• 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

There are precisely NO liberal social programs which help anyone. One can't claim that a program has helped someone while ignoring the damage which they've induced.

BS. I got started on my career with the "Manpower Traning And Development Act" back in the 70's. Since that time I have paid thousands in taxes back to the treasury.

I do volunteer work for a charitable organization. It helps thousands of people to own their own home. One donor to this organization recently gave a donation of 100 million dollars.

There are a lot of homeless mentally ill people living either in jail or on the streets who are helped through social programs, government and private.

You have no idea what you are talking about. What is your experience with liberal/conservative social programs that you can make such an absurd statement?
 
BS. I got started on my career with the "Manpower Traning And Development Act" back in the 70's. Since that time I have paid thousands in taxes back to the treasury.

I do volunteer work for a charitable organization. It helps thousands of people to own their own home. One donor to this organization recently gave a donation of 100 million dollars.

There are a lot of homeless mentally ill people living either in jail or on the streets who are helped through social programs, government and private.

You have no idea what you are talking about. What is your experience with liberal/conservative social programs that you can make such an absurd statement?

ROFLMNAO!

I see...

So you got your start in your career, through a liberal program? And you demand that the proof that this liberal program 'helped you' is found in the evidence that you've since 'paid thousands in taxes...' and your working for charity to help people own there own home, and one donor to your charity giving a hundred million dollar donation.

My my... IF I shall ever find a Leftist that doesn't feel CERTAIN that truth rests in fallacious reasoning I think I shall finally rest from debating you people...

You've offered absolutely NO evidence that you were helped by a Social entitlement. You've simply barked off a baseless assertion which you expect this board to accept as fact.

Here's an example of what I'm getting at...

Leftists efforts toward 'helping people to own their own home' recently collapsed the world-wide economy... setting what amounts in truth, to approaching 1/4 of the US work force being un-employed, most of which having lost their means to pay for their homes, will likely end up losing their homes. Here's what ya need to understand about Leftism, or socialism, or progressivism... or whatever shingle you happen to be slithering under at any given moment, the only potential result which has EVER come from the policy set forth by such, is precisely the opposite as that which is advertised as the goal.

Ya see, it's raw evil, friend... Deceit and fraud, it is the closest thing that Leftism can look to as it's soul.

But hey... if you should come up with an actual example of social entitlements or leftist policy having finally resulted in a good... please, do not hesitate to share it with us.
 
ROFLMNAO!

I see...

So you got your start in your career, through a liberal program? And you demand that the proof that this liberal program 'helped you' is found in the evidence that you've since 'paid thousands in taxes...' and your working for charity to help people own there own home, and one donor to your charity giving a hundred million dollar donation.

My my... IF I shall ever find a Leftist that doesn't feel CERTAIN that truth rests in fallacious reasoning I think I shall finally rest from debating you people...

You've offered absolutely NO evidence that you were helped by a Social entitlement. You've simply barked off a baseless assertion which you expect this board to accept as fact.

Here's an example of what I'm getting at...

Leftists efforts toward 'helping people to own their own home' recently collapsed the world-wide economy... setting what amounts in truth, to approaching 1/4 of the US work force being un-employed, most of which having lost their means to pay for their homes, will likely end up losing their homes. Here's what ya need to understand about Leftism, or socialism, or progressivism... or whatever shingle you happen to be slithering under at any given moment, the only potential result which has EVER come from the policy set forth by such, is precisely the opposite as that which is advertised as the goal.

Ya see, it's raw evil, friend... Deceit and fraud, it is the closest thing that Leftism can look to as it's soul.

But hey... if you should come up with an actual example of social entitlements or leftist policy having finally resulted in a good... please, do not hesitate to share it with us.

Since you find me so hilarious, there is nothing that I could say to you to change your mind. That will come to you later in life when you find out that you are not immortal.
 
I disagree. There are a lot of liberal social programs that actually do help the disadvantaged, both private and government ones.

MOst of them are akin to a pusher saying that the dope he sells to an addict actually do help them

private charity is far better since it is not based on pandering to voters which is probably why Obama is trying to cut back on private charity with tax schemes that will discourage giving.
 
MOst of them are akin to a pusher saying that the dope he sells to an addict actually do help them

private charity is far better since it is not based on pandering to voters which is probably why Obama is trying to cut back on private charity with tax schemes that will discourage giving.

Our own government is the biggest dope pusher in the world.

To say that social programs are like dope is a terrible analogy. Now I guess you say that they are addictive. Well, so is the biggest drug of all, money.
 
ROFLMNAO!

I see...

So you got your start in your career, through a liberal program? And you demand that the proof that this liberal program 'helped you' is found in the evidence that you've since 'paid thousands in taxes...' and your working for charity to help people own there own home, and one donor to your charity giving a hundred million dollar donation.

