American Politics

[Elvis 2008]

Then you misrepresent my position. I gave you several examples of USA doing smthg wrong. Tiny gave you some others. There are more examples every week.

I have heard negativity about the USA all the time. I just wish that it were confined to things where we actually did something wrong like in Iran in 1953. I think you think I am saying the USA is infallible.

I never said BRICS was going to stop using dollar. I explicitly said they would come up w a an alternative and not a replacement.

They already have replacements, and I showed you they were all crap.

I also didn't say the dollar was evil. I say the US govt is evil. I have no issue w countries using the USD if they freely prefer to do so.

LOL. That is semantics.

Gold was the dominant currency. Then once WW2 destroyed most of the West, the USA had an open playing field. Elvis, it seems your the one that does not understand the importance of the petro dollar. There are countless articles on it. Here is one: https://www.avatrade.co.za/education...he-petrodollar.

Oh brother. You link an article like that and think you know what you are talking about. Sigh. It was gold backed currencies not gold that were a medium of exchange. The people who are pushing the petrodollar narrative are inevitably pushing gold or cryptocurrency. This is a tired story I have been hearing for decades. The story goes, "We are giving paper for valuable useful items like oil and printing up dollars like tomorrow out of thin air". These fools have not even updated their bullshit to reflect reality where the USA become a net exporter of crude, https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...23-2022-12-19/.

And from your article is this "However, the biggest threat to the petrodollar is the potential of the petroyuan. " LOL. No, the biggest threat to the "petrodollar" (a dumb term as it is just a USA dollar used to buy oil) is the fact that the USA no longer needs to buy oil.

Besides the yuan is pegged to the dollar. You buy oil with yuan and convert it into dollars. It is not that big of a deal. And the great threat to the USA dollar is #5 in term of currency exchange.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1282409.shtml

I know very little about insurance. What? You cannot be serious? Show me some evidence please that the US Navy is a major preventer of acts of theft from Captain Pugwash and Long john Silver.

So you do not understand the insurance industry or the role of the USA navy in global trade? If you do not understand those items, then any prediction on where currencies are headed is bound to be wrong. And your comment on the USA navy just shows me that you are only interested in the bad things the USA does and none of the good.

Why can't you google a story on USA navy and its history on piracy? Afraid you might read something positive on the USA military?

[JustTK]

Uff. If only more country leaders had the courage to say it how it really is. Here Fred M'membe of Zambia speaks truth to US power. Watch from 35 sec to 2m 19s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-617EzlNYTI

[Tiny 12]

The Repub cuts for all but the super wealthy and corporations under Trump were set to expire within the next couple of election cycles but those for the super wealthy and corporations were not.

Wrong. The cuts for the "super wealthy," as well as the cuts for the upper middle class, middle class and poor, are scheduled to expire. Democrats and Republicans probably will indeed extend them for the middle class and poor, but not the rich, like they did after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. This is a large part of the reason why we have the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

And correct, the corporate tax rate cut is not set to expire. Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), passed in 2017, the USA Federal + state corporate tax rate was the second highest in the world, right behind Comoros. Even Biden doesn't want to take the corporate rate back to where it was.

If we do increase the corporate rate, who will pay for it? Well, first and foremost consumers, in the form of higher prices. Second, workers, who would lose their jobs as industries migrate to lower tax countries. And third, shareholders, some of whom like you seem to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

While the government's revenues from the corporate tax cut took a hit after implementation of the TCJA, they're now back up, to the second highest level in history in 2022. Partly this is undoubtedly due to the corporations' motivation to invest and generate income in America as a result of a better tax regime. The better regime resulted not only from the tax cut, but also the TCJA's provisions that resulted in hundreds of billions or trillions of cash being repatriated by American corporations, and implementation of the Global Intangible Low Tax Income (GILTI) tax on foreign earnings of USA Corporations.

Consequently, Trump's jobs creation record was crap, especially when you factor in the cost of them, even before he created Trump's Pandemic.

Again, not true. Up until COVID, job generation in the USA continued at a good clip, despite the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest since the 1960's. When you're closer to full employment, job creation should slow. The fact that it didn't is due in part to the corporate tax cuts and deregulation. Also, the middle class finally made big gains in income prior to COVID. Unfortunately, those gains largely dissipated as a result of inflation that kicked off after passage of Biden's American Rescue Plan (ARP). You can't attribute inflation in 2021 entirely to the ARP, but it played a big part.

I hate it when Democratic Politicians refer to tax cuts as "costing" something. They're not costs, unless you're some kind of mafioso believes it's a "cost" when you extort less money from people.

Biden and the Dems' extention of the middle and lower tax cuts are, by definition, Dem Tax Cuts.

And, as usual, they have worked to expand the economy and create millions upon millions of jobs.

So Democrats deserve the credit for the tax cuts in the TCJA, which I believe was passed without a single Democratic vote. That makes perfect sense if your view of the USA Economy is mostly based on "Democrats Good, Republicans Crap. ".

You realize Biden and the Dems haven't extended squat yet? And if rate cuts are extended, it will be bipartisan.

GW Bush's Treasury Dept's total lack of attention to anything other than celebrating their unnecessary tax cuts just for show crashed the economy well and surely enough without worry over who got the most tea and cookies before Bush's Titanic sank.

Those pesky details again.


But the tax policies enacted by Clinton and his Dem Congress of 1993 and 1994 led directly to the historic economic expansion and jobs creation of the years that folliwed. Until GW Bush took over with his Repub Congress, got his Repub way and Crashed the economy. And that was despite Nude Grinbitch and his House Repubs trying everything possible to Crash it under Clinton but failing to do so.

You're going to have to look far and wide to find an economist who will argue that tax cuts lower GDP growth, or, as to Clinton, vice versa. The only question is how much will lower taxes increase GDP. And what's the effect on the deficit and the national debt if government continues to spend like a drunken sailor.

So, what was there to criticize about Clinton's economic stewardship? There was no Repub-style economic disaster resulting from it. But Repubs of his day sure warned us there would be. LOL. Pretty much the same way you and other current Repubs say the current crop of Democrats "have it wrong. ".

You think those ancient history Repubs in Kennedy's day weren't telling us the world will come to an end if he gets his way economically? The same for FDR? And most certainly for Clinton, Obama and now Biden?

Your beloved Repubs are ALWAYS wrong about how Dem economic policies and stewardship will destroy the world while theirs are superior. Always. And in the most polar opposite way. Obviously and according to any data and record of results you've got.

More "Democrat Good, Republican Crap" reasoning. In our recent exchange I've praised three presidents for tax legislation passed during their terms, and two were Democrats.

"A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses. ".

Lololol.

Except when Repubs like Coolidge / Hoover, Reagan, GW Bush and Trump decide who gets to keep more money in their hands and who gets to leave it to them. Then the country plunges into historic Great Depressions / Great Recessions and Massive Job Losses in the Millions.

Lolol.

The difference I see in how the parties decide who gets to keep more money is that the Democrats are marginally more likely to pass it onto crony capitalists. Thus you see California green energy and tech companies benefitting disproportionately from the CHIPS and badly-named Inflation Reduction Acts. And New York contributors to the Democratic Party benefitting from Schumer continuing to pigeon hole provisions to end carried interest treatment of management fees realized by hedge, private equity and venture capital funds.

Good that you're not really arguing about my statement "A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses. " Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

[JustTK]

Nope, that is not what I meant. I meant if you are going to accuse the USA of bad things, find an example where we have done something wrong. There are tons of examples: USA / Iran 1953, USA / Guatemala 1954, USA / Chile 1970's.

However, you were talking like the USA is in danger because BRICs nations are going to quit using the dollar when the dollar is the strongest currency the world has known for centuries.

My example of Colombia and El Salvador was to show you that the working middle class / poor were far better off keeping their savings in evil USA dollars than their wonderful native currencies. I showed you that all those BRICs currencies have went to shit.

Then you misrepresent my position. I gave you several examples of USA doing smthg wrong. Tiny gave you some others. There are more examples every week.

I never said BRICS was going to stop using dollar. I explicitly said they would come up w a an alternative and not a replacement.

I also didn't say the dollar was evil. I say the US govt is evil. I have no issue w countries using the USD if they freely prefer to do so.

The dollar was the dominant currency before OPEC had any real power. The notion that oil is paid for with dollars meaning anything is negligible because those dollars can instantly be changed into any other commodity or currency. In fact, the Saudis have smartly learned to convert those dollars into shares of corporate stock to get even more money. You once again are showing your financial naivete.

