• 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)

Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is also speculation to say that unemployment would not be higher, which was the point I was making. You get confused about these little details.
 
Conservative said:
Keep my word? 2.0 GDP Growth third Qtr 2010? That is good news?

Line 2009

I 2009 -4.9
II 2009 -.7
III 2009 1.6
IV 2009 5.0
I 2010 3.7
II 2010 1.7
III 2010 2.0
Click to expand...

Nothing of which you have stated gives strength to your alternative. Historically, economic growth is heavily correlated to credit growth. Credit has contracted by around $1 trillion since late 2008; the simple fact that we have any instances of positive GDP growth is, in itself, impressive.

BTW, i fixed your typo, quarter 4 GDP growth was 5% in 2009.
 
Redress said:
It is also speculation to say that unemployment would not be higher, which was the point I was making. You get confused about these little details.
Click to expand...

The results matter, not speculation. Unemployment IS up after spending billions that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. Results matter, not your rhetoric and the American electorate spoke last Tuesday. I am not the one confused.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...
i'd say that would be a safe bet....we would have lost 2 auto makers, plus the trickle down from that...the loss of part suppliers, the loss of the suppliers of the part suppliers...so on and so forth...conservative seems to be in favor of just letting everything go to hell in a handbasket, and would have preferred that the government just stand by and watch the carnage..conservative isnt as well versed on the economy and how it works as he claims to be, as he fails to understand/comprehend the side effects of doing absolutely nothing....yet if this was allowed to happen, had nothing been done, and the unemployment rate was north of 15%, in conservative's opinion, everyone who would have applied for unemployment benefits would have been nothing but lazy and no good, worthless p.o.s., who are a drain on society, and don't want to work, and are content to suck on the government teat, regardless of the fact that there would not have been any jobs to be had. what was done, in my opinion, no matter how distasteful, and everyone knows it was expensive, was necessary to prevent a total meltdown.
 
randel said:
i'd say that would be a safe bet....we would have lost 2 auto makers, plus the trickle down from that...the loss of part suppliers, the loss of the suppliers of the part suppliers...so on and so forth...conservative seems to be in favor of just letting everything go to hell in a handbasket, and would have preferred that the government just stand by and watch the carnage..conservative isnt as well versed on the economy and how it works as he claims to be, as he fails to understand/comprehend the side effects of doing absolutely nothing....yet if this was allowed to happen, had nothing been done, and the unemployment rate was north of 15%, in conservative's opinion, everyone who would have applied for unemployment benefits would have been nothing but lazy and no good, worthless p.o.s., who are a drain on society, and don't want to work, and are content to suck on the government teat, regardless of the fact that there would not have been any jobs to be had. what was done, in my opinion, no matter how distasteful, and everyone knows it was expensive, was necessary to prevent a total meltdown.
Click to expand...

What economists claim saved the economy was TARP and that was in October 2008. The stimulus plan has been a complete failure. The unemployment today is around 17% as contractors, part time employees and private sector business owners that don't qualify for unemployment payments are out of a job. I posted the CBS report on Unemployment which of course you either didn't pay any attention to or forgot. You want so badly to give Obama credit for something that you willingly ignore actual results. there is no proof that things could have been worse, only in your dreams.
 
Conservative said:
What economists claim saved the economy was TARP and that was in October 2008. The stimulus plan has been a complete failure. The unemployment today is around 17% as contractors, part time employees and private sector business owners that don't qualify for unemployment payments are out of a job. I posted the CBS report on Unemployment which of course you either didn't pay any attention to or forgot. You want so badly to give Obama credit for something that you willingly ignore actual results. there is no proof that things could have been worse, only in your dreams.
Click to expand...
if that is the case , it can be said that you so badly want to blame obama while ignoring everything that led to our economic struggles...i'll give ya a hint, your party of choice played a big part in the mess we have...
 
randel said:
if that is the case , it can be said that you so badly want to blame obama while ignoring everything that led to our economic struggles...i'll give ya a hint, your party of choice played a big part in the mess we have...
Click to expand...

My party of choice isn't in power, it was the Obama agenda that led to the "shellacking" he got last Tuesday so you and others can continue playing these games but it is results that matter, not rhetoric or placing blame on the past Administration
 
pbrauer said:
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
Click to expand...