My my... IF I shall ever find a Leftist that doesn't feel CERTAIN that truth rests in fallacious reasoning I think I shall finally rest from debating you people...

You've offered absolutely NO evidence that you were helped by a Social entitlement. You've simply barked off a baseless assertion which you expect this board to accept as fact.

Here's an example of what I'm getting at...

Leftists efforts toward 'helping people to own their own home' recently collapsed the world-wide economy... setting what amounts in truth, to approaching 1/4 of the US work force being un-employed, most of which having lost their means to pay for their homes, will likely end up losing their homes. Here's what ya need to understand about Leftism, or socialism, or progressivism... or whatever shingle you happen to be slithering under at any given moment, the only potential result which has EVER come from the policy set forth by such, is precisely the opposite as that which is advertised as the goal.

Ya see, it's raw evil, friend... Deceit and fraud, it is the closest thing that Leftism can look to as it's soul.

But hey... if you should come up with an actual example of social entitlements or leftist policy having finally resulted in a good... please, do not hesitate to share it with us.

Since you find me so hilarious, there is nothing that I could say to you to change your mind. That will come to you later in life when you find out that you are not immortal.

Hey, you rationalize it anyway ya need to, in order to feel better about it; but I'd wager that of the two of us, you're junior. FWIW, you're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
 
Last edited:
Hey, you rationalize it anyway ya need to, in order to feel better about it; but I'd wager that of the two of us, you're junior. FWIW, you're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I accept your wager. If I am junior I will donate five dollars to dp. If you are junior you donate five dollars to dp.
 
LOL...

Hysterical. In at least two contexts and on several levels.

I mean, you actually seemed serious about conflating the fiscal responsibility of the Conservative Legislature, which Impeached Clinton and delivered the closest thing to a balanced budget since IKE; to which Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming, but for which you sought to give him CREDIT!

And THIS, in the face of the crashed US Economy and 3 TRILLION dollars spent in DEFICIT since the Left took the Legislative majority in 06!

BRILLIANT!

Will you be hear all week or was this a one night stand?

HILARIOUS!
You mean the same republican conservative majority that presided over the doubling of our national debt during the Bush administration, and the $350 billion TARP program that was started by the Bush administration?

brillig-nom-national-debt.gif

Maybe Clinton didn't completely balance the budget, but see that leveling out of the debt at the end of his administration, it's noticeable. This graph seems to indicate a near balanced budget under his administration.
 
You mean the same republican conservative majority that presided over the doubling of our national debt during the Bush administration, and the $350 billion TARP program that was started by the Bush administration?

brillig-nom-national-debt.gif

Maybe Clinton didn't completely balance the budget, but see that leveling out of the debt at the end of his administration, it's noticeable. This graph seems to indicate a near balanced budget under his administration.

ROFLMNAO!

You clowns are an absolute laugh fest. Is there a point hidden amongst that inane drivel?

Are you trying to complain about the doubling of the US debt under Bush, while celebrating the further projection of Clinton leveling off the US Debt... hoping to project Bush as a Conservative and a spend-thrift, Clinton as a Liberal and fiscally responsible?

Please clear this up for us before we proceed... and yes... no matter which way ya go, it's gonna hurt.
 
Last edited:
ROFLMNAO!

You clowns are an absolute laugh fest. Is there a point hidden amongst that inane drivel?

Are you trying to complain about the doubling of the US debt under Bush, while celebrating the further projection of Clinton leveling off the US Debt... hoping to project Bush as a Conservative and a spend-thrift, Clinton as a Liberal and fiscally responsible?

Please clear this up for us before we proceed... and yes... no matter which way ya go, it's gonna hurt.
No, I will not say that Clinton was completely thrifty, but I will say Bush was a spend-thrift.

What I'm saying is that during the Clinton administration spending went down, while during the Bush administration spending shot up, according to this graph. They deserve blanket credit/responsibility for what happened during their administration.

Please, go for it buddy.
 
Your chart is broken.
It doesn't include the off budget debt which when it was in surplus was used to pay off the national debt, during the Clinton era.

Manipulating numbers, tisk tisk.

He is not manipulating the data.

The chart is listed as being getting the data from the US Dept of the Teasury.

Public held debt is an accepted measure of debt for the US government. People have used it to hammer Obama for a dramatic increase in it (as SS was either in a deficit or just slightly positive. Conservatives have used to to defend GWB buy stating the debt created under his admin was lower then it actually was

What it does not due is tell the full story of US government debt, it just tells one aspect of it
 
He is not manipulating the data.

The chart is listed as being getting the data from the US Dept of the Teasury.

Public held debt is an accepted measure of debt for the US government. People have used it to hammer Obama for a dramatic increase in it (as SS was either in a deficit or just slightly positive. Conservatives have used to to defend GWB buy stating the debt created under his admin was lower then it actually was

What it does not due is tell the full story of US government debt, it just tells one aspect of it

I guess I should of said that the data doesn't tell the whole story.
No president in the past 30(?) years has eliminated debt.

If we talk about debt, we should be highlighting the whole scenario not picking and choosing for our favored political groups.
 
He is not manipulating the data.

The chart is listed as being getting the data from the US Dept of the Teasury.

Public held debt is an accepted measure of debt for the US government. People have used it to hammer Obama for a dramatic increase in it (as SS was either in a deficit or just slightly positive. Conservatives have used to to defend GWB buy stating the debt created under his admin was lower then it actually was

What it does not due is tell the full story of US government debt, it just tells one aspect of it


So far from I can tell Obama and his economic team have been making some serious dough with their investments in the banks. Look at the citigroup deal and so far they have made a profit o the shares plus gotten the loan payments paid.
 
No, I will not say that Clinton was completely thrifty, but I will say Bush was a spend-thrift.

What I'm saying is that during the Clinton administration spending went down, while during the Bush administration spending shot up, according to this graph. They deserve blanket credit/responsibility for what happened during their administration.

Please, go for it buddy.

ROFLMNAO... OK! Let's see what we can come up with sis.



Now Clinton; who's clearly your preference... that's the guy that tried to undermine US Principles by nationalizing the US Healthcare System... amongst many, MANY other radical leftist notions such as converting the US Military into a queer social club... which so horrified the American electorate that he lost the legislative majority in an unprecedented shift to a CONSERVATIVE Legislative MAJORITY in his first mid-term. A Conservative Legislature which demanded that Clinton 'balance the budget' and to do so by cutting SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS... A legislature that for the first time in 40 years, since 1964, actually CUT social entitlements... Cuts which William the Bubba REPEATEDLY refused to sign, finally deciding to ahead and 'do it' as the 96 election closed in... Cuts over which the INTERNATIONAL Left, including no doubt: YOU, assuming you're old enough... KICKED AND SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER; but now wish to hold up as an example of the laughable notion of "Leftist fiscal responsibility."

Is this the Clinton who after winning that '96 election, went on to become THE ONLY elected US PRESIDENT TO EVER BE IMPEACHED! and through any number of executive orders and bureaucratic edicts built a WALL OF SEPARATION, which crippled the means of the US Federal government to secure the US from Attack by Islamic jihadists, despite their bombing of the WTC shortly after Clinton took office and the DOZENS OF ISLAMIC ATTACKS UPON THE US THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THAT REGIME... dismissing those attacks, particulatly the domestic WTC attack and asking the American people to 'not make a big deal of this' in his first public comments after that domestic attack on US Soil, by a foreign hostile... refusing to open up lines of communication between US intelligence and US Law Enforcement; PROHIBITING the exchange of information between the two and trying those found engaged in plots against the US in US CRIMINAL COURT! All of which left the US predictably vulnerable to attack by hostile forces, which 9-11-01 proved conclusively.

And Bush... this is the Spend-thrift who signed the LARGEST INCREASE IN SOCIAL SPENDING, since 1964... and exponentially increased the size and scope of the US Federal Education Department... which you, a Leftist, want to use as evidence of irresponsible spending; pointing to the deficit which such spending produces.

Then of course setting aside the costs associated with 9-11 and the US Global War on Terrorism which followed in it's wake.

But the HILARITY comes when the Left (you) want to complain about deficit spending, even while you celebrate the anointment of the BOY King and the THREE TRILLION DOLLARS HE HAS SPENT IN DEFICIT SINCE TAKING OFFICE TWO YEARS AGO... which amounts to ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER DEFICIT SPENDING than the Bush administration managed in EIGHT YEARS...

ABSOLUTELY HYSTERICAL... (In at least two contexts and on several levels...)
 

Isn't it cool how these Marxist Propaganda charts always speak to the President and NOT the Legislature?

I mean setting aside the intentional overstating of the Red and understating the blue, of these charts, it's a simple and wholly incontrovertible FACT that it's the Legislature that spends the money... The Cheif Executive can't spend one red CENT.

So if you look at the chart you'll see that the Deficit spending peaks with Progressive Legislatures and ebbs under Conservative Legislatures...

Also, these charts NEVER seem to speak to any deficits much after the Progressives take power in the '06 Legislature and the Marxist Hussein regime takes power in '09. take particular note of the decline in '07, the last year of the budgets originated by a "Republican Legislative majority" and that of '08' which began the Budgets of the 'fiscally responsible Progressive Legislature lead by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...
 
Last edited:
So far from I can tell Obama and his economic team have been making some serious dough with their investments in the banks. Look at the citigroup deal and so far they have made a profit o the shares plus gotten the loan payments paid.

I don't know if that is true... but if it is, it's an impeachable offense. If you've evidence that Obama has profited by ONE DOLLAR, as a result of ANY policy he has initiated, bring it to the table ofer the Americans are sworn in, after the November elections and he's GONE... And we'll have the SECOND elected President to be IMPEACHED... And who cool will THAT BE?

Imagine the carnage that Biden can produce in a year in office...
 
You mean the same republican conservative majority that presided over the doubling of our national debt during the Bush administration, and the $350 billion TARP program that was started by the Bush administration?

brillig-nom-national-debt.gif

Maybe Clinton didn't completely balance the budget, but see that leveling out of the debt at the end of his administration, it's noticeable. This graph seems to indicate a near balanced budget under his administration.

Tarp came under democrat majority in congress
 
ROFLMNAO... OK! Let's see what we can come up with sis.

Now Clinton; who's clearly your preference... that's the guy that tried to undermine US Principles by nationalizing the US Healthcare System... amongst many, MANY other radical leftist notions such as converting the US Military into a queer social club... which so horrified the American electorate that he lost the legislative majority in an unprecedented shift to a CONSERVATIVE Legislative MAJORITY in his first mid-term. A Conservative Legislature which demanded that Clinton 'balance the budget' and to do so by cutting SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS... A legislature that for the first time in 40 years, since 1964, actually CUT social entitlements... Cuts which William the Bubba REPEATEDLY refused to sign, finally deciding to ahead and 'do it' as the 96 election closed in... Cuts over which the INTERNATIONAL Left, including no doubt: YOU, assuming you're old enough... KICKED AND SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER; but now wish to hold up as an example of the laughable notion of "Leftist fiscal responsibility."

Is this the Clinton who after winning that '96 election, went on to become THE ONLY elected US PRESIDENT TO EVER BE IMPEACHED! and through any number of executive orders and bureaucratic edicts built a WALL OF SEPARATION, which crippled the means of the US Federal government to secure the US from Attack by Islamic jihadists, despite their bombing of the WTC shortly after Clinton took office and the DOZENS OF ISLAMIC ATTACKS UPON THE US THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THAT REGIME... dismissing those attacks, particulatly the domestic WTC attack and asking the American people to 'not make a big deal of this' in his first public comments after that domestic attack on US Soil, by a foreign hostile... refusing to open up lines of communication between US intelligence and US Law Enforcement; PROHIBITING the exchange of information between the two and trying those found engaged in plots against the US in US CRIMINAL COURT! All of which left the US predictably vulnerable to attack by hostile forces, which 9-11-01 proved conclusively.

And Bush... this is the Spend-thrift who signed the LARGEST INCREASE IN SOCIAL SPENDING, since 1964... and exponentially increased the size and scope of the US Federal Education Department... which you, a Leftist, want to use as evidence of irresponsible spending; pointing to the deficit which such spending produces.

Then of course setting aside the costs associated with 9-11 and the US Global War on Terrorism which followed in it's wake.

But the HILARITY comes when the Left (you) want to complain about deficit spending, even while you celebrate the anointment of the BOY King and the THREE TRILLION DOLLARS HE HAS SPENT IN DEFICIT SINCE TAKING OFFICE TWO YEARS AGO... which amounts to ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER DEFICIT SPENDING than the Bush administration managed in EIGHT YEARS...

ABSOLUTELY HYSTERICAL... (In at least two contexts and on several levels...)
Wow, ROFLMABCDEFGFHIKJKLMNOPAO!!!! Not your sis. Though you're probably comfortable calling anyone your sis, don't know why. You haven't refuted any of the budget information, all you've done is shown your own prejudice. How do impeachment and a reform of the military factor into budget calculations? They don't. Right, because undermining US principles is synonymous with providing healthcare for its citizens.

... refusing to open up lines of communication between US intelligence and US Law Enforcement;
How is this relevant to the budget? It's not, but you will take any opportunity you can to spout your propaganda.

Wow, you have such solid evidence, anecdotal prejudiced opinion, that will turn anybody's heads!

Have you forgot about the Bush taxcuts for the rich? Don't forget the entirely optional excursion into Iraq, which costs 700$-800$ billion. And you must be talking about the teach-to-the-test wonderful education program which has gotten so much criticism. Anyone can make a prescription medicare drug program, the tricky part is how you're going to pay for it.

Spending Under President George W. Bush | Mercatus

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

You don't have anything substantive to say because you simply can't refute the facts. Bush doubled the debt, Clinton didn't.
 
Last edited:
Tarp came under democrat majority in congress
TARP was the Bush Administration's idea. It was created by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson who asked Congress to pass it.
 
Back
Top Bottom