• 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!

Surprise! Huge US Budget Surplus Shatters Record

Funny how the mainstream media seems to be ignoring this one. Here, I thought they were supposed to all be Obamabots.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Funny how the mainstream media seems to be ignoring this one. Here, I thought they were supposed to all be Obamabots.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because looking at one month's data is meaningless. They would have to go through the major reasons why. As the article states, higher taxes ( not very popular) dividend from Fannie and Freddie ( not very popular). No mention of GDP growth as there was little of that in Q1 and less expected in Q2. I would like to see the market gain 14% every six months, which has to help capital gains tax collections, but not sure that is realistic.
 
washunut said:
Perhaps because looking at one month's data is meaningless. They would have to go through the major reasons why. As the article states, higher taxes ( not very popular) dividend from Fannie and Freddie ( not very popular). No mention of GDP growth as there was little of that in Q1 and less expected in Q2. I would like to see the market gain 14% every six months, which has to help capital gains tax collections, but not sure that is realistic.
Click to expand...

OK, that could be, but t he MSM doesn't have a good track record of ignoring meaningless data.
 
washunut said:
Perhaps because looking at one month's data is meaningless. They would have to go through the major reasons why. As the article states, higher taxes ( not very popular) dividend from Fannie and Freddie ( not very popular). No mention of GDP growth as there was little of that in Q1 and less expected in Q2. I would like to see the market gain 14% every six months, which has to help capital gains tax collections, but not sure that is realistic.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me. The mainstream media values a good story (especially one coinciding with their views) far more than they do any facts that might get in the way.
 
How is this a big deal? Taxes went up. Of course the deficit will go down in the short term. Spending is projecting to increase continuously in the future, so it wont last long. And by the end of the year we will still have added roughly half a trillion to the debt.
 
Lakryte said:
How is this a big deal? Taxes went up. Of course the deficit will go down in the short term. Spending is projecting to increase continuously in the future, so it wont last long. And by the end of the year we will still have added roughly half a trillion to the debt.
Click to expand...

If that happens, then the deficit will have been reduced by more than 50%.

During the campaign, neither candidate even suggested that the deficit could be reduced that much so quickly.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If that happens, then the deficit will have been reduced by more than 50%.

During the campaign, neither candidate even suggested that the deficit could be reduced that much so quickly.
Click to expand...

What exactly has Obama done to reduce the deficit and further a deficit reduction doesn't address the U.S. Debt until there is a surplus? Interesting how Obama supporters trumpet a projected deficit reduction that hasn't occurred yet, has more to do with low interest rates and the sequester that Obama was against than anything Obama has done. Are Obama supporters so blinded by their own ideology that they cannot see what is happening? How about fiscal year 2014 budget proposal of 3.77 trillion dollars? Is that the way to address the deficit and debt problem?

United States Debt Clock July 2013
 
Conservative said:
What exactly has Obama done to reduce the deficit and further a deficit reduction doesn't address the U.S. Debt until there is a surplus? Interesting how Obama supporters trumpet a projected deficit reduction that hasn't occurred yet, has more to do with low interest rates and the sequester that Obama was against than anything Obama has done. Are Obama supporters so blinded by their own ideology that they cannot see what is happening? How about fiscal year 2014 budget proposal of 3.77 trillion dollars? Is that the way to address the deficit and debt problem?

United States Debt Clock July 2013
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't control federal spending. That would be the Congress.



If we had a Republican in the White House, then the Republicans would be touting any improvement in the economy, ranting about how the mainstream media is ignoring all of the wonderful things that their guy is doing and so on. As it is, since there is a Democrat in the White House, then there can't possibly be any good news.

News flash: the president doesn't control federal spending anyway. Congress controls federal spending.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Obama doesn't control federal spending. That would be the Congress.



If we had a Republican in the White House, then the Republicans would be touting any improvement in the economy, ranting about how the mainstream media is ignoring all of the wonderful things that their guy is doing and so on. As it is, since there is a Democrat in the White House, then there can't possibly be any good news.

News flash: the president doesn't control federal spending anyway. Congress controls federal spending.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Congress appropriates the money and the President spends most of it though the agencies that report to him. What improvement in the economy?
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, Congress appropriates the money and the President spends most of it though the agencies that report to him. What improvement in the economy?
Click to expand...

I'd call a surplus, even a temporary one, and a halving of the deficit an improvement regardless of the letter after the president's name. What would you call it?
 
poweRob said:
Looks like good news. I can't wait for all the deficit hawks to come in here and also crow about how great this is for our economy. You guys will right? Or is the sky still falling?

Surprise! Huge US Budget Surplus Shatters Record

The U.S. government posted a budget surplus in June, the latest sign of rapidly improving public finances that could reduce the urgency in Congress to strike a deal to raise the nation's limit on borrowing.

Rising tax revenues, public spending cuts and big payments to the Treasury from state-backed mortgage firms helped the government take in $117 billion more last month than it paid out, the U.S. Treasury said on Thursday.

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a smaller surplus of $39.5 billion.

June's surplus was the largest for that month on record.​
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Well, the coolest part about Socialists is that they are INCAPABLE of sound fiscal policy and of telling the truth. SO… we can rest assured that what is being sent up as a testimony to sound fiscal policy, will in truth turn out to be a function of some mechanism, which in NO WAY stems from sound fiscal policy… and in no way represents a surplus of ANY budget, anywhere.

Don't know the particulars and I don't have to… all I need to know is that "The Media" is reporting it, therefore it's a lie…
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'd call a surplus, even a temporary one, and a halving of the deficit an improvement regardless of the letter after the president's name. What would you call it?
Click to expand...

There is no surplus, and the economy is NOT improving…

Now how can we know that, without knowing anything else?

It's quite simple:

Socialists are INCAPABLE of reason, therefore socialists are incapable of sound fiscal policy. Surpluses are the result of sound fiscal policy and given that socialists are in power, such policy is not being implemented at this time…

How can we know the economy is not improving… See: Above. And understand that socialists cannot allow the economy to improve, because where there exist a sound economy, there exist independence, and independence is the antithesis of dependence, with socialism breeding absolutely nothing BUT dependence.

There's truly nothing complex about any of this…
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
There is no surplus, and the economy is NOT improving…

Now how can we know that, without knowing anything else?

It's quite simple:

Socialists are INCAPABLE of reason, therefore socialists are incapable of sound fiscal policy. Surpluses are the result of sound fiscal policy and given that socialists are in power, such policy is not being implemented at this time…

How can we know the economy is not improving… See: Above. And understand that socialists cannot allow the economy to improve, because where there exist a sound economy, there exist independence, and independence is the antithesis of dependence, with socialism breeding absolutely nothing BUT dependence.

There's truly nothing complex about any of this…
Click to expand...

No, a circle is quite simple, really.

The president is a socialist, and therefore the economy has to be going down the toilet because socialists never are able to improve the economy. Further, we know that the president is a socialist, because the economy isn't improving. Therefore, any evidence that it might be has to be false, because the president is a socialist.

It is all very logical, in a circular sort of way.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, a circle is quite simple, really.

The president is a socialist, and therefore the economy has to be going down the toilet because socialists never are able to improve the economy. Further, we know that the president is a socialist, because the economy isn't improving. Therefore, any evidence that it might be has to be false, because the president is a socialist.

It is all very logical, in a circular sort of way.
Click to expand...

Ahh… The old "CIRCULAR ARGUMENT" scam…

Nothing circular about my reasoning scamp.

Socialism is a logically invalid, thus an intellectually unsound fiscal concept. Therefore socialist policy will not result in sound fiscal results. The US economy has suffered the decaying effects of socialist reasoning for decades and, over the last 6 years the most recent socialist experiment has ONCE AGAIN PROVEN: Socialism SUCKS!

Now if you need to organize that into a circle, on the hopes that by virtue of your new arrangement that such invalidates the argument, well that's fine with me… I'll just point out that it was your reasoning that invalidated it, which given your socialist nature, it follows that such would be the case.

Now if you'd like to show a socialist policy which you feel could potentially result in fiscal viability, I'd love to hear all about it.

And here's me, wishing YOU, the VERY BEST of luck in getting that done.
 
Last edited:
windowdressing said:
I agree, as long as it is not under the big-eared guy ... What could be clearer than this after witnessing the last five years of a GOP, especially in the House, bent on destroying this man and his presidency? (and I'm far from Obama's biggest fan, but this has been utterly shameful ...)
Click to expand...
It is shameful only because they failed to destroy him.
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
Ahh… The old "CIRCULAR ARGUMENT" scam…
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what your post was, but it was pretty transparent.

Socialism means government ownership of the means of production.
You're quite right that it doesn't work, never has anywhere it's been tried.
 
Misterveritis said:
It is shameful only because they failed to destroy him.
Click to expand...

The good news is that he's doing a first class job of destroying himself and in the process he's taking the Left down with him. Expect to see the Benghazi treason return fairly soon, with tangible evidence of actual, constitutionally approved: TREASON.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, that's exactly what your post was, but it was pretty transparent.

Socialism means government ownership of the means of production.
You're quite right that it doesn't work, never has anywhere it's been tried.
Click to expand...

Oh GOOD ONE!

DEMAND THAT YOUR ARGUMENT WAS VALID! 'Cause THAT makes it so!

And yes, I was right… But that, is MY nature.

OH! And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
 
Kushinator said:
I have been following the sentiment of this forum, regarding this issue, since the very beginning. For the past 4+ years i have observed:

  1. The majority of conservatives/Republicans are more anti-Obama than they are pro-U.S.
  2. ...
Click to expand...

Aren't anti-Obama and Pro-United States the same thing? How can one love the United States and love the monster who is destroying it? A love for one implies a disdain for the other.
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
Oh GOOD ONE!
Click to expand...

Thank you, I thought it was pretty good, too.

Oh, and words do have meanings.

and a circular reasoning is still circular reasoning. I can remember a geometry teacher teaching us about circular reasoning, way back in high school, and the process has not changed in all that time.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Thank you, I thought it was pretty good, too.

Oh, and words do have meanings.

and a circular reasoning is still circular reasoning. I can remember a geometry teacher teaching us about circular reasoning, way back in high school, and the process has not changed in all that time.
Click to expand...


Well it was your reasoning that arranged the facts in a circle… SO, my advice would be that IF you dislike such invalid reasoning, stop building straw arguments to demonstrate it.

Again, the best of luck in getting yourself through this rough patch.
 
Papa bull said:
You don't have to explain why. Households can't print money as they need it, so the dynamics aren't the same. Not that money printing is a good thing, though.
Click to expand...

Wait! I am not allowed to print money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom