• 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 announces his Candidacy for 2012.

You see, your cup is always half empty with Bush whereas it is always half full with Obama.
My cup is no different than your cup. That's the part you fail to recognize. I suspect, and I could be wrong, you would would have voted for Bush in 2004 no matter how badly he had performed (and I can't imagine him failing worse than he had). I equally suspect that no matter how well Obama performs, he's not getting your vote, regardless of who runs against him, as long as they put an (R) after their name.

You totally ignore that Bush had an attack on our soil, a recession and still grew jobs during 2004 along with had strong economic growth.
I don't ignore the attack -- I hold him accountable for doing nothing to prevent it. That aside, I find it amazing that you cut Bush slack for poor performance because of the cards he was dealt, but you don't offer that same advantage to Obama. I chalk that up to your partisanship and nothing more.
 
So Obama didn't tell the CBO that he created or saved 3.5 million jobs? I asked you where those jobs were saved because it is obvious that he didn't create 3.5 million jobs meaning that he had to save a great portion of those. Show me where those jobs were saved?
According to you, he did save or create 3.5 million jobs. You were the one who bought the rightwing rhetoric that each job cost us $228,000. Well if that's what you believe each job cost, then 3.5 million jobs had to have been saved or created.
 
My cup is no different than your cup. That's the part you fail to recognize. I suspect, and I could be wrong, you would would have voted for Bush in 2004 no matter how badly he had performed (and I can't imagine him failing worse than he had). I equally suspect that no matter how well Obama performs, he's not getting your vote, regardless of who runs against him, as long as they put an (R) after their name.


I don't ignore the attack -- I hold him accountable for doing nothing to prevent it. That aside, I find it amazing that you cut Bush slack for poor performance because of the cards he was dealt, but you don't offer that same advantage to Obama. I chalk that up to your partisanship and nothing more.

John Kerry made it a lot easier to vote for Bush just like Obama will make it a lot easier for me to vote for whatever viable candidate runs against him. His economic policy is a disaster. You want to continue to discuss Bush, start another thread this is about the Obama candidacy.
 
According to you, he did save or create 3.5 million jobs. You were the one who bought the rightwing rhetoric that each job cost us $228,000. Well if that's what you believe each job cost, then 3.5 million jobs had to have been saved or created.

Let me know where you get your evidence that I work for the CBO?
 
Let me know where you get your evidence that I work for the CBO?
The CBO never stated each job cost $228,000, which is what you stated (not the CBO); so why on Earth would I think you worked for them?
 
The CBO never stated each job cost $228,000, which is what you stated (not the CBO); so why on Earth would I think you worked for them?

CBO claims that Obama created or saved 3.5 million jobs, what does the 228k have to do with that? All I did was take the cost of the stimulus and divide it by the 3.5 million jobs. I want to see where those 3.5 million jobs are that Obama says he created or saved

"So far," he said, "the Recovery Act is responsible for the jobs of about 2 million Americans who would otherwise be unemployed. These aren't just our numbers; these are the estimates of independent, nonpartisan economists across the spectrum. ... [And] the Recovery Act is on track to save or create another 1.5 million jobs in 2010."
 
But, but, but that caused the debt increase and we all know the govt. can spend the money better than the people can when they keep their own. Where is that liberal compassion? We have to help our fellow Americans by giving it to the govt. so they can spend it the way they see fit. You seem like a heartless conservative to me who wants to starve kids, kill seniors, and pollute the air by keeping more of your own money.

Ah! But here's the difference...

When tax time comes around I pay whatever taxes I owe DIRECTLY FROM MY EARNINGS! I don't have pre-tax shelters to hide money and avoid paying taxes. Now, not all wealthy individuals or corporation does that, however, I'm sure there are some with hefty tax bills. Nonetheless, what the average American worker sees is few tax breaks for the working class, few opportunities to invest because wages have been flat (and if some states with Conservative leadership had their way, wages would never increase particularly for public employees) and few incentives to spend beyond the basics while the opposite seems true for the wealthy. Case and point, there's no denying reports illustrating the income gap between the poor and the rich or the middle-class and the rich. Wealthy individuals' earnings have dramatically increased even during the recession as this article clearly indicates. And yet, job growth though improving hasn't improved fast enough to further reduce the unemployment rate which last reported sits at 8.8%, a 1% decrease from 2 years ago.

So, when I hear arguments in support of the wealthier class in light of their increased earnings yet see the jobs numbers remaining so dreadfully low, I think of the trickle-down theory and question the validaty of this concept. Truth is, it just doesn't work and the evidence is here and now staring us all squarely in the face.

Now, tax cuts in bad economic times can do wonders to improve a nation's economy assuming your Treasury's revenue stream can afford it. By all accounts, ours cannot. Hence, the reason taxes will very likely need to be increased at some point. But for the hear and now, the nation does need to reduce its spending. That I will agree with Republicans on. However, anyone who thinks the Bush Tax Cuts should continue after 2011 (assuming that the economy is on an up-tick by that Fall), IMO, are merely seeking to impose their own ideology upon America and not doing what's truly in the best interest of the country. If you're really serious about reducing the deficit, WE ALL will need to be brave enough pay alittle more in taxes by a small fractions (I'll let the economist figure out the numbers.) and pay down this debt. Spending cuts alone just won't get the job done in the near term.
 
CBO claims that Obama created or saved 3.5 million jobs, what does the 228k have to do with that?
You tell me -- it's your math. You are the one complaining about how every job saved or created cost us $228,000. Well based on the cost of the stimulus, the only way you can figure that each job cost us $228,000 is if 3.5 million jobs were saved or created.
 
You tell me -- it's your math. You are the one complaining about how every job saved or created cost us $228,000. Well based on the cost of the stimulus, the only way you can figure that each job cost us $228,000 is if 3.5 million jobs were saved or created.

I don't see any reason to continue this, Obama claims he created or saved 3.5 million jobs, BLS doesn't show that and in fact shows he has lost jobs, more than when he took office which was terrible yet now it is worse and he spent a lot of money to generate those results. So unless you can show me where those saved jobs are then you are nothing more than a typical Obama cheerleader how basis your vote on rhetoric and not actual results because in your world results don't matter.
 
yeah and smart people understand that a state doing something doesn't violate the tenth amendment but the federal government doing it does.

Smart people will realize that. The question then is, how many voters are thinking about the 10th Amendment?

When you heard the "talking heads" talking about it, the phrases that resonated were "socialism" and "death panels." Not many discussions about the nuances of Constitutional law.

In other words, there's a lot of dumb voters out there. I know you guys on the right like to think that you all are smarter, but there's plenty of dumb people looking to vote GOP.
 
So unless you can show me where those saved jobs are then you are nothing more than a typical Obama cheerleader how basis your vote on rhetoric and not actual results because in your world results don't matter.
You're sadly mistaken if you think it's my job to prove your numbers are correct. You posted that each job saved or created cost us $228,000. Only after you learned the implications of that figure (that being 3.5 million jobs would have had to be saved or created in order to reach the number of $228,000), did you suddenly decide you no longer accept that figure.

Until then, you kept whining about how each job cost us $228,000. That's your number, not the CBO's; as the link to the CBO showed, they never said anything about each job costing us $228,000.

I've never seen anybody struggle so much to divorce themselves from figures they themselves posted as you have; trying to distance yourself from saying how each job saved or created cost us $228,000.
 
You're sadly mistaken if you think it's my job to prove your numbers are correct. You posted that each job saved or created cost us $228,000. Only after you learned the implications of that figure (that being 3.5 million jobs would have had to be saved or created in order to reach the number of $228,000), did you suddenly decide you no longer accept that figure.

Until then, you kept whining about how each job cost us $228,000. That's your number, not the CBO's; as the link to the CBO showed, they never said anything about each job costing us $228,000.

I've never seen anybody struggle so much to divorce themselves from figures they themselves posted as you have; trying to distance yourself from saying how each job saved or created cost us $228,000.

Why are you focued on the cost per job instead of the numbers claimed? Look, we know what has been spent, over 800 billion dollars in stimulus and 350 billion of the TARP. We know that there are less employed today than when Obama took office. We know that unemployment is higher today than when he took office. We know there are more discourageed workers dropping out of the labor force now than at any time in history. Those are facts that are verifiable, not jobs saved. Your concern about costs ignores the real numbers that matter, actual jobs lost, less jobs created, and the massive debt created. Whether or not it is 228k per job is irrelevant, it is over 800 billion dollars spent to create the numbers we have and they are an embarrassment and a disaster.
 
I'm voting for the craziest candidate. So far the safest or "lesser of two evils" candidate always seems to dissapoint me.
 
Probably because Reagan and Bush policies helped the average American with tax cuts that they are still getting today and neither added 4 trillion to the debt in two years.
reagan and bush policies also contributed to our debt..but of course, they are excused in your book, as they are republican, like yourself.
 
reagan and bush policies also contributed to our debt..but of course, they are excused in your book, as they are republican, like yourself.

Try to stay on topic, of course Reagan and Bush added to the debt but no one has ever added this much in two years and in fact at the end of this year Obama will be close to adding as much debt in 3 years as Bush added in 8. There was a lot of complaining about the Bush debt but none here by Obama supporters about his debt. It will be his debt that will be an issue in the next election, not Reagan's or Bush's.
 
Try to stay on topic, of course Reagan and Bush added to the debt but no one has ever added this much in two years and in fact at the end of this year Obama will be close to adding as much debt in 3 years as Bush added in 8. There was a lot of complaining about the Bush debt but none here by Obama supporters about his debt. It will be his debt that will be an issue in the next election, not Reagan's or Bush's.
but they added to it, regardless of the amount, but you excuse it...anyhoo...me thinks you should bow out of this thread, as sheik yerbuti is manhandling you. just sayin'
 
reagan and bush policies also contributed to our debt..but of course, they are excused in your book, as they are republican, like yourself.

Reagan yes, because he tried to fix it. Bush II no, because he didnt'. I was against the Bailouts (the first one, in 2008) when being against them wasn't cool :peace:
 
but they added to it, regardless of the amount, but you excuse it...anyhoo...me thinks you should bow out of this thread, as sheik yerbuti is manhandling you. just sayin'

Yes, liberals have to stick together for who else but another liberal believes a word that they say. Only a compassionate liberal makes claims of someone else being manhandled. You have very little credibility on the issue as obviously you believe what you want to believe.

Reagan and Bush both added to the debt along with the Congresses at the time so what is your point? Does that make it right that Obama has added more in a little over a year than Reagan added in 8 or will add more in 3+ years than Bush added in 8?

Results matter, randel and I am sure that is why you never want to talk about results. If you care so much about the debt that Reagan and Bush created why aren't you sending your Bush tax cut back since you believe that causes debt? If you are concerned about the debt that Reagan and Bush added why are you supporting Obama since he is adding more debt than both and will add more debt than both combined by the time he is done?
 
Reagan yes, because he tried to fix it. Bush II no, because he didnt'. I was against the Bailouts (the first one, in 2008) when being against them wasn't cool :peace:

Reagan wanted to get the line item veto but was denied. Without a line item veto no President alone is responsible for the debt since Congress spends the money. Reagan policies created so much govt. revenue that it was like a "kid in the candy store" for the Congress to see how they could spend the money the quickest.
 
Yes, liberals have to stick together for who else but another liberal believes a word that they say. Only a compassionate liberal makes claims of someone else being manhandled. You have very little credibility on the issue as obviously you believe what you want to believe.

Reagan and Bush both added to the debt along with the Congresses at the time so what is your point? Does that make it right that Obama has added more in a little over a year than Reagan added in 8 or will add more in 3+ years than Bush added in 8?

Results matter, randel and I am sure that is why you never want to talk about results. If you care so much about the debt that Reagan and Bush created why aren't you sending your Bush tax cut back since you believe that causes debt? If you are concerned about the debt that Reagan and Bush added why are you supporting Obama since he is adding more debt than both and will add more debt than both combined by the time he is done?
it has been pointed out that you perceive results as good or bad depending on if there is an (R) or a (D) in front of the name....the (R) could have worse results than the (D), and you would still vote for the (R)....
 
Try to stay on topic, of course Reagan and Bush added to the debt but no one has ever added this much in two years and in fact at the end of this year Obama will be close to adding as much debt in 3 years as Bush added in 8. There was a lot of complaining about the Bush debt but none here by Obama supporters about his debt. It will be his debt that will be an issue in the next election, not Reagan's or Bush's.
Now you're comparing 2011 dollars with 1988 dollars? Fact of the matter is, by the time Reagan left office, he nearly tripled the national debt. Lemme guess, in 1984, you voted to give him 4 more years too, huh? I suppose you voted to give GHW 4 more years too in 1992? In his 4 years, the debt rose a whopping 61%. That's the second worst performance over a 4 years span (Reagan remains king in that department, raising the debt 79% during his first term).
 
it has been pointed out that you perceive results as good or bad depending on if there is an (R) or a (D) in front of the name....the (R) could have worse results than the (D), and you would still vote for the (R)....

No, what I pointed out is the data for both, apparently you missed the data and ignored how the data was created. Both Reagan and Bush policies were pro growth, pro individual, pro entreprenuer whereas Obama's policies are pro nanny state which apparently you are more comfortable as you are used to having someone else take care of you, unions. You want badly to buy percentage change not realizing that percentage change is dependent on the base, the lower the base number the higher the negative percentages. If you drop a million people off the unemployment roles what will that do to the percentage change? Until one looks at actual numbers that actually affect people then one lacks credibility using percentage
 
Now you're comparing 2011 dollars with 1988 dollars? Fact of the matter is, by the time Reagan left office, he nearly tripled the national debt. Lemme guess, in 1984, you voted to give him 4 more years too, huh? I suppose you voted to give GHW 4 more years too in 1992? In his 4 years, the debt rose a whopping 61%. That's the second worst performance over a 4 years span (Reagan remains king in that department, raising the debt 79% during his first term).

Post 837

Why are you focued on the cost per job instead of the numbers claimed? Look, we know what has been spent, over 800 billion dollars in stimulus and 350 billion of the TARP. We know that there are less employed today than when Obama took office. We know that unemployment is higher today than when he took office. We know there are more discourageed workers dropping out of the labor force now than at any time in history. Those are facts that are verifiable, not jobs saved. Your concern about costs ignores the real numbers that matter, actual jobs lost, less jobs created, and the massive debt created. Whether or not it is 228k per job is irrelevant, it is over 800 billion dollars spent to create the numbers we have and they are an embarrassment and a disaster.
 
Reagan and Bush both added to the debt along with the Congresses at the time so what is your point? Does that make it right that Obama has added more in a little over a year than Reagan added in 8 or will add more in 3+ years than Bush added in 8?
Of course the debt skyrocketed, before Obama even became president, the deficit for 2009 was already projected to hit $1.2 trillion.

Results matter...
Not to you they don't. If they did, you never would have voted to give 4 more years to the guy who did nothing to prevent 9.11, saw 2 million people lose their jobs, and invade a country over weapons that turned out not to be there ... and that was just his first term. By the end of his second, this country was hanging by a thread.
 
Reagan policies created so much govt. revenue that it was like a "kid in the candy store" for the Congress to see how they could spend the money the quickest.
Riiight ... he created so much revenue, that he balanced the budget, right?

Oh ... wait ... he increased the debt 180%! Oops.
 
Back
Top Bottom