costs by a trillion a year.

[Poopadoop]

Well you really have to look at the stat sheet. Bush fought two wars and only racked up half the deficit that Obama did.

It's not "suddenly" such a bad thing. It's always been a bad thing. You stomach it when you have to, like when you're at war. And when you're not at war, you don't push through trillion dollar stimulus packages, you don't bail out failing corporations, and you don't implement a healthcare system that increased costs by a trillion a year.

Hmm, wonder why that trillion dollar stimulus package was necessary in the first place...

[BananaStand]

Hmm, wonder why that trillion dollar stimulus package was necessary in the first place...

It was never necessary. And it didn't do anything it was supposed to do. Obama presided over the slowest, most pathetic economic recovery ever. Trump gets elected and two days later the Dow hits 20K and unemployment evaporates.

That should tell you what the market really thinks about 'tax and spend' democrats.