• 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!

GOP official: House to vote to lift debt limit

jonny5 said:
Youve called people who disagree with you ignorant several times now. The tax cuts were not the primary cause of the deficits and I wholeheartedly approved. And I would have cut entire depts, starting with HHS and SSA.
Click to expand...


Is "ignorant" an insult on every occasion? What is the definition of "ignorant"?
 
Somerville said:
I can agree with this to some extent but not totally - the states of the national economy are not comparable, Bush entered office with a surplus in the national budget and with shrinking deficit projections according to CBO. Obama entered office with an economy in free fall. Bush and his people cut taxes using a justification that the government had too much money and cutting taxes would so stimulate the economy that it wouldn't make much difference anyway, they started a totally unnecessary war in Iraq and botched a war in Afghanistan, greatly prolonging it and requiring the Obama people to continue paying for said war during a period of recession.

Much of the spending at this time is a direct result of the recession, debt payments on the Bush era deficits and increased military spending.

There is a perception, created by the large noise machine of the right that President Obama is a spendthrift, wasting the taxpayers money but it just ain't so
[
Click to expand...
I'm all for acknowledging the mistakes made during the Bush era but let's get real, OK? While there may be a statistic here and there that you could point to... are you really going to sit there and try to claim that there WASN'T a recession beginning at the end of Clinton's 2nd term? The economic conditions that Bush inherited were FAR from the rose garden scenario that you are peddling. We were in the middle of a recession when he took office... and 9-11 came shortly after. Can we at least be honest about that?
 
Somerville said:
Is "ignorant" an insult on every occasion? What is the definition of "ignorant"?
Click to expand...

The tone in which you are using it here is.

failure to grasp economic reality.
some group that doesn't understand economics
you are showing a lack of knowledge
those who are capable of grasping the complexities of the modern world

You called us stupid several times now for nothing more than disagreeing with your opinion.
 
jonny5 said:
The tone in which you are using it here is.

failure to grasp economic reality.
some group that doesn't understand economics
you are showing a lack of knowledge
those who are capable of grasping the complexities of the modern world

You called us stupid several times now for nothing more than disagreeing with your opinion.
Click to expand...



IGNORANT does not mean STUPID



look it up
 
jonny5 said:
It was passed in the Senate unanimously first. Not that Im disagreeing with the point.
Click to expand...

Actually it passed in the House first, last July, with 90 Democrats voting against the spending and every single Republican voting for the spending.
 
Fletch said:
The subject is cutting spending right? So me pointing out that year over year spending increases are not spending cuts is changing the subject? I think I remember now why I dont waste much time responding to your posts.
Click to expand...

Because cutting spending on Medicare is cutting spending.

Obama can't help it if the repubs in Cogress keep voting to spend more and more money on other programs
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I'm all for acknowledging the mistakes made during the Bush era but let's get real, OK? While there may be a statistic here and there that you could point to... are you really going to sit there and try to claim that there WASN'T a recession beginning at the end of Clinton's 2nd term? The economic conditions that Bush inherited were FAR from the rose garden scenario that you are peddling. We were in the middle of a recession when he took office... and 9-11 came shortly after. Can we at least be honest about that?
Click to expand...

bush* did not take office during a recession, so I guess it's your post that isn't being honest about that
 
sangha said:
bush* did not take office during a recession, so I guess it's your post that isn't being honest about that
Click to expand...

Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of the October 27, 1997 mini-crash in the wake of the Asian crisis, the predictions about a future burst increased, causing an uncertain climate on economy during the first months of 1998, while the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to a soft landing. The actual burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1991
Click to expand...

Ummm... yes he did. So I guess your post about my post being dishonest was dishonest?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Ummm... yes he did. So I guess your post about my post being dishonest was dishonest?
Click to expand...

Umm, "slow growth" is not a recession. Your latest post is even more dishonest than your previous one

From your own link
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began
Click to expand...


Your own link says the recession began in March 2001, two months *AFTER* bush* took office.
 
sangha said:
Because cutting spending on Medicare is cutting spending.

Obama can't help it if the repubs in Cogress keep voting to spend more and more money on other programs
Click to expand...
The republicans have voted to spend more money on every program, so i dont know what you are talking about. And neither do you, apparently.
 
Fletch said:
The republicans have voted to spend more money on every program, so i dont know what you are talking about. And neither do you, apparently.
Click to expand...

Thanks for agreeing with me that it's the republicans who are the big spenders
 
sangha said:
Umm, "slow growth" is not a recession. Your latest post is even more dishonest than your previous one

From your own link
[/B]

Your own link says the recession began in March 2001, two months *AFTER* bush* took office.
Click to expand...
Nit pick much?

Bush inherited a recession. This is a factually correct statement unless you would like to argue that by some means he did something in his first month in office that caused it.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Nit pick much?

Bush inherited a recession. This is a factually correct statement unless you would like to argue that by some means he did something in his first month in office that caused it.
Click to expand...

You said that when bush* entered office, it was in the middle of a recession. Now that your claim has been proven to be dishonest, you're trying to change the subject to distract from your dishonest claim
 
sangha said:
You said that when bush* entered office, it was in the middle of a recession. Now that your claim has been proven to be dishonest, you're trying to change the subject to distract from your dishonest claim
Click to expand...
What you're trying to do is to mince words in an attempt to deflect from the fact that the economy Bush inherited was far less than ideal. Far less than your progressive talking points memo allows you to admit. So what we have here is a case of you splitting hairs over specific dates as if by doing so it would somehow change the fact that Bush inherited a recession which was quickly magnified by 9-11.

Bush entered office just after the dot com bubble burst. The economy was in a tailspin and a recession was in process. The only thing proven to be dishonest here is your attempt at revisionist history... wait a second... you really are attempting to revise history. I'll give you credit for that.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
What you're trying to do is to mince words in an attempt to deflect from the fact that the economy Bush inherited was far less than ideal. Far less than your progressive talking points memo allows you to admit. So what we have here is a case of you splitting hairs over specific dates as if by doing so it would somehow change the fact that Bush inherited a recession which was quickly magnified by 9-11.

Bush entered office just after the dot com bubble burst. The economy was in a tailspin and a recession was in process. The only thing proven to be dishonest here is your attempt at revisionist history... wait a second... you really are attempting to revise history. I'll give you credit for that.
Click to expand...

No, you're just trying to run away from your own words as fast as you can. The facts is, the economy hit it's peak in March 2001. Too bad your Decider was so incompetent he blew the economy up.
 
sangha said:
Thanks for agreeing with me that it's the republicans who are the big spenders
Click to expand...
I havent argued otherwise. But are you saying that big spending by the government is a bad thing?
 
sangha said:
No, you're just trying to run away from your own words as fast as you can. The facts is, the economy hit it's peak in March 2001. Too bad your Decider was so incompetent he blew the economy up.
Click to expand...
Ok... now the economy "hit it's peak" in March 2001? A couple of posts ago you said...

Your own link says the recession began in March 2001, two months *AFTER* bush* took office.
Click to expand...

Recessions are declared to "begin" once growth stops and "negative growth" or "recession" start. Once growth stops and things begin to RECEDE you are in a recession. Seems like you like to play with words and definitions as they suit your argument. You just used the same date, once to state that a recession began a month after Bush took office, and now to imply that the "economy was at it's peak" a month after Bush took office.

Revisionists tactics noted. You are dismissed, toolbox.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Ok... now the economy "hit it's peak" in March 2001? A couple of posts ago you said...



Recessions are declared to "begin" once growth stops and "negative growth" or "recession" start. Once growth stops and things begin to RECEDE you are in a recession. Seems like you like to play with words and definitions as they suit your argument. You just used the same date, once to state that a recession began a month after Bush took office, and now to imply that the "economy was at it's peak" a month after Bush took office.

Revisionists tactics noted. You are dismissed, toolbox.
Click to expand...

I dont see why you can't understand that the economy hit it's peak and then began declining in March 2001, but that's your FAIL, not mine
 
sangha said:
I dont see why you can't understand that the economy hit it's peak and then began declining in March 2001, but that's your FAIL, not mine
Click to expand...
No, no, no. The fail is all yours.

Right now you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of either having to admit that Bush inherited a poor economy or using dishonest tactics and hoping that nobody calls you on it. You have chosen the latter. Here are your own words...

No, you're just trying to run away from your own words as fast as you can. The facts is, the economy hit it's peak in March 2001. Too bad your Decider was so incompetent he blew the economy up.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the economy was in a tailspin as Bush took office. Only hardened partisans like yourself would try to dispute that. Now, if you want to say that the economic collapse that happened in 2008 was Bush's fault, that's a completely different subject but right now we're talking about conditions in 2001 and you just tried to say that that one was Bush's fault, too.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
No, no, no. The fail is all yours.

Right now you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of either having to admit that Bush inherited a poor economy or using dishonest tactics and hoping that nobody calls you on it. You have chosen the latter. Here are your own words...


The fact is that the economy was in a tailspin as Bush took office. Only hardened partisans like yourself would try to dispute that. Now, if you want to say that the economic collapse that happened in 2008 was Bush's fault, that's a completely different subject but right now we're talking about conditions in 2001 and you just tried to say that that one was Bush's fault, too.
Click to expand...

If by "tailspin" you mean, the economy was booming, then you'd be correct. When bush* took office, the economy was growing. Even your own link says so

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Economy has not improved as rapidly as it could have with more stimulus spending
Click to expand...

So more borrowing and more spending is still the answer? Didn't Obama already promise that the last trillion or so would do the trick?

Unemployment has improved if you count from the days when it hit its peak in Feb 2010 and not from Inauguration Day in 2009;
Click to expand...

Yes, improved because people have just dropped out of the work force or are collecting disability. How does the economy grow and food stamp use as well?
The infrastructure is crumbling but all we hear from the GOP is "cut spending". Tell us - how do you repair, renovate and improve American infrastructure without paying for it?
Click to expand...

Perhaps some of that $5 trillion Obama spent could have gone towards infrastructure. Of course people are telling him to stop spending because he has nothing to show for the trillions he has already spent. Only his political friends have become quite wealthy.

As noted earlier, America's economy is doing better than the rest of the industrialised world, so there is "something to show for it"
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

That's because mush of the industrialized world went left a lot earlier than the US. Now the USA is following their lead and will suffer the same consequences. That is a certainty.
 
Somerville said:
People are 'interested' but those who are capable of grasping the complexities of the modern world, for the most part, understand that an immediate "balancing of the national budget" would result in a depression worse than that experienced in the 1930s
Click to expand...

Then why not simply present a budget like the law demands? Obama can't even do that much.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well to be fair while there are hypocrites who are complaining about the spending under Obama now that didn't under Bush, there are also hypocrites that complained about spending under Bush that aren't now that Obama is doing it.

There are hypocrites on all sides.
Click to expand...

In fact the ratings of George Bush dropped dramatically during his last term as a direct result of his spending. People were very vocal about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom