• 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!

Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

Ok, so you didn't agree with what Bush did, and his poll numbers were justified in your eyes, I understand, and I agree that Obama's numbers are of his own making, even though you come dangerously close to deflecting away from that by trying to make the thread about Iraq, Obama is the president now, and he has worse approval ratings at this point than Bush had at this point...Says a lot don't you think?

Yes, it says that the people of this great democracy need to wise up and select a leader who can lead for once, regardless of whether that leader is a he or a she, a Democrat or Republican, black or white.
 
they had no choice thanks to CRA. Ultimately no loan is made unless the borrower signs on the dotted line.

CRA doesn't force banks to lend.
 
Yeah, isn't Obama's schemes of payback, and bail out of too big to fail just grand? IIRC, his biggest donor was Goldman Sach's right?

It says much about the financial health of the nation. Bush's Treasury secretary allowed Lehman to fail, under the guise of "No more bailouts!!!". Only to get on his knees and beg the democrats to pass TARP.
 
It certainly did, it required banks make loans to people that normally wouldn't qualify.

Nope!

Try actually reading the legislation. It forces banks that take deposits in lower income zip codes to review mortgage applications of the people in said LIZC as they would in a higher income zip code.

There is no debate.
 
Yes, it says that the people of this great democracy need to wise up and select a leader who can lead for once, regardless of whether that leader is a he or a she, a Democrat or Republican, black or white.


On that we can agree old friend...
 
It says much about the financial health of the nation. Bush's Treasury secretary allowed Lehman to fail, under the guise of "No more bailouts!!!". Only to get on his knees and beg the democrats to pass TARP.

Yep, He did, and that was wrong. But then Obama came in and as most progressive liberals do, figure out what can be used to their advantage, and further their agenda, and put it on steroids.
 
In fact the debt grew during Clinton's Presidency which means he borrowed the money in order to meet a budget and have a surplus.
That means nothing of the sort. It simply means that the debt grew under his Presidency. That does not in any way diminish the fact that fiscal surpluses did indeed occur under his tenure. Also keep in mind that surplus funds in certain categories (FICA revenue) are required by law to be reinvested in US debt.
 
Nope!

Try actually reading the legislation. It forces banks that take deposits in lower income zip codes to review mortgage applications of the people in said LIZC as they would in a higher income zip code.

There is no debate.

:roll: Good grief....
 
That means nothing of the sort. It simply means that the debt grew under his Presidency. That does not in any way diminish the fact that fiscal surpluses did indeed occur under his tenure. Also keep in mind that surplus funds in certain categories (FICA revenue) are required by law to be reinvested in US debt.

Oh ok, so just so I understand....If you a351 borrow $10K but have $100.00 in the bank in a savings account, then by your logic, you have a surplus of $100.00. Right?
 
Oh ok, so just so I understand....If you a351 borrow $10K but have $100.00 in the bank in a savings account, then by your logic, you have a surplus of $100.00. Right?
Certainly not by my logic. Start with learning the difference between current account deficits and cumulative debt. Perhaps then you won't look quite as foolish.
 
Certainly not by my logic. Start with learning the difference between current account deficits and cumulative debt. Perhaps then you won't look quite as foolish.

Nope, that's all I had for you....One post and you lash out with insult, that shows me I've already won this debate with you...No need to go any further.
 
.. and corporations tell both parties who to choose.

Obama and Bush both had the same Puppetmaters.

Sounds like you made that stuff up.
 
'Ya know, this story didn't surprise me at all, since where it comes to our Constitution, Obama turned out to be Bush on steroids.
 
Nope, that's all I had for you....One post and you lash out with insult, that shows me I've already won this debate with you...No need to go any further.
Fiscal surpluses entail revenues exceeding outlays for the given year. The National Debt is an separate entity entirely and can in fact increase as a product of surplus FICA funds being reinvested into US debt.
 
Fiscal surpluses entail revenues exceeding outlays for the given year. The National Debt is an separate entity entirely and can in fact increase as a product of surplus FICA funds being reinvested into US debt.

Thank you anyway...I've seen the path you are prone to take, and have no interest in engaging you.
 
'Ya know, this story didn't surprise me at all, since where it comes to our Constitution, Obama turned out to be Bush on steroids.

Pretty much. I'll add in there is a "creepy" factor with Obama as well with the whole "Discuss Obamacare around the dinner table" that he and his wife have pushed.
 
Pretty much. I'll add in there is a "creepy" factor with Obama as well with the whole "Discuss Obamacare around the dinner table" that he and his wife have pushed.

That might be okay if you're not very hungry.
 
Back
Top Bottom