Gold was the dominant currency. Then once WW2 destroyed most of the West, the USA had an open playing field. Elvis, it seems your the one that does not understand the importance of the petro dollar. There are countless articles on it. Here is one: https://www.avatrade.co.za/education...he-petrodollar.

As for "those days being over", you miss the two larger points. And who dominates the shipping insurance industry?

I know very little about insurance. I am sure there are several business sectors where the USA maintains hegemony. But those will decline as US petro hegemony declines.

As for "those days being over", you miss the two larger points. And who dominates the shipping insurance industry?

I know very little about insurance. I am sure there are several business sectors where the USA maintains hegemony. But those will decline as US petro hegemony declines.

Then there is the USA navy and piracy.

What? You cannot be serious? Show me some evidence please that the US Navy is a major preventer of acts of theft from Captain Pugwash adn Long john Silver.

I cannot believe you went to Venezuela and believed all the hogwash about the USA. Venezuela should be as rich as Saudi Arabia....

Haha Elvis. You have mentioned this countless times. WTF does it have to do w this discussion? I have answered this several times anyway, and it is not relevant to a discussion of threats to the US dollar.

[EihTooms]

Exactly. A Republican and a Democratic president could sign the same legislation into law and you'd praise one and criticize the other. If Clinton hadn't been president when the capital gains tax was cut to 20%, I'm sure you'd criticize the cut.

That's just not true as to the tax rate cuts that occurred under Bush and Trump. In percentage terms, the total tax on ordinary income paid by people in lower brackets reduced more than those in higher brackets. Overall the USA Has the most progressive tax system in the developed world, when you include VAT, sales taxes, property taxes, federal and state income taxes, and the employee's share of social security and Medicare CONTRIBUTIONS.

The overall level of taxation and government spending is what's much more important than the progressivity of the system though. The USA and Ireland have very progressive tax systems. Hong Kong has very regressive taxation. Yet all three of these countries (using the term "country" loosely for Hong Kong) overall have among the lowest government revenues and spending (as a % of GDP) and the highest levels of GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power. The key is smaller, ideally more efficient government. If the government takes a smaller piece of the pie, that means the private sector takes a larger piece. And the private sector is the engine of jobs and growth. A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses.

And that's where the current crop of Democrats, unlike Kennedy and perhaps Clinton, have it wrong. They want to make the USA into Europe. And if they're successful, the prosperity of the country will suffer.

But the tax policies enacted by Clinton and his Dem Congress of 1993 and 1994 led directly to the historic economic expansion and jobs creation of the years that folliwed. Until GW Bush took over with his Repub Congress, got his Repub way and Crashed the economy. And that was despite Nude Grinbitch and his House Repubs trying everything possible to Crash it under Clinton but failing to do so.

So, what was there to criticize about Clinton's economic stewardship? There was no Repub-style economic disaster resulting from it. But Repubs of his day sure warned us there would be. LOL. Pretty much the same way you and other current Repubs say the current crop of Democrats "have it wrong. ".

You think those ancient history Repubs in Kennedy's day weren't telling us the world will come to an end if he gets his way economically? The same for FDR? And most certainly for Clinton, Obama and now Biden?

Your beloved Repubs are ALWAYS wrong about how Dem economic policies and stewardship will destroy the world while theirs are superior. Always. And in the most polar opposite way. Obviously and according to any data and record of results you've got.

"A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses. ".

Lololol.

Except when Repubs like Coolidge / Hoover, Reagan, GW Bush and Trump decide who gets to keep more money in their hands and who gets to leave it to them. Then the country plunges into historic Great Depressions / Great Recessions and Massive Job Losses in the Millions.

Lolol.

[EihTooms]

Exactly. A Republican and a Democratic president could sign the same legislation into law and you'd praise one and criticize the other. If Clinton hadn't been president when the capital gains tax was cut to 20%, I'm sure you'd criticize the cut.

That's just not true as to the tax rate cuts that occurred under Bush and Trump. In percentage terms, the total tax on ordinary income paid by people in lower brackets reduced more than those in higher brackets. Overall the USA Has the most progressive tax system in the developed world, when you include VAT, sales taxes, property taxes, federal and state income taxes, and the employee's share of social security and Medicare CONTRIBUTIONS.

