• 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!

Republicans Lose Ground vs. Obama in the Shutdown Blame Game

Do you believe that the Interstates should be left to disrepair, with bridges falling in..
Why did Boehner's caucus stab him in the back on his TRAN. bill and Farm bill, when he tried to put them on the floor..Such as the very necessary project on the Ohio River..

Actually what I believe is that the excise taxes on gasoline be used to repair roads and bridges not put on budget and spent on other items including social programs. You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund. Liberals like you support the unified budget where all tax dollars including SS and Medicare go into the general fund and are spent on whatever the Congress and the President want regardless of their intent. What that did was take money from the roads and bridges and when money is needed it isn't there so the Democrats appeal to people like you who are so poorly informed that they don't understand where the money went

You think the Ohio River project was a social program?
 
TEArabble have blocked Boehner all year..
Actually what I believe is that the excise taxes on gasoline be used to repair roads and bridges
because this tax is always equal to the needs of the Natinn..Why do Cons support emergency funds in their states but not in blue ones..
when money is needed it isn't there so the Democrats appeal to people like you who are so poorly informed that they don't understand where the money went
feelings still hurt..
You think the Ohio River project was a social program?
Do you..Never thought I'd see the day when I wanted McConnell to win, just to save the Country until 2020, when we have another census election .
 
I seem to remember Bush being President from January 2001 - January 2009. 2003-2007 is HALF of his presidency. That's a great way to be taken seriously!

Let me rewrite your post for you. Private sector job creation was great under Bush in all of the months that it was great. Please don’t talk about the other half.

Bush inherited a recession and had 9/11. He had a split Congress from 2001-2003. Republicans Controlled the Congress from 2003-2007. What is a great way to be taken seriously is to put things into context something you and other liberals never do. Let me help you here, Bush had 52 straight months of private sector job growth but somehow that fact escapes you. We are talking about the 2006 election so I would be happy to take the economic results from January 21, 2001 to election day in 2006. You seem to have a comprehension problem. You have no idea what the economic numbers were from when he took office to November 2006 nor do you care. My point was there was no economic justification for the Republicans to lose the Congress and BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the Treasury make my point. Good example

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2001 to 2013

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

4.5% Unemployment rate and the Republicans lose Congress? It was all about Iraq and the media spin even though we were winning in Iraq.
 
TEArabble have blocked Boehner all year..because this tax is always equal to the needs of the Natinn..Why do Cons support emergency funds in their states but not in blue ones..feelings still hurt..Do you..Never thought I'd see the day when I wanted McConnell to win, just to save the Country until 2020, when we have another census election .

Teabaggers are Patriots, would love to be a T.E.A Party member. You really don't understand the unified budget, do you? Stop making a fool of yourself and do some research as to why were really don't have the money for highways, bridges, and infrastructure
 
Teabaggers are Patriots, would love to be a T.E.A Party member.
Thought this term Teabagger was offensive to you folks..why are you using it..I prefer TEAt, since more of them live off of it than Blue staters..
do some research as to why were really don't have the money for highways, bridges, and infrastructure
Tell that to the OTR truckers, or don't you care for your brethren..forgot you were fortune 500,000 .
 
Thought this term Teabagger was offensive to you folks.. Tell that to the OTR truckers, or don't you care for your brethren..forgot you were fortune 500,000 .

T.E.A. Party members are offensive to leftwing socialists.

I know of a trucker here on this board that understands exactly what I posted and why there isn't money for those bridges. You just don't seem to be bright enough to do the research to find out for yourself. It really is a shame for someone to be so brainwashed and rather scary. Try doing some research on the unified budget and find out where excise tax dollars went. You probably have no idea that highways, bridges are paid for by excise taxes paid at the time you fillup with gasoline. Find out where that money went.
 
Bush inherited a recession and had 9/11. He had a split Congress from 2001-2003. Republicans Controlled the Congress from 2003-2007. What is a great way to be taken seriously is to put things into context something you and other liberals never do. Let me help you here, Bush had 52 straight months of private sector job growth but somehow that fact escapes you. We are talking about the 2006 election so I would be happy to take the economic results from January 21, 2001 to election day in 2006. You seem to have a comprehension problem. You have no idea what the economic numbers were from when he took office to November 2006 nor do you care. My point was there was no economic justification for the Republicans to lose the Congress and BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the Treasury make my point. Good example



4.5% Unemployment rate and the Republicans lose Congress? It was all about Iraq and the media spin even though we were winning in Iraq.

That's a good point. Context is important. Bush inhereted a recession. Obama inhereted a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit.

Context.

Hmmm... it would seem that you seem to be the one unable to see "context" when it comes to people who disagree with you.
 
That's a good point. Context is important. Bush inhereted a recession. Obama inhereted a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit.

Context.

Hmmm... it would seem that you seem to be the one unable to see "context" when it comes to people who disagree with you.

No, bush* did not inherit a recession. It was over before he took office
 
That's a good point. Context is important. Bush inhereted a recession. Obama inhereted a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit.

Context.

Hmmm... it would seem that you seem to be the one unable to see "context" when it comes to people who disagree with you.

No he didn't inherit a deficit, he inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt. Deficits aren't inherited. The Bush Budget was never passed by Congress and never signed by Bush but that fact escapes you. Bush didn't create the 844 billion dollar stimulus plan of which 200 plus billion was spent in 2009. Bush didn't take over GM/Chrysler which was 52 billion dollars. Bush didn't create the Afghanistan supplementals of over 200 billion dollars spent in 2009, and Bush certainly wasn't able to credit the repayment of almost 250 billion dollars of TARP money repaid in fiscal year 2009. Add all those up and the Bush projected deficit would have been close to what he submitted in February 2008. You really are out of touch with reality and let the left make a fool out of you.

Please tell me why you want to continue this discussion which makes you look foolish. I can beat you up all day with the actual numbers, facts, logic, and common sense that you cannot counter. Are you that much in Obama's back pocket that you cannot see what he has done to this country and the economy? What is it about Obama that creates this kind of loyalty.
 
Bush inherited a recession and had 9/11. He had a split Congress from 2001-2003. Republicans Controlled the Congress from 2003-2007. What is a great way to be taken seriously is to put things into context something you and other liberals never do. Let me help you here, Bush had 52 straight months of private sector job growth but somehow that fact escapes you. We are talking about the 2006 election so I would be happy to take the economic results from January 21, 2001 to election day in 2006. You seem to have a comprehension problem. You have no idea what the economic numbers were from when he took office to November 2006 nor do you care. My point was there was no economic justification for the Republicans to lose the Congress and BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the Treasury make my point. Good example



4.5% Unemployment rate and the Republicans lose Congress? It was all about Iraq and the media spin even though we were winning in Iraq.

Also, for the record the private sector job performance of the last 15 years has been mainly influenced by the advances in international communication. This has greatly increased the ease of outsourcing. The average US worker is no longer insulated from the rest of the world.

20 years ago, it was better to be a C student in the US than a genious in China. That's no longer the case, and the employment picture reflects that.

The policies that influence job growth in the US aren't ones that were implemented last week, last year, or last president. They're the educational policies implmented 20-40 years ago. If you want to compete in todays job market, you need to compete on an international level... .our primary and secondary education systems fail in that regard.

Context...
 
Really? Have you told that to NBER? Recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001 but I guess you know best.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Do liberals ever apologize and admit when they are wrong?

You're right. The recession didn't end before bush* took office - it hadn't even begun!! :lamo

bush* inherited a growing economy. Thanks for pointing that out
 
No he didn't inherit a deficit, he inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt. Deficits aren't inherited. The Bush Budget was never passed by Congress and never signed by Bush but that fact escapes you. Bush didn't create the 844 billion dollar stimulus plan of which 200 plus billion was spent in 2009. Bush didn't take over GM/Chrysler which was 52 billion dollars. Bush didn't create the Afghanistan supplementals of over 200 billion dollars spent in 2009, and Bush certainly wasn't able to credit the repayment of almost 250 billion dollars of TARP money repaid in fiscal year 2009. Add all those up and the Bush projected deficit would have been close to what he submitted in February 2008. You really are out of touch with reality and let the left make a fool out of you.

Please tell me why you want to continue this discussion which makes you look foolish. I can beat you up all day with the actual numbers, facts, logic, and common sense that you cannot counter. Are you that much in Obama's back pocket that you cannot see what he has done to this country and the economy? What is it about Obama that creates this kind of loyalty.

CBO Fiscal Outlook 2009-2017
This is what Obama inhereted. And fiscal years are Oct-Sept, not January- Dec

How do you do it? Seriously. How the hell can you hold such ridiculously contrasting ideas in your head and still consider yourself to be a thinking person? On one hand you blame Clinton for the first 2 years of the Bush administration, while simultaneously holding Obama responsible for the year BEFORE he even took office. It's staggering. And then you rant on about how I don't understand context. Sign...

I'm just glad the Tea Party nutters will never be able to use the debt ceiling again as leverage. It seems like the President can now raise the debt ceiling without congress. (sometimes it's good to be able to read)

But please, continue to make me look 'foolish'.
(PS. I do not think this word means what you think it means)
 
You're right. The recession didn't end before bush* took office - it hadn't even begun!! :lamo

bush* inherited a growing economy. Thanks for pointing that out

The recession started over the uncertanty in the 2001 election. I remember that being one of the reasons Gore was pressured to leave. Every day the recount dragged on, the stock market dropped lower.
 
No he didn't inherit a deficit, he inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt. Deficits aren't inherited. The Bush Budget was never passed by Congress and never signed by Bush but that fact escapes you..

The latest I heard and saw is 1.2 trillion of the deficit was Bush's in BHO's 2009 budget, compared to the overall 1.4 trillion deficit ..
And please don't try to hijack the brilliant budget given to Bush-43 in 2001 by brother Bubba .
 
Thomas Sowell: Who shut down the government?
Oct. 12, 2013 @ 07:55 PM

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether Obamacare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
Obamacare is indeed “the law of the land,” as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer Obamacare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — “wants to shut down the government.” But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for Obamacare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a “clean” bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word “clean” like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Sen. Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of “legislation by appropriation” as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.
 
You're right. The recession didn't end before bush* took office - it hadn't even begun!! :lamo

bush* inherited a growing economy. Thanks for pointing that out

LOL. That took a lot of work.

You got it wrong the first time. Then you went completely opposite of your first mistake and made another mistake.

Only a leftist could pull such off.
 
You're right. The recession didn't end before bush* took office - it hadn't even begun!! :lamo

bush* inherited a growing economy. Thanks for pointing that out

Amazing, isn't it, the mere fact that Bush won the election, had no economic plan in place, took office on January 21 and we go into recession in March? Where does the DNC get people like you?
 
CBO Fiscal Outlook 2009-2017
This is what Obama inhereted. And fiscal years are Oct-Sept, not January- Dec

How do you do it? Seriously. How the hell can you hold such ridiculously contrasting ideas in your head and still consider yourself to be a thinking person? On one hand you blame Clinton for the first 2 years of the Bush administration, while simultaneously holding Obama responsible for the year BEFORE he even took office. It's staggering. And then you rant on about how I don't understand context. Sign...

I'm just glad the Tea Party nutters will never be able to use the debt ceiling again as leverage. It seems like the President can now raise the debt ceiling without congress. (sometimes it's good to be able to read)

But please, continue to make me look 'foolish'.
(PS. I do not think this word means what you think it means)

I don't know how many times I have to dispel this bs on the part of liberals even though none of it makes a difference today. CBO makes projections, the Treasury Dept spends the money. Barack Obama with his spending that I outlined and you ignored made the CBO projections more accurate knowing that people like you would buy the rhetoric and blame Bush. I suggest you figure out how Bush created that spending after leaving office.

I really suggest that you get some help with reading comprehension. I stated the facts, I never blamed Clinton for anything, the recession was due to the Clinton economic policies and budget plan which he did sign and authorize. I blame Obama for the results generated during his term just like I blame Bush for the numbers he had during his term. I am not sure what you are trying to prove but what you are proving is that you are a partisan hack looking for a fight. My discussion was regarding the GOP losing the Congress in 2006 and the economic results from January 2001 to November 2006. The numbers I posted are accurate, you simply aren't smart enough to understand them or even respond to them.

I know you are glad that the President can spend whatever he wants because from what I see from you, you need big govt. as you will never be able to compete in a free market. This the education you are getting in school?


Don't worry, I will continue to make you look foolish even though you won't understand it.
 
The National Debt double under President Reagan. Has Obama managed to double the National Debt under his watch? If not, is he going to before his term is over?

vasuderatorrent
 
The latest I heard and saw is 1.2 trillion of the deficit was Bush's in BHO's 2009 budget, compared to the overall 1.4 trillion deficit ..
And please don't try to hijack the brilliant budget given to Bush-43 in 2001 by brother Bubba .

LOL, so it was Bush's deficit in the Obama budget? wow, no wonder they created the term Obamabot., I suggest you take the spending that Obama generated in 2009 which I outlined and subtract that from the deficit then credit the deficit with the TARP money repaid that Obama recycled and see what you come up with. Feel free to seek some help with the addition and subtraction
 
The National Debt double under President Reagan. Has Obama managed to double the National Debt under his watch? If not, is he going to before his term is over?

vasuderatorrent

LOL, you are probably right but Reagan actually tripled the debt taking it from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion increase. Obama did a lot better taking it from 10.6 trillion to 17 trillion because the percentage change is so much better. That is liberal logic. Doesn't matter that the debt service on 1.7 trillion isn't even close to the debt service on 6.4 trillion. The issue is what Reagan generated and what Obama generated in percentage change, Reagan Bad, Obama good.
 
It didn't work out well because many like you ignored the results and focused on the media spin and liberal lies especially about Iraq. Bush lost the Congress in 2006 because of Iraq not because of the economy. I defy you to post the economic results prior to the 2006 elections to make your point?

So you think that Dubya wasn't responsible for the last two years of his Presidency?
 
So you think that Dubya wasn't responsible for the last two years of his Presidency?

That wasn't the discussion or the challenge created. The issue was the Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006. What I posted were the economic results that showed there was no economic justification for that take over by the Democrats. The economic numbers for January 2001 to November 2006 were stellar.
 
Back
Top Bottom