• 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!

After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

I'm not your go to guy. Inflation rates aren't necessary...
You claimed:

Cutting taxes while upping spending created debt which contributed to inflation.

For this claim to carry any weight, you have to show that:
1- Inflation increased to some significant degree 2001-2008
2- Said increase was due to the tax cut.

Now, you can support your claim, or you can admit that you cannot.
 
1- Inflation increased to some significant degree 2001-2008

"sigh" Fine.

New Inflation Rates with Chart, Graph and Table: 1999-2008 - US Inflation Calculator

2001: 2.8
2002: 1.6
2003: 2.3
2004: 2.7
2005: 3.4
2006: 3.2
2007: 2.8
2008: 5.0

... with two rebounds in 2002 and 2008, but an overall upward trend.

2- Said increase was due to the tax cut.

How can it not be due to the tax cuts? Bush continued to run major government programs (notably Defense), without revisions, while financing them with borrowing (from China for example) instead of domestic dollars. The United States government is the insurer of the worth of the U.S. dollar. When bondholders (foreign and domestic) doubt the government's ability to pay back debt (which occurs when debt increases with no clear source of revenue for paying the interest) then the value of the dollar drops. Hence the price of consumer goods and services rose and swallowed up the benefits of the Bush tax cuts and then some, because when the dollar is worth less, businesses need more of it to accommodate the difference.
 
Last edited:
"sigh" Fine.
Sorry that you're offended by someone having the audacity to ask you to support your claims. if your ego bruises that easily, you probably ought to leave.

2001: 2.8
2002: 1.6
2003: 2.3
2004: 2.7
2005: 3.4
2006: 3.2
2007: 2.8
2008: 5.0
... with two rebounds in 2002 and 2008, but an overall upward trend.
You can try to spin it that way if you want, but an objective look will find that the averagre rate of inflation, including 2008, was a meager <3.0%. If you leave out 2008, the average is <2.7%, LESS than it was in 2001.

Thus, The "upward trend" (of +0.2%) is only because of 2008 -- so, if you want your claim to stand, you'll have to show that the jump in 2008 can be directly and uniquely traced to the 2001 tax cut.

How can it not be due to the tax cuts?
Your claim to prove, not mine to negate.
 
You can try to spin it that way if you want, but an objective look will find that the averagre rate of inflation, including 2008, was a meager <3.0%. If you leave out 2008, the average is <2.7%, LESS than it was in 2001.

Meager...? While 3% is an intuitively small number, it has enormous impacts on consumer goods, real estate, etc. At 10% you would be paying 4-8$ on a snickers. If the wages of mid-level employees remain static, then the collective increase on material goods and services can be catastrophic.

More than that, a steady increase is not the only route by which the 2001 tax cuts would cause inflation. And why the hell would you compare the average to a particular?

Thus, The "upward trend" (of +0.2%) is only because of 2008 -- so, if you want your claim to stand, you'll have to show that the jump in 2008 can be directly and uniquely traced to the 2001 tax cut.

I'm not sure if I would phrase it like that. Running government programs on borrowed money without having a clear source of revenue for paying back the interest causes inflation. The tax cuts wouldn't have caused inflation if Bush had somehow scaled back expenses; as it is, he continued to run Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and subsidies to miscellaneous organizations, regions, and categories of person.
 
Last edited:
Meager...? While 3% is an intuitively small number, it has enormous impacts on consumer goods, real estate, etc. At 10% you would be paying 4-8$ on a snickers.

First of all, your source shows 3.8% inflation in 2008.

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2009, Annual and Monthly Table - US Inflation Calculator

This brings the 2001-2008 average to 2.8%, which is -exactly- what it was in 2001. As such, your argument regarding an increase in inflation is fully negated.

Average inflation since 1945 is 4.1%. Compare the 2.8% average inflation to that 4.1% post-war average, and its pretty clear that 2.8% is indeed "meager".

More than that, a steady increase....
...that does not exist.

So, again, if you want your claim to stand, you'll have to show that the jump in 2008 can be directly and uniquely traced to the 2001 tax cut.

But then, you first need to show that there was a jump to begin with.
 
Last edited:
First of all, your source shows 3.8% inflation in 2008.

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2009, Annual and Monthly Table - US Inflation Calculator

This brings the 2001-2008 average to 2.8%, which is -exactly- what it was in 2001. As such, your argument regarding an increase in inflation is fully negated.

Average inflation since 1945 is 4.1%. Compare the 2.8% average inflation to that 4.1% post-war average, and its pretty clear that 2.8% is indeed "meager".


...that does not exist.

So, again, if you want your claim to stand, you'll have to show that the jump in 2008 can be directly and uniquely traced to the 2001 tax cut.

But then, you first need to show that there was a jump to begin with.

... the mid-level wage situation in decades prior to the 80s was very different. The middle class (core domestic consumer market) could shoulder inflation better in those days.
 
... the mid-level wage situation in decades prior to the 80s was very different. The middle class (core domestic consumer market) could shoulder inflation better in those days.
Look...
Its been proven - by your source - that the conditions claimed in your argument do not exist.
Thus, your argument is necessarily unsound.
Admit it and move on.
 
To be fair, what did Bush even do up to 9/11 to be criticized for...I mean other than carrying Clinton policies over in regards to international policy and military?
 
To be fair, what did Bush even do up to 9/11 to be criticized for...I mean other than carrying Clinton policies over in regards to international policy and military?

Its hard to say considering that he spent a large portion of it on vacation. After all...being the decider is a "hard job".
 
Don't bring race into this. Its pathetic how some jump on the fact Obama is Black as a reason for everything. Maybe his policies are just sh*t? Thought of that?

Even I am beginning to dislike Obama.
And i'm Black ... and liberal

It all comes down to perception. Problem right now is when you do have something like the Birthers, it does paint a picture. Granted there is a certain number of people that will oppose him for simply have the (D) besides his name, that is natural. But let us stop being foolish children to thinking we live in some post racial society of peach and harmony. That simply is not the case. There is a good number of people that will not accept him because of his skin color, and just as well there is another segment, that while not necessarily racial, but rather tribal. They simply do not identify with him, they see him as alien, foreign, or an "other". I would not call them racists as they do not necessarily fit the description. But, they also are not going to be accepting of anything, no matter what, because he is different from them.

While we certainly can not say all opposition is just based on race, that is false. We also must recognize that race does still play an important factor in this country. Ignoring that is just downright blind to the obvious.
 
To be fair, what did Bush even do up to 9/11 to be criticized for...I mean other than carrying Clinton policies over in regards to international policy and military?

If you ever read Richard Clarke's books, as well as a few others, the problem with Bush was that he did NOT follow Clinton's policy. During the transition everyone was warning them that al-Qaeda was their biggest threat, and that they needed to take action against them immediately. They blew this off. Remember the Cole was attacked in October of 2000, and Clinton did not want to take immediate military action in Afghanistan (dumb idea on his part) because he thought (A) this would be viewed as another Wag the Dog incident, and (B) he did not want to hand over a U.S. military involvement like he was handed with Somalia. For weeks Sandy Berger tried to discuss this with Condi Rice and others, they would not listen. Richard Clarke asked for a principals meeting on this for months, and ironically he finally got it in September, to which it was too late. They dropped the ball because they thought this was just some Clinton obsession (Clarke's own words) and wanted nothing to do with him. This was all discussed in Against All Enemies by Clarke, and has since been written by others.
 
If you ever read Richard Clarke's books, as well as a few others, the problem with Bush was that he did NOT follow Clinton's policy. During the transition everyone was warning them that al-Qaeda was their biggest threat, and that they needed to take action against them immediately. They blew this off. Remember the Cole was attacked in October of 2000, and Clinton did not want to take immediate military action in Afghanistan (dumb idea on his part) because he thought (A) this would be viewed as another Wag the Dog incident, and (B) he did not want to hand over a U.S. military involvement like he was handed with Somalia. For weeks Sandy Berger tried to discuss this with Condi Rice and others, they would not listen. Richard Clarke asked for a principals meeting on this for months, and ironically he finally got it in September, to which it was too late. They dropped the ball because they thought this was just some Clinton obsession (Clarke's own words) and wanted nothing to do with him. This was all discussed in Against All Enemies by Clarke, and has since been written by others.


We've been hearing that for eight years, now and to date, no one has told us the, "what, when and where", of the threat that Bush was supposed to taking action against. We all know that any action taken by Bush would have been met with jeers of, "fearmongering", from the Libbos. Why do you people keep throwing that out there.
 
If you ever read Richard Clarke's books, as well as a few others, the problem with Bush was that he did NOT follow Clinton's policy. During the transition everyone was warning them that al-Qaeda was their biggest threat, and that they needed to take action against them immediately. They blew this off. Remember the Cole was attacked in October of 2000, and Clinton did not want to take immediate military action in Afghanistan (dumb idea on his part) because he thought (A) this would be viewed as another Wag the Dog incident, and (B) he did not want to hand over a U.S. military involvement like he was handed with Somalia. For weeks Sandy Berger tried to discuss this with Condi Rice and others, they would not listen. Richard Clarke asked for a principals meeting on this for months, and ironically he finally got it in September, to which it was too late. They dropped the ball because they thought this was just some Clinton obsession (Clarke's own words) and wanted nothing to do with him. This was all discussed in Against All Enemies by Clarke, and has since been written by others.

Haven't read it. I just know the policies in regards to military remained the same. Less military numbers and more money towards technologies that were supposed to make boots on the ground obsolete. It took the invasion of Iraq (after the rediculous notion of shock and awe) for the White House to recognize that ignoring the troop for favor of Cold War toy production was a mistake.
 
To be fair, what did Bush even do up to 9/11 to be criticized for...I mean other than carrying Clinton policies over in regards to international policy and military?

Before 9/11 he was merely just there. Like his dad. Using an office to help his buddies. Harmless to normal Americans. As long as everything went status quo for 4 years so he could move on it was all good. Ho hum. But things got ugly....
 
Before 9/11 he was merely just there. Like his dad. Using an office to help his buddies. Harmless to normal Americans. As long as everything went status quo for 4 years so he could move on it was all good. Ho hum. But things got ugly....

I'm not interested in discussions with partisan slaves.

After the Cold War ended, Bush had to figure out America's role in the world. This is where the Gulf War, for which the world jumped aboard, and Somalia, for which the world jumped on board, came in.

Nothing got ugly. Clinton ran on a campaign that blasted Bush for coddling Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War and for being soft on communist China. And for Clinton's 8 years, we coddled Saddam Hussein and remained soft on China. Until 9/11 Bush was traveling the same path. All the while all three were trying to figure out a national policy that guided America's role in the coonfusing post Cold War.
 
I'm not interested in discussions with partisan slaves.

After the Cold War ended, Bush had to figure out America's role in the world. This is where the Gulf War, for which the world jumped aboard, and Somalia, for which the world jumped on board, came in.

Nothing got ugly. Clinton ran on a campaign that blasted Bush for coddling Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War and for being soft on communist China. And for Clinton's 8 years, we coddled Saddam Hussein and remained soft on China. Until 9/11 Bush was traveling the same path. All the while all three were trying to figure out a national policy that guided America's role in the coonfusing post Cold War.


I might agree with you except for one HUGE thing. GWB surrounded himself with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, both of which had tried (unsuccessfully) to convince at least 3 prior Presidents of the advantages of invading Iraq. (Call it nation-building, imperialism, or national security...whatever your pleasure)...the reality is, they had an agenda that they clearly wanted to pursue.

Was GWB a pawn in their game or an active participant? That is not clear.
I suspect the former.
 
I might agree with you except for one HUGE thing. GWB surrounded himself with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, both of which had tried (unsuccessfully) to convince at least 3 prior Presidents of the advantages of invading Iraq. (Call it nation-building, imperialism, or national security...whatever your pleasure)...the reality is, they had an agenda that they clearly wanted to pursue.

Was GWB a pawn in their game or an active participant? That is not clear.
I suspect the former.

You got some docs to support that claim?
 
Its been documented historically. Here's a good basic rundown dating back to Nixon. This is a good place to start your research:


frontline: rumsfeld's war: paths to power: nixon administration | PBS


Um, no, I'm not going to do your research. You're always demanding that people support their comments, it's time to practice what you preach, sir.


You link doesn't show where Rumsfeld, or Cheney tried to encourage the three presidents before GWB to invade Iraq. Did I miss it?
 
Um, no, I'm not going to do your research. You're always demanding that people support their comments, it's time to practice what you preach, sir.


You link doesn't show where Rumsfeld, or Cheney tried to encourage the three presidents before GWB to invade Iraq. Did I miss it?


Yes...you missed it. The link actually documents in great detail the relationships that each had with prior administrations dating back to Nixon.

That said....obviously you've mistaken me with someone else. Playing the "post a link" bit has never been my m/o on this site.

BTW....I'm not suggesting that you do MY research. What I'm saying is that there are some people who will criticize any link you provide. What I was alluding to is that this is a good place to start. If you want to follow-up and research more, that is up to you. The link, however, does provide a good starting point for those who are unfamiliar with the players and how they have been involved in prior administrations.
 
Yes...you missed it. The link actually documents in great detail the relationships that each had with prior administrations dating back to Nixon.

That said....obviously you've mistaken me with someone else. Playing the "post a link" bit has never been my m/o on this site.

BTW....I'm not suggesting that you do MY research. What I'm saying is that there are some people who will criticize any link you provide. What I was alluding to is that this is a good place to start. If you want to follow-up and research more, that is up to you. The link, however, does provide a good starting point for those who are unfamiliar with the players and how they have been involved in prior administrations.

How about you post that particular piece, because, on the page you posted, the word, "Iraq", doesn't appear, not even once. Kindly help me out with that, thank you.

I'm not criticizing your source, except that nowhere does it say what you say it's supposed to say.
 
Um, no, I'm not going to do your research. You're always demanding that people support their comments, it's time to practice what you preach, sir.


You link doesn't show where Rumsfeld, or Cheney tried to encourage the three presidents before GWB to invade Iraq. Did I miss it?

Maybe you should do some research instead of remaining woefully ignorant all the time? It just amazes me how people seem to think ignorance is a badge to wear on their shoulder. There does come a time when certain items do not need further explanation or sourcing, they are common knowledge among society. Like a certain idiot that keeps PM'ing me thinking that [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO"]COINTELPRO[/ame] is some tinfoil hat conspiracy....good lord. This is the best example of why we need a better education system, and why people need to take responsibility in not just listening to solely their partisan news.
 
How about you post that particular piece, because, on the page you posted, the word, "Iraq", doesn't appear, not even once. Kindly help me out with that, thank you.

I'm not criticizing your source, except that nowhere does it say what you say it's supposed to say.

Not a problem. You have to familiarize yourself a little with the website in order to get the information.

If you look about 1/8 of the way down the page, you'll see that it lists all of the administration. You have to click each of the prior administration's to see their involvement with each of the prior administrations.

That said, I may have misspoke, however, it may only be 2 prior administrations not three. I recall it being 3, namely Reagan and HW Bush, but I seem to recall that they were involved in trying to convince either Nixon and/or Ford as well. Its been a while since I've read up on this particular issue.
 
Maybe you should do some research instead of remaining woefully ignorant all the time? It just amazes me how people seem to think ignorance is a badge to wear on their shoulder. There does come a time when certain items do not need further explanation or sourcing, they are common knowledge among society. Like a certain idiot that keeps PM'ing me thinking that COINTELPRO is some tinfoil hat conspiracy....good lord. This is the best example of why we need a better education system, and why people need to take responsibility in not just listening to solely their partisan news.


Huh? I never PM'ed you. I only asked for some supporting docs. Doesn't make ignorant, unless the information actually exists, which isn't looking highly likely at this point.


Not a problem. You have to familiarize yourself a little with the website in order to get the information.

If you look about 1/8 of the way down the page, you'll see that it lists all of the administration. You have to click each of the prior administration's to see their involvement with each of the prior administrations.

That said, I may have misspoke, however, it may only be 2 prior administrations not three. I recall it being 3, namely Reagan and HW Bush, but I seem to recall that they were involved in trying to convince either Nixon and/or Ford as well. Its been a while since I've read up on this particular issue.


I clicked on all that crap and still didn't see anything that would support what you're saying. Maybe you should use another source? Not that there's anything wrong with that one, except that the info you claim is there, isn't.
 
Hehehe, I'm sorry but that's gotta chap Obama's ego...
Actually he probably is wondering how anyone who has a clue about politics can assess the success or failure of a presidents term after only 6 months of a 4 year term. This sounds more like wishful thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom