• 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!

Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

The stimulus was not 4.5T which the rightiies keep repeating. And a good deal of it was tax credits, not spending. Trying to blame the entire increase in spending on the stimulus and the extension of UI is ludicrous

no one is saying that the stimulus was 4.5T. I have seen several people point out that once you fully account for it it approaches 1T. and nobody blames the entire increase on those two factors along. we've had Cash for Clunkers, we've added another li'l war, we've expanded funding for every department except defense.... we've done alot of spending lately on alot of things.

the government has grown from about 20.5% of GDP under Bush to 24.5% under Obama. But, since government does not tax itself the same as it taxes investment, production, and labor; as it increases it's share of the economy, it pushes down taxes as a % of GDP. That is the reason for your oversize deficit right there.

Most of it was passed under bush* or was required by legislation passed under bush*. For example, Obama has to service all the debt accumulated under reagan, ghwb and bush*. It's the law.

servicing the debt acquired under bush is not driving our deficit any more than servicing the debt acquired under Obama is.

And you'll never explain why Obamas' having to service debt created under reagan, ghwb and bush* is Obamas fault, because you can't

on the contrary - i fully understand that cost. you don't seem to understand it's proportion to the rest of federal spending. Obama's spending hikes belong to him.

The stimulus bill is Obamas responsibility, but that does not account for the entire increase in spending. It was just one small piece of the increase.

It was not small. but you are correct that that is far from the only piece of profligate spending that has been inflicted upon us.

And plenty of repubicans voted to extend UI benefits. They share in that too.

then Democrats share just as much the spending increases that Bush put it; more so since they actually wrote the budget for the last two years of his presidency.

Good for you. I have never said that the entire increase in spending is all on bush*. However, the facts clearly show that they are also not entirely on Obama either. In some cases, both parties are to blame. In others Obama. And in others, bush

indeed, but let's not revert to arguments about how most of Obama's ramped-up spending is somehow Bush's fault. let Bush take the blame for his own spending, and let Obama take the blame for his.



Again, the fact that Obama has increased funding for that doesn't mean that bush* is absolved of responsibility for the spending on education that passed under bush*[/QUOTE]
 
This is all about everyone's reelection after the past 30 years of out of control deficit spending. Pay attention.
Especially nObama's spending.
 

Attachments

  • nObama the Clown.jpg
    nObama the Clown.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 33
You agree that there is an Article V of the Constitution and you further agree that Article V was never changed nor repealed nor was any amendment added that changed Article I, section 8. Amazing! I guess I only had a 10th grade edukashun. Snarky. LOL! Just snarky!

I agree that the Constitution did not change (in some key areas). The interpretation and use of the Constitution changed radically. If you think that was wrong, you may have a point, but that toothpaste has been out of the tube for 150 years. You can't put it back now.
 
Whenever you think of Obama, think 'Cloward-Piven'. That's the name of the strategy by which Obama has sabotaged our economy. Everything he says and does goes to the full employment of that strategy. Obama seeks the destruction of the American economy by overloading it with debt.

I think Obama is just doing a piss-poor job of cleaning up after Bush Corp., et al, sabotaged the economy. As if correcting the economy isn't hard enough of a task, he has to do it against a strong GOP headwind that insists on ruling or ruining. National interests be damned, to these same people who got us in this fix to begin with. And appearantly, a whopping majority of my fellow Americans tend to agree.

Not a good day for you guys. It gets lonely out on the perimeter.
This too, shall pass.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the Constitution did not change (in some key areas). The interpretation and use of the Constitution changed radically. If you think that was wrong, you may have a point, but that toothpaste has been out of the tube for 150 years. You can't put it back now.

The interpretation did not change until the 20th Century. The first cases before the Supreme Court of the United States confirm my argument. It is interesting that Congress in the 1860s felt the need to pass the Founteenth Amendment in order to permanently codify the Civil Rights Act of 1866. If the Constitution changed as you believe it did, there would be no need for the Fourteenth Amendment.

So far, you have not provided one iota of proof about the change that supposedly took place in the 1860s. You have shown that a President did overstep his authority when there probably was no need for such a deed. He could have gone for an amendment right then and there and it probably would have passed since the Southern States were not part of the Union. His bad deed offers no evidence of anything other than he overstepped his bounds. Congress pasing amendments when you say they changed the power and amendments were not needed belies your argument. And, as I stated earlier, there have been a few amendments since them. According to you, none were needed or necessary to affect change.

Sorry, but I don't see any validity to your argument. If what you say had been true, our government has been a tyrannical government and not a constitutional republic for many decades. While I believe our government is somewhat tyrannical today, I don't think the evidence shows that it was over the last 45 years of the 19th Century.

Unless you can show some evidence of this change at the time of the change, it will be my judgment that you are making up this theory and doing so out of thin air. If you think you can do so, please prove me wrong.
 
no one is saying that the stimulus was 4.5T

Numerous people have claimed it's 4.5T

. I have seen several people point out that once you fully account for it it approaches 1T. and nobody blames the entire increase on those two factors along. we've had Cash for Clunkers, we've added another li'l war, we've expanded funding for every department except defense.... we've done alot of spending lately on alot of things.

I haven't seen anyone claim its' only 1T.

the government has grown from about 20.5% of GDP under Bush to 24.5% under Obama. But, since government does not tax itself the same as it taxes investment, production, and labor; as it increases it's share of the economy, it pushes down taxes as a % of GDP. That is the reason for your oversize deficit right there.

And when the economy shrunk, that pushed up its' share of GDP. There are many factors.


servicing the debt acquired under bush is not driving our deficit any more than servicing the debt acquired under Obama is.

Absurd and not responsive. There's also the debt accumulated under reagan and ghwb. I've mentioned this several times


on the contrary - i fully understand that cost. you don't seem to understand it's proportion to the rest of federal spending. Obama's spending hikes belong to him
.

If you can show me where I've denied that Obama has responsibility for the things he's spent on, then I'll understand why you just said that. My point is that the 4.5T figure that is often cited (not by you) is inflated. And someone said that # because that's why I first posted here IIRC


It was not small. but you are correct that that is far from the only piece of profligate spending that has been inflicted upon us.

Reasonable. Let's say small compared the spending of bush*. If you take bush* spending pluse his tax cuts, and compare them to Obamas' spending and tax cuts, bush*'s are larger


then Democrats share just as much the spending increases that Bush put it; more so since they actually wrote the budget for the last two years of his presidency.

I disagree.

indeed, but let's not revert to arguments about how most of Obama's ramped-up spending is somehow Bush's fault. let Bush take the blame for his own spending, and let Obama take the blame for his.

Much of the increase in spending under Obama is the fault of bush*. In addition to the spending programs that I've mentioned, there is the reductions in revenue that bush* put in place


Again, the fact that Obama has increased funding for that doesn't mean that bush* is absolved of responsibility for the spending on education that passed under bush*
[/QUOTE]

I agree. We only disagree with the relative amts attributable to each, which makes me wonder why you're arguing with me, and not those who assign Obama all the responsibility for the increase in spending since 2009
 
Last edited:
Excuse me, but that debunked years ago. It was a projected surplus, and not real.

In kind: Learn how to read a balance sheet.
 
Back
Top Bottom