• 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!

Report shows how recession hit families [W:391, 502]

Oh so wrong...I beg you to look back side by side at the history of both recoveries....You'll see that by this time Reagan's economy was smokin along at 6% I think....Obama's? Well, let's just say that 0 would be kind.
Oh noes....was the oil shock a credit collapse? Apple, meet orange.

PS....I wouldn't get into the whole "Raygun was better" argument, not unless you want to again get into the %'s of spending, the lack of massive local govt layoffs this time around....yadda yadda...
 
Oh noes....was the oil shock a credit collapse? Apple, meet orange.

PS....I wouldn't get into the whole "Raygun was better" argument, not unless you want to again get into the %'s of spending, the lack of massive local govt layoffs this time around....yadda yadda...

$6 TRILLION DOLLARS in 5 years....*drops mic and exits stage*
 
Funny, I seem to remember something like the Great Bush Recession occurring somewhere between 05 and 11...

I seem to remember the recession ending in June 2009 and it is August 2013 and we still have 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers. Apparently that is the liberal leadership that excites people like you.
 
Oh noes....was the oil shock a credit collapse? Apple, meet orange.

PS....I wouldn't get into the whole "Raygun was better" argument, not unless you want to again get into the %'s of spending, the lack of massive local govt layoffs this time around....yadda yadda...


Would be happy to compare Reagan results to Obama's for with Reagan you will see leadership whereas with Obama you get rhetoric, great vacations, and a lot of golf because the results sure don't warrant support.
 
I Would be happy to compare Reagan results to Obama's.
Jeebus onna stick If we could have a Reagun recovery it would be like freakin' nirvana Carter's malaise was bad (and so was Disco) but this Obamanation has gone on long enough
 
So, can we now say that Obama policies are making it worse for the poor, and middle class yet...?

I'm no fan of Obama's, but comparing numbers from 2005 to 2011 without indicating what happened in between seems disengenuous. For all we know, the numbers could have gone from 2.4 million to 3.2 million all before Obama took office, or perhaps were even higher than 3.2 million before Obama took office and have fallen since. I don't think Obama's handling of the economy and the debt/deficits has been anything to champion, but I don't think your country's been in a recession since the first months of his first term.
 
Now lets take a look at this no doubt Reagan had a crappy economy when he took office, but conservatives still deny the fact that he tripled the debt to get the U.S. out of it. Now Bush 1 was the best of the bunch and in all honesty wasnt that bad, Bush 2 do we really need to get into the corporate welfare he provided and the mountain of debt he added that caused a great deal of the problems. I think conservatives are a very funny bunch they only care about spending when the other guy is doing it not when the their guy is doing it. Our problems can be tracded way back to Reagan he wasnt innocent in this.
 
Jeebus onna stick If we could have a Reagun recovery it would be like freakin' nirvana Carter's malaise was bad (and so was Disco) but this Obamanation has gone on long enough

So Reagans tripling the debt was no problem 2 trillion in the 80's would be 10 trillion with inflation today. Plus he had a house that actuall gave a crap about the nation.
 
Now lets take a look at this no doubt Reagan had a crappy economy when he took office, but conservatives still deny the fact that he tripled the debt to get the U.S. out of it. Now Bush 1 was the best of the bunch and in all honesty wasnt that bad, Bush 2 do we really need to get into the corporate welfare he provided and the mountain of debt he added that caused a great deal of the problems. I think conservatives are a very funny bunch they only care about spending when the other guy is doing it not when the their guy is doing it. Our problems can be tracded way back to Reagan he wasnt innocent in this.

Let's see, Reagan took office with a 900 billion dollar debt and left it at 2.6 trillion dollars and in doing so created 17 million jobs. Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that today is almost 17 trillion dollars and we have 2 million fewer jobs than we had when the recession began, 177000 fewer unemployed than when he took office, and a labor force that hasn't kept up with population growth. Do you people really want to divert to Reagan rather than accept what most of us know, Obama is an empty suit and is making Carter look good.
 
So, can we now say that Obama policies are making it worse for the poor, and middle class yet...?

Well the American family should have just been a powerful banking institution and they would have gotten all the free money they could ever use and more.
 
So Reagans tripling the debt was no problem 2 trillion in the 80's would be 10 trillion with inflation today. Plus he had a house that actuall gave a crap about the nation.

That is a lie, 1.7 trillion would be 3.5 trillion today based upon inflation numbers. Keep trying to defend the indefensible. It would show maturity if you could just admit that Obama did to you what he did to most Americans that voted for him, made a fool out of you.
 
My, my we are still crawling out of the pit that GW Created? What leftwing site did you get that one from? You think adding 6.2 trillion to the debt, having GDP Growth less than 2%,having 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, and having almost 50 million Americans on food stamps over four years after the recession ended is strong economic performance and justifies your support for Obama? Do you really have such low expectations for a liberal President? Apparently so

First of all let me explain that I do not like the partisan bickering. A good debate, great. I actually joined this site to have my beliefs challenged because I value the truth and sound policies most.

I see your post as listing some current conditions but how does that address the cause? What policies of Obamas do you see as having "created" them?
 
$6 TRILLION DOLLARS in 5 years....*drops mic and exits stage*
And you limit your "argument" to aggregate spending, free from inflation, apples to apples comparison as a % of GDP or measuring that the debt was increased primarily by previous programs not funded by reduced revenue (from the recession) and not due to increased spending from new programs introduced by Obama.

Not that I would expect your argument to include fair analysis......you have an extreme agenda that compares 2005 numbers to 2011 ignoring the worst recession since 1929.

Seems like we have been over this a number of times.
 
The 80's were 'totally awesome' and the money he blew went to high paying defence jobs that finished off the cold war?
Have any of you libbiy's stopped to think just WHERE in the Sam Hill did the trillions of dollars Obummer blew went?

In this Universe matter is neither created or destroyed (so other than the debasement of the currency) where did that money all go?

You might wonder as you kiddies will be paying it off for decades to come?
 
First of all let me explain that I do not like the partisan bickering. A good debate, great. I actually joined this site to have my beliefs challenged because I value the truth and sound policies most.

I see your post as listing some current conditions but how does that address the cause? What policies of Obamas do you see as having "created" them?

What causes the Obama results? Lack of leadership, lack of understanding of the private sector economy, demonizing individual wealth creation, Obamacare. Obama has zero leadership skills and shows it by the "I won, you lost" rhetoric and totally shutting the GOP out in stimulus discussions and implementation, and by not forcing Harry Reid to bring the House bills passed that are sitting in his desk to the floor for debate. Obama campaigns with every speech, that isn't leadership.
 
Funny you should mention the great depression remember how it ended the morning of December Seventh Nineteen Forty One?
I'm so glad my Kid won't be going. We promise to have a great time while yer 'over there over there'
 
And you limit your "argument" to aggregate spending, free from inflation, apples to apples comparison as a % of GDP or measuring that the debt was increased primarily by previous programs not funded by reduced revenue (from the recession) and not due to increased spending from new programs introduced by Obama.

Not that I would expect your argument to include fair analysis......you have an extreme agenda that compares 2005 numbers to 2011 ignoring the worst recession since 1929.

Seems like we have been over this a number of times.

Really? So what were the Obama budgets in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and proposed for 2013? How much is Obamacare NOW projected to cost? What did the GM/Chrysler bailout cost? What was the cost of the Stimulus? How about those Afghanistan supplementals? How about the dividend from ending the war in Iraq? Keep ignoring reality
 
What causes the Obama results? Lack of leadership, lack of understanding of the private sector economy, demonizing individual wealth creation, Obamacare. Obama has zero leadership skills and shows it by the "I won, you lost" rhetoric and totally shutting the GOP out in stimulus discussions and implementation, and by not forcing Harry Reid to bring the House bills passed that are sitting in his desk to the floor for debate. Obama campaigns with every speech, that isn't leadership.

Those are opinions.
 
4hdq9i.jpg
 
Ah, I can always count on you Hatuey for the comedy relief....Not too much on substance, but comical none the less....:mrgreen:

My comedy is a thinly veiled shot at the general stupidity posted by some. ;)
 
Really? So what were the Obama budgets in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and proposed for 2013?
Um, the 2009 budget was primarily Bush's, Obama was responsible for @ 12% of the spending. The rest of them were "budgets".



How much is Obamacare NOW projected to cost? What did the GM/Chrysler bailout cost? What was the cost of the Stimulus? How about those Afghanistan supplementals? How about the dividend from ending the war in Iraq? Keep ignoring reality
I always enjoy seeing your 4 year old infantile debate technique of flooding the conversation with "what is", "how much", "what about" questions. It is cute. The problem is that we have gone over this countless times and you end up losing the argument....you just can't remember.
 
Back
Top Bottom