• 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

History tells a different story from the one you proffer. When Bush took office, President
Clinton had left a $5.6 trillion surplus, and when Bush left office, President Obama
inherited an $11 trillion deficit.

Bush's last six months almost lead to a Worldwide Economical Depression. Our largest
banks began to fail and the stock market took a nose dive because of deregulation. He
left our country on the brink of collapse. Let's never forget he approved tax cuts for the
very rich, which has never created jobs for the poor.

Who can ever forget 9/11 and Bush's deafness regarding the warnings? Who can ever forget
Hurricane Katrina and Bush's lack of leadership and failure to react?

He lied about the Iraq war, which has killed about 6,000 Americans, wounded or crippled
for life about another 40,000. He deemphasized the Afghan war that was focused on
Al Qaeda to do a poor job in Iraq. Of course, he placed both wars on credit

He okayed Gitmo, the most inhumane detention center ever created by man and
approved the use of torture.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Foundation charged Bush and Cheney with war
crimes and torture in absentia.

Oh, God, here we go again, diversion to Bush. Better take your issue up with the Treasury Dept because Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt and left it at 5.7 trillion so there was no surplus. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that is now almost 17 trillion.

Your hatred of Bush is based upon a bunch of bs you have been fed by the media. Too bad that hatred has blinded you to the Obama failures.

The rest of your post is simply more BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, please seek help
 
Not really, since it was all over the board, and had been for years, when Dems urged a prescription drug benefit. But Bush 43 jumped in a seized the initiative creating a program that's a wet dream for Big Pharma and a huge cost for Americans across the age spectrum.

Your opinion noted, where did you get this information and did you bother to see what Ted Kennedy and the Democrats proposed? Why is it that CBO claims the Medicare Part D Program cut expenses by billions? You are so full of misguided hatred towards Bush that you have no concept of what the alternatives were and what Medicare Part D actually did
 
Your opinion noted, where did you get this information and did you bother to see what Ted Kennedy and the Democrats proposed? Why is it that CBO claims the Medicare Part D Program cut expenses by billions? You are so full of misguided hatred towards Bush that you have no concept of what the alternatives were and what Medicare Part D actually did

No. Why? For academic reasons since it was something else and did not pass. Or as a diversion from the obvious POS Bush 43 pushed through with dogged determination in service of Big Pharma?
 
Your opinion noted, where did you get this information and did you bother to see what Ted Kennedy and the Democrats proposed? Why is it that CBO claims the Medicare Part D Program cut expenses by billions? You are so full of misguided hatred towards Bush that you have no concept of what the alternatives were and what Medicare Part D actually did

But anyway, no biggy. What's $55 Billion annually? Chicken feed!!!
 
No. Why? For academic reasons since it was something else and did not pass. Or as a diversion from the obvious POS Bush 43 pushed through with dogged determination in service of Big Pharma?

Obviously you have a passion for this topic and really don't want to address the CBO announced cuts in Medicare Prescription Drug expense reported this year. Wonder why and wonder where you get your information. Please show me current CBO numbers that show that Medicare Part D has increased costs?

A Model for Health Care Reform:Would You Guess Medicare Part D? | The Health Care Blog
 
But anyway, no biggy. What's $55 Billion annually? Chicken feed!!!

out of a 3.6 trillion dollar budget that included over a trillion dollars in deficits? Eliminate the entire cost of Medicare Part D and you still have over a trillion dollars in deficits.
 
Obviously you have a passion for this topic and really don't want to address the CBO announced cuts in Medicare Prescription Drug expense reported this year. Wonder why and wonder where you get your information. Please show me current CBO numbers that show that Medicare Part D has increased costs?

A Model for Health Care Reform:Would You Guess Medicare Part D? | The Health Care Blog

Not really. But it's kinda stupid to have done, IMO.

But it's nice to see that spending cuts are really, really needed, unless of course it's a $55 B annual gift to Big Pharma coming from a Rep Admin, which pushed it in a full court press, it became law and is now costing us buckos, and has for many years, right through to this last year, which of course is way better than something a big poopyhead Dem like Ted K proposed, which cost us exactly $0.00.

"Righty apologist" does not even begin to describe your level a hypocrisy.
 
Not really. But it's kinda stupid to have done, IMO.

But it's nice to see that spending cuts are really, really needed, unless of course it's a $55 B annual gift to Big Pharma coming from a Rep Admin, which pushed it in a full court press, it became law and is now costing us buckos, and has for many years, right through to this last year, which of course is way better than something a big poopyhead Dem like Ted K proposed, which cost us exactly $0.00.

"Righty apologist" does not even begin to describe your level a hypocrisy.

And your obvious support for big govt. is noted and shows the level of your ignorance when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Somehow private business getting revenue is a gift but the govt. taking tax revenue from the American people and wasting it isn't a problem? 55 billion gift to big Pharma vs govt. price controls and more dependence? I will take your so called give to big Pharma which actually employs people

Very liberal means knowing very little about how the private sector works and the benefits of competition to pricing.
 
out of a 3.6 trillion dollar budget that included over a trillion dollars in deficits? Eliminate the entire cost of Medicare Part D and you still have over a trillion dollars in deficits.

Nice to see you defending spending programs Rep cook up. Now name a new major spending program by Obama. Oops, no need. I already know: Obamacare!!!! Covers millions who had no insurance, instead of merely raising the price of prescription drugs, and costs double that of MC-D ($110 B / year). $55 B for nothing is okie doke. But $110 B to cover millions? COMMUNIST!!! Barack Joe Stalin Obama. Run for your lives, kids. The black reds are coming!!!!
 
Last edited:
And your obvious support for big govt. is noted and shows the level of your ignorance when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Somehow private business getting revenue is a gift but the govt. taking tax revenue from the American people and wasting it isn't a problem? 55 billion gift to big Pharma vs govt. price controls and more dependence? I will take your so called give to big Pharma which actually employs people

Very liberal means knowing very little about how the private sector works and the benefits of competition to pricing.

All spending creates jobs. But say it ain't so, Connie!!! YOU??? A spending apologist????

I am in shock, Comrade "Conservative."
 
Nice to see you defending spending programs Rep cook up. Now name a new major spending program by Obama. Oops, no need. I already know: Obamacare!!!! Covers millions who had no insurance, instead of merely raising to price of prescription drugs, and costs double MC-D ($110 B / year). $55 B for nothing is okie doke. But $110 B to cover millions? COMMUNIST!!! Barack Joe Stalin Obama. Run for your lives, kids. The black reds are coming!!!!

Yes, spoken like a good little Obamabot buying the liberal rhetoric and drinking the liberal kool-ade . The results speak for themselves, results even shown in those sites you claim are credible. Obama has no interest in cutting anything because he, like you, believe it is the Government's role to take over personal responsibility issues and be a parent that protects us from poor personal choice issues. Too bad you don't see the effects of big govt. and are willing to fund more
 
All spending creates jobs. But say it ain't so, Connie!!! YOU??? A spending apologist????

I am in shock, Comrade "Conservative."

All spending doesn't create jobs, look at the stimulus program. Govt spending creates debt which minimizes any benefits from that so called govt. spending of taxpayer dollars. Now it is apparent to me that you are either so rich that it doesn't matter what the debt service is or are one of those 47% of income earners that don't pay any net federal income taxes to fund that debt service.
 
Yes, spoken like a good little Obamabot buying the liberal rhetoric and drinking the liberal kool-ade . The results speak for themselves, results even shown in those sites you claim are credible. Obama has no interest in cutting anything because he, like you, believe it is the Government's role to take over personal responsibility issues and be a parent that protects us from poor personal choice issues. Too bad you don't see the effects of big govt. and are willing to fund more

You, or me? I'm saying $55 B a year for Socialist Prescriptions is junk. Meanwhile, you, Comrade, are going on and on about how $55 B a year is no problem and must create some jobs, albeit, you're guessing on how many it might be.

It's the most unsubstantiated left-wing rhetoric I've heard all day!!!
 
All spending doesn't create jobs, look at the stimulus program. Govt spending creates debt which minimizes any benefits from that so called govt. spending of taxpayer dollars. Now it is apparent to me that you are either so rich that it doesn't matter what the debt service is or are one of those 47% of income earners that don't pay any net federal income taxes to fund that debt service.

Yeah; if spent domestically, it does. Raise purchasing of anything, and folks are hired to meet the additional demand, up and down the value-chain (lettuce: grocery; trucking; box-maker; farmer ...)
 
Oh, God, here we go again, diversion to Bush. Better take your issue up with the Treasury Dept because Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt and left it at 5.7 trillion so there was no surplus. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that is now almost 17 trillion.

Your hatred of Bush is based upon a bunch of bs you have been fed by the media. Too bad that hatred has blinded you to the Obama failures.

The rest of your post is simply more BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, please seek help

Your lesson for today: Facts do not equal Hatred
Please enlighten the people opining on this thread of the American economy when George Bush left office.
Did Bush sign an economic stimulus package? If so, why?
 
You, or me? I'm saying $55 B a year for Socialist Prescriptions is junk. Meanwhile, you, Comrade, are going on and on about how $55 B a year is no problem and must create some jobs, albeit, you're guessing on how many it might be.

It's the most unsubstantiated left-wing rhetoric I've heard all day!!!

If you want get back on topic I will respond but your continued diversion and distortion of reality is a waste of time
 
If you want get back on topic I will respond but your continued diversion and distortion of reality is a waste of time

Nah; I think I've heard enough tax-and-spend advocacy from you, for one day. So I'll bail out, now, with a tip:

Simply being a GOP-apologist and not liking Dems is not being a Conservative. It's being a partisan minion. Food for thought.
 
Your lesson for today: Facts do not equal Hatred
Please enlighten the people opining on this thread of the American economy when George Bush left office.
Did Bush sign an economic stimulus package? If so, why?

Great, then show me that Clinton surplus?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

When GW Bush left office the debt was 10.6 trillion dollars today it is almost 17 trillion

When GW Bush left office there were 12 million unemployed and additional 734,000 discouraged, In June 2013 that was 11.8 million unemployed with and additional 1.027 million discouraged so doing the math there are more discouraged and unemployed today than there was when Bush left office and done at a cost of over 6.2 trillion added to the debt

During the Bush term, there were 146 million working Americans in December 2007 and today that is 144 million.

During the Bush term the GDP Grew by 4.5 trillion dollars or over 550 billion a year including the recession years and during the Obama term the GDP growth is less than 400 billion a year.

It does seem that you lack the basic definition of a fact. Bush didn't sign the stimulus plan in February 2009, Obama did.
 
Nah; I think I've heard enough tax-and-spend advocacy from you, for one day. So I'll bail out, now, with a tip:

Simply being a GOP-apologist and not liking Dems is not being a Conservative. It's being a partisan minion. Food for thought.

Never was a member of the GOP but have always been a conservative. grew up a JFK Conservative Democrat but saw the light during the Carter term. Not sure why it took me so long but I assure you that you will grow up too. There is no place in today's Democratic Party for a Conservative
 
Great, then show me that Clinton surplus?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

When GW Bush left office the debt was 10.6 trillion dollars today it is almost 17 trillion

When GW Bush left office there were 12 million unemployed and additional 734,000 discouraged, In June 2013 that was 11.8 million unemployed with and additional 1.027 million discouraged so doing the math there are more discouraged and unemployed today than there was when Bush left office and done at a cost of over 6.2 trillion added to the debt

During the Bush term, there were 146 million working Americans in December 2007 and today that is 144 million.

During the Bush term the GDP Grew by 4.5 trillion dollars or over 550 billion a year including the recession years and during the Obama term the GDP growth is less than 400 billion a year.

It does seem that you lack the basic definition of a fact. Bush didn't sign the stimulus plan in February 2009, Obama did.


I can't show you a surplus that is long gone. Wish I could though.
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law by Bush on February 13, 2008. Are you seriously trying to persuade this audience that
Bush convinced Senator Obama to sign it?
 
I can't show you a surplus that is long gone. Wish I could though.
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law by Bush on February 13, 2008. Are you seriously trying to persuade this audience that
Bush convinced Senator Obama to sign it?

Again, surpluses are yearly, debt is cumulative so yes, you can show me a surplus if one existed and it would be at that Treasury site I gave you. The taxpayers of this country fund debt service off that site so a surplus would have meant a reduction in debt service which didn't happen.

As for the stimulus I was talking about the ARRA that Obama signed in February 2009 that was supposed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and take unemployment to 5.6% today.

Kid, you are out of your league here. Do better research or stop posting as it makes you look foolish.
 
Your lesson for today: Facts do not equal Hatred

Please enlighten the people opining on this thread of the American economy when George Bush left office.
Did Bush sign an economic stimulus package? If so, why?

The economy was suffering as a consequence of the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime Bubble.

Talk about facts.....you should post a few.
 
Again, surpluses are yearly, debt is cumulative so yes, you can show me a surplus if one existed and it would be at that Treasury site I gave you. The taxpayers of this country fund debt service off that site so a surplus would have meant a reduction in debt service which didn't happen.

As for the stimulus I was talking about the ARRA that Obama signed in February 2009 that was supposed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and take unemployment to 5.6% today.

Kid, you are out of your league here. Do better research or stop posting as it makes you look foolish.

Are you claiming to be in the big dogs league? Ruff Ruff!
Tying to pull a Rick Perry won't work on this woman. Got anything else?
 
The economy was suffering as a consequence of the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime Bubble.

Talk about facts.....you should post a few.

Community Reinvestment Act was signed by Bush's father. Both President's knew about sub-prime. Any idea why there were no regulations on Wall Street?
 
What corporate "subsidies " ?

Point to the specific outlays in the budget that prove Corporations are recieving subsidies

Asking for proof that GOP pols doll out corporate welfare is like asking for proof that water is wet :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom