• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Growth: Economy v debt

Other than showing that your absolute was not an absolute....and when you keep avoiding answering that final point, you are conceding the argument.
We already covered that at the very beginning of your losing point.
I see.
Well, you can lie to me all you want, but you really ought to consider the deeper ramifications of lying to yourself.

Meanwhile...
Unasailable truth is uassailable.
 
Let's assume that two chickens and an egg are the "compensation" for the President. How does Congress acquire these items without spending to get them? At some point, money is going to have to be spent.

Being against entitlements is one thing, saying the government doesn't have to spend money is another. It ridiculous at best.

Although, I wouldn't mind if all politicians were paid in poultry.
Good luck on that, I asked the same thing.

All I keep getting is the "unassailable" recording.
 
Let's assume that two chickens and an egg are the "compensation" for the President. How does Congress acquire these items without spending to get them? At some point, money is going to have to be spent.
There are any number of ways this can happen - and so long as there is just one, it means that spending is not required.
They can be donated. They can be stolen. They can be plundered. They can be foraged. Lots of different ways other than an outlay of funds.

Being against entitlements is one thing, saying the government doesn't have to spend money is another. It ridiculous at best.
"Have to spend money" in terms of a pratical imperative is different than "constitutionally mandated to spend money", which is the point of the discussion.

See, Congress has absolute control of the bills it votes on and the bill is it passes - nothing can tell congress it -has- to vote on, much less pass a bill because doing so runs squarely against the inherent tenets of representative republicansim. Same goes for the President signing the vote - he has the absolute power to decide to veto/sign a bill into law, and there's nothing in the constitution that can force him so to so.

For spending to be mandatory, then neither the President nor Congress has any such choice; the fact that they absolutely have that choice means that spending is not and cannot be mandatory.
 
Last edited:
Let's see if I can get through to those of you who are unwilling to place any of the blame on bush for our current economic mess. Bush waged two was, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were very expensive, and long. One would think that logically, to pay for such mischief, government would want to INCREASE their revenue. However, Bush decided to DECREASE the government's revenue via tax cuts across the board. Combine this fiscal policy with the wars and you have a recipe for a drastically increased deficit. And the deficit grew, a lot under Bush. He was in no way fiscally responsible, he was an awful president. It's no wonder he has become "He who must not be named" amongst republicans.

Oh lovely... Yet another person who can't assess the current situation, but is still heavily in love with GWB...

Personally, I agree with many of the criticisms of George W Bush, he was not qualified to be president, and was not a fiscal conservative, in fact, he did real harm to conservative principles...

However, since you fell into the trap of trying to pin it on the Two Wars and the Tax Cuts... you've missed the mark.

GWB deserves criticism for ineffective management of crisis, of mishandling certain aspects of the occupation of Iraq, of the corruption which was rampant in Congress during his administration, of massive earmark expenditures, and the expansion of Medicare Part D...

It is time for one of my favorite articles/graphs...

Archived-Articles: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

Deficits.gif


The Afghan and Iraq wars in total as of 2010 had cost $1T, over a 10 year period... That's $100B/yr (less than ObamaCare)...

The Iraq War itself cost $709B... over the 8 years... or about $90B/yr...

However, when you look at the cost of the overall budget, $90B compared to $2.5-$2.7T is quite minimal... In the graphic you can see just how small a portion of the actual deficit that the Iraq War was...

What you can also see, is that despite the wars, and despite the tax cuts, from 2003-2007 the deficit was shrinking... It wasn't until the 2007-2009 recession (which just also happens to coincide with the Democrats winning back control of both houses of Congress) that the spending increased, and the deficit made a massive spike... That spike far excedes what it was under Bush...

So Bush created a period of growth with tax cuts, while waging two wars... and was shrinking deficits, down to under $200B... But, as a result of those deficits, over the 8 year period, the debt rose from $6T to 10T, and from 56% to 70% of GDP....

Obama has created unemployment upwards of 8%, a massive drop in the workforce participation rate down to its lowest level since 1981, expanded entitlement spending, and fought two wars... and he's been running an anual deficit over $1.2T... As a result of this massive increase in expenditures, despite a loss of revenue over just 4 years, the debt has risen from $10T to $16T, and from 70% of GDP to 105% of GDP (going over 100% for only the second time ever, and the first in a period of relative peacetime)...

If it is your opinion that Bush was horrible, what adjective then could conjure up the accurate rating of Obama's historically poor performance? Abysmal is the best I can do...


What Obama has done since coming into office is totally reasonable, and what is expected of government in times of recession. The stimulus saved the economy from enter a full-blown depression. It was Keynesian polices, that virtually every president since FDR has used, that kept our economy afloat. Yes, such policy does increase the deficit but the short-run effects are too beneficial. What if Obama used Romney's fiscal policy at the start of his term. We'd be in the same boat as Greece, Spain, and even The U.K. They all practiced austerity, cutting taxes and spending. They are all still in a very anemic economy at the moment. We have already begun the recovery process. At least Obama has spent his trillions on investing in this country and it's people.