Interesting article from the UK Telegraph.

Barack Obama
 
Conservative said:
My party of choice isn't in power, it was the Obama agenda that led to the "shellacking" he got last Tuesday so you and others can continue playing these games but it is results that matter, not rhetoric or placing blame on the past Administration
Click to expand...
amazing how quick you get off topic....
 
Conservative said:
The results matter, not speculation. Unemployment IS up after spending billions that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. Results matter, not your rhetoric and the American electorate spoke last Tuesday. I am not the one confused.
Click to expand...

Did results matter in 1982? Obviously not. Under Reagan, unemployment rose from 6.7% to 10.7% - an increase of 60%. Under Obama it went from 8.2% to 9.6% over the same amount of time. That's an increase of 17%. Under Bush it went from 4.4% to 8.2% - that's a rise of 86% over his two terms.

So - Obama - unemployment rises 17%
Bush - unemployment rises 86%
Reagan - unemployment rises 60%.

Hmmm...We should judge based on the results, you say?

But never mind that this thread is actually about the way right-wing media runs with outright lies and pretends they're facts.

Have any of them retracted their statements yet?

Has Bachmann - an elected official apologized to the President for spreading unfounded lies through the media?

If so, all will be forgiven. If not, then they prove themselves to be liars and little more.
 
If you hurry you can get in on the bashing before the facts come out and you find that the Obama India Vacation we paid for cost a total of over $100,000,000 not that much a day.

Why do I call it a Vacation because Obama went there to attend the Festival of Lights, not on state business. For crying out loud India is taking jobs and the latest are in the Solar industry where they can produce products and ship them here for about one half the cost of manufacturing them here.

Hundreds of millions were spent in California to build a plant that has already gone belly up creating ZERO jobs.

If Ms. Bachmann wishes to piss of those who can still think for themselves rather than repeat what they hear and believe what they are told she needs to talk about what it costs to keep Obama's mate going in the style she has become accustomed to since moving in to Government housing and winning the Welfare Lotto.

She spends more than $6,364,000 per year for her personal needs.

No she doesn't you say? I encourage those with the ability to look it up She has over 20 attendants.

Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

Want to see who the Lotto money is spent on?

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

Total well over $6,000,000 and for what so the Obamedia can lie about her.

By the way. This is just a partial list.
 
randel said:
if that is the case , it can be said that you so badly want to blame obama while ignoring everything that led to our economic struggles...i'll give ya a hint, your party of choice played a big part in the mess we have...
Click to expand...

There is plenty of blame to be spread around, and keep in mind that whether you're talking about President G.W. Bush's spending or Obama the money is controlled by Congress.

That is not the most important thing now. we have to stop the finger pointing and realize that what is needed is to stop digging the hole we are in.

Obama and the Liberals are digging as fast as they can and are going to try to go even farther faster now and we have all got put our collective foot down our we will will be buried in a mass grave of poverty caused by the coming collapse from Obama and the wasteful spending we are still seeing every damn day.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Did results matter in 1982? Obviously not. Under Reagan, unemployment rose from 6.7% to 10.7% - an increase of 60%. Under Obama it went from 8.2% to 9.6% over the same amount of time. That's an increase of 17%. Under Bush it went from 4.4% to 8.2% - that's a rise of 86% over his two terms.

So - Obama - unemployment rises 17%
Bush - unemployment rises 86%
Reagan - unemployment rises 60%.

Hmmm...We should judge based on the results, you say?

But never mind that this thread is actually about the way right-wing media runs with outright lies and pretends they're facts.

Have any of them retracted their statements yet?

Has Bachmann - an elected official apologized to the President for spreading unfounded lies through the media?

If so, all will be forgiven. If not, then they prove themselves to be liars and little more.
Click to expand...

LOL, I love the way liberals point to percentages as an example of actual results and never point to actual dollar results. "Your" President added 3 trillion dollars to the debt in two years compared to Reagan's 1.7 trillion in 8 years. Bush added 5 trillion in 8 years and that will be blown away in 4. Reagan added 18 million new jobs and Bush 6.5 million total in 8 years, obama has lost four million in two. Got to love liberal math.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, I love the way liberals point to percentages as an example of actual results and never point to actual dollar results. "Your" President added 3 trillion dollars to the debt in two years compared to Reagan's 1.7 trillion in 8 years. Bush added 5 trillion in 8 years and that will be blown away in 4. Reagan added 18 million new jobs and Bush 6.5 million total in 8 years, obama has lost four million in two. Got to love liberal math.
Click to expand...

