• 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!

U.S. Employers Add 169k jobs

You say ignorance last time I checked the debt was 12 trillion before Obama took office. Plus had Bush stayed on the path that was laid down by Clinton we would have very little debt. So who is really being ignorant??? Bush and Republicans from his era are the main causes of the debt or do you forget the wasted money on the wars. Medicare part d, and the tax cuts that produced nothing except making his buddies very wealthy.

Which of those terrible Bush policies, that you mentioned, has Obama reversed? It never ceases to amaze me that when Obama keeps 98.6% of Bush policy it becomes OK. Are the 1% not still getting everything they had under Bush?
 
You say ignorance last time I checked the debt was 12 trillion before Obama took office. Plus had Bush stayed on the path that was laid down by Clinton we would have very little debt. So who is really being ignorant??? Bush and Republicans from his era are the main causes of the debt or do you forget the wasted money on the wars. Medicare part d, and the tax cuts that produced nothing except making his buddies very wealthy.

Please cite the source that shows the debt when Obama took office to be 12 trillion dollars because the Treasury which is the only source that matters shows it to be 10.6 trillion?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

As a newbie in this forum it will help you if you posted sources for your data, credible sources and not more opinion pieces that are created to brainwash people like you. Obama has done nothing to lower the debt or the deficit and in fact actually was the person that signed the Bush budget of 2009 in March 2009 after adding things like the stimulus, supplementalts to fund Afghanistan, the take over of GM/Chrysler, AIG funding. The Bush budget had a projected deficit of less than 500 billion. Every year after that Obama had trillion dollar deficits.
 
Please cite the source that shows the debt when Obama took office to be 12 trillion dollars because the Treasury which is the only source that matters shows it to be 10.6 trillion?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

As a newbie in this forum it will help you if you posted sources for your data, credible sources and not more opinion pieces that are created to brainwash people like you. Obama has done nothing to lower the debt or the deficit and in fact actually was the person that signed the Bush budget of 2009 in March 2009 after adding things like the stimulus, supplementalts to fund Afghanistan, the take over of GM/Chrysler, AIG funding. The Bush budget had a projected deficit of less than 500 billion. Every year after that Obama had trillion dollar deficits.

No fair using facts. The acceptable thing (to Obamatrons) is to use all things pre-recovery as being Bush caused. The fact that Bush tax policy "caused" the recession and yet was also present, untouched by Obama, during the recovery is to be ignored. You must accept bias as fact or these arguments tend to fall apart rather easily.
 
No fair using facts. The acceptable thing (to Obamatrons) is to use all things pre-recovery as being Bush caused. The fact that Bush tax policy "caused" the recession and yet was also present, untouched by Obama, during the recovery is to be ignored. You must accept bias as fact or these arguments tend to fall apart rather easily.

You got me, so sorry, I have to stop using verifiable non partisan sources when dealing with Obamabots. We all know that data is irrelevant and that feelings trump that data in their world. We all know that GW Bush somehow got back into the WH and sold Obama on keeping his policies so that he will always have someone else to blame for his own economic results.
 
The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart - Forbes


Umm it pretty much common knowledge. Plus you are sighting jobs created. You do realize Reagan almost tripled the debt in doing so. Plus income disparity started getting out of control under him. Which was his handlers sole premise. Not saying Clinton didn't have a hand in it as well. However Republicans are the worst about it and what is really sick is they think they had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why they want history books rewritten, 50 years from now will the bible say Reagan died on the cross for your sins??? You live in a state where income equality is at a record low or are you just blind to that fact? It called serfdom and that is what the rich want and they paid a lot to get it.

Reagan didn't triple the debt.
 
Please cite the source that shows the debt when Obama took office to be 12 trillion dollars because the Treasury which is the only source that matters shows it to be 10.6 trillion?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

As a newbie in this forum it will help you if you posted sources for your data, credible sources and not more opinion pieces that are created to brainwash people like you. Obama has done nothing to lower the debt or the deficit and in fact actually was the person that signed the Bush budget of 2009 in March 2009 after adding things like the stimulus, supplementalts to fund Afghanistan, the take over of GM/Chrysler, AIG funding. The Bush budget had a projected deficit of less than 500 billion. Every year after that Obama had trillion dollar deficits.

Hmmm considering Bush budget of 2009 which he signed? The simple facts are you are projecting some of Bushes bad decision on Obama. Plus you post mostly right wing nonsence. So what is your defence for Reagan and Bush. Obama got a bad hand dealt to him in 2009. Worse than Reagan even though the right love to paint a different picture. Obama has curbed spending and growth of the budget. There are many charts and stats to prove that not like you would even look at them.


AIG that was Bushes final nail in the coffin he put America in!b You cannot pin that one on Obama unless you want to blame 9/11 on Obama as well.

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?


So sorry to burst your bubble also with the whole you are "new" here has no difference to the discussion it a deflection by you because simply Conservative have no business taking about the debt because they are to blame for a huge majority of it. That much is fact.
 
Yes, Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion dollars and we got a peace dividend out of that, doubling of GDP, 60% increase in Income tax revenue, and 17 million jobs. Not a bad return on that investment. Wonder what the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt vs. the 6.4 trillion Obama debt?

You and others like you just don't get it and probably never will. The rest of us will be paying for that ignorance for a long time. Doubt seriously you were around in the 80's or old enough to understand what Reagan inherited. Too bad you and others like you are spending so much time demonizing Reagan that you are ignoring that this country was built on equal opportunity not equal outcome.

Again, no, he didn't triple the debt. Congress (democrat run) AND Reagan tripled the debt. They also passed economic policies which allowed the economy to grow at an amazing rate.
 
Came closer to tripling than he did doubling it!!! Big spend conservatives!!! Next you are gonna say Bush ran a surplus

No, but they were on track to.

Deficit

2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701

My point though, was that Presidents don't do it alone. I don't blame Obama entirely for the massive debts and deficits. Congress has to pass the bills first.
 
US employers add 169K jobs, rate falls to 7.3 percent | Fox News

Congratulations Barack Obama and liberals on the 7.3% unemployment rate where over 300k dropped out of the labor force, 866,000 people became discouraged, the labor participation rate dropped to a 35 year low at 63.2%, and zero construction jobs were created. This booming Obama economy is staggering. Revisions to previous months jobs creation also occurred as 74k jobs were adjusted downward. Wonder when Obamabots are ever going to admit that Obamanomics is a disaster.

The new liberal normal, higher part time employment, lower labor participation rate, high discouraged workers, stagnant economic growth, and high debt. Welcome to that European economic model.

How much of the lower work force is accounted for with 300,000 people leaving for Social Security.
 
Reagan didn't triple the debt.

technically yes, he did, 900 billion to 2.6 trillion during his term but what we got for it made it worth it, something liberals will never understand.
 
Hmmm considering Bush budget of 2009 which he signed? The simple facts are you are projecting some of Bushes bad decision on Obama. Plus you post mostly right wing nonsence. So what is your defence for Reagan and Bush. Obama got a bad hand dealt to him in 2009. Worse than Reagan even though the right love to paint a different picture. Obama has curbed spending and growth of the budget. There are many charts and stats to prove that not like you would even look at them.


AIG that was Bushes final nail in the coffin he put America in!b You cannot pin that one on Obama unless you want to blame 9/11 on Obama as well.

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?


So sorry to burst your bubble also with the whole you are "new" here has no difference to the discussion it a deflection by you because simply Conservative have no business taking about the debt because they are to blame for a huge majority of it. That much is fact.

Please, you are new here so tell me this is an act? Show me where the Bush budget was passed by Congress, you cannot because it wasn't. we operated on continuing resolutions until March 2009 when Obama signed that budget after adding to it. Those are the facts so if you want any credibility then do research before you post. I learned a long time ago to "Trust but verify" and if you adopted that attitude you will be more successful.

Unlike you, I understand the U.S. economy and how the private sector works. Both Bush and Reagan believed in the private sector and the American people, Obama believes in the American govt being the solution to everyone else's problems. There are no consequences for failure in Obama's world.

I asked you to cite your data and you come up with this, more opinions with nothing substantive. Where did Obama curb spending? When did Obama propose less spending than Bush or less spending than the year before? The current Obama budget was for 3.77 trillion dollars and that is an increase over last year's spending.

You are right, AIG was part of the TARP bailout which I was against but Obama supported. Obama then put that bailout on steroids and added more to it.

I gave you the link to the Treasury Data which obviously you ignored. what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
Hmmm considering Bush budget of 2009 which he signed? The simple facts are you are projecting some of Bushes bad decision on Obama. Plus you post mostly right wing nonsence. So what is your defence for Reagan and Bush. Obama got a bad hand dealt to him in 2009. Worse than Reagan even though the right love to paint a different picture. Obama has curbed spending and growth of the budget. There are many charts and stats to prove that not like you would even look at them.


