• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

Your state has no massive surpluses as your legislature continues to kick the can down the road. Your state is exactly what you want the country to become and that is a fiscal disaster with an entitlement mentality.

That is only the case now. I am not sure why the right insists on denying and disparaging Intelligent Design "theory" regarding commerce in drugs from potentially seed bearing plants.
 
That is only the case now. I am not sure why the right insists on denying and disparaging Intelligent Design "theory" regarding commerce in drugs from potentially seed bearing plants.

LOL, thanks for showing us who you really are
 
Sorry but you are totally and completely wrong
:lamo

No, no I'm not. Everything I said was correct, at least as far as a basic explanation of Social Security is concerned. I dare you to find any reputable sources which disputes my recounting of how Social Security works.

SS was supposed to be put into a Trust fund
No it was not. It couldn't be. When Social Security was passed, "benefits" needed to be paid out immediately, but since there were no funds with which to pay, money was taken directly from the workers and was then transferred to those receiving money. The Trust Fund wasn't even introduced until 1939, four years after the original passage of the legislation.

That worked so well that they decided to keep it there and other Administrations had fun spending the money as well.
Did you even read what I wrote? The money was borrowed, to protect from inflation. This is not hard to understand. Here, maybe you'll accept it from the Social Security website itself.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Social Security History

At the time when there were more workers than retirees that wasn't a problem but as is typical of the Federal Govt. they had no foresight at all and that is why we have trillions in unfunded liabilities today.
You still don't understand how Social Security works, even after I explained it to you. Amazing.

Seriously, just go research. The more research you do, the more you'll see I'm correct.

What you are buying is the liberal interpretation of SS not the original intent.
No, I'm simply speaking the truth. The fact you think the truth is a "liberal interpretation" is hilarious.

Amazing how liberal legislation gets changed and distorted over time.
What don't you understand? It was not, and is not, a retirement plan. Ignoring for a moment the fact you posted something which clearly states was proposed but NOT passed, even what you posted says nothing about a retirement plan. You don't pay into Social Security to get "your" money back later. You pay into Social Security to give money to retirees.

It's a social insurance program. It's a completely different concept.

As for the projected budget surplus please a simple yes or no, was TARP included in that projection?
Who cares, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We're talking about the budget deficit and the deficit was $1.2 before Obama even took office. Quit trying to distract from facts with irrelevant comments.
 
:lamo

No, no I'm not. Everything I said was correct, at least as far as a basic explanation of Social Security is concerned. I dare you to find any reputable sources which disputes my recounting of how Social Security works.

No it was not. It couldn't be. When Social Security was passed, "benefits" needed to be paid out immediately, but since there were no funds with which to pay, money was taken directly from the workers and was then transferred to those receiving money. The Trust Fund wasn't even introduced until 1939, four years after the original passage of the legislation.

Did you even read what I wrote? The money was borrowed, to protect from inflation. This is not hard to understand. Here, maybe you'll accept it from the Social Security website itself.


Social Security History

You still don't understand how Social Security works, even after I explained it to you. Amazing.

Seriously, just go research. The more research you do, the more you'll see I'm correct.

No, I'm simply speaking the truth. The fact you think the truth is a "liberal interpretation" is hilarious.

What don't you understand? It was not, and is not, a retirement plan. Ignoring for a moment the fact you posted something which clearly states was proposed but NOT passed, even what you posted says nothing about a retirement plan. You don't pay into Social Security to get "your" money back later. You pay into Social Security to give money to retirees.

It's a social insurance program. It's a completely different concept.

Who cares, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We're talking about the budget deficit and the deficit was $1.2 before Obama even took office. Quit trying to distract from facts with irrelevant comments.

You simply cannot admit you are wrong, do you know what a unified budget is?

SS on Budget

"On-Budget"-'

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.

As for the deficit, how did Bush have a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars when one, he didn't have a budget passed by Congress, and two he was only in office from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009? You didn't answer the question which is probably due to the fact that you have no idea what a projection is. Did the CBO PROJECTION include the TARP Loans? The fact that you won't answer is indeed the answer.
 
You simply cannot admit you are wrong
Because I'm not.

do you know what a unified budget is?
Yes, it was in the link I already gave to you. You obviously didn't read the source:

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Social Security History

You're wrong. Even the official Social Security website says you're wrong. Hell, they even say it in two different places.

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program


The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.


The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Social Security History

These are direct quotes from the Social Security website. You are making provably incorrect statements.


As for the deficit, how did Bush have a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars when one, he didn't have a budget passed by Congress
Because spending is based on "proposed" budgets. Are you really telling me that, for fiscal year 2009 (which was from October 2008 until September 2009), the United States government didn't spend any money from October until January? That's an asinine position.

What Obama signed at the end of the fiscal year was spending adopted under Bush, which started in October 2008 before Obama was even elected, plus the couple hundred extra billion dollars incurred as part of his plan to recover the economy for a total of $1.4t in deficits. This is simple common knowledge.

EDIT: Hell, here's a link to the news of the spending bill Bush signed in September 2008, as well as a link to the actual bill.

News: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-30-spending-bill_N.htm
Bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr2638enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr2638enr.pdf
and two he was only in office from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009?
That's exactly the point. Bush was in office and it was under Bush that fiscal year spending was allocated. Why is this hard for you to understand?

You didn't answer the question which is probably due to the fact that you have no idea what a projection is. Did the CBO PROJECTION include the TARP Loans? The fact that you won't answer is indeed the answer.
I'm not answering because you're trying to distract from the issue. And you're trying to distract from the issue because you have been proven wrong every step of the way. I repeat, PROVEN wrong. It's not a simple "my political theory versus yours", you've been PROVEN wrong every step of the way.

But instead of admitting your faulty position (because then you couldn't regurgitate it later with any credibility) you just keep trying to deflect the issues. The fact is you are wrong. We both know it.
 
Last edited:
Because I'm not.

Yes, it was in the link I already gave to you. You obviously didn't read the source:


Social Security History

You're wrong. Even the official Social Security website says you're wrong. Hell, they even say it in two different places.


Social Security History

These are direct quotes from the Social Security website. You are making provably incorrect statements.


Because spending is based on "proposed" budgets. Are you really telling me that, for fiscal year 2009 (which was from October 2008 until September 2009), the United States government didn't spend any money from October until January? That's an asinine position.

What Obama signed at the end of the fiscal year was spending adopted under Bush, which started in October 2008 before Obama was even elected, plus the couple hundred extra billion dollars incurred as part of his plan to recover the economy for a total of $1.4t in deficits. This is simple common knowledge.

EDIT: Hell, here's a link to the news of the spending bill Bush signed in September 2008, as well as a link to the actual bill.

News: Bush signs sprawling spending bill - USATODAY.com
Bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr2638enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr2638enr.pdf
That's exactly the point. Bush was in office and it was under Bush that fiscal year spending was allocated. Why is this hard for you to understand?

I'm not answering because you're trying to distract from the issue. And you're trying to distract from the issue because you have been proven wrong every step of the way. I repeat, PROVEN wrong. It's not a simple "my political theory versus yours", you've been PROVEN wrong every step of the way.

But instead of admitting your faulty position (because then you couldn't regurgitate it later with any credibility) you just keep trying to deflect the issues. The fact is you are wrong. We both know it.

We aren't talking about the Trust fund, we are talking about a unified budget. When you go to the budget of the United States, tell me why there is a line item for Medicare and SS?

Your link doesn't address that issue at all. Look you want to discuss SS and want me to prove you wrong, start an new OP, this OP is about unemployment and job creation.

No, TARP was included in the CBO Projections which is why we had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit PROJECTION, 750 billion of it was TARP. Bush budget projection was 450 billion and TARP was mostly paid back so why wasn't TARP repayment used to lower the deficit projections?

You have way too much invested in believing what you are told and not getting the actual details. Liberals have a problem doing just that.
 
We aren't talking about the Trust fund, we are talking about a unified budget.
We're talking about Social Security and how you have/had no idea how it works.

Your link doesn't address that issue at all. Look you want to discuss SS and want me to prove you wrong
I already have proven you wrong. I have proven you don't know how Social Security works and I have proven you believe things about Social Security which are not true. You were wrong. I don't suspect you'll admit it, but we both know I've proven it.

start an new OP, this OP is about unemployment and job creation.
YOU brought up Social Security, not me. Just because you were shown to have no understanding how it worked, don't blame me for what you started.

No, TARP was included in the CBO Projections which is why we had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit PROJECTION, 750 billion of it was TARP. Bush budget projection was 450 billion and TARP was mostly paid back so why wasn't TARP repayment used to lower the deficit projections?
What in the world are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

The CBO projected, before Obama even took office, a deficit of $1.2 trillion. The final budget Obama signed had a deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion. It doesn't matter what happened after FY 2009, those are the actual numbers. It almost seems like you're saying TARP repayment years later should be used to retroactively reduce the FY 2009 budget. IF that's what you're claiming, that's asinine. If it's not, then you'll need to explain why you think your constantly yapping about TARP is important to this discussion.

Furthermore, TARP was not $750 billion in FY 2009.

According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-outlook.pdf

What you seem to be talking about is how much TARP was authorized to spend in total, but again, you are wrong as Obama signed Dodd-Frank authorizing only $475 billion.

Although Congress initially authorized $700 billion for TARP in October 2008, that authority was reduced to $475 billion by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx#

Once again, facts have proven you wrong. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

At the end of the day, for all the falsehoods you continue to spout, you cannot dispute the indisputable. And the indisputable facts clearly state during the time of Obama's policies, we've cut the deficit in half, regained all private sector jobs lost due to the recession, had a booming stock market and growth in GDP.

You have way too much invested in believing what you are told
We just spent the last few hours by having me educate you on how Social Security works. Then I had to educate you on how budgets work. Then I had to correct you both on the total amount TARP was allowed to spend and how much of it was spent in FY 2009. And you're accusing me of believing what I'm told? Did you even stop to think how ridiculous that is for you to say?

Liberals have a problem doing just that.
Says the person who has done nothing but constantly spout provably false statements throughout the entire thread.
 
We're talking about Social Security and how you have/had no idea how it works.

I already have proven you wrong. I have proven you don't know how Social Security works and I have proven you believe things about Social Security which are not true. You were wrong. I don't suspect you'll admit it, but we both know I've proven it.

YOU brought up Social Security, not me. Just because you were shown to have no understanding how it worked, don't blame me for what you started.

What in the world are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

The CBO projected, before Obama even took office, a deficit of $1.2 trillion. The final budget Obama signed had a deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion. It doesn't matter what happened after FY 2009, those are the actual numbers. It almost seems like you're saying TARP repayment years later should be used to retroactively reduce the FY 2009 budget. IF that's what you're claiming, that's asinine. If it's not, then you'll need to explain why you think your constantly yapping about TARP is important to this discussion.

Furthermore, TARP was not $750 billion in FY 2009.


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-outlook.pdf

What you seem to be talking about is how much TARP was authorized to spend in total, but again, you are wrong as Obama signed Dodd-Frank authorizing only $475 billion.


TARP Programs

Once again, facts have proven you wrong. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

At the end of the day, for all the falsehoods you continue to spout, you cannot dispute the indisputable. And the indisputable facts clearly state during the time of Obama's policies, we've cut the deficit in half, regained all private sector jobs lost due to the recession, had a booming stock market and growth in GDP.

We just spent the last few hours by having me educate you on how Social Security works. Then I had to educate you on how budgets work. Then I had to correct you both on the total amount TARP was allowed to spend and how much of it was spent in FY 2009. And you're accusing me of believing what I'm told? Did you even stop to think how ridiculous that is for you to say?

Says the person who has done nothing but constantly spout provably false statements throughout the entire thread.

You really won't let it go, will you. I have given you the purpose of SS, I have told you that there are line items in the budget for SS and Medicare which wouldn't be there if they weren't in the Unified budget established by LBJ, I contributed to SS for 35 years and know exactly how it works, I gave the the information on the budget projections which you don't understand so apparently you are doing nothing more than seeking attention. I am done with you and this issue because as stated before you are a waste of time.

Oh, by the way, suggest you actually read the CBO deficit projections for 2009 and what makes up those numbers. You don't seem to understand anything about the budget and how the CBO came up with their numbers. Obama loves having people like you who really don't have a clue and buy what you are told.

The projections for the Deficit were for the total year and there was NO BUSH BUDGET FOR 2009 and Bush didn't propose the 842 billion stimulus, the Afghanistan Surge, the take over of GM/Chrysler, the supplementals for Afghanistan, and the take over of Freddie and Fannie. but then again I am sure that reality goes right over your partisan head.
 
Last edited:
You really won't let it go, will you.
Why should I when I'm right?

I have given you the purpose of SS
Which not only was wrong, it was also not what we were talking about. We were talking about how Social Security works, not how it was originally intended. You were wrong. You've been wrong. You seem to insist on remaining wrong.

I have told you that there are line items in the budget for SS and Medicare which wouldn't be there if they weren't in the Unified budget established by LBJ
And I gave you a direct quote from the official Social Security website which says the way the Social Security Trust Fund has worked more or less the same way since it was first introduced.

The fact you're now arguing with the official source is just laughable. Or, as you would put it, "indicative of a conservative who can't stand the truth".

Luckily for real conservatives, I don't use one person to judge all others.

I contributed to SS for 35 years
Who gives a damn? Completely irrelevant information. What WAS relevant was your clear lack of understanding of how Social Security works, as I already pointed out.

and know exactly how it works
No, no you do not. That was proven multiple times throughout this thread. You can continue to repeat this lie all you want, but we both know it is still a lie.

I gave the the information on the budget projections
No, I gave YOU the information on the budget projections, which was a $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama stepped into office. Once more, you are engaging in blatant lies. This is beneath you.

I am done with you
Because you can't handle being proven wrong over and over again? I've given you official sources from the Social Security website, from the CBO and the GPO. You're essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and regurgitating the same falsehoods which were already disproven.

Oh, by the way, suggest you actually read the CBO deficit projections for 2009 and what makes up those numbers. You don't seem to understand anything about the budget and how the CBO came up with their numbers. Obama loves having people like you who really don't have a clue and buy what you are told.
At this point, we both know you've lost. It doesn't matter what is in the CBO projections because it won't change what we're talking about. Once more you're trying to avoid admitting how wrong you've been the entire time by saying useless things.

The projections for the Deficit were for the total year
Yes, for the total fiscal year, which started in October 2008. As I've already explained and sourced for you.

and there was NO BUSH BUDGET FOR 2009
I literally linked you directly to the bill George W. Bush signed. Why are you so scared of admitting you were wrong that you are blatantly lying?

and Bush didn't propose the 842 billion stimulus
Of which only roughly $200 billion went against the deficit (since it wasn't all in one year), and which I noted before. Once more, you're trying to distract from how wrong you are.

the Afghanistan Surge, the take over of GM/Chrysler, the supplementals for Afghanistan, and the take over of Freddie and Fannie.
Blah, blah, blah. You're trying to distract again. It was $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama. Fiscal year 2009 officially ended with a $1.4 trillion deficit. That deficit (both the original and the final) have now been cut roughly in half.

You should be on your knees kissing Obama's feet, given how much you seem to care about these things. You won't, but we both know why and it has nothing to do with the truth.

but then again I am sure that reality goes right over your partisan head.
You just posted numerous known lies to protect your political party...you have no right to call anyone partisan.
 
So, why complain only when the least wealthy may receive some benefit?

That would be your false narrative, and a misreading of what I believe. See, as most conservatives, I feel that the assistance programs are in place, and what we need to do for those of us who genuinely need to tap them for tough times in between jobs that support themselves, and families. NOT, for generational use to either avoid work, or as progressive, liberal demos have used the program, to keep those people dependent on government handouts, and in a voting block that they embrace, under threat of losing their benefits. That IMHO, is truly the modern day plantation, and modern day slavery, and demo's own it.
 
Why should I when I'm right?

Which not only was wrong, it was also not what we were talking about. We were talking about how Social Security works, not how it was originally intended. You were wrong. You've been wrong. You seem to insist on remaining wrong.

And I gave you a direct quote from the official Social Security website which says the way the Social Security Trust Fund has worked more or less the same way since it was first introduced.

The fact you're now arguing with the official source is just laughable. Or, as you would put it, "indicative of a conservative who can't stand the truth".

Luckily for real conservatives, I don't use one person to judge all others.

Who gives a damn? Completely irrelevant information. What WAS relevant was your clear lack of understanding of how Social Security works, as I already pointed out.

No, no you do not. That was proven multiple times throughout this thread. You can continue to repeat this lie all you want, but we both know it is still a lie.

No, I gave YOU the information on the budget projections, which was a $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama stepped into office. Once more, you are engaging in blatant lies. This is beneath you.

Because you can't handle being proven wrong over and over again? I've given you official sources from the Social Security website, from the CBO and the GPO. You're essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and regurgitating the same falsehoods which were already disproven.

At this point, we both know you've lost. It doesn't matter what is in the CBO projections because it won't change what we're talking about. Once more you're trying to avoid admitting how wrong you've been the entire time by saying useless things.

Yes, for the total fiscal year, which started in October 2008. As I've already explained and sourced for you.

I literally linked you directly to the bill George W. Bush signed. Why are you so scared of admitting you were wrong that you are blatantly lying?

Of which only roughly $200 billion went against the deficit (since it wasn't all in one year), and which I noted before. Once more, you're trying to distract from how wrong you are.

Blah, blah, blah. You're trying to distract again. It was $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama. Fiscal year 2009 officially ended with a $1.4 trillion deficit. That deficit (both the original and the final) have now been cut roughly in half.

You should be on your knees kissing Obama's feet, given how much you seem to care about these things. You won't, but we both know why and it has nothing to do with the truth.

You just posted numerous known lies to protect your political party...you have no right to call anyone partisan.

I know this is what you want to believe especially that the CBO Projection which was made on January 7, 2009 was the actual results for 2009 but the facts simply don't support you. Projections are made upon based assumptions given them and the assumptions were that we had a budget which we didn't, the assumptions were that Obama would live by those assumptions which he didn't, the assumptions were that changes would be required should those assumptions not be accurate which they were.

You see, your partisanship is controlling your thought process here and you want to believe the Projections were reality ignoring the Obama contributions to the 2009 deficit including the fact that he signed the budget in March 2009 after making changes, stimulus, GM/Chrysler, Freddie and Fannie, Afghanistan supplemental spending, shovels not getting to those shovel ready jobs.

Apparently he knew that people like you would blame Bush for the deficit in 2009 and the people like you would ignore the deficits in 2010-2011-2012 and then tout cutting those record deficits in half as a significant accomplishment. Only a liberal would buy the fact that Obama's proposed budgets which requested record spending would cut the deficit in half.

I assure you that if we had those 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers on the job full time we wouldn't have the deficits Obama has generated. 192,000 jobs created almost 5 years after the end of a recession that still left 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged is a disaster and shows exactly how incompetent Obama is and how poorly informed supporters are.
 
That would be your false narrative, and a misreading of what I believe. See, as most conservatives, I feel that the assistance programs are in place, and what we need to do for those of us who genuinely need to tap them for tough times in between jobs that support themselves, and families. NOT, for generational use to either avoid work, or as progressive, liberal demos have used the program, to keep those people dependent on government handouts, and in a voting block that they embrace, under threat of losing their benefits. That IMHO, is truly the modern day plantation, and modern day slavery, and demo's own it.

So, if you really feel that way, why not actually solve our social dilemmas instead of merely wage perpetual war on them?
 
I know this is what you want to believe especially that the CBO Projection which was made on January 7, 2009 was the actual results for 2009 but the facts simply don't support you.
I already said the final results for FY2009 were $1.4 trillion. Why must you continue to lie?

Projections are made upon based assumptions given them
And those assumptions were based on the spending bill Bush had signed in September of 2008 for FY2009, as well as the hit in tax revenue we were going to take because of the recession. They even noted any stimulus passed would drive deficit up more.

Do you understand anything about what you are talking in this thread? You don't understand budgets, you don't understand Social Security, you don't understand a President's policies don't go into effect a year before he takes office...what do you understand?

and the assumptions were that we had a budget which we didn't, the assumptions were that Obama would live by those assumptions which he didn't, the assumptions were that changes would be required should those assumptions not be accurate which they were.
You're trying to distract again. See my response above.

You see, your partisanship is controlling your thought process here
You have done nothing more than lie and show a total lack of understanding of some of the basic concepts of what we're discussing. I've sourced from official government websites, and you still continue with your lies even after they've been proven to be wrong. At this point, we both know you're wrong and we both know you're having to resort to lies. Why is it so hard for you to admit you've been wrong?

and you want to believe the Projections were reality ignoring the Obama contributions to the 2009 deficit
How could the projections made before Obama took office take into account Obama contributions to the 2009 deficit when Obama wasn't even in office? Once more, you're saying ridiculous things which have no basis in fact.

including the fact that he signed the budget in March 2009 after making changes
And those changes amounted to about $200 billion dollars more added to the deficit, which I've said three times now. Seriously, could you present an honest argument just once?

Apparently he knew that people like you would blame Bush for the deficit in 2009
The fact Bush signed the spending bill in September 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama even took office might have something to do with that. :roll:

and the people like you would ignore the deficits in 2010-2011-2012
You mean the deficits which basically declined every year (except for one, which remained relatively flat) until they are now roughly half of what Obama inherited?

You should thank Obama's policies.

and then tout cutting those record deficits in half as a significant accomplishment.
Because it is? Our previous President took a relatively balanced budget and by the time he was done, had racked up $1.2 trillion in deficit. Our current President took $1.2 trillion in deficit and has now cut it to $679 billion (FY 2013). When our current President leaves office, the expected deficit will be $413 billion. Since you seem to care about deficits, you should be thanking your lucky stars we finally got a Democrat back in office.

Only a liberal would buy the fact that Obama's proposed budgets which requested record spending would cut the deficit in half.
Only you would not understand the difference between spending and deficit.

I assure you that if we had those 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers on the job full time we wouldn't have the deficits Obama has generated.
Then maybe Bush shouldn't have fired them all. After all, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs when Bush was in office, and it wasn't until Obama and his policies that we finally turned things around.

You should be mad at Bush and praise Obama. Go ahead, say what you really want to say, "Oh, hail, King Obama". I know that's what you want to say. After all, once more the Democrat had to come clean up the mess the Republican left.

how poorly informed supporters are.
Says the person who doesn't understand how Social Security or budgets work.

I'll come back to what I always come back to, and what you simply cannot deny. The fact is, under Obama, we've cut the deficit in half, recovered every private sector job lost from the effects of the recession, grown GDP and have a booming stock market. No amount of partisan comments will change those facts.


But, I think I've grown tired of educating you. I might be back, I might not. At this point, we both know I taught you how Social Security works and we both know you have nothing left but distractions to avoid admitting the truths.
 
Slyfox696;1063144497]I already said the final results for FY2009 were $1.4 trillion. Why must you continue to lie?

You continue to ignore Obama's contribution to that deficit and blame it all on Bush. You think that from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009 that GW Bush without a budget created a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit and that the stimulus, GM/Chrysler takeover, Freddie and Fannie, Afghanistan supplemental spending didn't add to the deficit and the failure to get shovels to those shovel ready jobs didn't impact revenue? Do you understand that the continuing resolutions Bush signed did not fund the govt. for a year but rather for only a specific period of time? Obama signed the 2009 budget in March 2009, you seem to not understand that reality

And those assumptions were based on the spending bill Bush had signed in September of 2008 for FY2009, as well as the hit in tax revenue we were going to take because of the recession. They even noted any stimulus passed would drive deficit up more.

Continuing resolutions fund the govt. for a specific period of time and are normally at previous year's levels. You see Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit, Obama had them in 2009-2010-2011-2012
'
Do you understand anything about what you are talking in this thread? You don't understand budgets, you don't understand Social Security, you don't understand a President's policies don't go into effect a year before he takes office...what do you understand?

LOL, I am allowing you to make a total fool of yourself. I guess the stimulus didn't happen, the takeover of GM/Chrysler didn't happen, repayment of most of TARP didn't happen, Freddie and Fannie didn't happen, the Afghanistan supplemental spending didn't happen, shovels weren't available to spend. Yes, your Bush Derangement Syndrome is on full display as is your ignorance of what Obama did.

You're trying to distract again. See my response above.

No, see my response above. Show me the Bush budget that was passed and signed that led to the 2009 deficit?


You have done nothing more than lie and show a total lack of understanding of some of the basic concepts of what we're discussing. I've sourced from official government websites, and you still continue with your lies even after they've been proven to be wrong. At this point, we both know you're wrong and we both know you're having to resort to lies. Why is it so hard for you to admit you've been wrong?

That is what you do when confused by facts, call someone else a liar. You sited govt.websites and ignored govt. policies. SS was put on budget during the LBJ Administration, that is a fact

How could the projections made before Obama took office take into account Obama contributions to the 2009 deficit when Obama wasn't even in office? Once more, you're saying ridiculous things which have no basis in fact.

You need to learn how CBO operates and where the assumptions come from. I am waiting for you to post the budget that Bush created and was approved that gave us the 2009 deficit. You obviously have no idea what a continuing resolution is and why one is required for every quarter.

And those changes amounted to about $200 billion dollars more added to the deficit, which I've said three times now. Seriously, could you present an honest argument just once?

Since the CBO didn't score Obama spending you have no idea what you are talking about. Over 200 billion alone was Afghanistan supplemental spending bills for the surge

The fact Bush signed the spending bill in September 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama even took office might have something to do with that. :roll:

Great, then show me the supplementals that Bush signed giving us that deficit?

You mean the deficits which basically declined every year (except for one, which remained relatively flat) until they are now roughly half of what Obama inherited?

You should thank Obama's policies.

Why would I thank any President for increasing the debt with deficits? You want badly to give Obama credit for deficit reduction so please tell me exactly what Obama did to lower those deficits? What were the Obama budgets during that period of time?

Because it is? Our previous President took a relatively balanced budget and by the time he was done, had racked up $1.2 trillion in deficit. Our current President took $1.2 trillion in deficit and has now cut it to $679 billion (FY 2013). When our current President leaves office, the expected deficit will be $413 billion. Since you seem to care about deficits, you should be thanking your lucky stars we finally got a Democrat back in office.

I find it quite telling that the U.S. Treasury doesn't show those balanced budgets because what you want to do is ignore intergovt. holdings when considering the budget. There was no surplus because money was taken from SS and Medicare and put on budget leaving a shortfall in those categories. something you don't seem to understand or want to address. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt and left it at 5.7 trillion dollars. If he had a balanced budget or any surplus the debt would have been reduced.


Only you would not understand the difference between spending and deficit.

LOL, spending causes deficits, don't spend and what kind of deficit do you have?

Then maybe Bush shouldn't have fired them all. After all, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs when Bush was in office, and it wasn't until Obama and his policies that we finally turned things around.

We were losing jobs officially when Bush took office, after Obama took office we were losing them unofficially in the form of discouraged workers. Please cite for any month in 2009-2010 that Obam had less unemployed PLUS Discouraged workers than Bush had in the same two categories? A discouraged worker is a subjective number and is an unemployed worker

You should be mad at Bush and praise Obama. Go ahead, say what you really want to say, "Oh, hail, King Obama". I know that's what you want to say. After all, once more the Democrat had to come clean up the mess the Republican left.

Why would I praise Obama for the high debt, high unemployment, low economic growth, that seems to be the new liberal normal

Says the person who doesn't understand how Social Security or budgets work.

You have yet to prove that but then again you seem to have a high opinion of yourself

I'll come back to what I always come back to, and what you simply cannot deny. The fact is, under Obama, we've cut the deficit in half, recovered every private sector job lost from the effects of the recession, grown GDP and have a booming stock market. No amount of partisan comments will change those facts.

Congratulations we have cut the deficit in half and added 6.7 trillion to the debt, great job. How about posting the deficits per year to show us how great Obama has done and then post his budgets which led to those deficit reductions?


But, I think I've grown tired of educating you. I might be back, I might not. At this point, we both know I taught you how Social Security works and we both know you have nothing left but distractions to avoid admitting the truths.

I couldn't care less whether you come back or not.
 
You continue to ignore Obama's contribution to that deficit and blame it all on Bush. You think that from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009 that GW Bush without a budget created a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit and that the stimulus, GM/Chrysler takeover, Freddie and Fannie, Afghanistan supplemental spending didn't add to the deficit and the failure to get shovels to those shovel ready jobs didn't impact revenue? Do you understand that the continuing resolutions Bush signed did not fund the govt. for a year but rather for only a specific period of time? Obama signed the 2009 budget in March 2009, you seem to not understand that reality
I didn't even read the rest of your post. I wanted to give you one last chance, and when I saw you pulling the same nonsense, not quoting me properly and lying about what's already been proven (the CBO projection), I figured it proved all I needed to know. The sad thing is I think you really do understand, you just won't allow yourself to admit you were wrong.

Have a good day. Peddle your nonsense to someone else for a while.
 
Last edited:
I didn't even read the rest of your post. I wanted to give you one last chance, and when I saw you pulling the same nonsense, not quoting me properly and lying about what's already been proven (the CBO projection), I figured it proved all I needed to know. The sad thing is I think you really do understand, you just won't allow yourself to admit you were wrong.

Have a good day. Peddle your nonsense to someone else for a while.

LOL, you cannot even get the 2009 deficit right

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
So, if you really feel that way, why not actually solve our social dilemmas instead of merely wage perpetual war on them?

I my part. I vote against the demo, progressive, socialist slave masters.
 
I didn't even read the rest of your post. I wanted to give you one last chance, and when I saw you pulling the same nonsense, not quoting me properly and lying about what's already been proven (the CBO projection), I figured it proved all I needed to know. The sad thing is I think you really do understand, you just won't allow yourself to admit you were wrong.

Have a good day. Peddle your nonsense to someone else for a while.

Let's see if you can answer the following question, who said the following"

“Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.”
 
Did you know that it is the right that alleges to believe in a morals from an Iron Age, including a work ethic.

How dare people believe in religion as a guiding source of comfort in their lives....Right? I mean what could Jesus teach us? pfft.....Don't try and be clever, just say it....You think anyone that disagrees with your progressive thought is mired in racism, homophobia, sexism, and bent on genocide....And you disingenuously attempt to tie that to religion, specifically Christianity in the attempt to slur it, and marginalize it, so that hopefully in your mind you can destroy it...Good luck with that, this is a predominantly a Christian nation, and you are not only the extreme minority, but seen in a majority of thinking circles as a "kook".... On the comment including "work ethic", I can only tell you, that I don't subscribe to the theories of Karl Marx, therefore, I see nothing wrong with Capitalism.
 
How dare people believe in religion as a guiding source of comfort in their lives....Right? I mean what could Jesus teach us? pfft.....Don't try and be clever, just say it....You think anyone that disagrees with your progressive thought is mired in racism, homophobia, sexism, and bent on genocide....And you disingenuously attempt to tie that to religion, specifically Christianity in the attempt to slur it, and marginalize it, so that hopefully in your mind you can destroy it...Good luck with that, this is a predominantly a Christian nation, and you are not only the extreme minority, but seen in a majority of thinking circles as a "kook".... On the comment including "work ethic", I can only tell you, that I don't subscribe to the theories of Karl Marx, therefore, I see nothing wrong with Capitalism.

It is about socialism and the right alleging to believe in an Iron Age work ethic of "work or die" in modern Information Age times, where corporate welfare even has paid multi-million dollar bonuses.
 
It is about socialism and the right alleging to believe in an Iron Age work ethic of "work or die" in modern Information Age times, where corporate welfare even has paid multi-million dollar bonuses.

Perhaps, with your evidently broad knowledge and clear leadership skills, you might go into a line of work where you'd be eligible for these million dollar bonuses as well. Or do you have too much integrity for that?
 
Back
Top Bottom