[viruswitshoes]

1. seems to me that most conflicts since vietnam have occurred when a republican president in office.

2. recently (the last 20-30 years), the republican presidents have run up the most debt.

3. the lone democratic president decreased military spending and increased taxes.

4. the democratic president also increased spending for social programs.

now before you think this is a thread about republican vs democratic policy, this is actually a thread speculating on the involvement of the fed and the role our 2 party system plays in supporting the fed while deflecting criticism to the politicians.

you see, the fed makes money whenever the country borrows money from them. however, they also needs periods to collect that money. they are, after all, a bank that makes money when they collect on loans.

so if you look at the statements above, you'll see a basic shift from borrowing to paying it back.

the fed also makes most money during war. that is when the state borrows the most money typically.

however, wars, eventually become unpopular. they also can lead a country into so much debt, its hard for them to recover and pay back the loan.

so whenever this occurs, they wheel in a democrat in office as a figure head for a new change in policy. the economy winds down a little, growth is halted, and the loans are repaid. the fed makes its money back. it also uses social programs which will keep the country borrowing money until a new military strategy can be implemented.

and the cycle repeats itself.

i have no source. this is just speculation based on observation. take it or leave it.

[BadassHo]

1. indeed. republicans do things to help our security. democrats do nothing and usually defer to republicans to get big things done that will be unpopular.

2. also true, but much of our debt comes from population rise and that makes the democratic programs much much more expensive, therefore the welfare/SS/medicaid programs are making our debt rise with our population rise. a good way to deduce this is our national debt is around 9 trillion. our social security payments we cant even come close to affording at about 41 trillion, thats right, 41 trillion in 20 years.

Social Security, Medicare Will Cost $41 Trillion More than Available - Worthy News

or 36 trillion depending on what stats are used. that more damage than could ever be done by republicans.

Social Security, Medicare Will Cost $41 Trillion More than Available - Worthy News


3. the democrats DO cut military spending and raise taxes. the dems say they support the troops and were so OUTRAGED that troops didnt have all the armor and amored humvee's they needed, well dipshits, never ever cut military spending if you care about that so much. better weapons systems that will save troops lives in the future wont be there b/c of democratic military spending cuts, yet the democrats will probably try to blame that on republicans again if one is in office.

and republicans try to not have to raise taxes, they want to grow the economy, which will create more taxable dollars but at the current rate. dems are the only people who can tell people they are going to take more of their money as they stick their hands' into the citizens pockets, and use the MSM to make americans love them for it.

4. this isnt even a good thing, we'll never come close to having enough for all the programs democrats have created. and universal healthcare on top of all of this, where is this money going to come from. thats right americans, and even if they fleece the rich more, thats less money the rich are going to invest in new companies and factories and more jobs the poor are going to lose, but thats the idea. the new poor will be reliant on democratic handouts and be new dem voters, perfect for democrats. make people poor so they rely on you, then you always win.



i see the cycle you talk of. sometimes i wonder if the republicans and democrats are just a facade that shields us from the aspect of us not having any choice at all. and someone of a group of people are running the show and will use both parties for what is needed at the time. food for thought.

[viruswitshoes]

Originally Posted by BadassHo

i see the cycle you talk of. sometimes i wonder if the republicans and democrats are just a facade that shields us from the aspect of us not having any choice at all. and someone of a group of people are running the show and will use both parties for what is needed at the time. food for thought.

yeah, that was sort of my point

[Dizzle]

Originally Posted by viruswitshoes

1. seems to me that most conflicts since vietnam have occurred when a republican president in office.

2. recently (the last 20-30 years), the republican presidents have run up the most debt.

3. the lone democratic president decreased military spending and increased taxes.

4. the democratic president also increased spending for social programs.

now before you think this is a thread about republican vs democratic policy, this is actually a thread speculating on the involvement of the fed and the role our 2 party system plays in supporting the fed while deflecting criticism to the politicians.

you see, the fed makes money whenever the country borrows money from them. however, they also needs periods to collect that money. they are, after all, a bank that makes money when they collect on loans.

so if you look at the statements above, you'll see a basic shift from borrowing to paying it back.

the fed also makes most money during war. that is when the state borrows the most money typically.

however, wars, eventually become unpopular. they also can lead a country into so much debt, its hard for them to recover and pay back the loan.

so whenever this occurs, they wheel in a democrat in office as a figure head for a new change in policy. the economy winds down a little, growth is halted, and the loans are repaid. the fed makes its money back. it also uses social programs which will keep the country borrowing money until a new military strategy can be implemented.

and the cycle repeats itself.

i have no source. this is just speculation based on observation. take it or leave it.

Maybe if Clinton spent more money for the military instead of social programs, 911 wouldnt have happened, which means no Iraq war. THe 911 commission believes this to be true.

Politicians are intentinally running up the debt so they can merge into the global economy.

btw. The economy goes in cycles and can't expand forever and you conviently forgot to mention Jimmy Carter, who makes Bush look like Clint Eastwood.

[Dizzle]

Keep in mind Clinton inheriented the
90s dotcom boom which brought in new government revenues like never before.

Why else would the owner of IBM (Perot)spend millions out of his own pocket to run for present in 92, he knew what was happening and ended up getting Clinton elected.

[cogitoergosum]

I dont think we have seen enough to call out trends like this. There have only been 2 dem presidents in the post-Nam era.

And Clinton deployed more forces around the world than any other peacetime president in history.

[Leviathan]

Some things I have noticed:

Since George H.W. Bush came into office, all the wars started by our government have been with republicans in office.

In recent past (the last year or so) republicans have been responsible for vast increases in our debt.

People who think that party lines mean something are dense and gullible.

People who blame or honor the president for the events during their administration are unrealistic.

[nicholassaali]

Originally Posted by cogitoergosum

And Clinton deployed more forces around the world than any other peacetime president in history.

As I remember Clinton wanted a total troop withdrawal after the disaster in Mogadishu, this is a direct quote from Bin Laden in a 1998 ABC news interview with reporter John Miller.

"Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia."

"After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim.... "

[charlydevo]

Originally Posted by viruswitshoes

1. seems to me that most conflicts since vietnam have occurred when a republican president in office.

2. recently (the last 20-30 years), the republican presidents have run up the most debt.

3. the lone democratic president decreased military spending and increased taxes.

4. the democratic president also increased spending for social programs.

now before you think this is a thread about republican vs democratic policy, this is actually a thread speculating on the involvement of the fed and the role our 2 party system plays in supporting the fed while deflecting criticism to the politicians.

you see, the fed makes money whenever the country borrows money from them. however, they also needs periods to collect that money. they are, after all, a bank that makes money when they collect on loans.

so if you look at the statements above, you'll see a basic shift from borrowing to paying it back.

the fed also makes most money during war. that is when the state borrows the most money typically.

however, wars, eventually become unpopular. they also can lead a country into so much debt, its hard for them to recover and pay back the loan.

so whenever this occurs, they wheel in a democrat in office as a figure head for a new change in policy. the economy winds down a little, growth is halted, and the loans are repaid. the fed makes its money back. it also uses social programs which will keep the country borrowing money until a new military strategy can be implemented.

and the cycle repeats itself.

i have no source. this is just speculation based on observation. take it or leave it.

It must have something to do with those evil Freemasons!