Of course, never mind that the recession started before he got there, but where do you get 6.5 million under Bush and 18 under Reagan?

According to WSJ it was just over 3 million - and that was an expansion of 2.3% vs. population growth of 7.7%. And Reagan was 16 million.

But, let's look at this chart on job losses and growth:

privatejobs_oct10.jpg


Notice how quickly it dives downward under Bush's last year and begins to curve upward and actually moves into the positive by 2010 under Obama. Or do you propose that - unlike under Reagan and Bush - Obama should NOT have experienced continued job losses post-recession? The question I'm asking is about standards. Why do you hold him to a different one that Reagan and Bush were held to?

Now...none of this changes the fact that the right-wing has been lying about the India trip, though...
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Of course, never mind that the recession started before he got there, but where do you get 6.5 million under Bush and 18 under Reagan?

According to WSJ it was just over 3 million - and that was an expansion of 2.3% vs. population growth of 7.7%. And Reagan was 16 million.

But, let's look at this chart on job losses and growth:

privatejobs_oct10.jpg


Notice how quickly it dives downward under Bush's last year and begins to curve upward and actually moves into the positive by 2010 under Obama. Or do you propose that - unlike under Reagan and Bush - Obama should NOT have experienced continued job losses post-recession? The question I'm asking is about standards. Why do you hold him to a different one that Reagan and Bush were held to?

Now...none of this changes the fact that the right-wing has been lying about the India trip, though...
Click to expand...

Now isn't that wonderful, my bet is that the 4 million people who lost their jobs since Obama took office are heartened by this chart. Also noticed you had no problem ignoring the job creation from 2001 through 2007 so let me help you.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employment

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061


Unemployment numbers, please note that the recession ended in June 2009 and then check out the unemployment in 2010 on a month to month basis. Now I wonder which chart carried the day on November 2 during the elections when 682 State legislative offices changed to Republicans and the GOP had historic gains in the Congress.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 0 0
 
Conservative said:
Guess you forgot to send that to the electorate on November 2. Apparently they didn't find Bush or his policies on the ballot but did find Obama policies on the ballot. Guess 16 million unemployed, up 4 million after spending a trillion didn't impress the voters. They just don't seem to understand how wonderful Obama is
Click to expand...
Obama wasn't on the ballot Nov 2, the electorate is frustrated over the economy that took a dive during the Bush administation.

 
pbrauer said:
Obama wasn't on the ballot Nov 2, the electorate is frustrated over the economy that took a dive during the Bush administation.

Click to expand...


Interesting, economists claim that TARP saved the economy, not anything that Obama did. Guess you better contact them and tell economists they are wrong. Even Warren Buffet claims that TARP saved the economy.

Then there is a little problem for you, the recession ended in June 2009 so in order for the recession to end things had to be improving and this is before Obama could do any damage at all. All that damage occurred after the end of the recession. Not surprising that you didn't get the memo yet.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting, economists claim that TARP saved the economy, not anything that Obama did. Guess you better contact them and tell economists they are wrong. Even Warren Buffet claims that TARP saved the economy.

Then there is a little problem for you, the recession ended in June 2009 so in order for the recession to end things had to be improving and this is before Obama could do any damage at all. All that damage occurred after the end of the recession. Not surprising that you didn't get the memo yet.
Click to expand...

This is like debating with a potato, you are wasting your time my friend. :mrgreen:
 
Red Crow said:
This is like debating with a potato, you are wasting your time my friend. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know, some people just cannot admit they were duped by the liberal ideology even when confronted with actual facts.
 
Conservative said:
Then there is a little problem for you, the recession ended in June 2009 so in order for the recession to end things had to be improving and this is before Obama could do any damage at all. All that damage occurred after the end of the recession. Not surprising that you didn't get the memo yet.
Click to expand...
The term recession is a technical term that deals with the GDP and not employment. The fact that the recession ende means very little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom