• 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!

Record Spending On 2012 Elections By GOP Groups

Born Free said:
My mistake, when I reread your OP you did complain about both. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Thought i made it clear with this: " I expect the same **** from Obama. ".

But its all good in the hood.
 
whysoserious said:
Elections are like a business?
Click to expand...

And a well paying one. Thanks to the current level of government interference with the market, the ability of the winner to steer funds and favorable conditions to his supporters is massive. Businesses typically don't become involved in politics because they have an ideological axe to grind (sometimes particular founders do), they do it because it allows them to profit.

So long as you legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators.
 
Phys251 said:
Problem is, though, if 20% to 24% is a "big increase," then there are a LOT of "big increases" on that chart. Strictly IMO, I only see two big increases.

Note, BTW, that right after the 2009 spike, it starts to come down a little.
Click to expand...

Big increases in spending, when coupled with big increases in taxation are not so much of a problem. The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama DOUBLED the federal deficit of Bush. Both were bad (big deficit spenders) but not EQUALLY.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Big increases in spending, when coupled with big increases in taxation are not so much of a problem. The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama DOUBLED the federal deficit of Bush. Both were bad (big deficit spenders) but not EQUALLY.
Click to expand...

WTF? No he didn't! Overall, the deficit has hardly budged under Obama. It was Bush who DECIMATED the Clinton surplus. (You remember the Clinton surplus, right?)
 
Phys251 said:
WTF? No he didn't! Overall, the deficit has hardly budged under Obama. It was Bush who DECIMATED the Clinton surplus. (You remember the Clinton surplus, right?)
Click to expand...

This would be true if you applied 2009 as belonging to Bush, when he didnt sign the budget and didnt sign the stimulus. If you apply it to Obama, who signed the 2009 budget then yes the deficit was doubled from 400some billion to over 1 trillion.

A lot on the left seem to want to repeat the lie that the 2009 budget belongs to Bush. Thats a false statement.
 
OpportunityCost said:
This would be true if you applied 2009 as belonging to Bush, when he didnt sign the budget and didnt sign the stimulus. If you apply it to Obama, who signed the 2009 budget then yes the deficit was doubled from 400some billion to over 1 trillion.

A lot on the left seem to want to repeat the lie that the 2009 budget belongs to Bush. Thats a false statement.
Click to expand...

PolitiFact | Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration

You need to get your facts straight. Obama created virtually zero percent of the deficit. ZERO.
 
Phys251 said:
PolitiFact | Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration

You need to get your facts straight. Obama created virtually zero percent of the deficit. ZERO.
Click to expand...

You and politfact are full of ****. The budget Bush handed to congress contained a 400B dolllar budget. The budget signed by Obama was double that. If you are going to bull****, at least do so believably. Stimulus was passed under Obama. TARP was passed under Bush and expanded under Obama. So....Im calling BS on you and Politifact.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You and politfact are full of ****. The budget Bush handed to congress contained a 400B dolllar budget. The budget signed by Obama was double that. If you are going to bull****, at least do so believably. Stimulus was passed under Obama. TARP was passed under Bush and expanded under Obama. So....Im calling BS on you and Politifact.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, keep arguing against the FACTS. You're only vindicating my position.
 
TheDemSocialist said:




Holy **** that is a **** ton of money! I expect the same **** from Obama. But dear god! This just adds into my feeling that democracy in the US is for sale. And the politicians are almost puppets on a string from these ****s

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...



Did you have the same concerns in 2008 when Obama got most of the money, including the money from wall street???
 
OpportunityCost said:
Phys251 said:
[...] It was Bush who DECIMATED the Clinton surplus. (You remember the Clinton surplus, right?)
Click to expand...
This would be true if you applied 2009 as belonging to Bush [...]
Click to expand...
It would be true regardless of 2009. Or 2008 for that matter. Figures don't lie. I have heard it said, however, that liars figure ;)
 
OpportunityCost said:
This would be true if you applied 2009 as belonging to Bush, when he didnt sign the budget and didnt sign the stimulus. If you apply it to Obama, who signed the 2009 budget then yes the deficit was doubled from 400some billion to over 1 trillion.

A lot on the left seem to want to repeat the lie that the 2009 budget belongs to Bush. Thats a false statement.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the term "fiscal year", and how it applies to the federal budget?

If so, then let's turn our attention to revenues. While the Bush budget envisioned a deficit of $400 billion, revenues fell $600 billion short of projections due to the Bush recession, which, unless you want to blame that on Obama, means that the actual deficit of the Bush budget, as proposed, was $1,000 billion.

If you want to account the additional $400 billion in spending over and above what Bush originally proposed, to Obama, then that would make

Obama 'responsible' for $400 billion of the 2009 deficit and

Bush 'responsible' for $1,000 billion of the 2009 deficit (double the $450 billion deficit the Bush budget rang up in 2008, which was actually $962 billion if you measure the increase in total outstanding debt for FY 2008 -- $9.06 trillion to $10.02 trillion... Mr. Bush was clearly running a lot of stuff -- like 2 wars -- 'off budget').
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Are you familiar with the term "fiscal year", and how it applies to the federal budget?

If so, then let's turn our attention to revenues. While the Bush budget envisioned a deficit of $400 billion, revenues fell $600 billion short of projections due to the Bush recession, which, unless you want to blame that on Obama, means that the actual deficit of the Bush budget, as proposed, was $1,000 billion.

If you want to account the additional $400 billion in spending over and above what Bush originally proposed, to Obama, then that would make

Obama 'responsible' for $400 billion of the 2009 deficit and

Bush 'responsible' for $1,000 billion of the 2009 deficit (double the $450 billion deficit the Bush budget rang up in 2008, which was actually $962 billion if you measure the increase in total outstanding debt for FY 2008 -- $9.06 trillion to $10.02 trillion).
Click to expand...

This is known as selective use of the facts.

Bush proposed a $400billion dollar deficit budget.
The totally Democrat controlled congress gave Obama an $800billion dollar deficit budget.
Obama signed it.
Stimulus was passed under Obama, signed by Obama, added another $787 billion dollars to the deficit.

Bush increased spending. Obama increased spending more. Get over it. Stop regurgitating stone-stupid, partisan talking points that are deflated quicker than Euro money infusions to Greece banks. Obama is a tax and spend politician. He always has been and probably always will be. The only time he deigns to pay attention to the private sector is to see how he can wring more money from it.

Onward to revenue. Im not blaming anyone for the revenue drop. Its unavoidable, not to mention largely unpredictable. Ive got a better question for you. At what point do you hold Obama responsible for the lack of growth in the economy? And to what degree? Lets face it, I dont think Bush did ANYTHING that a more liberal President wouldnt have done with regards to finance and the housing market, directly to the point, liberals were dead set against further regulation of the housing market or the financial industry....until they crashed. Then the long knives came out. But I digress, so how much is Obama responsible for in the economy and when?
 
OpportunityCost said:
You and politfact are full of ****. [...] Im calling BS on you and Politifact.
Click to expand...
Then you're also calling it on the CBO and "Economists [...] Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition[sup]1[/sup], and Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst of the conservative Heritage Foundation".

Smells like irrational denial to me.

Ref: PolitiFact | Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration

1. The Concord Coalition [...] mission statement is to educate "the public about the causes and consequences of federal budget deficits, the long-term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs, and how to build a sound foundation for economic growth." Concord Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
OpportunityCost said:
This is known as selective use of the facts. [...]
Click to expand...
That is an excellent description of your argument. Add denial, as I showed above, and the recipe is complete.

Stimulus was spent over a period of about three years, meaning of course that it would not be added to the ledger all in one fell swoop (e.g., in one fiscal year), proving that you are simply making up your argument as you go along with no consideration or acknowledgement of how things work in the real world. Something you may now realize is failing, since you are now trying to change the subject away from fact to opinion.
 
Concorde Coalition is a center left think tank.

Just a heads up but government appropriations are distinctly NOT the real world. As soon as the appropriations are done it goes into that year. The actual spending may occur later but if its not a budgetary line item it goes into the budget year its appropriated---IE 2009.

Saying its a given fiscal year and all responsibility goes to the previous year's President would be the case in normal circumstances. However, thats not quite how it played out. Are you willing to say Obama bears no responsibility for a budget he signed? A budget that increased the FY spending by $400B before the stimulus?

As for your opinion comments, where are we again? A political forum, where a lot of opinions are tossed about, one holding about as much weight as anyone else's, appeals to anything and everything aside. I call your opinions as I see them, youre welcome to do the same, but stop whining about me doing essentially the same thing as you--voicing my opinion.
 
OpportunityCost said:
As for your opinion comments, where are we again? A political forum, where a lot of opinions are tossed about, one holding about as much weight as anyone else's, appeals to anything and everything aside.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly expect to regain the high ground in this debate when you can't even distinguish between opinions and facts? Your position is getting crushed--not by Karl, nor by anyone else, but by facts. Cold, hard facts.

Obama inherited a $1.3-trillion deficit, period, end of discussion. There is zero wiggle room here. To argue against that makes as much sense as arguing that the Earth is flat.
 
Phys251 said:
How can you possibly expect to regain the high ground in this debate when you can't even distinguish between opinions and facts? Your position is getting crushed--not by Karl, nor by anyone else, but by facts. Cold, hard facts.

Obama inherited a $1.3-trillion deficit, period, end of discussion. There is zero wiggle room here. To argue against that makes as much sense as arguing that the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

And how much is the deficit now?
 
Phys251 said:
How can you possibly expect to regain the high ground in this debate when you can't even distinguish between opinions and facts? Your position is getting crushed--not by Karl, nor by anyone else, but by facts. Cold, hard facts.

Obama inherited a $1.3-trillion deficit, period, end of discussion. There is zero wiggle room here. To argue against that makes as much sense as arguing that the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

LOL. He signed a budget that raised the annual deficit by 400B to 800B then off budget spending increased by another 800B that same year. THOSE are facts.

He did inherit a bad situation, he allowed the congress to direct the spending of the stimulus and he increased a liberal pet projects as targets for his budget increases. Those increases are not paying off in terms of economic growth. His leadership in how to deal with the situation and his approach is not creating the growth we would all like to see.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL. He signed a budget that raised the annual deficit by 400B to 800B then off budget spending increased by another 800B that same year. THOSE are facts.

He did inherit a bad situation, he allowed the congress to direct the spending of the stimulus and he increased a liberal pet projects as targets for his budget increases. Those increases are not paying off in terms of economic growth. His leadership in how to deal with the situation and his approach is not creating the growth we would all like to see.
Click to expand...

Guess we'll be meeting again in a flat-earth debate. Cheers.
 
Phys251 said:
[...] Obama inherited a $1.3-trillion deficit, period, end of discussion. There is zero wiggle room here. To argue against that makes as much sense as arguing that the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...
Conservatives used to argue that too... :2razz:
 
OpportunityCost said:
Concorde Coalition is a center left think tank.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem noted and dismissed. What about the Heritage Foundation (who agreed with the Concorde Coalition)?

OpportunityCost said:
As for your opinion comments, where are we again? A political forum, where a lot of opinions are tossed about, one holding about as much weight as anyone else's, appeals to anything and everything aside. [...]
Click to expand...
Wrong. Again. We are at Debate Politics. The nature of debate involves some type of rational argument, generally bolstered by facts. Of course there is room and even points for flair or the dramatic or even the emotional (depending on the setting and the audience), but mere unsubstantiated opinions are for blogs.

To clarify, opinions are fine if the reasoning for the opinion is provided -- in which case one is providing a reasoned conclusion rather than a mere opinion. For example, while it may be your opinion that center left think tanks only produce lies or inaccurate information, your opinion alone does not qualify as debate (in fact, logical fallacies such as that will lose you points in a formal debate).

debate

formal, oral confrontation between two individuals, teams, or groups who present arguments to support opposing sides of a question, generally according to a set form or procedure

debate. Dictionary.com. © Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.. Debate | Define Debate at Dictionary.com (accessed: June 24, 2012).
Click to expand...
'Because I say so' is not an argument. At least not beyond, say, age 8 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom