• 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's approval rating grows following memorable week

The ND was 3-400 billion during the time period of that war. Pocket change compared to the Reagan disaster.

Anything to prevent you from admitting you are wrong, 300-400 billion dollars paid for out of SS and Medicare doesn't bother you? The Reagan "disaster" gave us a peace dividend and 17 million jobs along with doubling the GDP. You call that a disaster? Show how little credibility you have
 
Anything to prevent you from admitting you are wrong, 300-400 billion dollars paid for out of SS and Medicare doesn't bother you? The Reagan "disaster" gave us a peace dividend and 17 million jobs along with doubling the GDP. You call that a disaster? Show how little credibility you have

What the hell is wrong with you man. Did you forget your meds this morning. First of all the entire ND during the period of the Vietnam conflict was 3-400 billion. For a war that I just finished telling you was completely unnecessary, and as such that there was no proper way to pay for it. That's number one. Secondly, I'm no advocate of taking money out of our social programs to pay for war, ever!! That would be something you war mongers would support. As for credibility, that ended with our chief lender status, destroyed by the fantastic sum of money that that old fart borrowed and strapped upon the backs of Americans, setting an example before all presidents that followed him to just whip out the MasterCard. Good grief, I believe your getting senile.
 
What the hell is wrong with you man. Did you forget your meds this morning. First of all the entire ND during the period of the Vietnam conflict was 3-400 billion. For a war that I just finished telling you was completely unnecessary, and as such that there was no proper way to pay for it. That's number one. Secondly, I'm no advocate of taking money out of our social programs to pay for war, ever!! That would be something you war mongers would support. As for credibility, that ended with our chief lender status, destroyed by the fantastic sum of money that that old fart borrowed and strapped upon the backs of Americans, setting an example before all presidents that followed him to just whip out the MasterCard. Good grief, I believe your getting senile.

You are the one that stated the 1.7 trillion dollar Reagan debt was outrageous. The results of that spending didn't matter, nor does it apparently matter that LBJ paid for the Vietnam War out of SS and Medicare to reduce the deficits and debt. You have no understanding of return on investment nor apparently the role of the Federal Govt. which isn't to run a surplus. If there is a surplus we are taxed too much which will never happen with bureaucrats who will always spend every dime they are given.
 
You are the one that stated the 1.7 trillion dollar Reagan debt was outrageous. The results of that spending didn't matter, nor does it apparently matter that LBJ paid for the Vietnam War out of SS and Medicare to reduce the deficits and debt. You have no understanding of return on investment nor apparently the role of the Federal Govt. which isn't to run a surplus. If there is a surplus we are taxed too much which will never happen with bureaucrats who will always spend every dime they are given.

And why doesn't it matter that LBJ used moneys from SS and Medicare to pay for an unnecessary war. How many times have I got to drill you with that, hmm? And another thing, 39 presidents ran the United States federal government over a period of 200 years at an accumulated debt of 900 billion dollars, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and in 8 short years single handedly borrows 2 trillion ****ing dollars, and you've got the freak on a pedestal praised as the best president in history. You make ZERO sense dude!!
 
Yet it was paid for by SS and Medicare funds which of course made the deficit and debt look better just like all Presidents EXCEPT Reagan did afterwards. Reagan would have done it too but Carter left it almost broke thus the increase in FICA taxes, another tax you don't understand

Funniest thing, after the Kennedy/Johnson years, the debt had only gone up $57b (that's billion) but after the Reagan/Bush years it had gone up $3.4T (that's trillion). What're you gonna claim, con, that that was all due to inflation? IOW, it went up 60x faster in those 12 years than it had in that earlier 8 year period. And that's what rightwinger, Reagan apologists call "success." This is why economists talk about the transition of the US from a creditor to a chronic debtor nation. Meanwhile our capitalist overlords saw their wealth skyrocket while the middle class shrank. MORE RIGHTWING SUCCESS!!! Orwell had nothing on the neo-cons and supply-siders and their enablers for perversion of the language.
 
Last edited:
And why doesn't it matter that LBJ used moneys from SS and Medicare to pay for an unnecessary war. How many times have I got to drill you with that, hmm? And another thing, 39 presidents ran the United States federal government over a period of 200 years at an accumulated debt of 900 billion dollars, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and in 8 short years single handedly borrows 2 trillion ****ing dollars, and you've got the freak on a pedestal praised as the best president in history. You make ZERO sense dude!!

So you think WWI and WWII as well as the Korean War didn't run a deficit and add to the debt? Amazingly you simply don't have a clue
 
It appears that all the victories last week have boosted Obama's approval rating to 50% for the 1st time since 2013. I guess more of us are proud to be an American.



Obama's approval rating grows following memorable week - CNNPolitics.com

The poll you showed was the most positive poll about Obama. Another poll 1 day later showed him at only 45%. Another poll 3 days later had his approval at only 44%. The best approach instead of going off of just one poll is to average polls together which is what realclearpolitics.com does.

Average polls show Obama at 46.4% approval and 49.6% disapproval. His approval bounces around all the time. Since the beginning of 2009 Obama's Approval has ranged from 54% to 40%. Right now he is somewhere in the middle.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
 
Funniest thing, after the Kennedy/Johnson years, the debt had only gone up $57b (that's billion) but after the Reagan/Bush years it had gone up $3.4T (that's trillion). What're you gonna claim, con, that that was all due to inflation? IOW, it went up 60x faster in those 12 years than it had in that earlier 8 year period. And that's what rightwinger, Reagan apologists call "success."

Yes, but again you don't seem to get it, SS and Medicare money was used to pay for the Vietnam war along with anything else the President wanted because people weren't retiring and they had a slush fund. Now we are trillions in unfunded liabilities which you don't understand on top of the 18.2 trillion dollar debt. I can tell you what we got for the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt and I know of no one who would say that wasn't a good return on investment but you cannot tell me what we got for the 7.6 trillion Obama has added to the debt? It really is a shame how easily you are swayed by rhetoric and never dig deep into the actual results.
 
Very easy not to have a deficit or debt when you use trust fund money from SS and Medicare to pay for it.

You mean how Reagan funded his massive, MASSIVE miiitary spending. Diffference is, Johnson paid for his with taxes the way we've always managed to finance our excess military spending. Reagan and Bush II just let it pile up and pile up. Bush II even had his republican control Congress keep the massive spending off-budget by having the money provided always by "emergency appropriations." That's where most at least half of his massive $1.4T 2009 deficit came from when one of the first things President Obama did after taking office is order all that spending be shown.


You don't get it and never will, SS and Medicare are unfunded liabilities because the money was used for everything other than SS and Medicare thus are part of the debt which you refuse to acknowledge or apparently understand. I dare you to research SS and the unified budget under LBJ

Your ignorance knows no limits. The SS trust fund is fully funded from two sources: contributions (FICA and SE taxes) and interest income from the "intragovernmental" borrowing in the form of T-bills bought by the the SS trust fund. Medicare is about 80% funded from taxes and the rest made up out of general revenues. You've even used the term intergovernmental borrowing and it's now obvious you didn't even know what that meant.
 
Now we are trillions in unfunded liabilities which you don't understand on top of the 18.2 trillion dollar debt.

First a future program expense only gets added to the debt if it remains unfunded. It only remains unfunded because one party refuses to fund it. That party hopes that tactic is the way to destroy that program instead of just voting it out of existence which would be the end of that party's existence if it tried to do so. That's the sort of cowardice, sneakery and general scumminess that the party you support is based entirely on.
 
First a future program expense only gets added to the debt if it remains unfunded. It only remains unfunded because one party refuses to fund it. That party hopes that tactic is the way to destroy that program instead of just voting it out of existence which would be the end of that party's existence if it tried to do so. That's the sort of cowardice, sneakery and general scumminess that the party you support is based entirely on.

Look, when you contribute to SS it becomes a long term liability and it has nothing to do with being unfunded. It becomes unfunded when the money is spent on something other than your retirement. It really is sad seeing what liberalism has done to our education system and your passion for the ideology that continues to lie to you
 
So you think WWI and WWII as well as the Korean War didn't run a deficit and add to the debt? Amazingly you simply don't have a clue

The most classic strawman. Whenever did I say that.
 
You mean how Reagan funded his massive, MASSIVE miiitary spending. Diffference is, Johnson paid for his with taxes the way we've always managed to finance our excess military spending. Reagan and Bush II just let it pile up and pile up. Bush II even had his republican control Congress keep the massive spending off-budget by having the money provided always by "emergency appropriations." That's where most at least half of his massive $1.4T 2009 deficit came from when one of the first things President Obama did after taking office is order all that spending be shown.




Your ignorance knows no limits. The SS trust fund is fully funded from two sources: contributions (FICA and SE taxes) and interest income from the "intragovernmental" borrowing in the form of T-bills bought by the the SS trust fund. Medicare is about 80% funded from taxes and the rest made up out of general revenues. You've even used the term intergovernmental borrowing and it's now obvious you didn't even know what that meant.

Do you have any idea how much Reagan increased the military spending? Why don't you find out and stop making a fool of yourself.

As for SS, it is indeed funded by YOUR FICA taxes and YOUR Employers Contribution. When that money is spent and you allow others to fund your retirement it becomes a Ponzi Scheme. What the hell are SE taxes? T-Bills are issued but when they come due where does the money come from to convert them to cash or do you think your grocery store will take T-bills? Please tell me why SS and Medicare are being funded by general revenue? You don't seem to have any concept of how the budget works, what taxes you pay, and what those taxes are for. SS and Medicare were pay as you go programs funded by FICA taxes ONLY. Stop it, stop making a fool of yourself and mature by admitting you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about or any clue about the budget, the deficit, and the debt.

You obviously have no idea how foolish you sound but I will continue to beat your ass with actual data and facts. You ought to stop when you are way behind.
 
The most classic strawman. Whenever did I say that.

Just as I thought, you have no idea what you post and forget you are the one claiming that deficits and debt only occurred from Carter on.
 
Just as I thought, you have no idea what you post and forget you are the one claiming that deficits and debt only occurred from Carter on.

Now you're ****ing lying. God damn it dude, I have pointed out a dozen times if once in this thread that 39 president over a period of 200 years accumulated 900 billion dollars of debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That includes the wars and every other thing those fellows spent money on. Really man, what's wrong with you. And then your decrepit, Alzheimer's patient came along and in a period of 8 years, borrowed a couple trillion dollars, and now it seems that every president thinks he can do likewise. Thee biggest colossal failure that B movie actor was.
 
Now you're ****ing lying. God damn it dude, I have pointed out a dozen times if once in this thread that 39 president over a period of 200 years accumulated 900 billion dollars of debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That includes the wars and every other thing those fellows spent money on. Really man, what's wrong with you. And then your decrepit, Alzheimer's patient came along and in a period of 8 years, borrowed a couple trillion dollars, and now it seems that every president thinks he can do likewise. Thee biggest colossal failure that B movie actor was.

Do you realize the cost of the Federal Govt. back then? Any idea? JFK had a budget of 250 billion dollars in 1965 with 175 million Americans. The last Reagan budget was 1.2 trillion dollars over 23 years later and today Obama wants 3.9 trillion dollars. You have no idea what liberalism has cost the govt. in terms of entitlement spending and what happened when LBJ put SS on budget. Before I started blaming someone else, I would look in the mirror at someone who is wrong more than right. I feel bad for people like you especially since you ought to know better
 
Funniest thing, after the Kennedy/Johnson years, the debt had only gone up $57b (that's billion) but after the Reagan/Bush years it had gone up $3.4T (that's trillion). What're you gonna claim, con, that that was all due to inflation? IOW, it went up 60x faster in those 12 years than it had in that earlier 8 year period. And that's what rightwinger, Reagan apologists call "success." This is why economists talk about the transition of the US from a creditor to a chronic debtor nation. Meanwhile our capitalist overlords saw their wealth skyrocket while the middle class shrank. MORE RIGHTWING SUCCESS!!! Orwell had nothing on the neo-cons and supply-siders and their enablers for perversion of the language.

I keep reading posts of yours and others here many of whom talk about Public Debt as a percentage of GDP and how bad Reagan's performance was and although debt is made up of two items, public debt PLUS Inter-government holdings the percentage of debt to GDP is an interesting topic for discussion. Attached is a chart showing those numbers and what is quite telling is the Clinton public debt as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than Reagan's and Obama's debt if off the charts. Makes me wonder why liberals believe what they are told and never research to verify the rhetoric.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S
 
Do you realize the cost of the Federal Govt. back then? Any idea? JFK had a budget of 250 billion dollars in 1965 with 175 million Americans. The last Reagan budget was 1.2 trillion dollars over 23 years later and today Obama wants 3.9 trillion dollars. You have no idea what liberalism has cost the govt. in terms of entitlement spending and what happened when LBJ put SS on budget. Before I started blaming someone else, I would look in the mirror at someone who is wrong more than right. I feel bad for people like you especially since you ought to know better

Reagan is the author of the runaway national debt. That freak owns it.
 
Well that's strong rebuttal, Lol.

Strong rebuttals are ignored. I gave you the Reagan successes and you ignored them because you are hung up on the debt number which was extremely low as a percentage of GDP, extremely beneficial to restoring America to a leadership position in the world, and making our economy strong and robust again. It was debt that was manageable and generated incredibly positive results.
 
Strong rebuttals are ignored. I gave you the Reagan successes and you ignored them because you are hung up on the debt number which was extremely low as a percentage of GDP, extremely beneficial to restoring America to a leadership position in the world, and making our economy strong and robust again. It was debt that was manageable and generated incredibly positive results.

Oh I didn't ignore it, I rejected it as false. He's the emperor of runaway US debt!! Period
 
Oh I didn't ignore it, I rejected it as false. He's the emperor of runaway US debt!! Period

Again, your opinion but you cannot explain how defeating the Soviet Union, winning the cold war, creating a peace dividend generated runaway spending in the future. Looks to me like the peace dividend gave future Presidents the opportunity to cut spending but no, future Presidents and Congresses catered to the will of the liberals and created larger and greater entitlement programs.

Reagan showed leadership, generated GDP growth, job creation, and a peace dividend so that is hardly setting the standards for higher debt
 
Again, your opinion but you cannot explain how defeating the Soviet Union, winning the cold war, creating a peace dividend generated runaway spending in the future. Looks to me like the peace dividend gave future Presidents the opportunity to cut spending but no, future Presidents and Congresses catered to the will of the liberals and created larger and greater entitlement programs.

Reagan showed leadership, generated GDP growth, job creation, and a peace dividend so that is hardly setting the standards for higher debt

That Reagan was the first president to operate our nation on debt is no opinion. And he set the stage for every president that followed to borrow massively as he did. A colossal failure. The architect of runaway debt!
 
That Reagan was the first president to operate our nation on debt is no opinion. And he set the stage for every president that followed to borrow massively as he did. A colossal failure. The architect of runaway debt!

No, it is your opinion for other Presidents created significant debt but hid it well kicking the can down the road. It does appear you have no understanding of getting a return on investment which in this case is the debt created. Keep running from the peace dividend which is why you have no credibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom