Socialism ends in failure 100% of the time… just like democracy.

LOL. Very different political and economic models, but whatever makes you happy. As a matter of fact, Nazis hated communists/socialists more than anything, and it was actually criminalized in Germany. Dachau concentration camp was initially built for commies and socialists. After the war we imported Nazis to US because of their strong anti-communist views

 

Ah yes, capitalism cannot fail only be failed.

 

Wrong

None of the totalitarian measures of world war two helped to win

Violeing th rights of millions of US citizens DID NOT HELP anyone to win

History and I have proven you wrong and you know it

 

And yet again, the liberal instinct.
Blame a conservative, or a republican, or ideally Trump.

Under no circumstance blame a liberal, or a democrat, and for damn sure, not biden.

A question; reagan was president over 40 years ago. Since then we've had both republican and democratic presidents and congresses. And every one of them has added to our debt.
Every one of them.

HOW COME YOU ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS??

 

Your disingenuous reply says it all.
We're talking DEBT.
You do understand the difference between DEBT and DEFICIT, right?

Cause Clinton added about $2 TRILLION to the debt and Obama added just under $8 TRILLION to the debt.

HOW COME YOU ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS??

 

Again.

 

In answer to your question, I would likely be corrupted by power just like everyone else. Even if I begin as an idealist guided by good morals and ethics, over time I have no doubt that I would become corrupt to one degree or another. Some politicians are corrupt from the beginning. Others slowly become corrupt over time. I think few that are corrupt can even see their own corruption and doubt an incorruptible politician even exists.

But let’s assume I could somehow be some paragon of moral and ethical integrity. I would instruct our schools to add psychology as a core curriculum. I would also do like the NYPD did to root out corruption by setting up honeytrap sings. This would make it impossible for a morally and ethically compromised politician to know whether the bribe they are being offered is legit or a setup. There are probably many other tools I would use to mitigate political corruption. I would definitely surround myself with the most knowledgeable and ethical people I could find rather than sycophants and yes men and women.

 

Well, there was a surplus in the end of Clinton term, so there is that. That was quickly reversed by 'W'.

 

The screeching minority want to convince everyone that they are the majority

 

Who exactly are these socialists who have taken control and want to overthrow capitalism, and can you quote them saying it?

Listen to yourself. LOL

Or they just don't care, which seems to be the more common problem. People who ran things, like factories, in USSR or Cuba were as poor and unmotivated as everyone else, and they just did the minimum to keep things barely running, and even then only to avoid punishment.

 

Again:
You do understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?

The debt increased under Clinton.
Understand?
Every administration since Truman has increased the DEBT.
claiming to reduce the DEFICIT is meaningless until you have DEBT reduction.
Understand?

 

No its not.

 

He managed to create a surplus by the end of his term

Understand?

And then Bush reversed it in a hurry

Do you understand?

Turning deficit into surplus is very meaningful.

Less deficits = Good. Surplus = Even better. More deficits = bad.

Understand?

 

OK I still have no idea how that saves democracy.

Do you think history as being taught is a "sanitized whitewashed version?" I've been out of school a long time but I'm not sure I got a "whitewashed" version even then. How exactly would this save democracy?

And psychology courses? That's going to save democracy? I'm not seeing it.

 

First they weren't "totalitarian measures" we still had tri-cameral government; that's not "totalitarian".

Except for Japanese American's not one's rights were violated.

 

Diversity is anti-Democratic?

Interesting...

 

I'll talk about all responsible parties.

 

Ok. Time for economics 101.
A deficit is spending more than income.
During the first and second quarter the federal government generally takes in a higher portion of it's annual revenue. Because of this the deficits for each quarter tend to be smaller or might even be surpluses.

A debt is spending more than your revenue in a budget year. It is the sum of deficits plus surplus.

See, you could have two quarters of surplus, say $25 MILLION each quarter. Then you have two quarters of deficits, say $100 MILLION each quarter.

The debt is $150 MILLION for the year. It doesn't matter much at all that there were 2 quarters of surplus.
Not at all in fact.
The debt is what matters.
Especially when congress keeps passing budgets with built in increased debt and presidents keep signing them.

Understand?

 

So try for some honesty.
For starters Obama nearly doubled the debt. Source your percentages.

How much in dollars was added to the debt by each administration?
And why, at this point, does it matter?

You understand, we're $34 TRILLION in debt, its growing faster than we can justify, and no one has a plan to fix it.

America cannot survive this kind of debt.
And
We cannot tax our way out of debt.

 

Both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people. Hitler built factories to exterminate people while Stalin starved them to death, shot them and dumped their bodies in ditches, or worked them to death. There was no political freedom in either country. Hitler attacked the rest Europe; Stalin had a huge country to subdue.

Many conservatives view Hitler and Stalin as soulmates. One of my college history professors commented that those who had similar political views and systems often dislike each other the most. This is accurate assessment. The progressives don’t like to have Stalin compared to Hitler because it strikes too close to home.

 

And that goes back to Ronald Reagan who was the first to take debt growth exponential.

 

Why do you only want to talk about Republican debt?

 

Because before you can criticize Democrat debt since Reagan you have to understand that it was Reagan that set the course for exponential debt growth that inexorably committed ALL future Presidents to the same.

ALL of our money, since the creation of the FED, is created as debt, out of thin air, at interest. When that debt is created the interest is not. SO! The reason I keep talking about Reagan's debt creation, more than ALL previous administrations before him ... COMBINED ... is that to pay the interest on his exponentially grown debt, future debt growth had to and will have to remain exponential, just to keep up with the interest and future money supply needs.

 

A lot of people including these.

https://socialistrevolution.org/our-program/

Here several of them are saying it