• 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 says GOP making life harder for the jobless

LOL, run, baby, run!! It is obvious to me that you do not understand how our economy works and I stand by that statement.
 
Sounds like a typical redistribution of wealth advocate! I suggest going to BEA.gov and use all the tools there to determine economic results and then go to BLS.gov to check out job creation. Those sites are non partisan and present a different picture than you are receiving from the media.

There is no justification to redistribute wealth as it takes aways personal responsibility and ignores the reality that rich people with their spending, savings, and investments help grow the job markets. If the gap is growing between the rich and the poor then the question is why? Rich people take advantage of incentives whereas poor people continue to wait on help from others. You don't seem to understand our economy and judge everyone else by your own standards. Not all poor people have the incentive, drive, or willingness to work hard and get out of their position. I once was poor and worked hard, if I can do it, so can others. This is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcome which liberals want to try an legislate. Trickle down economics is the only economic policy that makes any sense and works. The results are there even you to see. Go to the sites and then get back to me. Until then your words are just that, liberal talking points that distort reality.

I am already very familiar with conservative arguments against egalitarian redistributive models. Currently however your unemployment levels are to high and the fear being spread by the right is that more social spending will cause inflationary pressures. This is false and inflation really only becomes an issue when unemployment hits 4-5%. Till then economic stimulus does not hurt.

I don't particularly care about equal outcomes or any of that I don't entertain ideological arguments that brought this mess. You need your economy to be fully fixed before you go around pounding your chest about welfare bums. The job creation needed should be in manufacturing exports and not min wage food industry jobs. All this crap about GOP reining in spending is partisan and politically motivated so republicans have something to cry about in the fall. The economy is only just now coming out of the mess it was in it is to early for austerity measures .. on the unemployed.. I can't disregard the republicans cutting back stimulus to the market yet.
 
I am already very familiar with conservative arguments against egalitarian redistributive models. Currently however your unemployment levels are to high and the fear being spread by the right is that more social spending will cause inflationary pressures. This is false and inflation really only becomes an issue when unemployment hits 4-5%. Till then economic stimulus does not hurt.

You seem very familiar with the argument but not so familiar with the reality of what too much govt. spending does to the value of the dollar. All this spending cannot be sustained and the amount of debt today is unsustainable and that is what the govt. Does. Show me a Government program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem and went away? Once govt. creates a program it never goes away. Soon the debt service will exceed the amount spent on the Defense Dept. each year.

I don't particularly care about equal outcomes or any of that I don't entertain ideological arguments that brought this mess. You need your economy to be fully fixed before you go around pounding your chest about welfare bums. The job creation needed should be in manufacturing exports and not min wage food industry jobs. All this crap about GOP reining in spending is partisan and politically motivated so republicans have something to cry about in the fall. The economy is only just now coming out of the mess it was in it is to early for austerity measures .. on the unemployed.. I can't disregard the republicans cutting back stimulus to the market yet.

Yes, we need the economy fixed and the govt. isn’t the answer, never was, and never will be. That isn’t the role of the govt. but that is the role you want it to be. Continue to buy the Administration rhetoric and ignore the Administration results. Months after Bush took office the cry was “where are the jobs?” When Bush left office there were 11 million unemployed people, now after a trillion dollar stimulus plan there are over 15 million(BLS.gov) I hardly call that a successful stimulus yet now some are calling for more govt. spending. Personal responsibility doesn’t seem to exist in the liberal world. It is going to be the private sector that gets us out of this mess not the govt.
 
You seem very familiar with the argument but not so familiar with the reality of what too much govt. spending does to the value of the dollar. All this spending cannot be sustained and the amount of debt today is unsustainable and that is what the govt. Does. Show me a Government program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem and went away? Once govt. creates a program it never goes away. Soon the debt service will exceed the amount spent on the Defense Dept. each year.



Yes, we need the economy fixed and the govt. isn’t the answer, never was, and never will be. That isn’t the role of the govt. but that is the role you want it to be. Continue to buy the Administration rhetoric and ignore the Administration results. Months after Bush took office the cry was “where are the jobs?” When Bush left office there were 11 million unemployed people, now after a trillion dollar stimulus plan there are over 15 million(BLS.gov) I hardly call that a successful stimulus yet now some are calling for more govt. spending. Personal responsibility doesn’t seem to exist in the liberal world. It is going to be the private sector that gets us out of this mess not the govt.

It is to early to start crying about government debt and the like when the spending that was required to keep these people with some income was a tiny microscopic bit in comparison to the amount of debt accumulated via deficit spending that tax cuts brought to the table.

Spending cuts on unemployment/economic stimulus are to early. That is all I'm saying after a recovery unemployment spending cuts make more sense. This move by the GOP is partisan and politically motivated. The draft they voted down was cut in half by the democrats in hopes of getting a few votes of support. The republicans acted in solidarity so they are acting as a group in a partisan manner despite their constituents that might be negatively effected by their vote.
 
Really, tax cuts brought debt to the table? Provide proof of that please because BEA.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. numbers prove differently. Where do you get your information? Seems that tax cuts brought more govt. revenue to the table so how can that be?

As for what the Republicans did, during difficult times difficult decisions have to be made. The GOP made a tough decision. I support it.
 
Really, tax cuts brought debt to the table? Provide proof of that please because BEA.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. numbers prove differently. Where do you get your information? Seems that tax cuts brought more govt. revenue to the table so how can that be?

As for what the Republicans did, during difficult times difficult decisions have to be made. The GOP made a tough decision. I support it.

Tax cuts indirectly contributed hugely to the debt via lack of spending cuts. This alone on a balance sheet is the equivilent of a spending increase. What is worse though is that you brought in less and spent even more.. this is not rocket science.
 
So that is your logic, tax cuts that increased govt. revenue contributed to the debt because there were no spending cuts? Do you realize how stupid that argument is? Tax cuts increased govt. revenue, period, and that is proven by the U.S. Treasury website which is the checkbook of the U.S.

Again, prove me wrong with verifiable non partisan sources like the U.S. Treasury or BEA.gov.
 
Why is it that when asked to provide proof that the tax rate cuts reduced govt. revenue I get silence from those that continue to spout that BS? This is the ongoing argument from the left that promotes the statement that if you make false statements often enough soon they will become true. It is a lie and that lie is debunked by BEA.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. numbers. Both the Reagan and Bush Tax RATE cuts grew govt revenue by creating new taxpayers. Look at what the Obama tax cuts generated, nothing because they were rebate checks passed off as a tax cut.
 
So that is your logic, tax cuts that increased govt. revenue contributed to the debt because there were no spending cuts? Do you realize how stupid that argument is? Tax cuts increased govt. revenue, period, and that is proven by the U.S. Treasury website which is the checkbook of the U.S.

Again, prove me wrong with verifiable non partisan sources like the U.S. Treasury or BEA.gov.

What were the tax revenues for 2008-2009?
 
President Bush inherited a budget surplus when he took office. Then managed to turn that surplus into an enormous deficit after cutting taxes multiple times while implementing two wars and the opening billions of dollars worth of new spending programs and didn’t pay for any of them. Obama took office in January 2009 the Congressional Budget Office was seeing a finances deficit of 1.2 trillion for the year. This decline from a record surplus to a record deficit with Bush resulted in $3 trillion increase in public debt, this was the largest increase to the American debt ever.
 
Last edited:
Tax revenues for 2009 were down down 17%.

Yes, the economy was down for 2009. What a ****ing shock.

There was no "Clinton Surplus" taht was a shell game, nothing more.

Teh Tax Revenues of the 82-88 period, 62-64, and 2002-2008 are all times of TAX CUTS with higher tax REVENUE.

Indisputible facts.
 
So I am told, now prove it? Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts. The U.S. Treasury will show the actual results of Bill Clinton. Projected surpluses are just like the projection that you are going to be the President of the United States. There was no budget surplus, only a projected one and of course you forget like others 9/11 and the costs to the Treasury. You also don't seem to have a clue that SS funds are on budget but the debt off budget and it was SS funds that created a surplus for one year and one year only but those funds were offset by an IOU in the SS fund. Another brilliant liberal comment on your part.

For someone apparently concerned about the Bush debt you conveniently ignore that Obama was in the Congress and helped create that debt. Now he is in the WH and put Bush deficits on steroids and not a word from you. That is what liberals do, blame someone else and never take responsibility. That is the prescription for failure.
 
One thing to say about this.

No President Obama, it is you and your corrupt congress that is.

Good day sir.
 
