• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop lying already. I already posted the impact of TARP and ARRA on the FY2009 budget deficit and I pointed out that TARP and the war supplimental both are due to Bush. I said spending during Bush's final budget was more and it was as I showed you "total federal spending" dropped in 2010, despite your false claim that Obama is spending like Busdh on steroids."
Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem with history and continue to buy leftwing rhetoric. Still waiting for you to post the 2009 Bush Budget and then the 2010 Obama budgets so until you do that then your posts are about worth what you are.

on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying "Yes."
Click to expand...
 
OpportunityCost said:
I can already see where you are going Sheik. You want to tack TARP onto Bush's budget when the totality of the money wasnt available and wasnt spent until Obama was already in office and some of it still hasnt been spent. You also want to target the payback into Obama's budget impact. IE Have your cake and eat it too. Am I close?
Click to expand...
I am talking only about FY2009 where $152B of TARP funds were applied against the FY2009 budget deficit. That is the total outlay for FY2009 and that includes TARP funds paid out during FY2009 as well as TARP funds returned during FY2009. TARP was passed by Bush and because of Bush and I have seen no evidence identifying which of that $152B was paid out under the direction of Obama as opposed to Bush. If that's what you're saying, than you are close.
 
Conservative said:
And you keep ignoring what actually happened. Here let me help you



3.1 trillion dollar budget? Hmmm, what was the first Obama budget? Need some help there as well? Still waiting for you to post both budgets side by side. You don't seem to offer much support for your wild claims

Keep digging that hole deeper and by all means keep distorting reality.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you don't know the difference between a budget and "total federal spending."

Total federal spending dropped under Obama's first budget year of 2010.

You called that, "Bush spending on steroids."
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ok, so you don't know the difference between a budget and "total federal spending."

Total federal spending dropped under Obama's first budget year of 2010.

You called that, "Bush spending on steroids."
Click to expand...

Total Federal spending better be less in 2010 than it was in 2009 because of NO TARP and NO STIMULUS SPENDING because of course all that Obama stimulus was for shovel ready jobs and obviously was spent. Obama's first budget was 3.5 billion dollars according to the U.S. Treasury. The last Bush budget was 3.1 trillion so a 10% increase in budget spending in the Obama first year. The 2011 spending will exceed 3.7 trillion so 600 billion more in 2 years is putting Bush spending on steroids.
 
Conservative said:
And you keep ignoring what actually happened. Here let me help you



3.1 trillion dollar budget? Hmmm, what was the first Obama budget? Need some help there as well? Still waiting for you to post both budgets side by side. You don't seem to offer much support for your wild claims

Keep digging that hole deeper and by all means keep distorting reality.
Click to expand...
I don't mind repeating myself with the hope that maybe I can educatate you, but "total fedeeral spending" goes beyond that initial budget. Most notably, Bush passing TARP and Obama passing war supplimentals to fight Bush's wars, which I hold Bush accountable for, not Obama. Bush fought those wars for 6 and 7 years respectfully before dumping them onto his predecessor.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to have a problem with history and continue to buy leftwing rhetoric. Still waiting for you to post the 2009 Bush Budget and then the 2010 Obama budgets so until you do that then your posts are about worth what you are.
Click to expand...
Focus, Con ... focus ...

"Total Federal Spending"


usgs_line.php
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I don't mind repeating myself with the hope that maybe I can educatate you, but "total fedeeral spending" goes beyond that initial budget. Most notably, Bush passing TARP and Obama passing war supplimentals to fight Bush's wars, which I hold Bush accountable for, not Obama. Bush fought those wars for 6 and 7 years respectfully before dumping them onto his predecessor.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, you are right, all the TARP spending should be charged to Bush and the repayment credited to Obama. Bush also spent the stimulus money and authorized the afghanistan surge which by the way was the "good war" according to Obama. Obama ended the Iraq War and closed GITMO or did you forget? What Bush spent on the wars prior to 2009 is irrelevant ith regard to the yearly budgets of Obama but then again you never did understand the difference between debt and deficits.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Focus, Con ... focus ...

"Total Federal Spending"


usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

Focus, Sheik, focus, total spending included TARP, Stimulus, and the Afghanistan supplemental for the surge Obama authorized. That was spent in 2009, not in 2010.
 
Conservative said:
Total Federal spending better be less in 2010 than it was in 2009 because of NO TARP and NO STIMULUS SPENDING because of course all that Obama stimulus was for shovel ready jobs and obviously was spent. Obama's first budget was 3.5 billion dollars according to the U.S. Treasury. The last Bush budget was 3.1 trillion so a 10% increase in budget spending in the Obama first year. The 2011 spending will exceed 3.7 trillion so 600 billion more in 2 years is putting Bush spending on steroids.
Click to expand...
WTF?? You think there was no ARRA money spent in 2010???

Well this goes a long way in explaining your confusion.


When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $825 billion. By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and about 85 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of June 2011

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf​


Stop making **** up, Con.
 
Conservative said:
Focus, Sheik, focus, total spending included TARP, Stimulus, and the Afghanistan supplemental for the surge Obama authorized. That was spent in 2009, not in 2010.
Click to expand...
TARP was Bush's as were the costs for fighting Bush's wars. Without Bush, neither would have occurred.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
WTF?? You think there was no ARRA money spent in 2010???

Well this goes a long way in explaining your confusion.


When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $825 billion. By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and about 85 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of June 2011

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf​


Stop making **** up, Con.
Click to expand...

Why would ARRA be spent in 2010 since it was for shovel ready jobs? Are you telling me those shovels weren't ready in 2009. You mean Obama lied to us?

I cannot help it if you don't understand that no TARP spending, No 100 billion Afghanistan supplemental, no 800 billion stimulus that was spent in 2009 should mean less 2010 spending. CBO isn't a viable source but then again that is something else you don't understand
 
Michael H said:
First its a conspiracy ... did you respond to your conspiracy accusation? Now its not a conspiracy ... its worthy of discussion.

Each time you try you ignore reality. "Secret" is not above board. Did you mention they didn't have 16 trillion .... hmmm run those printing presses.

A loan is not a bailout?

Bailout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



hmmmm lol

www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-trillion-in-emergency-loans/
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You are labeling the discount window and fed market (at the zero bound) as a bailout mechanism, which is simply untrue. Then you perpetuate such nonsense by posting intellectual dishonest comments from an anti-Federal reserve congressman. I see you failed to address the manner in which they came up with the $16 trillion figure.
 
Conservative said:
Fact, Obama debt 4 trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years!
Click to expand...
No, that's not a fact. The much of the debt increase was because of lost income tax revenue caused by the Great Bush Recession.
 
pbrauer said:
No, that's not a fact. The much of the debt increase was because of lost income tax revenue caused by the Great Bush Recession.
Click to expand...

excuses, excuses for that is all liberals can do, the record shows 4 trillion added to the debt regardless of how you spin it. Obama campaigned on being able to solve the problems and has failed. Obama must have had trouble finding the shovels for those shovel ready jobs.
 
Conservative said:
excuses, excuses for that is all liberals can do, the record shows 4 trillion added to the debt regardless of how you spin it. Obama campaigned on being able to solve the problems and has failed. Obama must have had trouble finding the shovels for those shovel ready jobs.
Click to expand...
It's not an excuse, people who no longer have a job, pay no taxes. Even you can figure that out if you try hard.
 
pbrauer said:
It's not an excuse, people who no longer have a job, pay no taxes. Even you can figure that out if you try hard.
Click to expand...

You mean like the net job losses for Obama and declining labor force? There are fewer people employed today than when Obama took office and more unemployed. How is that "Hope and Change" working out for you?
 
Conservative said:
You mean like the net job losses for Obama and declining labor force? There are fewer people employed today than when Obama took office and more unemployed. How is that "Hope and Change" working out for you?
Click to expand...

It's working out a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
 
Conservative said:
You mean like the net job losses for Obama and declining labor force? There are fewer people employed today than when Obama took office and more unemployed. How is that "Hope and Change" working out for you?
Click to expand...

Most of those jobs lost were in the few months after he took office, even before June which is supposedly the end of the recession.
 
AdamT said:
It's working out a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

I am sure the 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans don't agree with your assessment and enthusiasm. It does appear that number will increase by one in November 2012 as Obama gets fired
 
pbrauer said:
Most of those jobs lost were in the few months after he took office, even before June which is supposedly the end of the recession.
Click to expand...


If you spent as much as Obama spent and generated those numbers you wouldn't keep your job nor should Obama
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Nonsense. You are labeling the discount window and fed market (at the zero bound) as a bailout mechanism, which is simply untrue. Then you perpetuate such nonsense by posting intellectual dishonest comments from an anti-Federal reserve congressman. I see you failed to address the manner in which they came up with the $16 trillion figure.
Click to expand...

You must have been right ... it was all a conspiracy ... conspiracy ... conspiracy ... rest now ... you are getting sleepy ... sleepy ... sleepy.

I'm anti - FED
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom