*balances your budget*

naturally high taxes lowers a defect if there isn't a spending increase. Doesn't mean you should.

You should always lowers defects if you can.

We’re still spending way too much on the military

>Republicans keep increasing spending on useless toys and Bush Jr for his bullshit Iraq war.
>heheh nuttin personal kid(democrat presidents)
muh "rebuild(aka more waste)" the military

>thing that happens partially due to your policies shouldn’t be claimed by you
LMAO
So?
What happens to the people who make things for the military who are suddenly out of work? Their field is very specialized, and it will hard to get jobs in other places.

>What happens to the people who make things for the military who are suddenly out of work? Their field is very specialized, and it will hard to get jobs in other places

pull your bootstrap and find something or go back to university and retrain.

if we dont do shit for those industrial workers who get laid off then we shouldnt do anything for defense workers.

T. Has never been in the military
Most army personnel work with machines, vehicles, information technology, communications or in the medical field
The only ones with any trouble once they get out are the crayon eaters that did nothing but shoot towelheads and chug Ripits for 4 years and they normally go career anyway

not with austerity
whats your point. No more war? We'd get contra'd

the majority of military personnel only have a highschool education or GED in the US when they enter. Some without even that.

Point is that the military is bloated as fuck.

>President
>In charge of budget
???

Clinton didn't do it with austerity, he did it with tax hikes on the rich. Social programs received more spending by cutting defense.

How can a superpower have a bloated military?
Oh. If we're talking specifics. then cutting spending in the state is always a bad move. The state budget lower naturally as a result of peace. So to do so in pursuit of appeasing the populace is a losing game once the wars begin once more. As the spending will have to account for the lack of materials in the past. Along with a worse situation on the ground.

Where is the “purchasing power” going to come from to employ them? If we assume that the public budget is being balanced, the answer is simple. The government will cease to support the soldiers. But the taxpayers will be allowed to retain the funds that were previously taken from them in order to support the soldiers. And the taxpayers
will then have additional funds to buy additional goods. Civilian demand, in other words, will be increased, and will give employment to the added labor force represented by the soldiers.

> then cutting spending in the state is always a bad move

There's no such thing as "always a bad move", there are times when you should cut state spending, like after a war for example.

*repeals Glass-Steagall act*

>There's no such thing as "always a bad move"
that can't be true. There is an actual skill involved in these things. Like being a stateman. You can't allow yourself to be conquered. It would be a bad move.
>like after a war for example.
it would happen naturally. You wouldn't have to cut it because the money would be refunded and recycled in the military itself.

>How can a superpower have a bloated military?
When it has so many resources it doesn't actually use. A military this size without a major war is a waste.

who was in the wrong here?
youtube.com/watch?v=kJJ5_s9I9pE

Afghanistan isn't major enough for you?

youtu.be/5s0lzbCK9f8
Who was in the wrong here

>bullshit Iraq war

Yeah who even cares if a genocidal dictator who gasses minorities has acquired weapons of mass destruction, biggest mistake since we went to war against that Hitler guy

9/11 doesn’t happen if Gore was elected.

K*rds aren’t human and there were no wmds

Implying Nixon didn't already do that. And Trump is the guy that kicked the last dignity out of it and put a big, shiny turd into it instead.

That was actually the gop Congress.

A dying republic means the glorious oligarchy may begin.

Less taxes don't lower the gdp you idiot.

*Reality.

By lower spending.

The Iraq war by every measure was a success.

>Had WMDs

(source needed).

If you were talking about gas, we probably sold it to him in the first place.
And we used 9/11 as an invasion pretext when he had nothing to do with it.

*is the most corrupt president in United States history*

>higher taxes passed by democratic congress had no effect on deficit

pic unrelated

Newt Gingrich, Contract With America, balanced the budget. Kind of.

That’s not lBJ

I don't think anyone is ever going to top Grant or A. Johnson.

Reminder...

govtrack.us/congress/votes/105-1998/h482

bernie sanders voted in favor of this to btw.

>reading comprehension

>t. bootlickers who either refuse to think the iraq war is wrong or try to blame others for the iraq even though bush pushed it for the wrong reasons

I don’t care If he did or not. My opinion doesn’t sway with demagogues like some cuck. The war as still wrong and nothing more than a scheme for W to get his buddies rich as well as placate the Saudis.

The war was good, despite W being bad.

Bush Sr. should've killed Saddam when he had the chance.

Everything they blame Bush Jr. for, Saddam also did and he was worse. Saddam had an history of invading other countries being hungry for their oil, and he attempted ethnic cleansings and ran a police state on top of that. The invasion of Iraq was badly executed, but it wasn't an act of evil. Standing idle in the face of evil is a form of evil itself.

Underrated post

DEMOHCRAD BAD, GRUG H8T DEMOHGRADS, CLEENTUN IZ RAPEEST, TRUMP IZ BEST, GRUG LUV TRUMP

He didn't, though.

He worked with COngress, both sides of the aisle, to pass a budget that balanced ON PAPER based on a set of very optimisitc assumptions about the economy and growth. It was laughable.

Of course, the economy was still stuck here in the real world, the stupidly high rates of growth did not append, and the budget continue to run at a deficit and add to the debt, like it always does.

I like how you use percentage of GDP instead of, you know, how big the deficit was from year to year.

Isawyoupalmthatcard.mp3

>Nixon
>Johnson
>Carter

Killing Kurds and kikes are positive things. Establishing a secular dictatorship that prevents the country from descending into an islamic chaos is a positive thing. Protecting Christian minorities is a positive thing. Greatly modernizing your nation is likewise, a positive thing.
Removing Saddam was the single largest geopolitical mistake of this century.

>if there isn't a spending increas

That's where it always fgoes to shit.

There is no amount of revenue so large that Congress cannot spend more than that.

The only way to ever get out of the death-spiral the budget is in is to get fucking control of spending and make real-dollar decreases in what is spent. "Cutting" growth of the budget from an anticipated increase to an increase that is a few percent less than that is not a cut in any real world sense.

We're spending way to much money on almost everything. I think the military is vital, but I also think they could learn to spend money wisely, pay less bloated costs for what they buy, and still pay their troops a decent wage.

> Of course, the economy was still stuck here in the real world, the stupidly high rates of growth did not append, and the budget continue to run at a deficit and add to the debt, like it always does.

So this is the power of Fox News.

now map the point that all the businesses started outsourcing labor to 3rd World countries

And the military pays for their education

US spends money on military projects that only exist to get politicans votes and contributions from private companies in exchange for government contracts.

youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw

Oh look a fragile leftist who ignores facts, history and economics.

in4b
>rural and suburban retards vote gop.

The "balanced budget" you tards cream about was the result of the sweeps in congress teh GOP got in 1996. Clinton had no choice but to jolt to the right and balance the budget.

>yfw Trump is helping kurds right now
Enjoy your YPG terrorists in 10 years.

then don't vote for them

Kurds are absolute subhumans. And by Trump you mean Israel, he's their puppet.

>Vox

>he doesn't take his propaganda fact-checked and sourced
How can breitbrats compete?

Oh, if we’re gonna give him credit for the economy, then let’s not forget to thank him for that subprime loan boom (his HUD started, and Bush continued everybody should own a home policies).

Gotta keep that economy afloat man.

For Iran*

>not knowing it's been an oligarchy from the beginning
user I...

*makes USFDA that basically exploits the Mexican people with lowest wages possible and cause mass immigration to United States, eventually causing shitstorm about 10 years later*

>Liberals are leftists

>Vox

Did Obama really raise taxes? I thought he was a neolib

Democrats shouldn't be smug about this.

Have Democratic Presidents done better at fiscal management for the last 40 year or so?

Yes. Arguing otherwise is stupid.

Reagan was not a professional policy maker. He was slipping into dementia in his second term. Bush I is highly underated for both fiscal and foreign policy, but again, he was a career policy guy who knew what to focus on. Bush I was elevated by nepotism. Not smart enough to be President, not a serious leader so he got run around by his advisors, who also were shitty ideaologically driven shits.

Obama had a strong cabinet but had a serious lack of experience, which he overcame later.

Now the GOP has a reality TV star and a joke cabinet.

But Dems are headed in some same direction with all the SJW stuff. I wouldn't be shocked if they start nominating clownish candidates too.

whig party when?

What is recapitalizing a banking system

he only got blowjobs, he didn't fuck any pussy including hillary's

>2020: Democrats nominate James Mattis for primaries

What would you do

a man of poor taste. hillarys pussy would be like drinking everclear

>Afghanistan
>major
We didn't even have 50,000 dead on our side. We didn't even have to CONSIDER the deployment of nuclear weapons.

We're still fighting. And our military refuses to march into the mountain to secure the upper regions,

We're still fighting because we don't care about turning it into a major war. If we really cared, Kabul would've been firebombed into rubble a decade ago.

Eh it was more like 20

You should be aware that they're not in kabul

Chris Wallace is so wormy.

Yes but we don't have war declared on all of Afghanistan itself. If we were serious there wouldn't even be an Afghanistan anymore.

>I like how you use percentage of GDP instead of, you know, how big the deficit was from year to year.

You do realize the percentage is more relevant than the actual value. Inflation naturally makes it seem like we have more debt today than before if you don't take it into account. Minimum wage in my state is 10.10 and hour, but that's nothing compared to the actual spending power of a 3.40 an hour minimum wage my parents had back in the 80's.

It's more left wing than right.

He did, not enough tho..

>recapitalizing
By bailing them out with billions in tax dollars? Sounds like the opposite to me.

Vote like hell for him, I'm a Bernia bro and I love Mattis. He is a student of history and has an extensive understanding of the advanced and subtle politics of the ME. He even said at one point, "Foreign aid is out best tool for preventing war." He would easily be better than most current US at being president.

Jesus fuck please don't ever associate yourself with the left wing ever again you liberal shitstain

Grant gets an excuse on everything because he saved the United States. Buchanan or Andrew Johnson are the most corrupt and terrible presidents.

>How can a superpower have a bloated military?
Through politics. Just look at the Abrams tank orders a couple years ago
>Army says it has plenty of tanks, and doesn't need any more to meet its objectives
>congress, which sets the budget convenes
>hmm these Abrams parts are a huge part of my constituency's employment
>Congress tells Army that it needs more tanks

Then you start going down the rabbit hole of the fact that politicians are now incentivized to devise foreign policies that require higher defense spending.