• 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!

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

imagep;1064236656]Glad to see that you have now come to realize that deficit spending is stimulative to the economy. I didn't know you were such a Keynesian.
Click to expand...

What deficit spending? Where is the spending in the Reagan stimulus??


That's pretty pathetic isn't it? Even Carter had better economic performance.
Click to expand...

You are pretty good at revising and ignoring History and the double dip we had thanks to Carter who today is recognized as one of the worst President's we had. Apparently you were riding a bike during the Carter Years and not sitting in the gasoline lines nor paying the 17.5% interest rates to buy a home

sure: Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing - Forbes
Click to expand...

Better tell that to BLS because they don't show that kind of numbers especially comparing the numbers when the recession began to where we are now. Obama took over an economy that was coming out of a recession and made it worse. Reagan took over an economy that was going into recession and made it better.

When the recession began we had 146 million working Americans and today we have 147 million working Americans compared to Reagan's 99 million working Americans when the recession began to the 107 million working Americans at the end of his first term and 116 million at the end of his second term. Think we will get to 163 million working Americans when Obama leaves office?

For someone who didn't vote for Obama you sure are doing your best to distort his record, why?
 
imagep said:
...doesn't support your rhetoric.
Click to expand...

How you coming on posting those cherry picked numbers you claim I use? I posted actual numbers during the period of time, why shouldn't I as that is what people actually experienced
 
Conservative said:
Interesting since BEA disagrees

I don't use inflation adjust numbers because it was debt and GDP at the time not in 2005 numbers and debt service isn't inflation adjusted numbers

Reagan took office with employment at 99 million and left it at 116 million

Reagan took office with GDP at 2.8 trillion and left it at 5.6 trillion

Reagan took office with FIT being at 250 billion at the end of 1980 and 450 billion after he left office in 1989

Seems research isn't a strength of yours as you don't really understand the numbers you post
Click to expand...


LMAO
!


When Reagan "took office" GDP was 3.2T, not 2.8. It was 3.0T before he was even elected. LMAO at you calling me out.

Further, presidential runs have never (well until "the black guy") used an existing/incoming fiscal year data upon inauguration.
 
Conservative said:
What deficit spending? Where is the spending in the Reagan stimulus??
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Reagan's deficits created 17 million jobs that grew FIT 60 Plus %, doubled GDP, and created a peace dividend. Debt was 50% of GDP. Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt, grew FIT 35%, increased GDP by 4.5 trillion dollars and had debt at 73% of GDP. Want to compare what Obama has done?
Click to expand...


You are pretty good at revising and ignoring History and the double dip we had thanks to Carter who today is recognized as one of the worst President's we had. Apparently you were riding a bike during the Carter Years and not sitting in the gasoline lines nor paying the 17.5% interest rates to buy a home



For someone who didn't vote for Obama you sure are doing your best to distort his record, why?
Click to expand...



why don't you worry about distorting your own record.
?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
LMAO
!


When Reagan "took office" GDP was 3.2T, not 2.8. It was 3.0T before he was even elected. LMAO at you calling me out.

Further, presidential runs have never (well until "the black guy") used an existing/incoming fiscal year data upon inauguration.
Click to expand...

Interesting how BEA.gov disagrees with you

Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: December 23, 2014 - Next Release Date January 30, 2015

Line 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1 Gross domestic product 2862.5 3211 3345 3638.1 4040.7 4346.7 4590.2 4870.2 5252.6 5657.7
Click to expand...

As for the recession which turned out to be a double dip according to NBER the second began in June 1981 before the Reagan economic plan was passed and it ended in November 1982 so yes I am calling you out for not understanding the numbers you are posting
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Interesting how BEA.gov disagrees with you



As for the recession which turned out to be a double dip according to NBER the second began in June 1981 before the Reagan economic plan was passed and it ended in November 1982 so yes I am calling you out for not understanding the numbers you are posting
Click to expand...

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&904=1980&903=5&906=q&905=2014&910=x&911=0


1980Q3: 2.86T
1980Q4: (when he was elected) 2.99T
1981Q1: (when he took office) 3.13T

I will admit that I don't know where the missing 7B are between BEA and stlouisfed (my source),
but your claim that he doubled the GDP from 2.8 to 5.6T is completed RUINED by the very source you claim (yet funny you never link to it, as I do)


Further, by your standards of wanting to use Q3 of 1980, let's look at Q3 of 1988. Ooops, it's only 5.3T. Where did the 5.6T come from, Q2 (of all things LMAO) of 1989.

Why are you using 1980 to start your Reagan analysis, and 1989 to finish it?

Do you like being outed as a completely dishonest hack?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&904=1980&903=5&906=q&905=2014&910=x&911=0


1980Q3: 2.86T
1980Q4: (when he was elected) 2.99T
1981Q1: (when he took office) 3.13T

I will admit that I don't know where the missing 7B are between BEA and stlouisfed (my source),
but your claim that he doubled the GDP from 2.8 to 5.6T is completed RUINED by the very source you claim (yet funny you never link to it, as I do)


Further, by your standards of wanting to use Q3 of 1980, let's look at Q3 of 1988. Ooops, it's only 5.3T. Where did the 5.6T come from, Q2 (of all things LMAO) of 1989.

Why are you using 1980 to start your Reagan analysis, and 1989 to finish it?

Do you like being outed as a completely dishonest hack?
Click to expand...

Reagan economic policies were in effect in 1989 with GHW Bush in office. I really don't care if you back out 1989 and forget 1981, the GDP growth was significant, the job creation incredible and the economic boom substantial. So knit pick, divert but the reality is the Reagan economic stimulus was allowing people to keep more of what they earned and that is what changed the economic attitude in this country and led to the economic boom we experienced for the next 20 years.

People like you have no business calling anyone else an dishonest hack because most of us see you for exactly who and what you are
 
Conservative said:
Reagan economic policies were in effect in 1989 with GHW Bush in office....
Click to expand...

Yet you have denied many times that Bush policies were in effect in 2009, and claim that the deficit in that the last fiscal year that Bush was president in should be counted as an Obama fiscal year.

I have to give you credit for being a great debater, even if you are a dishonest one.
 
imagep said:
Yet you have denied many times that Bush policies were in effect in 2009, and claim that the deficit in that the last fiscal year that Bush was president in should be counted as an Obama fiscal year.

I have to give you credit for being a great debater, even if you are a dishonest one.
Click to expand...

The first of the Bush rebates came in June of 2001 and what you and others want to ignore is that Obama signed the fiscal year 2009 budget. History and reality don't seem to be a strong suit of yours.

You somehow want to believe that Bush created the 2009 deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 2009 operating on continuing resolutions from the 2008 budget just like you want to ignore that TARP(A LOAN) was included in the CBO Projections and although most of it was repaid in 2009 that credit never hit the budget because it was recycled by Obama and thus turned into an expense. Obama knew that people like you(even though you claim you didn't vote for him) would ignore that reality and blame Bush for the 2009 deficits. Interesting how you and others want to focus on 2009 but ignore the trillion dollar deficits in in 2010-2011-2012. Wonder why?
 
imagep said:
Yet you have denied many times that Bush policies were in effect in 2009, and claim that the deficit in that the last fiscal year that Bush was president in should be counted as an Obama fiscal year.

I have to give you credit for being a great debater, even if you are a dishonest one.
Click to expand...

Need to step in a throw a flag for unfairness- 15 yards! Sounds like you are trying to mix things to your liking. Not sure anyone said that many Bush policies, such as the tax cuts were not in effect in 2009. What is fair to say is that in fiscal, to which you allude the stimulus was added AFTER Bush left office. Now would we have had a large deficit had we used the Bush budget without the stimulus yes. Would Bush have tried his own stimulus, albeit in different form, probably yes.

Funny how this site starts a thread about proposed future actions Obama wants and devolves almost always into looking back at Bush.
 
Conservative said:
People like you have no business calling anyone else an dishonest hack because most of us see you for exactly who and what you are
Click to expand...


someone who applies #s, baselines, etc consistently--- unlike you? and I'm the hack? LMFGDAO. You got curbstomped, and it's obvious why you chose NOT to link to the data.
 
washunut said:
...
Funny how this site starts a thread about proposed future actions Obama wants and devolves almost always into looking back at Bush.
Click to expand...

It is, isn't it. I assume it's because we have a need to compare presidents against other presidents to establish a baseline.

Like the 3.9 trillion budget that Obama may propose in the next week or so. That number means nothing, without comparing it to something else.

A 3.9 million dollar budget might sound outrageously high, unless someone realized that we haven't had a budget that low since George Washington's days.

These discussions often end up also involving most recent presidents.
 
Last edited:
SlevinKelevra said:
someone who applies #s, baselines, etc consistently--- unlike you? and I'm the hack? LMFGDAO. You got curbstomped, and it's obvious why you chose NOT to link to the data.
Click to expand...

You are indeed a legend IN YOUR OWN MIND. How old were you during the Reagan years? You want to apply the percentage change from the end of 1981 to the end of 1988, great, go for it, over 62%. Pre recession employment 99 million Americans, the end of 1988 16 million working Americans. Not sure what part of those numbers you don't understand but may you ought to talk to your teacher about them, of course hopefully that teacher isn't unionized.

I have linked my data, many times, over and over. I gave you the site, BLS.gov. learn to use the data there and you will be better able to feed yourself the proper information.
 
Conservative said:
You are indeed a legend IN YOUR OWN MIND. How old were you during the Reagan years? You want to apply the percentage change from the end of 1981 to the end of 1988, great, go for it, over 62%. Pre recession employment 99 million Americans, the end of 1988 16 million working Americans. Not sure what part of those numbers you don't understand but may you ought to talk to your teacher about them, of course hopefully that teacher isn't unionized.

I have linked my data, many times, over and over. I gave you the site, BLS.gov. learn to use the data there and you will be better able to feed yourself the proper information.
Click to expand...


that's not a link, genius. Further, I never said "end of 81".

LMAO, holy crap you are just incapable of admitting an error, aren't you?
 
imagep said:
It is, isn't it. I assume it's because we have a need to compare presidents against other presidents to establish a baseline.

Like the 3.9 trillion budget that Obama may propose in the next week or so. That number means nothing, without comparing it to something else.

A 3.9 million dollar budget might sound outrageously high, unless someone realized that we haven't had a budget that low since George Washington's days.

These discussions often end up also involving most recent presidents.
Click to expand...

As I posted and linked, Obama submitted a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2015 and it was rejected as was his 2014 budget, his 2013 budget and yet he takes credit never responsibility.

Now do you really want to claim that the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama is similar to the 1 trillion dollar Reagan submitted in 1987 for fiscal year 1988>

The Inflation Calculator

So that 1 trillion dollars in 1988 would be 2 trillion dollars in 2013
 
SlevinKelevra said:
that's not a link, genius. Further, I never said "end of 81".

LMAO, holy crap you are just incapable of admitting an error, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Look, I could tell you exactly what I think of you but won't waste the space, the link is BLS.gov, try it out and learn how to use it

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
Conservative said:
As I posted and linked, Obama submitted a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2015 and it was rejected as was his 2014 budget, his 2013 budget and yet he takes credit never responsibility.

Now do you really want to claim that the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama is similar to the 1 trillion dollar Reagan submitted in 1987 for fiscal year 1988>

The Inflation Calculator




So that 1 trillion dollars in 1988 would be 2 trillion dollars in 2013
Click to expand...



To begin with, the population has increased by about 33%. You ignored that, why?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
To begin with, the population has increased by about 33%. You ignored that, why?
Click to expand...

Right, and we all know babies are born and go immediately in the work force. So tell me what part of that inflation calculator don't you understand? Are you going to tell me that the 1 trillion dollar budget Reagan submitted in 1987 for fiscal year 1988 is more than the budget Obama submitted for 2015? Do you have any clue as to the role of the Federal Govt? You buy what liberals tell you the role is now do some research and read the Constitution.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
To begin with, the population has increased by about 33%. You ignored that, why?
Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with the 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt? Figure out the role and get back to me
 
Conservative said:
Right, and we all know babies are born and go immediately in the work force. So tell me what part of that inflation calculator don't you understand? Are you going to tell me that the 1 trillion dollar budget Reagan submitted in 1987 for fiscal year 1988 is more than the budget Obama submitted for 2015? Do you have any clue as to the role of the Federal Govt? You buy what liberals tell you the role is now do some research and read the Constitution.
Click to expand...

once effects of inflation are accounted for
do you think the government can provide the same level (and amounts) of services to a population that is 33% larger at the same cost? Why did you not factor this in? Shouldn't at a minimum your "new" baseline be ~2.7T, not 2.0T?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
To begin with, the population has increased by about 33%. You ignored that, why?
Click to expand...

Because money valuation comparisons (over time) aren't based on population but are based on inflationary rates.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
once effects of inflation are accounted for
do you think the government can provide the same level (and amounts) of services to a population that is 33% larger at the same cost? Why did you not factor this in? Shouldn't at a minimum your "new" baseline be ~2.7T, not 2.0T?
Click to expand...

Depends on what "services" you think are the responsibility of the Federal Govt. Waiting for your list
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom