• 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!

Bachmann Outraged Over Made Up Cost Of Obama's India Trip (VIDEO)

I think I must have confused you with phrases like "most likely" and "quite probably". You also seem confused in that you think what you just said disproved anything I said. The effectiveness of the stimulus is questionable, and it is questionable whether we would be better off without Obama's efforts on behalf of the economy. You claimed it was not, and yet offered zero evidence to back it up. I simply pointed out that your claim that there was "no question" was in fact false.

The results speak for themselves, 4 million less employed today than when the stimulus plan was signed in February 2009 and only 3 trillion was added to the debt. That is a success in your world?
 
I've decided she is just bat-**** crazy.

I am still waiting for this "transparent" Administration to provide the costs of the trips, then the American people can decide whether it was a good return on investment during these difficult economic times which Obama has done nothing to improve.
 
The results speak for themselves, 4 million less employed today than when the stimulus plan was signed in February 2009 and only 3 trillion was added to the debt. That is a success in your world?

Compared to how things may have been without the stimulus, quite possibly.
 
The results speak for themselves, 4 million less employed today than when the stimulus plan was signed in February 2009 and only 3 trillion was added to the debt. That is a success in your world?


It has been almost a week now since republicans have been elected why haven't things turned around:scared::tink::monkey
 
Compared to how things may have been without the stimulus, quite possibly.

So let me see if I have this right, Obama gets passed and signs a 800+ billion stimulus plan and unemployment increased by over 4 million and you claim things could have been worse? How do you know things could have been worse? The country came out of recession in June 2009 so what did the Stimulus plan do to bring the country out of recession since in order to be out of recession there has to be two straight months of positive economic growth. If that happened, the stimulus spending hand't even taken place.
 
You see, the partisan right would only have been happy if Obama and Bernanke were to use a "hands off" approach which most definitely would have led to >20% unemployment. Many would have been "just fine" watching the nation suffer so they could regain political power.
 
It has been almost a week now since republicans have been elected why haven't things turned around:scared::tink::monkey

Trolling again? When do the Republicans take over Congress? You just throw things out there hoping something sticks then never apologize when proven wrong. Says a lot about you
 
I find it hilarious that somebody else besides bat-**** crazy Michelle Backmann thinks Obama's trip cost $200 million per day. Also, any president must tell the American public approximately how much the trip will cost when it's none of their ****ing business.:lamo
 
So let me see if I have this right, Obama gets passed and signs a 800+ billion stimulus plan and unemployment increased by over 4 million and you claim things could have been worse? How do you know things could have been worse? The country came out of recession in June 2009 so what did the Stimulus plan do to bring the country out of recession since in order to be out of recession there has to be two straight months of positive economic growth. If that happened, the stimulus spending hand't even taken place.

GDP rose at an annualized rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter, somewhat higher than consensus expectations and pulling the four-quarter GDP growth rate up from −3.8 percent to −2.3 percent. The third quarter's increase was driven in large part by a 3.4 percent jump in personal consumption expenditures, the largest quarterly gain in this component since the first quarter of 2007. Durable goods purchases spiked up 22.3 percent, reflecting the impact of the CARS program. Residential investment recovered much of what it had lost in the second quarter, growing 23.3 percent and gaining 7.5 percentage points (pp) in its four-quarter growth rate. The growth in residential investment was the first growth in this component since the fourth quarter of 2005.

Other improvements could be seen in government spending and in the change in private inventories. Business fixed investment saw another quarterly decline, but this quarter’s 2.5 percent drop is small in comparison to last quarter’s 9.6 percent decline. Imports also outpaced exports, detracting from the growth in real GDP, even though exports grew for the first time in five quarters and imports grew for the first time in eight quarters.

Source:

P.S.: i see you did not keep your word ;)
 
So let me see if I have this right, Obama gets passed and signs a 800+ billion stimulus plan and unemployment increased by over 4 million and you claim things could have been worse? How do you know things could have been worse? The country came out of recession in June 2009 so what did the Stimulus plan do to bring the country out of recession since in order to be out of recession there has to be two straight months of positive economic growth. If that happened, the stimulus spending hand't even taken place.

Well, for example, there could have been a 5 million increase in unemployment. I don't know, nor am I claiming to know, You claimed to know that it wouldn't be worse, and yet have offered nothing to back that claim. Not one thing. Nada, zip, zilch. I repeat, all I did was point out that your claim that something was unquestionable, was in fact questionable. You have not yet even attempted to argue that fact, and just repeat the same old talking points.
 
I find it hilarious that somebody else besides bat-**** crazy Michelle Backmann thinks Obama's trip cost $200 million per day. Also, any president must tell the American public approximately how much the trip will cost when it's none of their ****ing business.:lamo

In general, I agree this is a freaking stupid issue. However, government expenditures of my tax dollar certainly are my business, unless dosclosing the information even after the fact would compromise national security. I do not think disclosing the cost of this trip... no specifics, just the overall cost... would compromise national security.

On a side note, one of the links earlier in the thread actually put the approximate cost in line with previous Presidential trips abroad.
 
Well, for example, there could have been a 5 million increase in unemployment. I don't know, nor am I claiming to know, You claimed to know that it wouldn't be worse, and yet have offered nothing to back that claim. Not one thing. Nada, zip, zilch. I repeat, all I did was point out that your claim that something was unquestionable, was in fact questionable. You have not yet even attempted to argue that fact, and just repeat the same old talking points.

What I provided were actual results, not projections, not opinions, and not talking points. The facts led to what happened last Tuesday and that leaves Obama supporters with nothing but spin.
 
What I provided were actual results, not projections, not opinions, and not talking points. The facts led to what happened last Tuesday and that leaves Obama supporters with nothing but spin.

Yet what you provided in no way proved your claim that I contradicted. You can't just say that something is true and expect every one will believe it if you don't back it up, which you have not done.
 
Yet what you provided in no way proved your claim that I contradicted. You can't just say that something is true and expect every one will believe it if you don't back it up, which you have not done.

Keep diverting, the results show what happened and according to you that no way proves my claim? What exactly is my claim? I claim that there are 4 million more unemployed according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 3 trillion has been added to the debt since Obama took office according to the U.S. Treasury.

We had an election last Tuesday in case you missed it, 682 Republican legislators took Democrat positions and took control of the House by capturing 60+ additional seats. Those historic numbers tell what the American majority think of the Obama results, results that you ignore.
 
Keep diverting, the results show what happened and according to you that no way proves my claim? What exactly is my claim? I claim that there are 4 million more unemployed according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 3 trillion has been added to the debt since Obama took office according to the U.S. Treasury.

We had an election last Tuesday in case you missed it, 682 Republican legislators took Democrat positions and took control of the House by capturing 60+ additional seats. Those historic numbers tell what the American majority think of the Obama results, results that you ignore.

The results do not compare with what would have happened, which is what you need to make the statement you did.
 
The results do not compare with what would have happened, which is what you need to make the statement you did.

What would have happened? You have a problem with actual results being posted but no problem making claims as to what would have happened? That is pretty funny and shows how desparate liberal Obama supporters are.
 
The results do not compare with what would have happened, which is what you need to make the statement you did.

What would have happened? Other than speculation and supposition, do you 'know' what would have happened, with 100% certainty? Or, are you specualting or supposing?
 
What would have happened? You have a problem with actual results being posted but no problem making claims as to what would have happened? That is pretty funny and shows how desparate liberal Obama supporters are.

No one knows for sure, but there is a good chance that unemployment would have been higher and GDP would have been lower. This is a definite possibility that proves your comment wrong.
 
No one knows for sure, but there is a good chance that unemployment would have been higher and GDP would have been lower. This is a definite possibility that proves your comment wrong.

When you say there is a "good chance that unemploment" would be higher that is speculation because that is what you want to believe. What we have are actual results and that is all that matters regardless of the Obama spin and that of his supporters? do you believe it was the Federal Taxpayer obligation to bailout out teachers in various states without seeing if the states could handle it first? What would you expect a state to do if the Federal Govt. came to the state and offered money to save teacher's jobs?
 
Back
Top Bottom