AIG that was Bushes final nail in the coffin he put America in!b You cannot pin that one on Obama unless you want to blame 9/11 on Obama as well.

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?


So sorry to burst your bubble also with the whole you are "new" here has no difference to the discussion it a deflection by you because simply Conservative have no business taking about the debt because they are to blame for a huge majority of it. That much is fact.

Please, you are new here so tell me this is an act? Show me where the Bush budget was passed by Congress, you cannot because it wasn't. we operated on continuing resolutions until March 2009 when Obama signed that budget after adding to it. Those are the facts so if you want any credibility then do research before you post. I learned a long time ago to "Trust but verify" and if you adopted that attitude you will be more successful.

Unlike you, I understand the U.S. economy and how the private sector works. Both Bush and Reagan believed in the private sector and the American people, Obama believes in the American govt being the solution to everyone else's problems. There are no consequences for failure in Obama's world.

I asked you to cite your data and you come up with this, more opinions with nothing substantive. Where did Obama curb spending? When did Obama propose less spending than Bush or less spending than the year before? The current Obama budget was for 3.77 trillion dollars and that is an increase over last year's spending.

You are right, AIG was part of the TARP bailout which I was against but Obama supported. Obama then put that bailout on steroids and added more to it.

I gave you the link to the Treasury Data which obviously you ignored. what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
How much of the lower work force is accounted for with 300,000 people leaving for Social Security.

Oh, come on now, how many people joined the work force to offset those claiming SS? How many people eligible for SS postponed retirement because they couldn't live on SS and their nestegg has been destroyed by the Obama economy? Do better research.
 
Came closer to tripling than he did doubling it!!! Big spend conservatives!!! Next you are gonna say Bush ran a surplus

Question for you, when you buy a house what does that do to your debt? What did we get for that 1.7 trillion dollars in debt that Reagan is responsible for and why is it that 1.7 trillion added to the debt is worse than 6.4 trillion added to the debt? When you bought that house your assets went up, when the govt. got that 1.7 trillion in debt it got a peace dividend and 17 million new income earners thus taxpayers? What did we get for the Obama debt?
 
Sorry, don't buy it, the problem today is lack of leadership and a very poor economic plan. The stimulus failed because it did nothing to promote the private sector growth, Obamacare is a job killer, and our vacationing/golf playing President doesn't have the leadership skills to bring the two parties together. There was no war in 81-82 during a worse recession than this one but Reagan leadership and positive attitude brought us out of it quickly and created 17 million jobs.

What you are seeing today is what happens when people think with their hearts and elect a totally unqualified community agitator to the highest office in the land. This "do as I say, not as I do" President is incompetent and a disaster.

I did not say Obama had made things much better and his handling of a number of issues has been bad. The introduction of Obamacare, when the country is on the brink of recession was economic stupidity. That does not mean, however, that the crisis in which we are is his doing. It is not. It has been developing for two decades.
 
I did not say Obama had made things much better and his handling of a number of issues has been bad. The introduction of Obamacare, when the country is on the brink of recession was economic stupidity. That does not mean, however, that the crisis in which we are is his doing. It is not. It has been developing for two decades.

The crisis we have today show lack of leadership and lack of any ability to unite this country. If you believe this country is more divided today than it was in the 80's you are mistaken. Reagan leadership and positive attitude led us out of that recession, which by the way was a double dip, and united this country like it was never united before. That is what good leadership will do.

Reagan promoted the greatness of this country, Obama apologizes for it.

Reagan promoted individual wealth creation and the private sector, Obama promotes massive growth in govt. and makes excuses for human failures.

Reagan created a positive economic agenda whereas Obama is promoting the entitlement society.

There is a real conflict here today thus Obama is the problem not the solution.
 
The crisis we have today show lack of leadership and lack of any ability to unite this country. If you believe this country is more divided today than it was in the 80's you are mistaken. Reagan leadership and positive attitude led us out of that recession, which by the way was a double dip, and united this country like it was never united before. That is what good leadership will do.

Reagan promoted the greatness of this country, Obama apologizes for it.

Reagan promoted individual wealth creation and the private sector, Obama promotes massive growth in govt. and makes excuses for human failures.

Reagan created a positive economic agenda whereas Obama is promoting the entitlement society.

There is a real conflict here today thus Obama is the problem not the solution.

You cite much of the Reagan myth yet ignore much of the Reagan reality:

But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Though his budgets requested some cuts in some areas of discretionary spending, Reagan rapidly retreated and never seriously pushed them. As Lou Cannon, the Washington Post reporter who covered Reagan's political career for 25 years, put it in his masterful biography, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, "For all the fervor they created, the first-term Reagan budgets were mild manifestos devoid of revolutionary purpose. They did not seek to 'rebuild the foundation of our society' (the task Reagan set for himself and Congress in a nationally televised speech of February 5, 1981) or even to accomplish the 'sharp reduction in the spending growth trend' called for in [his] Economic Recovery Plan." By Reagan's second term, the idea of seriously diminishing the budget was, to quote Stockman, "an institutionalized fantasy." Though in speeches Reagan continued to repeat his bold pledge to "get government out of the way of the people," government stayed pretty much where it was.

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

Also note that Reagan increased the U.S. national debt 188.6% during his eight year term.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
 
You cite much of the Reagan myth yet ignore much of the Reagan reality:



"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

Also note that Reagan increased the U.S. national debt 188.6% during his eight year term.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

I didn't forget, just didn't find it important because debt without positive results is more of a problem than debt with positive results. It was Reagan leadership that got us out of the recession and it was what we are seeing today, the partisan attacks that hurt his second term agenda as well as his onset of Alzheimers that derailed his second term but that doesn't diminish the Reagan results but does provide fuel to those that don't understand those results.
 
I didn't forget, just didn't find it important because debt without positive results is more of a problem than debt with positive results. It was Reagan leadership that got us out of the recession and it was what we are seeing today, the partisan attacks that hurt his second term agenda as well as his onset of Alzheimers that derailed his second term but that doesn't diminish the Reagan results but does provide fuel to those that don't understand those results.

Whatever, that was the beginning of the huge federal nanny state (funded using massive borrowing) and it has grown rapidly ever since.
 
Whatever, that was the beginning of the huge federal nanny state (funded using massive borrowing) and it has grown rapidly ever since.

Not if you look where the govt spending was during that period of time in the Reagan budgets. Reagan stimulated the private sector and didn't promote the nanny state. All economic groups benefited from the Reagan economy. I lived and worked during that period of time and understand completely what he did. He motivated the American people and began the greatest economic boom in modern history coming off the worst recession since the Great Depression. The facts speak for themselves, 17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP, 60% increase in Govt. tax revenue due to the creation of those jobs. Oh, by the way, that Reagan debt created a peace dividend that was squandered by Clinton
 
Not if you look where the govt spending was during that period of time in the Reagan budgets. Reagan stimulated the private sector and didn't promote the nanny state. All economic groups benefited from the Reagan economy. I lived and worked during that period of time and understand completely what he did. He motivated the American people and began the greatest economic boom in modern history coming off the worst recession since the Great Depression. The facts speak for themselves, 17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP, 60% increase in Govt. tax revenue due to the creation of those jobs. Oh, by the way, that Reagan debt created a peace dividend that was squandered by Clinton

Whatever. You cite 60% tax growth yet federal gov't spending growth still exceeded that tax revenue growth. Our national debt problem is not caused by too little tax revenue, but by the gov't insisting on spending far above what it ever dare ask for via direct taxation.
 
Whatever. You cite 60% tax growth growth yet federal gov't spending growth still exceeded that tax revenue growth. Our national debt problem is caused by not too little tax revenue but by the gov't insisting on spending far above what it ever dare ask for via direct taxation.

Govt. spending was indeed too high but the benefits of that spending are what many here overlook. Reagan set a record for vetoes but in order to destroy the Soviet Union and stimulate the economy he had to compromise with Democrats who controlled the House. In spite, a 60% growth in Federal Income tax revenue with tax cuts is something that liberals want to ignore just like the growth in govt. revenue AFTER the Bush tax cuts. Economic activity is what grows revenue more than tax increases.
 
Whatever. You cite 60% tax growth yet federal gov't spending growth still exceeded that tax revenue growth. Our national debt problem is not caused by too little tax revenue, but by the gov't insisting on spending far above what it ever dare ask for via direct taxation.

Do you think we would be having this discussion if Obama created 17 million jobs and had a 1.7 trillion dollar debt? He would have been nominated for Sainthood.
 
Back
Top Bottom