The overall level of taxation and government spending is what's much more important than the progressivity of the system though. The USA and Ireland have very progressive tax systems. Hong Kong has very regressive taxation. Yet all three of these countries (using the term "country" loosely for Hong Kong) overall have among the lowest government revenues and spending (as a % of GDP) and the highest levels of GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power. The key is smaller, ideally more efficient government. If the government takes a smaller piece of the pie, that means the private sector takes a larger piece. And the private sector is the engine of jobs and growth. A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses.

And that's where the current crop of Democrats, unlike Kennedy and perhaps Clinton, have it wrong. They want to make the USA into Europe. And if they're successful, the prosperity of the country will suffer.

The Repub cuts for all but the super wealthy and corporations under Trump were set to expire within the next couple of election cycles but those for the super wealthy and corporations were not. Consequently, Trump's jobs creation record was crap, especially when you factor in the cost of them, even before he created Trump's Pandemic.

Biden and the Dems' extention of the middle and lower tax cuts are, by definition, Dem Tax Cuts.

And, as usual, they have worked to expand the economy and create millions upon millions of jobs.

GW Bush's Treasury Dept's total lack of attention to anything other than celebrating their unnecessary tax cuts just for show crashed the economy well and surely enough without worry over who got the most tea and cookies before Bush's Titanic sank.

Those pesky details again.

[Tiny 12]

Agree with everything you wrote. As for the examples I chose. Sure, there are better examples. But Elvis was showing a short memory and seems to think I never have any examples. So I choose from the past week.

I think the USA has overthrown fewer governments recently simply bcos it is not capable. It is not for the want of trying.

A couple of other examples came to mind. Impounding the foreign dollar reserves of Iran and Russia, taking assets away from Russian citizens, and imposing an embargo on Cuba were not ideal ways to win friends.

[Tiny 12]

Dem Tax Cuts Good. Repub Tax Cuts Crap.

Exactly. A Republican and a Democratic president could sign the same legislation into law and you'd praise one and criticize the other. If Clinton hadn't been president when the capital gains tax was cut to 20%, I'm sure you'd criticize the cut.

If course the dragging, poor jobs-creating Eisenhower economy took off after Kennedy's tax cuts. That is one of the main reasons I vote for Dems and have said so many times; I LOVE their tax cuts because they WORK to produce jobs and expand the economy, unlike Repub tax cuts that work quite well to produce Great Depressions / Great Recessions and destroy jobs by the millions.

Here's the deal: Kennedy's tax cuts were not Repub-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts disproportionately high for the top income margin and paid for by everyone else. Far from it. The percent of cuts to the middle and lower income margins was greater than the percentage for the top margin, particularly when you factor in the allowances in the tax code.

That would be the OPPOSITE of what Repubs celebrate and congratulate themselves for with their disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy.

LOL. Repubs and Bothsider / Neithersider Repubs always point to Kennedy's cut for the top margin from 90% or so to 70% or so, never mention the rest of it and try to bamboozle anyone who will listen into swallowing that as proof that their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy is the way to create jobs and expand the economy like FDR did, Truman did Kennedy / LBJ did, Carter did, Clinton did, Obama did and Biden has by just putting more money into the pockets of wealthy people and nothing about the far more difficut work on all those other devilishly complicated details.

That's just not true as to the tax rate cuts that occurred under Bush and Trump. In percentage terms, the total tax on ordinary income paid by people in lower brackets reduced more than those in higher brackets. Overall the USA Has the most progressive tax system in the developed world, when you include VAT, sales taxes, property taxes, federal and state income taxes, and the employee's share of social security and Medicare CONTRIBUTIONS.

The overall level of taxation and government spending is what's much more important than the progressivity of the system though. The USA and Ireland have very progressive tax systems. Hong Kong has very regressive taxation. Yet all three of these countries (using the term "country" loosely for Hong Kong) overall have among the lowest government revenues and spending (as a % of GDP) and the highest levels of GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power. The key is smaller, ideally more efficient government. If the government takes a smaller piece of the pie, that means the private sector takes a larger piece. And the private sector is the engine of jobs and growth. A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses.

And that's where the current crop of Democrats, unlike Kennedy and perhaps Clinton, have it wrong. They want to make the USA into Europe. And if they're successful, the prosperity of the country will suffer.

[Tiny 12]

I made my points, which were also intended to be in part satirical. I see they had the intended effect hehehe! And by the way, those same Democrats were the ones who eventually got onboard with the civil rights movement and passed significant civil rights legislation. This is why the majority of African Americans identify with the Democratic party today. And the southerners who still objected they turned to the Republican party, the party of Lincoln. How ironic. Things, including political parties, can and do change. And truth can be stranger than fiction.

OK, Cane, you got me. As to the bold print, that's not necessarily true, or at least not where I live. See this, my reply to PVMonger.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2787118.

The world is very different today than it was 60 or 70 years ago. I believe most people in the USA are not racist. I'd contrast the USA to Thailand, Japan and Argentina, and ask Tooms to weigh in if I could catch him in a nonpartisan mood. But this is better not discussed here, as I believe the moderators rightly prefer we stay away from race as a topic.

[Elvis 2008]

But Elvis was showing a short memory and seems to think I never have any examples. So I choose from the past week.

Nope, that is not what I meant. I meant if you are going to accuse the USA of bad things, find an example where we have done something wrong. There are tons of examples: USA / Iran 1953, USA / Guatemala 1954, USA / Chile 1970's.

However, you were talking like the USA is in danger because BRICs nations are going to quit using the dollar when the dollar is the strongest currency the world has known for centuries.

My example of Colombia and El Salvador was to show you that the working middle class / poor were far better off keeping their savings in evil USA dollars than their wonderful native currencies. I showed you that all those BRICs currencies have went to shit.

And when you say this, you still do not get it.

About the dollar bing a strong currency and others being weak. All of this was bcos of the petrodollar.

The dollar was the dominant currency before OPEC had any real power. The notion that oil is paid for with dollars meaning anything is negligible because those dollars can instantly be changed into any other commodity or currency. In fact, the Saudis have smartly learned to convert those dollars into shares of corporate stock to get even more money. You once again are showing your financial naivete.

US economy and dollar has been supported by US bullying of other countries in to mandaory use of dollar to buy oil. Its nothing more than that. But those days are over. Now Saudi is, France, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, 20 countiries are all chooisng to ditch the dollar. So that USA can no longer bully them.

If Saudi Arabia is paid in Euros, can it change those Euros instantly into USA dollars? If so, why does it matter what they are paid in? And ultimately, a currency means a storage of value. I just showed you where holding currencies other than the USA dollar has been a fool's game. Again, you do not get it.

As for "those days being over", you miss the two larger points. Are you going to move a supertanker without insurance? And who dominates the shipping insurance industry? Argentina and Venezuela typically cannot get insurance for their cargo, and you can see where their economies have gone. This insurance issue has been quite the problem for Russia trading with China.

Then there is the USA navy and piracy. We the American taxpayer are paying for safety on the seas. World piracy is negligible because of the USA navy.

And that is where you are missing the point. People have to have faith the USA dollar will not go to shit. They have to have faith an insurance company will pay if disaster hits. And they have to have faith their cargo is not going to be seized by pirates.

You can do all the financial engineering you want. At the end of the day, the USA dollar, insurance industry, and Navy have been trustworthy, and you cannot get that faith and trust with a cheap financial engineering trick.

I cannot believe you went to Venezuela and believed all the hogwash about the USA. Venezuela should be as rich as Saudi Arabia if Venezuela were as trustworthy. The Venezuelan culture unlike the Arab culture and culture in Chile is one in which stealing is okay. Because of that, I would not buy anything in Venezuela that can easily be stolen, and they have earned that lack of faith.

I do not think you understand how important faith is when it comes to financial institutions.

[JustTK]

In general terms, I agree. I would have used different examples, like imposing FATCA on every financial institution in the world. And placing sanctions on China and Iran that affect every country. I'd mention Russia, but the EU's sanctions are possibly more stringent than the USA's.

As to violence and mayhem, the USA may have gotten better in the last decade or so. It's not as inclined to overthrow foreign governments as it has been historically. Or maybe it's just better at covering its tracks. Or maybe we'll forget the lessons of Iraq, like we forgot the lessons of Vietnam. When you've got a military budget larger than the next nine highest countries put together I guess you're inclined to throw your weight around.

Agree with everything you wrote. As for the examples I chose. Sure, there are better examples. But Elvis was showing a short memory and seems to think I never have any examples. So I choose from the past week.

I think the USA has overthrown fewer governments recently simply bcos it is not capable. It is not for the want of trying.

[Tiny 12]

But Tiny, God damn, your missing the entire point! Its not about whether you think USA Govt position is right or wrong. Its about them trying to enforce what they want on other soveriegn nations. What right do they have to dictate in this matters? Since WW2 they think they have some god given right, or exceptionalism that permits them to do it. But that IS BS. It is just bullying might is right mafia big boss tactics.

In general terms, I agree. I would have used different examples, like imposing FATCA on every financial institution in the world. And placing sanctions on China and Iran that affect every country. I'd mention Russia, but the EU's sanctions are possibly more stringent than the USA's.

As to violence and mayhem, the USA may have gotten better in the last decade or so. It's not as inclined to overthrow foreign governments as it has been historically. Or maybe it's just better at covering its tracks. Or maybe we'll forget the lessons of Iraq, like we forgot the lessons of Vietnam. When you've got a military budget larger than the next nine highest countries put together I guess you're inclined to throw your weight around.

[JustTK]

I agree with you on "2".
I disagree on "3".
I'm not sure about "1.

But Tiny, God damn, your missing the entire point! Its not about whether you think USA Govt position is right or wrong. Its about them trying to enforce what they want on other soveriegn nations. What right do they have to dictate in this matters? Since WW2 they think they have some god given right, or exceptionalism that permits them to do it. But that IS BS. It is just bullying might is right mafia big boss tactics.

[EihTooms]

Who cares. Eisenhower is ancient history. Saying he's representative of the modern Republican Party makes about as much sense as saying the Democrats who held back Civil Rights reforms in the 1950's and 1960's are representative of the Democratic Party today. Maximum marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, for goodness sake. The economy, coincidentally or not, did take off when Kennedy cut tax rates, to 70% for the top bracket. While I wasn't alive when Eisenhower was president, I suspect he didn't do a bad job compared to the others. According to the history books, you can attribute the recessions to Fed policy, not the fact that the president was a Republican.

In my book the only great president during our adult lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and Clinton during his second term was the only good one. Again coincidentally or not, GDP grew more during their terms than other modern Presidents. But it's their policies and their abilities to work across the aisle that set them above the rest. George H. W. Bush wasn't bad either. He was handicapped by when he came to the office in relation to the economic cycle.

If course the dragging, poor jobs-creating Eisenhower economy took off after Kennedy's tax cuts. That is one of the main reasons I vote for Dems and have said so many times; I LOVE their tax cuts because they WORK to produce jobs and expand the economy, unlike Repub tax cuts that work quite well to produce Great Depressions / Great Recessions and destroy jobs by the millions.

Here's the deal: Kennedy's tax cuts were not Repub-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts disproportionately high for the top income margin and paid for by everyone else. Far from it. The percent of cuts to the middle and lower income margins was greater than the percentage for the top margin, particularly when you factor in the allowances in the tax code.

That would be the OPPOSITE of what Repubs celebrate and congratulate themselves for with their disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy.

LOL. Repubs and Bothsider / Neithersider Repubs always point to Kennedy's cut for the top margin from 90% or so to 70% or so, never mention the rest of it and try to bamboozle anyone who will listen into swallowing that as proof that their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy is the way to create jobs and expand the economy like FDR did, Truman did Kennedy / LBJ did, Carter did, Clinton did, Obama did and Biden has by just putting more money into the pockets of wealthy people and nothing about the far more difficut work on all those other devilishly complicated details.

[The Cane]

Cane, PLEASE READ. And perhaps look up the definitions of "satirical", "spurious correlaton" and "cause and effect" if you don't know what those mean. I said, "I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans. " I don't know how I could have been clearer.

I made my points, which were also intended to be in part satirical. I see they had the intended effect hehehe! And by the way, those same Democrats were the ones who eventually got onboard with the civil rights movement and passed significant civil rights legislation. This is why the majority of African Americans identify with the Democratic party today. And the southerners who still objected they turned to the Republican party, the party of Lincoln. How ironic. Things, including political parties, can and do change. And truth can be stranger than fiction.