• 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!

Economy in U.S. Grows at 1.5% Rate

Well ... no. A leader is one who can inspire people and convince them to follow him. Obama's got no inspiration and no credibility.

It also helps if the leader can promote a policy that might actually work.

When Republicans have as their number one goal defeating the president -- as opposed to helping the country -- there is little chance that he will be able to inspire them to follow his lead. The only hope then is that the people will wake the **** up and elect legislators who put country ahead of politics.
 
When Republicans have as their number one goal defeating the president -- as opposed to helping the country -- there is little chance that he will be able to inspire them to follow his lead.

Huh??? Was that not the Democrats number one goal in 2008? Not the defeating the president part, because their was no incumbent candidate, but the getting their presidential candidate elected part.
 
Last edited:
Huh??? Was that not the Democrats number one goal in 2008? Not the defeating the president part, because their was no incumbent candidate, but the getting their presidential candidate elected part.

No, that was not the Democrats' number one goal. The Democrats were more interested in doing the job they were elected to do. Thus, unlike Republicans, they supported Bush's top domestic priority (immigration reform) and they supported TARP to avoid a total collapse of the financial system ... even though a total collapse probably would have benefited Obama in the election.
 
No, that was not the Democrats' number one goal. The Democrats were more interested in doing the job they were elected to do. Thus, unlike Republicans, they supported Bush's top domestic priority (immigration reform) and they supported TARP to avoid a total collapse of the financial system ... even though a total collapse probably would have benefited Obama in the election.

I do believe that you're delusional, as evidenced by the first two sentences of your quote.
 
Last edited:
I do believe that you're delusional, as evidenced by the first two sentences of your quote.

... he said, conveniently failing to address the concluding sentence.
 
Doesn't take away from the fact that his freedom of action is rather limited. At the end of the day he can't do what he can't do, whether or not he's willing to do it.

What exactly was obama stopped from doing that would have turned this economy around? Spend even MORE money we don"t have? Go FURTHER into debt than we already are?
 
Last edited:
What exactly was obama stopped from doing that would have turned this economy around? Spend even MORE money we don"t have? Go FURTHER into debt than we already are?

One, he was stopped from eliminating the top Bush tax cuts, which would have REDUCED the debt -- not that it would have turned the economy around. But it would have helped pay for his jobs bill, that was stopped and that would have reduced unemployment and boosted GDP.
 
One, he was stopped from eliminating the top Bush tax cuts, which would have REDUCED the debt -- not that it would have turned the economy around. But it would have helped pay for his jobs bill, that was stopped and that would have reduced unemployment and boosted GDP.
Eliminating the top tax cuts would bring in about $70 billion, supposedly. But that is still taking $70 billion of economic activity out of the private economy. That reduces GDP, it does not increase it.
 
One, he was stopped from eliminating the top Bush tax cuts, which would have REDUCED the debt -- not that it would have turned the economy around. But it would have helped pay for his jobs bill, that was stopped and that would have reduced unemployment and boosted GDP.

Pure lies and propaganda

Obama is running yearly trillion + deficits and vastly expanding the welfare state, and you claim if we only raise taxes on the people who the Government gets it's revenue from, the debt would have been reduced? Hahahaha ..... hahahaha ....

You wouldn't know how to turn an economy around or "boost GDP" anymore than a chimp would know how to design a rocketship. 15% Real Unemployment. Liberal ideas don't work. They didn't work during the Great Depression. They aren't working now.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The exact same thing has happened over the last 4 years. What should have been a solid recovery has been turned into a nightmare because of Obama's misguided Liberal Economic Policies.

You are not a rational person who should be taken seriously. Never mind the opportunity costs and negative externalities associated with raising taxes in a recession (SOMETHING OBAMA AGREED WITH REMEMBER GENIUS?), Obama won't even come to the negotiating table in a bi-partisan matter to reduce the % of spending INCREASES.

If Obama and the Democrats cared so much about the debt then why haven't they passed a budget in more than 3 years? I don't want to see anymore of your cliche talking points and lies until you can rationally and logically answer that one simple question. You're aware that not one Democrat voted for Obama's laughable proposed budget right? But hey, go back to Daily Kos where they gin up your emotions with utopian promises of social justice if we only squeeze the rich a little more. Just a little more. Drip. Drip. Drip. Businesses closing at an alarming rate. 15% Real Unemployment. Drip. Drip. Drip. Soak them just a little bit more. They have more money than the idiot you are lying too, so they deserve to be punished in your deluded mob like cultist delusion.

Worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and you are babbling about repealing the "Bush tax cuts" as being the next solution to Obama's continued failure as president? So if we raise taxes on the evil rich and the economy tanks even worse what's going to be your excuse than? What is it going to take before you realize that you've been conned by rabble rousing Chicago thugs?
 
Eliminating the top tax cuts would bring in about $70 billion, supposedly. But that is still taking $70 billion of economic activity out of the private economy. That reduces GDP, it does not increase it.

Wealthy people do not spend 100% of their disposable income. I doubt very much that a 4% tax hike would change most of their spending habits one bit.
 
Wealthy people do not spend 100% of their disposable income. I doubt very much that a 4% tax hike would change most of their spending habits one bit.

At what level will it? Using your "logic" we should be taxing at that point so why add 4% and not 7% to that "top" rate? If raising 8 days of federal revenue is "good" why not make it 12 days? What is "fair" or "the end", in YOUR view?

BTW, raising the capital gains taxation rate from 15% to 20% is NOT a mere 5% increase it is a 33.3% increase in taxation, that will clearly affect investment decisions.
 
To be a leader, one actually needs to have people willing to follow. Congress's head is stuck so far up its own ass that the President couldn't do anything substantial if he wanted to.

To be an effective leader one must possess and utilize skills that enable others to do their job, not follow.

That's one of the country's problems, too many Obama followers.
 
Eliminating the top tax cuts would bring in about $70 billion, supposedly. But that is still taking $70 billion of economic activity out of the private economy. That reduces GDP, it does not increase it.

have the obama apologists ever told us why we should give a wasteful and spendthrift government any more money before it can prove it can make massive massive cuts
 
have the obama apologists ever told us why we should give a wasteful and spendthrift government any more money before it can prove it can make massive massive cuts
No, but that is because they dont oppose a wasteful and spendthrift government. Especially when that government is wasting someone elses money.
 
I have to wonder if obama is still going to insist on raising taxes in an economy that is declining. The numbers were better than this when he said it would be dumb to raise taxes in times like this. Also this is yet another nail in his reelection bid. Every dark cloud has a silver lining.:)


"Gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced, rose at a 1.5 percent annual rate after a revised 2 percent gain in the prior quarter, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 1.4 percent increase. Household purchases, which account for about 70 percent of the world’s largest economy, grew at the slowest pace in a year."


Economy in U.S. Grows at 1.5% Rate - Bloomberg


It was 4.1% in 2011 and it just keeps going down.

President Obama doesn't, and neither do his "advisors", know what to do. These closistered "professors" all taught how to do the job, but none had ever had to do the job. Thus the failure the country is having to deal with now.

Time for "change". Time to move "forward" without these nimwits.

Vote Romney.
 
We have to give Obama a second term so that he can maybe eventually have his first recovery summer. :roll:

I don't know if we should trust him to inherit his own economy.
 
Liberal ideas don't work. They didn't work during the Great Depression.
One can only wonder why those who deride Roosevelt and claim he prolonged the depression neglect to post a shred of relevant data from said time period.
 
Abject stupidity. Raising revenue reduces deficits, period.

At this point in time raising revenue does nothing but give politicians more of our money to spend, period. You are naive if you think any new funds coming into the general fund would go to reducing the deficit. Politicians would find some new program to start with it in order to get votes and keep their cushy so called jobs.
 
have the obama apologists ever told us why we should give a wasteful and spendthrift government any more money before it can prove it can make massive massive cuts

It proves, to the Obama base, that Obama will ONLY tax the "evil rich", thus all of the wonderful give away programs for the "middle class", that are now "paid for" by simply borrowing money, are not going to cost anyone anything except for the "evil rich" so long as the demorats are in charge. Yes they can!
 
It was 4.1% in 2011 and it just keeps going down.

President Obama doesn't, and neither do his "advisors", know what to do. These closistered "professors" all taught how to do the job, but none had ever had to do the job. Thus the failure the country is having to deal with now.

Time for "change". Time to move "forward" without these nimwits.

Vote Romney.

But, but, but...

“Just like we’ve tried [the Republicans'] plan, we’ve tried our plan, and it worked. That’s the difference.”
President Obama

It did? The funny thing is that some here believe that statement.
 
At this point in time raising revenue does nothing but give politicians more of our money to spend, period. You are naive if you think any new funds coming into the general fund would go to reducing the deficit. Politicians would find some new program to start with it in order to get votes and keep their cushy so called jobs.

He knows that, he's on the side that wants more programs.
 
It was 4.1% in 2011 and it just keeps going down.

President Obama doesn't, and neither do his "advisors", know what to do. These closistered "professors" all taught how to do the job, but none had ever had to do the job. Thus the failure the country is having to deal with now.

Time for "change". Time to move "forward" without these nimwits.

Vote Romney.

Yep, time to return to the economics of 2001. Time to do it all over again.... cut taxes, start wars, increase "defense" spending and run up the deficits. Yeah, there is a good alternative for ya.
 
Back
Top Bottom