• 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-No more Spending Cuts

Gimmesometruth said:
I understand the tinker toys simplistic non-context answer, but the context, as it was in 95 and 11, is that that the House will try to force the POTUS to sign something that they know he will not. You can try to paint that Clinton shut down the govt in 95.....or that Obama nearly did in 11....or that the sequester was his idea.....or that he will once again do it in this next go around, but this is how insane conservatives have become, how far they remove themselves from reality. They cannot, will not, take credit for what they want.....they try to blame the other side. And further, they think they get away with the lie.

Yawn.....why do you think this old POS rhetorical nonsense is going to get further discussion from me, I trashed this last year. Leave it buried, it still stinks.

Better yet....secede. Go ahead.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but from my recollection, 1995 was pretty good for the country if it wasn't so great for Republicans based on the short-sightedness of the American electorate. What the Republicans accomplished in 1995 was at least a pause in the spend until death, full steam ahead to bankruptcy, path your country was on and got some much needed spending cuts and welfare reform out of Clinton as well as some tax relief, each of which led to a booming economy in the latter half of the decade leading into the new millenium. That's not such a bad accomplishment.

If shutting down the government gets Obama off his ass and off the campaign bus and into serious negotiations moving forward, that will also be a good thing for the country. And considering the far greater focus of the American people on both the economy and the deficit/debt situation, it will likely help, not hurt Republicans this time around.
 
trfjr said:
So lets make it worse by adding to it so to make it harder to fix in the future. Lets kick the can down the road like many of your cities have done and now are going bankrupt. Do democrats ever learn from past failures? Mr California
Click to expand...

Has President Obama cut the deficit, at all? What was the deficit when Bush departed? What was the state of our economy when Bush departed?
Why does Congress have the lowest rating in history? Why did we lose our prized AAA credit rating?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And cuting spending is the only thing conservatives offer as a economic plan.

Besides I thought the deficit is a long term problem, somthing that cannot be fixed in one presidential term.
Click to expand...

That is a start and until that happens why would you reward bad behavior with higher taxes? You see conservatives don't believe we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. when we have 50 sovereign states doing much of the same thing only being closer to the people where the programs belong not with a bureaucrat in DC.

Deficits are yearly, the debt is a long term problem.
 
trfjr said:
So lets make it worse by adding to it so to make it harder to fix in the future. Lets kick the can down the road like many of your cities have done and now are going bankrupt. Do democrats ever learn from past failures? Mr California
Click to expand...

Long term problems require long term solutions.
 
lolabird said:
Has President Obama cut the deficit, at all? What was the deficit when Bush departed? What was the state of our economy when Bush departed?
Why does Congress have the lowest rating in history? Why did we lose our prized AAA credit rating?
Click to expand...

No, Obama has done nothing to cut the deficits. GW Bush never had a trillion dollar budget deficit and Obama has had four in a row. Stop buying what you are told and actually do some research. Proposing a 3.77 trillion dollar budget is never going to cut the deficit. The last Bush budget was 3 trillion and Obama has never had a 3 trillion dollar budget.

Congress has a low approval rating, so what? Congressional elections are local not national.

The deficit that Bush submitted for fiscal year 2009 was less than 500 billion dollars.

Obama was in charge when our credit rating dropped and Obama claimed he had the solutions to the problems he inherited. In fact Obama has failed in that there are still 2 million fewer employed today than when the recession began at a cost of over 6.2 trillion to the debt. Shall I continue? Doubt it for what is the use? What is it about liberalism that creates your kind of loyalty?
 
Conservative said:
That is a start and until that happens why would you reward bad behavior with higher taxes? You see conservatives don't believe we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. when we have 50 sovereign states doing much of the same thing only being closer to the people where the programs belong not with a bureaucrat in DC.

Deficits are yearly, the debt is a long term problem.
Click to expand...


We are not 50 entity's, we are the United States.

50 heads on one body with a single heart
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
We are not 50 entity's, we are the United States.

50 heads on one body with a single heart
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of those 50 states? We are united in providing for the common defense and PROMOTING not providing for domestic welfare.

The Founders understood the problems with a large central govt. and got away from that when they fled England and fought for Independence. Social programs belong at the state and local level, not the national level. You pay state and local taxes and now you want to increase Federal taxes to do what states and local governments should be doing. Liberal elites love having people like you
 
CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong, but from my recollection, 1995 was pretty good for the country if it wasn't so great for Republicans based on the short-sightedness of the American electorate. What the Republicans accomplished in 1995 was at least a pause in the spend until death, full steam ahead to bankruptcy, path your country was on and got some much needed spending cuts and welfare reform out of Clinton as well as some tax relief, each of which led to a booming economy in the latter half of the decade leading into the new millenium. That's not such a bad accomplishment.

If shutting down the government gets Obama off his ass and off the campaign bus and into serious negotiations moving forward, that will also be a good thing for the country. And considering the far greater focus of the American people on both the economy and the deficit/debt situation, it will likely help, not hurt Republicans this time around.
Click to expand...
Um, welfare reform happened prior to 95, and it did not cause the dotcom boom....LOL. FFS!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm sorry....how did the White House thingy go? I loved the Dole administration....oh....wait.
Click to expand...
Did anyone really think Dole had a chance against Clinton? I don't even think Dole himself did.
 
Sisyphus said:
Good news for the Private Sector, since every Dollar cut from federal spending, is a cut of $1 in future revenue for the Private Sector.
Click to expand...

LOL, just another liberal that doesn't understand the components of GDP and what generates actual revenue and wealth. Why such loyalty to a failed ideology? The Federal Govt. isn't the biggest component of GDP yet but it is growing thanks to Obama. Is it your intent to make everyone dependent on the Federal Govt? Do you know where the govt. gets it money?
 
Conservative said:
That is a start and until that happens why would you reward bad behavior with higher taxes? You see conservatives don't believe we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. when we have 50 sovereign states doing much of the same thing only being closer to the people where the programs belong not with a bureaucrat in DC.

Deficits are yearly, the debt is a long term problem.
Click to expand...

with 43 presidents we accumulated 10 trillion in debt the 44 president accumulated 6.5 trillion by his self and the debt will be 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. he will accumulate as much debt in 8 years as it took every other president over 200 years to do
 
Conservative said:
LOL, just another liberal that doesn't understand the components of GDP and what generates actual revenue and wealth. Why such loyalty to a failed ideology? The Federal Govt. isn't the biggest component of GDP yet but it is growing thanks to Obama. Is it your intent to make everyone dependent on the Federal Govt? Do you know where the govt. gets it money?
Click to expand...

Help me understand, then. Name a Dollar of federal spending which does not accrue to the private sector. Just one.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Welfare reform was signed into law by Clinton in 1996 - do you really need a Canadian to inform you about American politics?
Click to expand...

Leave it to the Canadians to tell it like it is, Great job

A Canadian's Version of David Letterman's "Top 10" | TRIED & TRUE RECIPES (TNT) | Just A Pinch Recipes

Canadian Editorial Humor Directed at the US

This is Canada 's Top Ten List of America 's Stupidity.

Of course we look like idiots … because we are …
I for one am embarrassed!!
-------------------------------------------
10) Only in America ... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

9) Only in America ... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black.
40+ % of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans – 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!

8) Only in America ... could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

7) Only in America ... can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

6) Only in America ... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.

5) Only in America ... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

4) Only in America ... could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

3) Only in America ... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

2) Only in America ... could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7- Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

1) Only in America ... could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
That is a start and until that happens why would you reward bad behavior with higher taxes? You see conservatives don't believe we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. when we have 50 sovereign states doing much of the same thing only being closer to the people where the programs belong not with a bureaucrat in DC.

Deficits are yearly, the debt is a long term problem.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Conservative. :2wave:

:agree: Since experts have calculated that our $17 trillion dollar debt, which is growing by $10 million dollars a minute, puts this Country in a debt situation that has never before been seen in history, it's apparent that we cannot continue on this destructive path for much longer. Too many other countries are becoming alarmed, and are taking steps to protect themselves from our seeming inability to halt our descent to the bottom. So what's DC's response? Arrogantly keep spending, and ignore reality! Unbelievable! :thumbdown:
 
Sisyphus said:
Help me understand, then. Name a Dollar of federal spending which does not accrue to the private sector. Just one.
Click to expand...

That never was the point, of course a dollar spent by the govt. is going to get to the private sector, my point was the govt. spending never was the large percentage that you seem to believe it is and there are better sources of private sector revenue than the govt spending. Every dollar spent by the govt that it doesn't have is borrowed or printed thus adding to the debt and devaluing the dollar. This country wasn't built on a huge central govt. that Obama is creating and we currently have a 17 trillion dollar debt to prove it.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Conservative. :2wave:

:agree: Since experts have calculated that our $17 trillion dollar debt, which is growing by $10 million dollars a minute, puts this Country in a debt situation that has never before been seen in history, it's apparent that we cannot continue on this destructive path for much longer. Too many other countries are becoming alarmed, and are taking steps to protect themselves from our seeming inability to halt our descent to the bottom. So what's DC's response? Arrogantly keep spending, and ignore reality! Unbelievable! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

You see, liberals don't get it because they think with their heart instead of their brain wanting to believe that the Federal govt. spending is compassionate spending when the reality is compassionate spending generates positive results and that isn't what the Federal govt is doing, rather they are creating dependence. Many liberals here are probably part of the group that doesn't pay any net Federal Income taxes thus aren't paying for the debt service required.
 
Conservative said:
That never was the point, of course a dollar spent by the govt. is going to get to the private sector, my point was the govt. spending never was the large percentage that you seem to believe it is and there are better sources of private sector revenue than the govt spending. Every dollar spent by the govt that it doesn't have is borrowed or printed thus adding to the debt and devaluing the dollar. This country wasn't built on a huge central govt. that Obama is creating and we currently have a 17 trillion dollar debt to prove it.
Click to expand...

It was precisely my point, which you quoted. And of course adding that I do not understand aspects of the GDP, kicking the door open for me to respond: school me, in essence. And we both know you dare not get into specifics, since I'll wipe the floor up with you. Ergo, more empty rhetoric, the refuge of abject losers in a debate.
 
Sisyphus said:
Good news for the Private Sector, since every Dollar cut from federal spending, is a cut of $1 in future revenue for the Private Sector.
Click to expand...

Hey keep your fancy facts to yourself, we would sooner drag each other down with our crab mentality!
 
Last edited:
Sisyphus said:
It was precisely my point, which you quoted. And of course adding that I do not understand aspects of the GDP, kicking the door open for me to respond: school me, in essence. And we both know you dare not get into specifics, since I'll wipe the floor up with you. Ergo, more empty rhetoric, the refuge of abject losers in a debate.
Click to expand...

LOL, the specifics are Obama has added over 6.2 trillion dollars to the debt in less than 5 years and has no interest in cutting spending to address the problem. Even with that govt. spending and failure to put people back to work the GDP growth this year may even be in contraction showing that govt. spending isn't the answer, private sector growth is and Obama will never focus on that.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, the specifics are Obama has added over 6.2 trillion dollars to the debt in less than 5 years and has no interest in cutting spending to address the problem. Even with that govt. spending and failure to put people back to work the GDP growth this year may even be in contraction showing that govt. spending isn't the answer, private sector growth is and Obama will never focus on that.
Click to expand...

"Obama has added over 6.2 trillion dollars " is not a specific. It's an aggregate number which borders on meaningless, without going into the specifics of what it bought and the economic impact of the spending, which would be getting into "specifics."
 
Sisyphus said:
"Obama has added over 6.2 trillion dollars " is not a specific. It's an aggregate number which borders on meaningless, without going into the specifics of what it bought and the economic impact of the spending, which would be getting into "specifics."
Click to expand...

Aggregate of all the spending and revenue generated during his term in office. Like all liberals it seems that debt only matters when it is a Republican creating it but when a Democrat creates it, it is called a worthy investment. Tell that specifically to the over 21 million Americans unemployed/under employed/discouraged that the debt and economic performance isn't specific.
 
Conservative said:
Aggregate of all the spending and revenue generated during his term in office. Like all liberals it seems that debt only matters when it is a Republican creating it but when a Democrat creates it, it is called a worthy investment. Tell that specifically to the over 21 million Americans unemployed/under employed/discouraged that the debt and economic performance isn't specific.
Click to expand...

Correct; and of course, devoid of specifics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom