Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year, Comparing Trump to Democrats

@windinhishair what is the significance for voters of this comparison?

@Roundandroundwego You can look at expenditures by presidency relative to income as measured by the annual budget deficit.

@windinhishair sounds like it's nothing the voters could care about. It's not a relevant measurement if you want a healthy, happy efficient country to live in.

@Roundandroundwego Voters should care whether the budget is in line with income. It is a relevant measurement though most people will pay little or no attention to it.

@windinhishair no, they should put many things above that concern. A nation may go into debt or create money in a recession for good reasons. It's not your family budget.
Austerity is your aim. Oppression is profitable. Very nice capitalist lies that serve you well.

@Roundandroundwego I never said it should be their primary concern, but it is valid and useful information to examine in context, which includes history.

@windinhishair there are times when a higher deficit is better. I think you directed the voters to pick low deficits in general. I think you implied things about the budget that are false, leading to austerity.

@Roundandroundwego Yes, low deficits are in general better than high deficits, because increasing debt increases the cost of debt service. There are always exceptions that require higher deficits for a time, but not in perpetuity.

@Roundandroundwego You're correct in that the national debt is basically meaningless. However, Republicans are fond of claiming that they are the party of "fiscal responsibility" when the exact opposite is true. So it's important to correct that lie as many people are fooled into voting for Republicans for that reason.

@LeopoldBloom and Dems are no better, so who cares?

@Roundandroundwego The deficit goes down when Democrats are in charge. The last time we had a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton, and then Bush came along with his two wars and that was the end of that.

@LeopoldBloom the two parties are fine as a substitute for democracy?

@Roundandroundwego Of course not. I support ranked-choice voting, which would give third parties a chance to appeal to voters as there would be no risk of wasting your vote by voting for them, since it would automatically devolve to your second choice. I live in Georgia, where elections are very close, so it would be insane for me to vote third party as that would be taking my vote away from the Democrat and risk helping to elect a Republican.

However, the two party system isn't a "substitute" for democracy; it [i]is[/i] democracy as long as people can vote easily and their votes are counted accurately. So I also support voting by mail, same-day registration, and oppose partisan gerrymandering.

If you think a parliamentary system with dozens of parties would be better, there are plenty of examples of that in other countries. The problem there is with no party getting a majority, they have to form coalitions. That's basically what happens with the Democrats and Republicans, where fringe groups have to subsume under one of the parties or risk irrelevance.

@LeopoldBloom of course you want democracy to be difficult, obscure and far, far in the future.
Okay. It's too hard always and forever for Murkan people.

@Roundandroundwego You don't even know what "democracy" is. Your ideal government is Cambodia under Pol Pot.

@LeopoldBloom that's a lie. You just attack the messenger. Americans only attack. We're done. You can lie, but peace would never coexist with NATO.
Leftists are for peace. That's why Americans kill commies and socialists.

@Roundandroundwego Go back to Stormfront, I think you missed a few videos.

@LeopoldBloom fiction is your world,, I guess. Enjoy. We're okay with you completely gone upstairs.

@Roundandroundwego Coming from a tankie you, that's a compliment.