• 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

Look maybe you simply aren't smart enough to see the big picture and what the Reagan investment(Spending) created. Please seek some help for your debt derangement syndrome problem you have. Debt that is 50% of GDP and leaving a peace dividend isn't nearly the same as debt today over 100% of GDP.

Your so called corrections are out of context and mostly personal opinion or the opinion of others. With your type attitude there would never be any investment in hopes of getting a greater gain.

You don't know what my education or IQ is. Stop slurping up reaganomics.

While conservatives today celebrate Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday as a moment to recall the achievements of Reagan's presidency, one part of the Reagan myth, that he was a fiscal conservative who helped show the USA the road to prosperity through a leaner government, isn't supported by the facts.

Instead, history shows that Ronald Reagan reversed a long trend of reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP, which had been lowered by every previous president (except Gerald Ford) since the end of World War II.

Ronald Reagan began US government deficit-spending addiction - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com


THE NATIONS ADDICTED BECAUSE WE BROUGHT IN AN ACTOR THAT COULD READ A SCRIPT, BUT DIDNT KNOW ECONOMICS FOR ****.
 
The BIG PICTURE IS THE BAD EXAMPLE AND PRECEDENCE HE SET FOR RUNAWAY DEBT!!!!!!!!! Thanks to his incompetence, we'll likely never see it below a trillion again.

Actually, when Clinton handed the keys to the White House over to Bush, we were on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012.

But crap happened - Bush slashed taxes and fantasized that taking in fewer taxes somehow increases revenue (which is what his dad referred to as "Voodoo economics" for good reason). And then Bush took us into two wars, the first wars we ever fought that were unfunded by an increase in taxes, and we were spending over $12B per MONTH in taxpayer dollars to support operations over there.
 
Actually, when Clinton handed the keys to the White House over to Bush, we were on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012.

But crap happened - Bush slashed taxes and fantasized that taking in fewer taxes somehow increases revenue (which is what his dad referred to as "Voodoo economics" for good reason). And then Bush took us into two wars, the first wars we ever fought that were unfunded by an increase in taxes, and we were spending over $12B per MONTH in taxpayer dollars to support operations over there.

He did good, comparatively, I'll grant him that easily. He still added to the national debt twice as much as what existed when Carter handed it off to Reagan. In case you haven't seen it, it took 39 presidents, 200 years to accumulate 900 billion in national debt. Until Reagan, we were a creditor nation, we're now a very irresponsible debtor nation.
 
You don't know what my education or IQ is. Stop slurping up reaganomics.

While conservatives today celebrate Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday as a moment to recall the achievements of Reagan's presidency, one part of the Reagan myth, that he was a fiscal conservative who helped show the USA the road to prosperity through a leaner government, isn't supported by the facts.

Instead, history shows that Ronald Reagan reversed a long trend of reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP, which had been lowered by every previous president (except Gerald Ford) since the end of World War II.

Ronald Reagan began US government deficit-spending addiction - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com


THE NATIONS ADDICTED BECAUSE WE BROUGHT IN AN ACTOR THAT COULD READ A SCRIPT, BUT DIDNT KNOW ECONOMICS FOR ****.

Only because people like you don't understand return on investment or even the peace dividend. Keep posting Op ed pieces from people like you who don't understand that if you destroy the Soviet Union you don't need a much defense spending and if you create 17 million jobs those are 17 million fewer people who need that so called govt. help thus less govt. spending.

It is obvious that it is you that doesn't understand economics, Return on investment, or even personal behavior including your own. Why do you buy a house if not for an investment and to get a return on that investment? Why did Reagan spend so much on defense if not to create a return in the future thus a peace dividend.

Maybe this will help you but probably not

Articles: Who Spent the Peace Dividend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_dividend
 
Actually, when Clinton handed the keys to the White House over to Bush, we were on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012.

But crap happened - Bush slashed taxes and fantasized that taking in fewer taxes somehow increases revenue (which is what his dad referred to as "Voodoo economics" for good reason). And then Bush took us into two wars, the first wars we ever fought that were unfunded by an increase in taxes, and we were spending over $12B per MONTH in taxpayer dollars to support operations over there.

I remember the cry after 9/11/2001 that "We will never forget" but apparently you have. 9/11 cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars according to the GAO which is one trillion of the Bush debt. Govt. revenue increased to a record level of 2.7 trillion dollars from 2.1 trillion dollars AFTER the entire Bush tax cuts were implemented. It does seem that liberals look at basic math and ignore economic activity. GDP grew from 10.2 trillion to 14.7 trillion during the Bush term so apparently liberals believe that higher taxes which take money from the economy would still have generated the 4.5 trillion increase in GDP. I don't and never will understand liberal logic. Tax more and people will spend the same? Interesting and wrong
 
Yep, you are right, Bush destroyed the economy all by himself under the nose of the Democrat Congress. Where do you get this kind of crap? I can see this has to be an act for no one could really be this dense.

No, the Democratic-controlled congress had nothing to do with it. Most of the blame lay with Clinton and the Republican-led congress which repealed Glass-Steagal and effectively deregulated the finance industry. The repeal passed the Republican-led congress with veto-proof margins, but instead of vetoing it, Clinton signed it...and because of that, he owns it. That, added to Bush 43's utter incompetence in slashing taxes and lying us into hideously-expensive wars, set us up for the Great Recession...

...and yeah, according to the Fed (which is NOT somehow controlled by the White House), it WAS the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
 
No, the Democratic-controlled congress had nothing to do with it. Most of the blame lay with Clinton and the Republican-led congress which repealed Glass-Steagal and effectively deregulated the finance industry. The repeal passed the Republican-led congress with veto-proof margins, but instead of vetoing it, Clinton signed it...and because of that, he owns it. That, added to Bush 43's utter incompetence in slashing taxes and lying us into hideously-expensive wars, set us up for the Great Recession...

...and yeah, according to the Fed (which is NOT somehow controlled by the White House), it WAS the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

It was definitely a perceived financial crisis although there were many banks who didn't want TARP and paid it back with interest in a very short period of time. The question is what did Obama do with the principle and interest

It was a financial crisis for some but the majority in this country weren't hurt at all. How were you hurt? I wasn't hurt, suffered some paper losses but that was short lived, and didn't sell my house thus suffered no losses. I compare this to the 81-82 recession compounded by high inflation and high interest rates thus almost every American was affected
 
I remember the cry after 9/11/2001 that "We will never forget" but apparently you have. 9/11 cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars according to the GAO which is one trillion of the Bush debt. Govt. revenue increased to a record level of 2.7 trillion dollars from 2.1 trillion dollars AFTER the entire Bush tax cuts were implemented. It does seem that liberals look at basic math and ignore economic activity. GDP grew from 10.2 trillion to 14.7 trillion during the Bush term so apparently liberals believe that higher taxes which take money from the economy would still have generated the 4.5 trillion increase in GDP. I don't and never will understand liberal logic. Tax more and people will spend the same? Interesting and wrong

If you'll check, after adjusted for inflation, our tax revenue didn't do so well after Bush slashed taxes:

u-s-federal-government-revenue-current-inflation-gdp.jpg

Even as he continued to spend more and more every year (the first six of which were with a completely Republican-controlled congress):

201104_blog_edwards141.jpg
 
It was definitely a perceived financial crisis although there were many banks who didn't want TARP and paid it back with interest in a very short period of time. The question is what did Obama do with the principle and interest

It was a financial crisis for some but the majority in this country weren't hurt at all. How were you hurt? I wasn't hurt, suffered some paper losses but that was short lived, and didn't sell my house thus suffered no losses. I compare this to the 81-82 recession compounded by high inflation and high interest rates thus almost every American was affected

Frankly, I'll take the Fed's word over yours when it comes to whether Reagan's recession was somehow worse than the Great Recession (and FYI, I had a foreclosure and bankruptcy during the GR).

If you'll read around, what made the difference this time, what kept the GR from becoming much, much worse, was the response of the government, the quick reactions by both Bush and Obama. According to the IMF:

Without the quick and massive policy response, the Great Recession might still plague the United States
THE U.S. economy has come a long way since the dark days of the Great Recession. Less than two years ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse, and the United States was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. At its worst, real gross domestic product (GDP) appeared to be in free fall, declining at nearly a 7 percent annual rate, with job losses averaging close to 750,000 a month. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP has grown by more than 3 percent during the past year, and job growth has resumed, although at an insufficient pace.
From the perspective, say, of early 2009, this rapid turnabout was a surprise. Maybe the country and the world were just lucky. But we take another view: the Great Recession in the United States gave way to recovery as quickly as it did largely because of the unprecedented responses by monetary and fiscal policymakers.
The Federal Reserve (Fed), the Bush and Obama administrations, and the U.S. Congress pursued the most aggressive and multifaceted fiscal and monetary policy responses in history. While the effectiveness and/or wisdom of any individual element can be debated, we estimate that if policymakers had not reacted as aggressively or as quickly as they did, the financial system might still be unsettled, the economy might still be shrinking, and the costs to U.S. taxpayers would have been vastly greater.


But of course since the Fed and the IMF say things that you don't agree with, you'll immediately discount anything they say.
 
If you'll check, after adjusted for inflation, our tax revenue didn't do so well after Bush slashed taxes:

View attachment 67186935

Even as he continued to spend more and more every year (the first six of which were with a completely Republican-controlled congress):

View attachment 67186936

What affect did a 4.5 TRILLION dollar increase in GDP have on percentage change? Think about it? The higher the GDP the lower the percentage change because the devisor is larger.

Also as to the national debt, TARP was excluded in the Federal spending dollars because it occurred in fiscal year 2009 not 2008 and it was then recycled instead of being reducing the national deficit. In addition it was Obama that signed the fiscal year 2009 budget, not Bush and it was Obama that spent 6 months worth of spending including Stimulus money, Afghanistan supplemental expenses, take over of GM/Chrysler, bailout of AIG
 
Frankly, I'll take the Fed's word over yours when it comes to whether Reagan's recession was somehow worse than the Great Recession (and FYI, I had a foreclosure and bankruptcy during the GR).

If you'll read around, what made the difference this time, what kept the GR from becoming much, much worse, was the response of the government, the quick reactions by both Bush and Obama. According to the IMF:

Without the quick and massive policy response, the Great Recession might still plague the United States
THE U.S. economy has come a long way since the dark days of the Great Recession. Less than two years ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse, and the United States was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. At its worst, real gross domestic product (GDP) appeared to be in free fall, declining at nearly a 7 percent annual rate, with job losses averaging close to 750,000 a month. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP has grown by more than 3 percent during the past year, and job growth has resumed, although at an insufficient pace.
From the perspective, say, of early 2009, this rapid turnabout was a surprise. Maybe the country and the world were just lucky. But we take another view: the Great Recession in the United States gave way to recovery as quickly as it did largely because of the unprecedented responses by monetary and fiscal policymakers.
The Federal Reserve (Fed), the Bush and Obama administrations, and the U.S. Congress pursued the most aggressive and multifaceted fiscal and monetary policy responses in history. While the effectiveness and/or wisdom of any individual element can be debated, we estimate that if policymakers had not reacted as aggressively or as quickly as they did, the financial system might still be unsettled, the economy might still be shrinking, and the costs to U.S. taxpayers would have been vastly greater.


But of course since the Fed and the IMF say things that you don't agree with, you'll immediately discount anything they say.

Of course you will take the Feds word because they have no concept of how the recession affects the average American but the reality continues to be the lack of leadership which not only prolonged this recession in terms of economic activity although the recession officially ended in June 2009, but also in terms of economic recovery which have been anemic. Obama inherited a 14.7 trillion dollar economy that is now 17.5 trillion or a 2.8 trillion increase of which 842 billion was TARP.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Fed posts numbers and those numbers are generated by economic policies. It is economic policies that prolong or improve the recovery. Obama's incompetence, lack of leadership skills, and zero experience in the private sector caused the numbers to be worse and when you look at numbers of course this will look like a more severe recession. Reagan leadership brought us out of the recession, Obama's lack of leadership created the poor recovery and numbers.
 
Only because people like you don't understand return on investment or even the peace dividend. Keep posting Op ed pieces from people like you who don't understand that if you destroy the Soviet Union you don't need a much defense spending and if you create 17 million jobs those are 17 million fewer people who need that so called govt. help thus less govt. spending.

It is obvious that it is you that doesn't understand economics, Return on investment, or even personal behavior including your own. Why do you buy a house if not for an investment and to get a return on that investment? Why did Reagan spend so much on defense if not to create a return in the future thus a peace dividend.

Maybe this will help you but probably not

Articles: Who Spent the Peace Dividend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_dividend

He INCREASED the defense spending. You don't know what you're talking about dude!
 
Yep, you are right, Bush destroyed the economy all by himself under the nose of the Democrat Congress. Where do you get this kind of crap? I can see this has to be an act for no one could really be this dense.

He was in charge and did nothing to stop the oncoming disaster (exactly how 9/11 was handled as well). You probably don't know (and wouldn't accept the facts even if you did) that his campaign slogan in 2004 was "The Ownership Society," which was based on the massive real estate fraud being perpetrated on the country by lenders, appraisers and investment bankers that ended up erasing $17T in home values almost overnight. I can't wait to hear your weasel explanations for that.

for your reading pleasure (just kidding; you won't let yourself learn this stuff): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Last edited:
Get a fifth grader to help you read it and explain it to you

Thank you for admitting the level of your writing skill. But that's still higher than any other level of understanding you possess.
 
It is amazing that all those idle threats yet never posting any data that refutes what I have posted.

Just because you've chosen to ignore it (and we know why) doesn't mean it hasn't been posted (at least twice by me and once by you without even realizing it).
 
Try to keep up, this chart shows other President's debt which has been claimed here as non existent.

Who claimed other presidents didn't have debt. Show us or admit to lying.
 
Except you don't realize that Reagan cut taxes, increase employment by 17 million which grew FIT revenue by 60%.
And began the inexorable march of massive debt accumulation which BushII perfected and republicans continue to create by not increasing taxes to pay for their past profligacy.

Why should people have their medicare and SS put on budget when the taxes were created to fund those programs for that purpose? Imagine that, people upset that they were forced to contribute to SS and Medicare only to have it put on budget and spent creating an unfunded liability

More gibberish. None of that makes any sense. And you still don't understand what an unfunded liability is but then again you don't understand anything about how this government operates.

Not sure what you understand as the role of our Federal Govt. but it appears you have been indoctrinated into believing what you are told that Govt. is here to save you from yourself and provide all that you want. The true clowns are the people who don't understand the role of the Federal Govt. and transfer personal responsibility to them

So you don't even understand that part of the Constitution that permits Congress to pass laws when it sees a public need. Hey, please vote to nominate the republican moron who promises to destroy SocSec and Medicare and you'll quickly learn how people thing about your crackpottery.
 
He INCREASED the defense spending. You don't know what you're talking about dude!

Wow, I cannot believe I am reading this. Obviously you have no idea what a dividend is on any issue. Do you ever get a dividend before making an investment? Of course he spent the money, that is what generated the dividend so that other President's didn't have to spend the money. Goes against your belief, doesn't it? Try to think big picture rather than impose your biases on this economic opportunity?
 
He was in charge and did nothing to stop the oncoming disaster (exactly how 9/11 was handled as well). You probably don't know (and wouldn't accept the facts even if you did) that his campaign slogan in 2004 was "The Ownership Society," which was based on the massive real estate fraud being perpetrated on the country by lenders, appraisers and investment bankers that ended up erasing $17T in home values almost overnight. I can't wait to hear your weasel explanations for that.

for your reading pleasure (just kidding; you won't let yourself learn this stuff): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Got it, tell me as a leader isn't that a goal that you would have? Tell me exactly how many loans Bush himself made? You think the mortgage bubble started in 2004? Who created the sub prime loans? Who repealed Glass Steagall? Who created the Community Reinvestment Act? You blame Bush and totally ignore previous Administrations and just like your cohort here you have no idea what you are talking about regarding this issue.
 
I applaud your talent for understatement, sir (madam?).

Are you Frick or Frack? What you are showing is how young you are. Do you normally get a dividend before making the investment or afterwards?
 
And began the inexorable march of massive debt accumulation which BushII perfected and republicans continue to create by not increasing taxes to pay for their past profligacy.



More gibberish. None of that makes any sense. And you still don't understand what an unfunded liability is but then again you don't understand anything about how this government operates.



So you don't even understand that part of the Constitution that permits Congress to pass laws when it sees a public need. Hey, please vote to nominate the republican moron who promises to destroy SocSec and Medicare and you'll quickly learn how people thing about your crackpottery.

I can see why you need a massive central govt. to provide you with all your wants and needs.
 
Got it, the CRA, Subprime loans, Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with any of this? Keep blaming Bush solely for everything ignoring history that includes a lot of democrat finger prints on it. Nothing like a partisan liberal hack promoting more falsehoods and half truths.

You only said liberal once. You're losing your touch dude.
 
Back
Top Bottom