Okay… now you’re comparing apples to bad tax code… it just doesn’t work that way…

In Europe “austerity” was cutting expenditures… but they were still taxing as astonishing rates… and adding to the VAT… You cannot take 50% of people’s income and then cut expenditures…

In the US, the effective tax rate is down closer to 15%... So if you’re cutting expenditures, most people should have enough private income to be able to cover most of their expenses, by making small sacrifices in the short term…

In America, cutting expenditures is not so much “austerity”, it’s bringing down an out of control budget… where deficit spending alone is close to 60% of revenue collected… However, you can still do so, and provide the basic services… if you cut responsibly, from wasteful government programs, eliminate inefficiencies, and downsize the government…

Yes, Keynesian economics have been used by just about every president who wanted an excuse to spend billions of dollars on his pet programs since FDR used it in the 1930s to enhance the ongoing recovery… Still there’s a very important distinction you’re overlooking… When FDR used the Keynesian approach… he was doing so at a time when we had very little debt, and even still he only took the debt from 10% of the GDP to about 35% of GDP… Obama has taken us from 70% of GDP to 105%...

Furthermore, we have seen the negative effects of the liberal ideology form over the years which were not present during the time of FDR… Under FDR people were motivated to work… Obama instead put in policies which encouraged people not to go back to work… When FDR expanded the safety net, there really wasn’t one, and there was a dire need for one… When Obama expanded the entitlement programs it was after generations of people have grown up expecting handouts and don’t put forth any effort to come off of that subsistence…

Still… the problem is now… not 2009… the recession of 2007-2009 ended in 2009, halfway through Obama’s first year in office… we now are 3 years separated from that point… Even Hoover had a better recovery 3 years after the stock market crash in 1929…

We are not at the start of Obama’s term… hopefully it’s the end of it… and he’s still preaching Keynesian economics… We are at the point where our debt is over 104% of our GDP, and cannot afford another Keynesian spending spree… Without that, Obama is out of ideas…

So should we keep around a failing president, who is out of ideas, and repeating the same empty rhetoric that he gave 4 years ago, that has not created a lasting recovery… Or should we opt for someone who has a lengthy career of proven experience of having created growth, balanced budgets, and turned around fiscal nightmares that others before him had failed at doing…?

I’ll take the guy who has done it, rather than the guy who keeps talking about it but hasn’t delivered…
 
Aha.

Just so we're on the same page - please point out where you believe the Constituton requires Congress to pass legislation, and the President to sign that legislation into law, to spend money on these things.

Asked and answered.
 
No, it has not. You did not supply the citations.
If you cannot supply those citations, just say so.

I already cited several example where the United States govt is required to spend money, thus disproving the claim that all spending is voluntary. Im on your side that that most govt spending is voluntary, but youre too stubborn to admit when youre wrong.
 
I already cited several example...
Yes... and I then asked for the text of the constitution that mandates this spending - that is, where the constitution -requires- congress to pass legislation that alloes the government spend the money, and -requires- the President to sign it.
 
Had the GOP offered up a better candidate and not attacked womend reproductive rights, your argument would have nore validity. My dog shows more leadership ability than Romney. My cats show more foreign affair abilities than Romney. The GOP have let the right wing nuts rule their GOP agenda. The GOP has also not shown a real interest in fixing the economy. They set the main priority to make Obama a 1 term president. They have proposed more abortion ban legislation than they have economic legislation to restrict the financial sector from causing more harm to the economy. Those who crashed our economy are putting money into the Romney campaign.
Frankly speaking, I don't trust the GOP and I think if we elect more Democrats, Obama will be able to get his economic proposals through congress and our economy will imrpove dramatically.
That is why, for the first time in my voting history, I will be voting along party lines this year. I will be voting Democrats across the board.

WTF do women's reproductive rights have to do with the economy?
 
This sort of analysis is always terribly flawed. It often hinges on the idea that Obama was suppose to come in and start cutting right away on a budget that was so out of control it didn't even have the 2 wars we were running on the books. It also doesn't take into the account the economic situations that could reduce tax revenue, further increasing the budget deficit.

Some things can be cut right away, others can't (defense due to two wars, medicare donut hole, etc). It's often a slow process.

Now, if you believe that electing a Republican will improve things... how much proof do you need other than the fact that every Republican since Reagan has grossly increased the deficit and debt? Just take a look at Romney's plans, none of which will reduce the deficit without fairy dust and a unicorn. If he's elected, for all accounts and historical evidence, he'll increase the deficit and completely ruin the budget.

I will grant you the first part of your statement.

The second part is simply not taking into account who was running Congress during presidential terms when the debt was markedly increased. You haven't the first damned clue what will happen if Romney is elected. However, based on his track record in MA...
 
WTF do women's reproductive rights have to do with the economy?

Well, my point is that the GOP is focused more on controling womens reproductive rights than they are in fixing the economy.
 
Well, my point is that the GOP is focused more on controling womens reproductive rights than they are in fixing the economy.

Sorry, but the two are unrelated. Seems like liberals have a lot of people by the crotch.
 
Back
Top Bottom