• 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!

State of the Union Address

j-mac said:
What? You have GOT to be kidding here....Obama ran Trillion dollar deficits every year he has been in office. The highest before him was less than half that.

j-mac
Click to expand...

And that's Obama's fault?
 
Conservative said:
No, unfortunately for you reading comprehension isn't a strong suit. I don't see people sending their tax cuts back that they claim they don't need. If you truly believe in that large massive federal govt. then do your part and send in more money. Stop whining about what someone else keeps, do your part and support those Federal bureaucrats.
Click to expand...
If they have a problem with keeping their own money, then why wouldn't they spend it?

And there are rich liberals who think they should pay more, in case you don't know.
 
Conservative said:
How many times here have people claimed that Clinton balanced the budget and left Bush with a surplus? If there was a surplus how did 1.4 trillion get added to the debt during the Clinton term?
Click to expand...

pssst ... you didn't actually answer my question. Who said the 1997 tax cuts balanced the budget?
 
MadLib said:
If they have a problem with keeping their own money, then why wouldn't they spend it?

And there are rich liberals who think they should pay more, in case you don't know.
Click to expand...

Ask them why they keep complaining about tax cuts as tax cuts mean keeping more of what you earn. Liberals complaining about tax cuts don't seem to have a problem keeping theirs.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
pssst ... you didn't actually answer my question. Who said the 1997 tax cuts balanced the budget?
Click to expand...

Liberals to this day claim that Clinton had a balanced budget so how can that be with the Tax Relief of 1997 which cut taxes
 
Conservative said:
Ask them why they keep complaining about tax cuts as tax cuts mean keeping more of what you earn. Liberals complaining about tax cuts don't seem to have a problem keeping theirs.
Click to expand...
That's cuz they want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
 
Conservative said:
Liberals to this day claim that Clinton had a balanced budget so how can that be with the Tax Relief of 1997 which cut taxes
Click to expand...

You're still not answering my question ... who said the 1997 tax cuts balanced the budget?
 
MadLib said:
That's cuz they want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Click to expand...

And that serves what purpose? How much money is the govt. going to get by raising taxes on the rich and what are the consequences of doing that?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're still not answering my question ... who said the 1997 tax cuts balanced the budget?
Click to expand...

You really are a waste of time, that wasn't my intent to claim that the Tax relief act balanced the budget because i know there was no balanced budget other than by using intergovt. holdings which left a longer term debt there. The point was many here claim that Clinton had a balanced budget and that was due to tax hikes when the reality is there was the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which they want to ignore.
 
Conservative said:
You really are a waste of time, that wasn't my intent to claim that the Tax relief act balanced the budget ...
Click to expand...

Well hopefully you'll learn from this little exercise in the futiity of asking people to prove a negative.

I'm trying to help you, Con.:peace
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What kind of good natured Liberal would I be if I didn't try to help a fellow DPer learn and grow from this experience?
Click to expand...

Yep, you would never think that you are smarter, or that by some strange circumstance that your pedigree outweighs the strength of the opposing argument would you?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yep, you would never think that you are smarter, or that by some strange circumstance that your pedigree outweighs the strength of the opposing argument would you?


j-mac
Click to expand...
What does helping someone out in a time of need have to do with any of that?
 
Conservative said:
He added 1.4 trillion dollars to the debt and it went up every year. That is a fact that liberals want to ignore.
Click to expand...
Which was less than Reagan and Bush Sr. before him, and only that much because the deficit was so high when he became president. Meanwhile, it decreased every year on his watch and that was a trend which began before Republican came in and tried to take the credit.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which was less than Reagan and Bush Sr. before him, and only that much because the deficit was so high when he became president. Meanwhile, it decreased every year on his watch and that was a trend which began before Republican came in and tried to take the credit.
Click to expand...

Thanks to the peace dividend and a GOP Congress which you have a tendency to forget. Clinton cut back the military because of the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. you seem to have a very selective memory as usual

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...iuliani/the-peace-dividend-began-with-a-bush/

Romney made his claim in April 2007, saying that, "Following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton began to dismantle our military. He reduced our forces by 500,000. He retired almost 80 ships. Our spending on national defense dropped from over 6 percent of GDP to 3.8 percent today."

The two Republicans are correct that military forces were reduced significantly under Clinton. The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. They are also correct that the naval fleet shrank dramatically. The Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Thanks to the peace dividend and a GOP Congress which you have a tendency to forget. Clinton cut back the military because of the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. you seem to have a very selective memory as usual

PolitiFact | The peace dividend began with a Bush
Click to expand...
Sorry, but a political candidate running for office who's ratcheting up the hyperbole of the president he sought to replace does not alter the fact that the last war prior to 1988 was the Vietnam war. Reagan provided no peace dividend, Nixon did.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sorry, but a political candidate running for office who's ratcheting up the hyperbole of the president he sought to replace does not alter the fact that the last war prior to 1988 was the Vietnam war. Reagan provided no peace dividend, Nixon did.
Click to expand...

The Cold War cost this country billions and was won, but you were too young to know it.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That was a war? How many casualties did we suffer?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? A reduction in troops and military equipment equated to a savings that benefited Clinton but as usual you want to divert from the Obama record. Don't blame you. Doesn't it phase you that if all those so called promises kept hasn't equated into a much better job approval rating? The reality is the results I posted affect the people a lot more and are why his approval ratings aren't that great.
 
Conservative said:
Did you read the article? A reduction in troops and military equipment equated to a savings that benefited Clinton but as usual you want to divert from the Obama record. Don't blame you. Doesn't it phase you that if all those so called promises kept hasn't equated into a much better job approval rating? The reality is the results I posted affect the people a lot more and are why his approval ratings aren't that great.
Click to expand...

His JAR is right in line with the last three presidents at this point in their respective presidencies according to Gallup. Two of whom you voted for.

Obama: 46%
Bush: 49%
Clinton: 46%
GHWBush: 46%
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
His JAR is right in line with the last three presidents at this point in their respective presidencies according to Gallup. Two of whom you voted for.

Obama: 46%
Bush: 49%
Clinton: 46%
GHWBush: 46%
Click to expand...

that isn't the point, the point is it has been posted here all those promises kept by Obama and yet his JAR is only 46% which just shows how accurate those promises kept are. The real issue remains net employment loss, net unemployment gain, declining labor force, high discouraged workers, 4.6 trillion added to the debt with another 1.1 trillion predicted for 2012, and a higher misery index. people don't feel he has kept his promises due to the actual results that are verifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom