• 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 warns about years of trillion-dollar deficits

Re: Final nail in the coffin

Maximus Zeebra said:
If you look beyond your feelings and look at reality, you will see that the post is actually very pro American. Its just reality.

The amount of solutions for the US is shrinking each year, which in my opinion is a dreadful thing.

If I see my friend constantly shooting himself in the foot, I will always try to stop him..
Click to expand...

I agree with you post. While it seems a bit like Armageddon, I think the attitude of many that "We are America", we can do what we want and everything will be dreamy is assine. We have a problem, many people predicted the problem and were ignored. Many of the same people are saying that throwing billions of dollars at the problem is going to make it worse. They are being ignored. If you think that things are bad now wait until the foreign companies start pulling out of the US because people can't afford to buy what they are selling.
 
trillion will become the new billion under this economic fraud and his ignorant advisers.
 
Iriemon said:
I get a kick out of how conservatives, who generally sat mum while the Bush administration slashed taxes and ran up $5 trillion in debt, are now of a suddent deciding they are budget hawks now that a Dem is in charge.

Short term deficit spending in the midst of a contraction makes arguable sense. I disagree with Obama that it should require huge deficits for years to come.
Click to expand...

I get a kick out of how the pass the buck poster is now all in favor of passing the buck.

Others think it is ok to pass the buck when at war. You think it is ok in a contraction But the fact is you are both passing the buck based on what you think is right.

And as I argued long ago, only one candidate running for office was sure to not pass the buck, so your rhetoric really was just hot air as I thought all along.
 
ARealConservative said:
I get a kick out of how the pass the buck poster is now all in favor of passing the buck.

Others think it is ok to pass the buck when at war. You think it is ok in a contraction But the fact is you are both passing the buck based on what you think is right.

And as I argued long ago, only one candidate running for office was sure to not pass the buck, so your rhetoric really was just hot air as I thought all along.
Click to expand...

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Which candidate was that? Realistic one I mean.
 
Iriemon said:
I think you have me confused with someone else.

Which candidate was that? Realistic one I mean.
Click to expand...

no, you are definitely the poster that likes to rag on the pass the buck generation.

I'm not sure if posting the search works or not, but a search on your username with pass the buck, brings a ton of hits.

Debate Politics Forums - Search Results

And your intellectual dishonesty aside, we both know which candidate I speak of.
 
This week Obama has promised to Lower Taxes and Raise spending!


Keep in mind he intends to let tax cuts expire..so at best you will get a cut of the increase.

His spending cannot be even contemplated without tax increases with no decreases.


..and no your not going to rob corporations or steal money form the "rich"...thats simpleton claptrap.
No running away like cowards on Iraq will not do it either..your sending them to Afghanistan and we are not going to demobilize the US military.


Make it simple he's full of BS and the form of US politics is so established and prior to any of us even being born that its pathetic what he is pulling is bought by anyone over 10.


Nothing new. All politicians stretch the truth.

Problem with Obama is he doesn't stretch he outright breaks it and then tells you all how dumb you are in a speech for realizing it.

"I never noticed"



When you look at his comments and stances on the War its clear Obama is operating form a platform of idealistic egomania and not reality.
 
Last edited:
Re: Final nail in the coffin

Phoenix said:
I agree with you post. While it seems a bit like Armageddon, I think the attitude of many that "We are America", we can do what we want and everything will be dreamy is assine. We have a problem, many people predicted the problem and were ignored. Many of the same people are saying that throwing billions of dollars at the problem is going to make it worse. They are being ignored. If you think that things are bad now wait until the foreign companies start pulling out of the US because people can't afford to buy what they are selling.
Click to expand...

I fear total collapse and civil war in the US more than I ever have.
 
Last edited:
Re: Final nail in the coffin

Maximus Zeebra said:
I fear total collapse and civil war in the US more than I ever have.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about us, we can handle ourselves. There have been proclamations of doom before, the most they amount to is recession and once, depression. As you can see we've survived them all. I'm sure we'll find some way to get out of this one without "total collapse and civil war".
 
ARealConservative said:
no, you are definitely the poster that likes to rag on the pass the buck generation.

I'm not sure if posting the search works or not, but a search on your username with pass the buck, brings a ton of hits.

Debate Politics Forums - Search Results
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I have been a vocal critic about deficits for a long time; long before it because popular for conservatives to do so after Dems were elected.

You confused me with someone who thinks its OK to "pass the buck". That would more fit those who were willing to let the US go trillions into debt under the Bush administration for the sake of their tax cuts.

And your intellectual dishonesty aside, we both know which candidate I speak of.
Click to expand...

LOL!
 
Iriemon said:
Oh yes, I have been a vocal critic about deficits for a long time; long before it because popular for conservatives to do so after Dems were elected.

You confused me with someone who thinks its OK to "pass the buck". That would more fit those who were willing to let the US go trillions into debt under the Bush administration for the sake of their tax cuts.



LOL!
Click to expand...

I didn't confuse you, I took your words - you said in a contraction it is ok to do deficit spending, which is passing the buck.
 
Iriemon said:
Oh yes, I have been a vocal critic about deficits for a long time; long before it because popular for conservatives to do so after Dems were elected.
Click to expand...

Here you go, again, Walter (as in Mondale).

Yet another reference to unnamed conservatives. Please stop lying. Conservatives have been very vocal about deficit spending for a long time.

You confused me with someone who thinks its OK to "pass the buck". That would more fit those who were willing to let the US go trillions into debt under the Bush administration for the sake of their tax cuts.
Click to expand...

You claimed earlier that Bush (again, ZERO mention of Congress) ran up five trillion in debt. Link, please.
 
ARealConservative said:
I didn't confuse you, I took your words - you said in a contraction it is ok to do deficit spending, which is passing the buck.
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that. Please quote me directly if you cannot make an argument against me without distorting my words and position.

I said there was an argument for deficits during an economic contraction as a means for stimulating the economy. Whether you agree with it or not, this argument has been around for decades.

I further stated that I personally questioned whether such attempts at fiscal stimulus had much effect. I have also stated my view that notwithstanding such arguments, there is no justification for deficits when the economy is growing, and further that I objected to Obama saying the country needed to run huge deficits for years. I additionally stated from early in the campaign that I disagreed with Obama's plan to give tax cuts at a time he's inhereting huge deficits from the Republican administration.

So no, I never said in a contract it is OK to run deficit spending, but if there is ever a time when such a policy is arguably justified, it is in that situation.
 
Re: Final nail in the coffin

shiznit770 said:
(psst, you're talking to Goobieman)
Click to expand...
Hey!
Did you figure out what countries have some of their parts seperated away by other countries?
 
JMak said:
Here you go, again, Walter (as in Mondale).

Yet another reference to unnamed conservatives. Please stop lying. Conservatives have been very vocal about deficit spending for a long time.
Click to expand...

Dick Cheney is not a conservative now?

I don't recall conservatives objecting to the tax cuts the then conservative Bush administration passed when it didn't slash spending as well. Well, John McCain did, but many conservatives claim he's not very conservative.

You claimed earlier that Bush (again, ZERO mention of Congress) ran up five trillion in debt. Link, please.
Click to expand...

Total debt of the US Govt

01/22/2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
01/06/2009 10,638,425,746,293.80

Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage

That's an increase in $4.910 trillion. Not quite 5 trillion, I'll concede; but the Bush administration has another two weeks; they may reach it.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
Dick Cheney is not a conservative now?
Click to expand...

You commented on Page 1 of this thread:
I get a kick out of how conservatives, who generally sat mum while the Bush administration slashed taxes and ran up $5 trillion in debt, are now of a suddent deciding they are budget hawks now that a Dem is in charge.

When asked who you were referring to you quoted a single conservative, Cheney saying, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

I responded by noting that your cited example demonstrated that your comment was inaccurate as it shows at least one conservative was not "mum" as you claimed conservatives had been.

We can ignore that you've presented just a single example as evidence of conservatives doing something.

I don't recall conservatives objecting to the tax cuts the then conservative Bush administration passed when it didn't slash spending as well. Well, John McCain did, but many conservatives claim he's not very conservative.
Click to expand...

