• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ummm, that didn't happen until March, 2009. You're telling me that Obama was responsible for Bush's budget from October through March??

Tell me, do you plan these inanities in advance or do you just make them up as you go along?


You have to first prove how much of the first half of the $700B was paid back during FY2009. Otherwise, all you're doing is making a strawman arugment.


No, he has not. Another thing you're pretending doesn't exist is the amount of debt we have accumulated since 2008 is in large part due to Bush's Great Recession. That is not Obama's fault. It's a mess he inherited.


Which is also a gift from Bush's Great Recession which added 12 million to that number just between Dec. '07 and Jun. '09.


Please, you'd have to be brain-dead not to know that all it takes to divide Conservatives and Republicans from the rest of the nation is to elect a Democrat as president.
Click to expand...

Senate Roll Call #142 Details - OpenCongress
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What relevancy is there in a bill that never became law. I believe this is the bill you're looking for, which was signed by President Bush...

H.R. 2638 [110th]: Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (GovTrack.us)
Click to expand...

What relevance? You continue to point out the 2009 budget and I continue to confuse you with the fact that the 2009 budget was passed in 2008 with total control of the Democrat Congress. Amazing how you continue to ignore that reality as well as the votes for that budget.
 
Conservative said:
What relevance? You continue to point out the 2009 budget and I continue to confuse you with the fact that the 2009 budget was passed in 2008 with total control of the Democrat Congress. Amazing how you continue to ignore that reality as well as the votes for that budget.
Click to expand...
Holy ****, Con. That bill never became the budget. Bush wouldn't signed it. Instead, he signed a continuing resution on September 30th, 2008. And you're holding Obama accountable for that.

When are you going to hold Bush accountable for the budget he signed into law?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****, Con. That bill never became the budget. Bush wouldn't signed it. Instead, he signed a continuing resution on September 30th, 2008. And you're holding Obama accountable for that.

When are you going to hold Bush accountable for the budget he signed into law?
Click to expand...

When you accept responsibility for the disaster Obama has made of the economy since taking office and the fact that the 2009 budget was supported by Obama and the Democrat Congress.
 
Conservative said:
I agree with the lyrics of his song, do you?
Click to expand...
No. Hank Williams Jr. is a retard that likes to play victim like many conservatives do. He gets retards to listen to him. So, answer my question Con, was his free speech rights violated by ESPN?
 
pbrauer said:
No. Hank Williams Jr. is a retard that likes to play victim like many conservatives do. He gets retards to listen to him. So, answer my question Con, was his free speech rights violated by ESPN?
Click to expand...

Don't know, didn't hear the comments nor the interview. I was pointing to the lyrics as being accurate IMO.
 
Conservative said:
Don't know, didn't hear the comments nor the interview. I was pointing to the lyrics as being accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
So you think the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment should protect him from his employer? Interestong.:roll:
 
pbrauer said:
So you think the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment should protect him from his employer? Interestong.:roll:
Click to expand...

Freedom of Speech is what Williams just exercised and what you are ignoring. With Freedom of Speech comes consequences. What in the lyrics do you disagree with?
 
Conservative said:
Freedom of Speech is what Williams just exercised and what you are ignoring. With Freedom of Speech comes consequences. What in the lyrics do you disagree with?
Click to expand...
Didn't William exercise his Freedom of Speech on Fox and Friends and suffer the consequences?
 
pbrauer said:
Didn't William exercise his Freedom of Speech on Fox and Friends and suffer the consequences?
Click to expand...

People will always have consequences, good or bad, for what they say. In the liberal world however there are no such thing as consequences.
 
Conservative said:
For someone your age you don't have a clue what the economy was like when Reagan took office but the 20 misery index and 17.5% interest rates
Click to expand...

Misery index and interest rates do not measure the severity of an economic downturn. To claim that they do shows great ignorance.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Misery index and interest rates do not measure the severity of an economic downturn. To claim that they do shows great ignorance.
Click to expand...

Not officially but it does indicate the harm done to the American people and attitude plays a major role in the economic activity of the country. Were the working taxpayers of 81-82 better off then or during the 2007-2009 recession?
 
Conservative said:
Not officially but it does indicate the harm done to the American people and attitude plays a major role in the economic activity of the country. Were the working taxpayers of 81-82 better off then or during the 2007-2009 recession?
Click to expand...

Of course they were (81-82). The working tax payers lost $15 trillion in wealth during 2007-2009. The only instances (on record) that compare are the Great Depression, the South Sea Bubble of 1720, and the Tulip Bubble of 1637.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Of course they were (81-82). The working tax payers lost $15 trillion in wealth during 2007-2009. The only instances (on record) that compare are the Great Depression, the South Sea Bubble of 1720, and the Tulip Bubble of 1637.
Click to expand...

Most of the loss in the 2007-2009 recession was paper loss and much of that loss recovered. Cost of living was higher in 1981-82 due to the high interest rates and high inflation making the ero worse than today. If you didn't sell you lost nothing.
 
Conservative said:
Most of the loss in the 2007-2009 recession was paper loss and much of that loss recovered. Cost of living was higher in 1981-82 due to the high interest rates and high inflation making the ero worse than today. If you didn't sell you lost nothing.
Click to expand...

The data says something entirely different.

fredgraph.png


During the early 1980's

fredgraph.png


During the financial crisis:

fredgraph.png
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The data says something entirely different.

fredgraph.png


During the early 1980's

fredgraph.png


During the financial crisis:

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

And reality says that if you didn't sell your stocks in 2009 you are ahead today and have recovered most if not all that you lost. Further what you are showing is what happens with a leader in the WH vs someone who hasn't a clue. Reagan empowered the American people, Obama has empowered the Federal Govt. Which one motivates a private sector economy.

Again the issue is misery index and who it affects, corporations or private individuals?
 
More Graphs:

fredgraph.png


Early 1980's

fredgraph.png


The financial crisis:

fredgraph.png
 
Conservative said:
Again the issue is misery index and who it affects, corporations or private individuals?
Click to expand...

This is non-corporate businesses! Do up you understand what it means when a slope is negative as opposed to positive?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This is non-corporate businesses! Do up you understand what it means when a slope is negative as opposed to positive?
Click to expand...

So you are saying people paying 17.5% interest rates and rising credit card rates, facing massive inflation, and rising unemployment were better off than those paying record low interest rates, low credit card rates, and living in very low inflation? I can tell you spend too much time looking at graphs and not enough time out in the real world. I lived and worked during both, there is little comparison.

Since you like charts I was surprised you ignored the chart on home ownership/foreclosures during both periods

http://seekingalpha.com/article/117783-u-s-housing-market-1982-vs-2009
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So you are saying people paying 17.5% interest rates and rising credit card rates, facing massive inflation, and rising unemployment were better off than those paying record low interest rates, low credit card rates, and living in very low inflation? I can tell you spend too much time looking at graphs and not enough time out in the real world. I lived and worked during both, there is little comparison.
Click to expand...

Even with all these troubles in the 1980's, the net worth of Americans was steadily increasing. You have never been able to display how much these factors have influenced their bottom lines. When presented with the evidence, you switch back to fallacies and uninformed talking points?

Classic!

Since you like charts I was surprised you ignored the chart on home ownership/foreclosures during both periods

U.S. Housing Market: 1982 vs. 2009 - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...

Hilarious! That outdated chart signifies housing affordability. Which of course is ****ty; it looks at ones first year mortgage payment relative to ones income.

Do you disagree that housing prices were still going UP during the early 1980s (hint, it has to do with inflation)?
 
More graphs:

fredgraph.png


In terms of %change:

fredgraph.png


During the 1980's:

fredgraph.png


Financial Crisis:

fredgraph.png
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Even with all these troubles in the 1980's, the net worth of Americans was steadily increasing. You have never been able to display how much these factors have influenced their bottom lines. When presented with the evidence, you switch back to fallacies and uninformed talking points?

Classic!



Hilarious! That outdated chart signifies housing affordability. Which of course is ****ty; it looks at ones first year mortgage payment relative to ones income.

Do you disagree that housing prices were still going UP during the early 1980s (hint, it has to do with inflation)?
Click to expand...

Since when was net worth a determination as to the misery of the people? The net worth of those holding a job in the 80's increased because of inflation but those without investments got hurt a lot more than those today. Interesting how another young intellectual elite ignores the first hand experience, logic, and common sense of the 81-82 recession to continue to parrot the leftwing lies.

Keep diverting from my point that the American people were hurt more by the 81-82 recession and benefited more from the recovery than those in the 2007-2009 recession who aren't benefiting from the recovery at all. Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the lack of leadership by this President vs. that of Reagan
 
Conservative said:
Since when was net worth a determination as to the misery of the people?
Click to expand...

Which is why the misery index is bogus. If you lived in a period that had a very high "misery index rate" but your net worth was steadily increasing (as it did for most Americans), you cannot be that miserable because you are still benefiting.

However, if your misery index is somewhat high, and your net wealth is 3/4 of what it was only a few years ago, i guarantee you are going to be far more miserable. Unless of course you do not even have a + sign in front of your net worth.

The net worth of those holding a job in the 80's increased because of inflation but those without investments got hurt a lot more than those today.
Click to expand...

Like the value of their house? Which is greater; 17.5% of $100k or 17.5% of $117.5k?

Keep diverting from my point that the American people were hurt more by the 81-82 recession and benefited more from the recovery than those in the 2007-2009 recession who aren't benefiting from the recovery at all. Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the lack of leadership by this President vs. that of Reagan
Click to expand...

The argument is, the recession Obama inherited is far more severe than that of Reagan. Try and keep up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom