• 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]

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.

That number seems very low so I have to ask where is your proof? Plus Reagan just did not spend 1.7 trillion more like 2.2 trillion.
 
Gimmesometruth;1062241353]Um, the 2009 budget was primarily Bush's, Obama was responsible for @ 12% of the spending. The rest of them were "budgets".

The Bush budget was never passed by the Democrat controlled Congress but was signed by Obama in March 2009 after adding to it. From October 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 the country operated on continuing resolutions and did not add up to a trillion dollars in deficits


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.

Yes, and you still don't get it, Obama has been in office almost 5 years now and his economic results are a disaster due to poor leadership and poor economic policies. He is too busy campaigning for the job he has vs. doing his job and at least trying to show leadership. Leadership is about working with both sides, not campaigning.
 
That number seems very low so I have to ask where is your proof? Plus Reagan just did not spend 1.7 trillion more like 2.2 trillion.

Use the inflation calculator at BLS. the 1.7 trillion debt in 1988 would be 3.3 trillion today. Reagan took office with a 900 billion debt according to the Treasury and left it at 2.6 trillion, that is 1.7 trillion
 
The debt? What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?
 
I will look at this. Just to clarify, my post was referring to federal budget surplus when Bush came into office

Again, there was a projected surplus, no actual surplus when Bush took office but that projected surplus was eaten up by the recession that Bush inherited and 9/11. The Treasury dept shows Clinton had a deficit every year in office thus no surplus. That treasury data will show it.
 
Grant frankly his ability to completely wreck the economy hasn't really worked out as I'd thought it would
It must be that pesky party of No that is standing in his way eh?
 
Again, there was a projected surplus, no actual surplus when Bush took office but that projected surplus was eaten up by the recession that Bush inherited and 9/11. The Treasury dept shows Clinton had a deficit every year in office thus no surplus. That treasury data will show it.

Try to ignore the title of the article if you can:

Am I confused (sincere question)

Report shows how Bush destroyed the American economy - Rochester Independent | Examiner.com

According to the Bush Administration’s own records, when Bush was elected in 2000, he inherited a federal budget surplus of $236 billion from the Clinton Administration.

In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion."

Office of Management and Budget
Fiscal Year 2002 Guide
The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
But in 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, the federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion almost triple the $161.5 billion recorded in fiscal year 2007.
 
I did love how the 'projected surplus' was touted as a real surplus
hell it's almost as comical as the idiots that believe we are in a real recovery now?
 
Try to ignore the title of the article if you can:

Am I confused (sincere question)

Report shows how Bush destroyed the American economy - Rochester Independent | Examiner.com

According to the Bush Administration’s own records, when Bush was elected in 2000, he inherited a federal budget surplus of $236 billion from the Clinton Administration.

In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion."

Office of Management and Budget
Fiscal Year 2002 Guide
The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
But in 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, the federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion almost triple the $161.5 billion recorded in fiscal year 2007.

I am sorry but budget surpluses are yearly and the fiscal year of the U.S. Govt. runs from October to September. Fiscal year 2000 ended on September 30, 2000 and there was no surplus in fiscal year 2000. Clinton was in office from October 1, 2000 to January 21, 2001 and there was no surplus there either. I gave you the link to the Treasury data so please show me any surplus in 2000 or 2001? It was a projected surplus, not an actual one and that was based upon strong economic growth not the recession that began in March 2001 before Bush had any economic policies in place.

Maybe this will help you understand it.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
 
I don't' know how old she is so who knows what she was doing in the 90's or who was really responsible for cutting government spending then
I'm sure it was slick willie right I mean am I right?
 
Grant frankly his ability to completely wreck the economy hasn't really worked out as I'd thought it would
It must be that pesky party of No that is standing in his way eh?

The real scary idea, AOG, is, Is he doing it deliberately?? Maybe it's incompetence, I'm not sure, but I'm hoping that's the case.
 
I dunno after reading Dreams of my Father I'd have to think it is all intentional but you know:
"That's just how white folks will do you"
 
That's the problem with the left, they see a statistic and blame one thing, Bush, for doing it. Doesn't work that way when he's not in office anymore and o'loser hasn't changed a thing - but in fact has made it worse.


Not unless you can show that it's Obamas policies and nothing else.

That's the problem on the right, you get data and than try to place blame on ONE THING, Obama. Doesn't work that way there are MANY factors in play.
 
That's the problem with the left, they see a statistic and blame one thing, Bush, for doing it. Doesn't work that way when he's not in office anymore and o'loser hasn't changed a thing - but in fact has made it worse.

I see you didn't read my post #6. I clearly said I don't agree with those on the left that just blamed Bush for everything. Nice try though.
 
#1 Why would you say this reflects on Obama?
2005 was Pre Recession. The recession began well before Obama took office and many believe that we are still feeling it's effects. Comparing current data to 2005 is completely worthless.

#2 Why would you call the policies currently implemented, "Obama's Policy's"? How many of Obama's policies have actually been implemented?
Aside from a stimulus and a tax cut, the only significant policy that Obama has managed to get past the "Party of NO" is O'Romney-Care.
A republican policy, regardless of current opinions.

Our government has been frozen for 6 years.
Least productive Congress of all American History.
More nominees filibustered than all previous Presidents combined.
More vacant positions than any time in recorded history.

We are not living under Obama's policies. We are living under the policy of NO.

#3 See Number 1

It absolutely reflects onto Obama, just as all Presidents are held responsible for the health of the economies that happen under their watch

Obama-Care is a policy that has had terrible economic repercussions on this economy, not to mention the increased regulatory control forced through via Obama's EPA.

Obama's incompetence and his lack of leadership abillity are on full display, and it takes a person who's economically ignorant and ideologically stunted to not see that.

His entire economy is being held up in TRILLIONS of the FEDs QE. His jobs numbers are constantly released minus the context of participation data and the GDP numbers under Obama are pathetic.

We really need to address the idiot voter issue we have in this country,because its tanking our economy.
 
We really need to address the idiot voter issue we have in this country,because its tanking our economy.

THIS, I agree with. In fact, I discuss it each and every day.
 
We really need to address the idiot voter issue we have in this country,because its tanking our economy.

And what do you suggest? Let me guess, you think only GOP candidates should be allowed right?
 
And what do you suggest? Let me guess, you think only GOP candidates should be allowed right?

Simple literacy test and if your dependent on Government in any way you lose your right to vote.

Look where idiot voters have gotten us.

Allowing the least of our society to steer this Country into the ground.

Its NOT going to end well and especially for the people who are sucseptable to political manipulation and Democrat false narratives and plattitudes.
 
Back
Top Bottom