Crazy, on behalf of all clear thinking Americans, my sincere apology to you and your country for the actions of our empty suit President. Your country deserves better than this President is delivering. I would have hoped that our govt. would have provided better support for our best ally in the region and a democracy closest to ours. Finally Jews everywhere are waking up to the mistake most made in voting for Obama.
 
Where Today's Large Deficits Come From — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Bush-era tax cuts — Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001. Those estimates were based on the economic and technical assumptions used when CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) originally “scored” the legislation, but the numbers would not change materially using up-to-date assumptions. Most of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire after December 2010 (partway through fiscal 2011). We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[16] (We did not assume extension of the temporary tax provisions enacted in ARRA.) Together, the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.4 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — and $330 billion in 2019 alone.
 
How long are you going to blame Bush for the Democrat created recession and the fact that Obama is doing nothing to help get us out of it? It isn't Bush economic policy that is leading to the current results nor was it Bush policies that led to the sub prime financial collapse. You need to get off the Bush bashing and get the actual facts from the sites I gave you. You obviously went to the site to get the reduction in govt. revenue now explore the rest of the site to see economic growth numbers. Go to BLS for the employment numbers. You have a problem with facts getting in the way of your personal opinions.
 
How long are you going to blame Bush for the Democrat created recession and the fact that Obama is doing nothing to help get us out of it? It isn't Bush economic policy that is leading to the current results nor was it Bush policies that led to the sub prime financial collapse. You need to get off the Bush bashing and get the actual facts from the sites I gave you. You obviously went to the site to get the reduction in govt. revenue now explore the rest of the site to see economic growth numbers. Go to BLS for the employment numbers. You have a problem with facts getting in the way of your personal opinions.

The democrat created recession? wtf? are you for real?
 
Yep, I am for real and have real facts. listen to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Apparently the MSM media didn't tell you that it was Democrats that pushed mortgages for people who couldn't afford the payments. Apparently civicis wasn't a strong suit for you as you ignore that Congress makes the laws not the President and Congress has been under the control of the Democrats since January 2007. When exactly did the recession begin?

By the way do you know what the Community Reinvestment Act is? For someone your age you sure are misinformed.

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe
 
Yep, I am for real and have real facts. listen to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Apparently the MSM media didn't tell you that it was Democrats that pushed mortgages for people who couldn't afford the payments. Apparently civicis wasn't a strong suit for you as you ignore that Congress makes the laws not the President and Congress has been under the control of the Democrats since January 2007. When exactly did the recession begin?

By the way do you know what the Community Reinvestment Act is? For someone your age you sure are misinformed.

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Back at ya:

The Real Deal

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

FactCheck.org: Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
 
lmao, it was failure of the banking industry and financial products that turned into toxic investments. The materialization of an unregulated market for bizarre derivatives , collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), credit default swaps (CDSs), CDSs on CDOs sanctioned reckless financial institutions to put the entire financial system in jeopardy. The global economic collapse is attributed to deregulation. Everyone knows this. Wow.
 
The only mention of Bush was the needed govt. oversight of the mortgaged backed security and the Bush Administration tried that in 2006 but was filibusterd by Dodd. As you stated there was a lot of blame to go around but it all started with the CRA and the desire of Democrats to put everyone in a home even though not everyone can afford a home.
 
None of this has anything to do with Bush who you blame for the recession. Bush tried to initiate more oversight but Chris(Countrywide) Dodd filibustered that attempt and Barney(Freddie and Fannie are fine) Franks continued to ignore the problem. Based upon your own comments you need to stop blaming Bush for the crisis we are now in and hold Obama responsible for not getting us out of it. He has total control of the Congress and could have implemented anything he wanted. He doesn't have a clue, never managed anything, and has not made the economy better in his first 1 1/2 years but has created more debt in two years than Reagan created in 8 and will pass Bush debt in 5 years if he lasts that long.
 
Gabriel & Goldenboy,

What do you hope to get out of a discussion with a user who obviously does not understand key basic economic and statistical principles and habitually fabricates arguments to avoid discussing what you actually posted?
A discussion requires both sides to address each others' arguments. You are dealing with a user notorious for ignoring everything he doesn't understand and fabricating arguments that his opponents never made as well as spectacularly failing to understand the difference between correlation and causation much less how statistical linear regression is required to sort out the impact of complex factors upon an outcome. His constant arguments pointing to aggregate net data is evidence he has functionally no understanding of complex subjects.
 
Back
Top Bottom