You don't recall because you're ignorant and again, you place singular blame on Bush for budgets that he had, in fact, presented slower spending growth then the Congress ultimately passed.

Recall the whining that Democrats engaged in when they falsely argued that spending was being "cut" when, in fact, Bush was proposing to slow down the rate of spending increases.

Please don't pretend that Bush was singularly responsible for the budgets that were enacted.

While conservatives didn't object to the tax cuts they certainly did object to the spending increases, particularly and forcefully against new program spending like NCLB and Medicare Rx. Examples of this resistance to spending:

USATODAY.com - Budget-conscious maverick on move

Budget hawks say deficit plan won't be enough | Oakland Tribune | Find Articles at BNET

'Deficit Hawks' Circling Highway Bill - Los Angeles Times

I just randomly selected 2004 to start. You want more? I haven't even touched the pundits from National Review or the Weekly Standard, yet.

Total debt of the US Govt

01/22/2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
01/06/2009 10,638,425,746,293.80

Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage

That's an increase in $4.910 trillion. Not quite 5 trillion, I'll concede; but the Bush administration has another two weeks; they may reach it.
Click to expand...

The issue is not the amount. The issue is your assertion that Bush racked this up.

You're deliberately and completely ignoring the impact of non-discretionary spending increases that are adding to this debt. As well, again, per the usual, you're attributing sole responsibility to Bush and ignoring Congress's spending responsibility.

Why?
 
JMak said:
You commented on Page 1 of this thread:
I get a kick out of how conservatives, who generally sat mum while the Bush administration slashed taxes and ran up $5 trillion in debt, are now of a suddent deciding they are budget hawks now that a Dem is in charge.

When asked who you were referring to you quoted a single conservative, Cheney saying, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

I responded by noting that your cited example demonstrated that your comment was inaccurate as it shows at least one conservative was not "mum" as you claimed conservatives had been.

We can ignore that you've presented just a single example as evidence of conservatives doing something.
Click to expand...

What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?
"The Republicans are now the ones making excuses for big deficits"

What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?

Deficits Don't Matter

The American Spectator : Deficits Don't Matter

Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

washingtonpost.com: Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

You don't recall because you're ignorant and again, you place singular blame on Bush for budgets that he had, in fact, presented slower spending growth then the Congress ultimately passed.

Recall the whining that Democrats engaged in when they falsely argued that spending was being "cut" when, in fact, Bush was proposing to slow down the rate of spending increases.

Please don't pretend that Bush was singularly responsible for the budgets that were enacted.
Click to expand...

Please don't create strawmen to argue. I've note that it was the Republican Congress that passed the tax cuts and military build ups that caused the deficits. The tax cuts, military build-up, and Iraq war certainly were Bush administration iniatives, no matter who much you apologize for it.

The issue is not the amount. The issue is your assertion that Bush racked this up.
Click to expand...

False. Once again you show an inability to follow the issues. Try reading the thread before you jump in and lecture me about what the issue is. If you still can't get it, I'll point it out to you.

You're deliberately and completely ignoring the impact of non-discretionary spending increases that are adding to this debt. As well, again, per the usual, you're attributing sole responsibility to Bush and ignoring Congress's spending responsibility.
Why?
Click to expand...

Simple. It was Bush and the Republicans that press through tax cuts, passed the Drug Company Profit Enhancement Act, doubled military spending, and started an unnecessary war in Iraq. These things are responsible for the bulk of the deficits, as I've showed.

Non-discretionary spending was largely in place in 2000 when we had a surplus budget. With the exception of the Drug act passed in 2001, I'm not aware of any significant new non-discretionary programs that have been passed that would explain why the budget went from a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration to trillions more debt under the Bush administration.
 
Iriemon said:
What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?
"The Republicans are now the ones making excuses for big deficits"

What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?

Deficits Don't Matter

The American Spectator : Deficits Don't Matter

Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

washingtonpost.com: Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink



Please don't create strawmen to argue. I've note that it was the Republican Congress that passed the tax cuts and military build ups that caused the deficits. The tax cuts, military build-up, and Iraq war certainly were Bush administration iniatives, no matter who much you apologize for it.



False. Once again you show an inability to follow the issues. Try reading the thread before you jump in and lecture me about what the issue is. If you still can't get it, I'll point it out to you.



Simple. It was Bush and the Republicans that press through tax cuts, passed the Drug Company Profit Enhancement Act, doubled military spending, and started an unnecessary war in Iraq. These things are responsible for the bulk of the deficits, as I've showed.

Non-discretionary spending was largely in place in 2000 when we had a surplus budget. With the exception of the Drug act passed in 2001, I'm not aware of any significant new non-discretionary programs that have been passed that would explain why the budget went from a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration to trillions more debt under the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
Why is it always up to the Republicans to worry about deficits? What about Democrats, don't they have any obligation too?
 
American said:
Why is it always up to the Republicans to worry about deficits? What about Democrats, don't they have any obligation too?
Click to expand...

In my opinion they should be.
 
Iriemon said:
No, I did not say that. Please quote me directly if you cannot make an argument against me without distorting my words and position.
Click to expand...

How am I distorting your position? You said deficit spending was ok based on x and y, yet for years you have been railing on others that felt it was ok to do deficit spending based on y and z

The only difference is the x and y. Some think wars are valid reasons, you think forcing our way out of a contraction is ok. You’re just a pass the buck kind of guy, the difference is only in when you think it is acceptable.

This next 4 years will certainly expose the partisan hacks that have been full of **** for the last 8 years.
 
Iriemon said:
What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?
"The Republicans are now the ones making excuses for big deficits"

What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?

Deficits Don't Matter

The American Spectator : Deficits Don't Matter

Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

washingtonpost.com: Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink
Click to expand...

Once, again, you proved that your original point was wrong. Conservatives were not "mum" as you alleged.

Second, I have presented to you several examples of conservatives being hawkish. In other words, again, conservatives were not "mum" as you have asserted.

Third, citing Republicans, who may also be conservative, dismissing the importance of deficits ain't a reflection of being "mum."

Fourth, I think you'd agree that the deficits being projected as a result of current government policies and Obama's proposed new spending represent a wholly new deficit environment both in type (removing financial capital from the private sector versus tax cuts that keep private dollars in the private sector) and scope (the enormity of the currently projected deficits - blowing away the previous post-WWII high in 1983 when compared to GDP).

Please don't create strawmen to argue. I've note that it was the Republican Congress that passed the tax cuts and military build ups that caused the deficits. The tax cuts, military build-up, and Iraq war certainly were Bush administration iniatives, no matter who much you apologize for it.
Click to expand...

No strawmen, just responding to your actual words.

False. Once again you show an inability to follow the issues. Try reading the thread before you jump in and lecture me about what the issue is. If you still can't get it, I'll point it out to you.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you're saying that my comment that you stated that Bush racked up the additional $5 trillion in debt is false. Well, what did you say?
I get a kick out of how conservatives, who generally sat mum while the Bush administration slashed taxes and ran up $5 trillion in debt, are now of a suddent deciding they are budget hawks now that a Dem is in charge.

Now, if that is not attributing the blame to Bush for running up %5 trillion in debt, well, I don't know what it says then.

Simple. It was Bush and the Republicans that press through tax cuts, passed the Drug Company Profit Enhancement Act, doubled military spending, and started an unnecessary war in Iraq. These things are responsible for the bulk of the deficits, as I've showed.
Click to expand...

You haven't showed this. I'll concede that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are contributing to the debt...that's self-evident. But you left out the tax cuts from this above statement when you have cited it before as a primary driver. Why?

And why don't you similarly blame Democrats for signing on these legislative spending bills? Why is only Bush or sometime the Republican Congress uniquely to blame?

Non-discretionary spending was largely in place in 2000 when we had a surplus budget. With the exception of the Drug act passed in 2001, I'm not aware of any significant new non-discretionary programs that have been passed that would explain why the budget went from a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration to trillions more debt under the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Right, non-discretionary spending is a flat line soending item, right? :roll:
 
Iriemon said:
Please cite the post were I stated this.
Click to expand...

"Short term deficit spending in the midst of a contraction makes arguable sense"

x= short term (a rather broad generalization I might add)

y=in the midst of a contraction.

For others, short term deficit spending in the middle of a war makes "arguable sense".

So only the x and y differ, but otherwise you are just a pass the bucker like those you have spent the like 8 years railing against.
 
JMak said:
Once, again, you proved that your original point was wrong. Conservatives were not "mum" as you alleged.
Click to expand...

No, I said they were generally. I didn't claim every one. I stand by my assertion.

No strawmen, just responding to your actual words.
Click to expand...

Then quote my actual words.

Hmmm, you're saying that my comment that you stated that Bush racked up the additional $5 trillion in debt is false. Well, what did you say?

I get a kick out of how conservatives, who generally sat mum while the Bush administration slashed taxes and ran up $5 trillion in debt, are now of a suddent deciding they are budget hawks now that a Dem is in charge.

Now, if that is not attributing the blame to Bush for running up %5 trillion in debt, well, I don't know what it says then.
Click to expand...

No, after I posted the treasury figures, you stated the amount was irrelevant.
My post of those figures was directly in response to your request:

You claimed earlier that Bush (again, ZERO mention of Congress) ran up five trillion in debt. Link, please.

The figures I posted showed in fact that $5 trillion in debt has been run up from the date Bush took office.

IMO that is directly relevant to your request.

You haven't showed this. I'll concede that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are contributing to the debt...that's self-evident. But you left out the tax cuts from this above statement when you have cited it before as a primary driver. Why?
Click to expand...

I did not leave it out. Read it again.

And why don't you similarly blame Democrats for signing on these legislative spending bills? Why is only Bush or sometime the Republican Congress uniquely to blame?
Click to expand...

Democrats didn't control Congress until 2007.

Andf why is it you do not attribute the tax cuts to revenues falling? The income tax rates was cut about 15%. Even the WH OMB acknowledged they reduced revenues.

Yet you come up with every implausible othe reason -- it was spending, it was the economy it was 9/11. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the obvious that if you slash the effective rate of tax, it will decrease the tax revenues the Govt brings in. Why?

Right, non-discretionary spending is a flat line soending item, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

Of course not. But those programs existed and their growth roughly mirrors the growth in the economy. They also grew in the 90s, and notwithstanding that, there was a surplus budget until the Bush administration took control.

Those programs by and large did not significantly change.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
"Short term deficit spending in the midst of a contraction makes arguable sense"
Click to expand...

Correct. I also stated in that same post: "I disagree with Obama that it should require huge deficits for years to come."

And eslewhere in this thread I wrote:

Iriemon said:
Deficits certainly aren't necessary when the economy is running well -- which is why running up trillions in debt in 2002-2007 was such a tragerdy.

In times of economic crises, there is a valid argument for deficit spending as a means to improve the economy. The evidence of whether such actions is actually beneficial is subject to debate, I agree, but there is at least an argument for it.

I didn't have a big problem with Bush providing rebates in 2001 to try to juice the economy a bit. My prolem was that the tax cuts were made permanent, and even after the economy was running well the government continued to add 1/2 trillion to the debt annually.
Click to expand...

Thank you for conceding you misquoted me. As is now clear, I did not state that deficits in a recession were OK but that there was a valid argument for it. There is debate about this argument, and I personally doubt that fiscal stimulus a la deficit spending accomplishes anything worthwhile in the necessary time frame. However, it can be an important factor in restoring confidence in the economy, something that is badly needed right now.

x= short term (a rather broad generalization I might add)
Click to expand...

In economic and financial circles it is generally accepted to mean within one year.

y=in the midst of a contraction.

For others, short term deficit spending in the middle of a war makes "arguable sense".

So only the x and y differ, but otherwise you are just a pass the bucker like those you have spent the like 8 years railing against.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted.
 
Iriemon said:
Correct. I also stated in that same post: "I disagree with Obama that it should require huge deficits for years to come."
Click to expand...

who cares? You agree with passing the buck so long as we remain in a contraction. You and the one differ on the length of the contraction, not with passing the buck.

Thank you for conceding you misquoted me.
Click to expand...

sorry, but no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom