• 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!

National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch

Whovian said:
Obama is not responsible for causing the deficit he inherited from Bush.

However, Obama IS responsible for the causing the deficit has has added AFTER he took office.

Also, Obama is now responsible for ADDRESSING the deficit, regardlees of who CAUSED it.

Seems fairly simple to me.
Click to expand...

Has to do with how you manuver short term and long term goals. If you subcribe to the notion of short term eexpense to lessen the blow now, and to work on long term goals later to reduce, he may not be responsble for anything that would be considered wrong. We need more of a long term plan from him, but deficit spending in a recession isn't new, or something that wasn't done before he took office.

Also, I would argue while important, it would be unfair to suggest the deficit is the only issue. As I have stated, we do need to reduce spending and raise taxes if we are serious about the deficit. however, we can't pretend there are not other issues involved, and what we should cut will be debated fiercely.
 
megaprogman said:
I think you are under the assumption that I am not speaking from what I believe to be true
Click to expand...
Just so long as you understand that it reders meaningless any criticism you might choose to level at someone.
 
Goobieman said:
Just so long as you understand that it reders meaningless any criticism you might choose to level at someone.
Click to expand...

Why? If I think spending is unnecessary, I am well within my rights to criticize them for it, as well as the direct and indirect effects of it.
 
megaprogman said:
Why? If I think spending is unnecessary, I am well within my rights to criticize them for it, as well as the direct and indirect effects of it.
Click to expand...
Yes... and all that is necessary to counter your argument is a statement that said speniding was necessary, absolving whoever spent the money of any blame.

So, while you have the right to criticize, the effective counter, above, renders it meaningless.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... and all that is necessary to counter your argument is a statement that said speniding was necessary, absolving whoever spent the money of any blame.

So, while you have the right to criticize, the effective counter, above, renders it meaningless.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you gong on about? If I believe something is unnecessary, I have the right to criticize it. Other people's opinions are meaningless to me in this regard. You have this same right. In other words, your opinion has the same bearing on mine that mine does to yours, none. So as long as I am internally consistent, I am fine.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Are you under the impression that necessity and blame are something that is objective instead or subjective or something?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant - YOU think is it subjective, and as such, any criticims you have mean nothing because they are so easily and absolutely countered.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant - YOU think is it subjective, and as such, any criticims you have mean nothing because they are so easily and absolutely countered.
Click to expand...

If you think opinions are objective, than there is something wrong with you. There is no way they can be as the very nature of opinion comes from judgment which is entirely subjective.
 
megaprogman said:
If you think opinions are objective, than there is something wrong with you. There is no way they can be as the very nature of opinion comes from judgment.
Click to expand...
Again:
Irrelevant - YOU think is it subjective, and as such, any criticims you have mean nothing because they are so easily and absolutely countered.
 
megaprogman said:
None of that changes my view that it was a good thing.
Click to expand...

who cares about your view

what's walt minnick's view, patrick murphy's, john adler's, harry teague's, stephonie herseth-sandlin's, carol shea-porter's, loretta sanchez', jerry mcnerny's, mike ross', phil hare's, chris carney's, allen boyd's and the other 80 endangered dems identified by wsj/nbc this morning?

that's what really matters

in the NINETY TWO closest house races, 88 of them currently dem, the gop lead is ON AVERAGE a whopping FOURTEEN points

and that's among REGISTERED VOTERS

among LIKELY's, therefore, it would have to be pushing TWENTY

2010 Campaign News: GOP in Lead in Final Lap - WSJ.com

it must be interesting to someone that YOUR view is what it is

but it's most apparent that the party, both leadership and membership, is far more concerned about the eye popping plurality of THIRTY NINE PERCENT (68 to 29) who estimate the stim a "waste"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/122527-poll-two-thirds-think-stimulus-was-a-waste

live it, libs, love it, it's YOURS!
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Again:
Irrelevant - YOU think is it subjective, and as such, any criticims you have mean nothing because they are so easily and absolutely countered.
Click to expand...

Well, once you figure out how logic works, get back to me. This explains why you are so off the mark with so many things though. So thanks, I learned something today :)
 
megaprogman said:
Well, once you figure out how logic works, get back to me.
Click to expand...
Why would that at all be necessary -- since you hold the position that all criticism are wholly subjective in nature, all that needs to be done to counter any criticism you make is state the exact opposite opinion.

Thus, your criticisms are meaningless. Enjoy.
 
It makes me sad that this thread is a partisan pissing contest over which side is responsible. America as a whole is responsible.

Social security. Medicare. Obamacare. Massive defense budget. Bailouts. Stimulus. Iraq War. Constant tax cuts. Monotonically increasing budget for every project ever

This list doesn't belong to one party. America has a problem with accepting deficit spending, with never wanting to cut funding to anything, always wanting to cut taxes.
 
Goobieman said:
Why would that at all be necessary -- since you hold the position that all criticism are wholly subjective in nature, all that needs to be done to counter any criticism you make is state the exact opposite opinion.

Thus, your criticisms are meaningless. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps to you they are. However, you are making a mistake in confusing your subjective opinion for objective fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
Has to do with how you manuver short term and long term goals. If you subcribe to the notion of short term eexpense to lessen the blow now, and to work on long term goals later to reduce, he may not be responsble for anything that would be considered wrong. We need more of a long term plan from him, but deficit spending in a recession isn't new, or something that wasn't done before he took office.

Also, I would argue while important, it would be unfair to suggest the deficit is the only issue. As I have stated, we do need to reduce spending and raise taxes if we are serious about the deficit. however, we can't pretend there are not other issues involved, and what we should cut will be debated fiercely.
Click to expand...

Again... I do not completely disagree with any particular point you just made.
 
Goobieman said:
The Obama is responsible for every dime that was spent in the time he took office. That a budget may have been passed before He took office is meaningless -- the Buck Stops Here, I recall somone once said.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I must disagree... even in this case. It's unfair to hold Obama responsible for the 'creation' of deficit that was created under Dubbya. Conversly, it is perfectly fair to hold Obama responsible for 'addressing' deficit, even if said deficit was 'created' under the previous administration.
 
Goobieman said:
No... they are, period, according to the standard you, yourself, use.
Click to expand...

Than you are under the mistake assumption that I ascribe my opinion to other people and do not let them form opinions of their own. I don't think you are that stupid, so I am lead to believe that you are deliberately misunderstanding my posts. Especially given that a few posts up you also mistakenly ascribed absolutes to my argument when I did not.

Goobieman said:
Why would that at all be necessary -- since you hold the position that all criticism are wholly subjective in nature, all that needs to be done to counter any criticism you make is state the exact opposite opinion.

Thus, your criticisms are meaningless. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I made these arguments in an absolute sense.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
Respectfully, I must disagree... even in this case. It's unfair to hold Obama responsible for the 'creation' of deficit that was created under Dubbya.
Click to expand...
The point is that GWB stopped spending money once he left office, and The Obama started spending money once he entered office. Every dollar spent is spent voluntarily, and so The Obama -chose- to spend every dollar that was spent after he entered office.
 
megaprogman said:
Than you are under the mistake assumption that I ascribe my opinion to other people and do not let them form opinions of their own.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to what I said.
According to your argument, all of your criticisms, regardless of specifics, carry exactly as much force as you stating you don't like the taste of liver.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to what I said.
According to your argument, all of your criticisms, regardless of specifics, carry exactly as much force as you stating you don't like the taste of liver.
Click to expand...

Completely relevent as the context is necessary to the understanding of my statements.
 
Nevermind, there is no point to this since you have stated in the past you don't do context.
 
Whovian said:
Respectfully, I must disagree... even in this case. It's unfair to hold Obama responsible for the 'creation' of deficit that was created under Dubbya.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
The point is that GWB stopped spending money once he left office, and The Obama started spending money once he entered office. Every dollar spent is spent voluntarily, and so The Obama -chose- to spend every dollar that was spent after he entered office.
Click to expand...

But you cannot really call it a choice, if it was already in the budget. The current administration can't really ignore the budget that was already in place.
 
Whovian said:
But you cannot really call it a choice, if it was already in the budget. The current administration can't really ignore the budget that was already in place.
Click to expand...
Ignore the budget? No - but the administration -can- work to change the budget directly, and limit spending in other ways. To choose not to do so is to accept responsibility for the spending.
 
megaprogman said:
Nevermind, there is no point to this since you have stated in the past you don't do context.
Click to expand...
This is a subjective statement, and therefore carries exactly as much force as you stating you don't like liver.
 
I wonder if you will ever argue honestly. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom