This Rolling Stone piece hits the nail on the head. Deficits only matter when Democrats are the President

I too can pull out / cite GOP favorable  stats and info-sources painting a picture that favors my side.  It's always an on-fire argument and one has to consider the sources used in these comparisons. Is a given D v R debt-contributing stat comparison adjusted for inflation or not? That approach can flip the equations and winners / losers from one side to the other from a historical standpoint. My overall point is there ever a winner ( the public ?) regardless which team of jackasses is pulling the fiscal wagons? IMO, all these elected reps from all sides have dropped the ball over time. Not one time in history have these goons voted to limit their own personal salaries ( often voting for salary increases in fact) or consider term limits.Those who argue that the debt doesn't matter are fools..and it's further my opinion ( and that's all it is) that we will indeed hit that fiscal wall at some near-future undefined point.

https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-had-more-natonal-debt-8738104 

From a general and historical overall policy standpoint, Dems have favored high earner and corporate tax increases, reversing previous corporate tax cuts, and enhancing IRS enforcement and closing tax loopholes as means to reduce deficits. They also like to curb defense spending and concomitantly increase general  govt spending to toss in that mix. The GOP  likes defense spending, tax cuts for corporations and the general public, and general reductions in overall govt spending or that's what they've always claimed. Covid era effects on debt and spending was/ is a huge spontaneous anomaly that obviously skews the blame arrow direction. These huge policy approach differences and disparities are what fuels the current divisions in general ( and in the Sink) and what makes for the incessant pissing on the other guys shoes; tell me, does that ever get old to you,PJ?  We're $38+ Trillion in debt so neither damned 'party' has succeeded very well with their respective approaches ; I mean, it's been a team effort historically as I see it

Further it is NOT a false equivalency ( wow..a literary phrase; you get a star..lol) to blame both sides; I didn't claim they were equal, did I? No. So you misused your little phrase there. I think there's plenty of accumulated data ( including stats in the link I posted above) that show that , per four year term, GOP administrations have increased the federal deficit slightly more vs the Dems. Yet, if one considers inflation the horizon changes.

Is it just that you want someone to say that Trump has spent too much / added massively to the debt? I'm sayin it. But if you think Dems haven't significantly contributed to deficits as well, you ignore history in your own partisan way. 

Nines, you're kind of hilarious in your own cute way. You dismiss what PJ pointed out by "conceding" that GOP administrations have "increased the federal deficit SLIGHTLY more than the Dems." This just after PJ showed you that they have increased it MASSIVELY more! There's no false equivalency to be made! The Republicans have always been the profligate wastrels that they've always accused the Democrats of being.

That of course "must" be backed by propaganda. So the Republicans slash government revenue (because they've been paid by the wealthy to reduce their taxes), curtail or outright destroy government services (because those filthy poor scum vote Democrat and therefore should die), and build lots of manly man boomity booms because, AMURRICA. All that balloons budget deficits. So in order to excuse that, they have to unfurl the RECKLESS GUMMINT SPENDIN' banner and wave it every time the Democrats want to fund something extravagant like healthcare. We are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility wocka wocka wocka. Hey, that's stupid, but it sells.

Being conservative/Republican/MAGA/Trumpian is of course a moral and intellectual failing, and must always be slathered with ridiculous apologia in order to justify it, but yeah, I get it. Daddy hated liberals (and anybody who wasn't white), so you had to, too. Or everybody in Shitkicker Gulch votes GOP and you wouldn't have lasted six days if you'd put a CLINTON bumper sticker on your car. I'm saying that you might not have had a choice. But you do now. You can actually cure--OK, treat, at least--the myopia that you've been saddled with all your life. You have the intellectual capacity to do that, but as with all therapies, the first step is to realize that you have a problem. The next is to desire to do something about it.

I would also like to reiterate that the true importance of the budget deficit is not its amount per se but how much it costs us to service the resultant debt. We've been able to absorb that cost because US debt still is the premium debt on the world markets, with the result that we pay very low interest rates and can always sell new debt when we offer it. That's changing. When we shit on the world, dishonor our agreements, betray our allies, and renege on our deals, people start to ask, well, will they honor their debt, if it comes to that? And even a very mild rumbling, a disquiet, in that regard will cost us billions of dollars every year.

So we have yet another reason to de-Turd ourselves, by whatever means necessary. You should de-Turd as well. (Even if you're deterred.)

Nines, I'll conede your point that both parties spend....and you can find plenty of examples of wasteful spending on both sides.    Hows that for common ground?

But there is a HUGE historical difference in terms of honesty about spending and how it gets paid for.      Every Republican President since Reagan has promised spending cuts in government....and then coupled that with the idea that they can then award tax cuts for their smaller government.    Thats every Republican Presidential platform since 1980.    And every Republican President since that time delivered on the second part while renegging on the first.

Democrats make no qualms about the fact they spend.    THey run on it.   THey implement it.   And they also attempt to pay for it.       They arent afraid to say they will raise your taxes.    Obama gave us a huge healthcare bill and he coupled it with taxes, fees, and required participation to pay for it.    The Trump/Paul Ryan response in 2016 was to keep all of the spending from Obamacare whilst getting rid of the things that paid for it.       Just one example.

We can agree to disagree civilly about the role of government and what spending priotities should and shouldnt be.   But one thing history is clear about:  tax cuts dont pay for new spending.  Tax increases do.    

Even if true, wouldn't that be Israel's problem?

Do you mean to imply that some of the greatest intelligence agencies in the world might have more knowledge on the matter than Trump?

Are you trying to say that when King Orange himself said they were days away from a nuclear weapon he was either ignorant or lying? 

They are an unstable regime run by crazies who don't care how many people they kill

They already have a ballistic missile 

It is our problem if they have an intercontinental missile with nuclear capability. 

The national debt total is too high (approaching $39T) and the interest on the debt that you just dismissed as a real problem is also too high ($1-1.2 T annually ). The progressive exponential growth of the actual debt total will cause the interest payments on the debt to swell too; right now the line item total federal expenditure on interest payments toward the national debt ranks just below Social Security (#1). I didn't make that stat up and I just flat don't agree that the debt and the associated debt interest is a non-problem as you seem to. I'm still; thankful you don't have access to my checkbook running my finances. You're going to argue that the US govt isn't a profit-generating entity; that doesn't mean there's no limitations on fiscal restraint. 

Define "slightly", the term I used that was taken directly from the manuscript of the link I posted. You likely didn't even check the source because you think and regularly stipulate that you know everything.  In that case it amounted to about $200 billion over a four year term( the Dem vs GOP deficit differential). Just be glad I didn't pull out some info source that the GOP produced or backed that indicated the Dems outspend / contribute to the debt more than the Republicans.There's many of those out there, but the overall data indicates the Dems historically contribute to the deficit less than my bunch. I "concede" that because it's true and not necessarily because of what PJ posted or didn't post. There are hundreds of info sources on that subject but of course you've read them all already, right? Got a dissertation in the closet on it, right? 

Further, you never met my Daddy  who was in fact a traditional Democrat.  Accordingly, he had no basic conflict with minorities; you routinely verbalize / iterate that all conservatives despise all minorities / people of color. That's a disgusting generalization and grand lie and you have zero factualities to back it. You employ hillbilly vernacular in your posts to further suggest that GOP / Trump supporters / Republicans are all in one big pile and are subhuman, uneducated, slope-headed, and/ or thereabouts. I;ve previously voiced my areas of disapproval regarding Trump per se, so back off your attacks in my direction. You further demonize my side  as representative of moral and intellectual failures. Who are you, Jesus? Alternatively, society's Buddha? Maniacal Messiah? That's bullshit, but that's your position isn't it? . Tell it to somebody else who might be stuck in that erroneous time era like yourself. Factually early on , it was the Dems who espoused minority hatred (KKK, defending slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation,  and the like). But you don't want to discuss that element of your party's history, do ya? Decades and hundreds of years ago so it doesn't matter and all those ties are irrelevant in today's environment? In degree , possibly.. It's hard to get past that history when you specifically always assign racist labels to all conservatives without facts, isn't it?  

I'll just remind you once again that you don't have the power nor influence to alter my world views or principles , particularly and simply because you disagree with them. You still ain't pickin up the dog shit in my yard or paying my bills, or buying my wife's Mothers Day floral arrangement. Our disagreements on these issues remain unchanged..and that's OK.  You just go ahead and continue to judge, moralize, and denigrate any entity whatsoever that doesn't align with your perceptions of the way the world does or should spin. It's your prerogative to espouse those views but your methods, means , and materials to present those views need some alterations / fine-tuning to elevate any potential impact of your arguments. You generally just come off as a closed - minded and  radical screamer in this subforum. . 

Happy Mothers Day, btw.

So let Israel and Iran have their war. With a little luck the will both destroy each other. 

Your reasonable response and common ground element suggestions  are appreciated. I don't keep notes on my own posts in this subforum but I've always supported the fact that the GOP and specifically Trump admin in particular has overspent / contributed to the debt far more than they should have  and beyond what they've represented in campaign speeches. My position on that issue wasn't presented for the first time today in this thread. None of that waives or dilutes my supportive stances for conservative fiscal policies..too engrained.

I won't argue against the fact that tax cuts alone can add to deficits.Revenue increases have to accompany the cuts. The standard supply side arguments supporting tax cuts are 'good' in theory but haven't always led to increased business or private investment  and job creation as intended and argued for. I don't know a ball buster solution but a new revised and more simple tax code overhaul might help. Enhancement of GDP growth is on the short solution list too, but change is implemented at a snail's pace in DC. .. 

The same administrtion that now says they had to start a war without Congress and NATO allies because of an "imminent threat" is the same administration that says they wiped out Iran's nuclear capabilities 6 month ago.

The imminent threat was bullshit and has been confirmed by Senate Republicans on the intelligence committee that were given the so-called evidence from Trump.  Trump got conned by Benny N.    

Every president since Reagan has refused to hit Iran preceisely because of their power over the Strait.    Trump and Pete Drunky confess they didnt do their homework on that.     

And here we are now.