• 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!

Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

Conservative said:
You have no idea what the Keystone Pipeline is going to generate in economic activity.
Click to expand...

It won't generate any. If anything, it will harm economic activity because the price per barrel of sludge would rise.
 
Moderate Right said:
I find this funny. The left is real big on spending on infrastructure and even putting it on Uncle Sam's charge card, claiming that it gives people jobs and grows the economy. But, the Keystone pipeline won't do this.
Click to expand...

Yu silly goose! It's not an infrastructure project because none of the sludge carried by that pipeline will ever be sold in the US. Why do you think a Canadian company wants to build a pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast? So they can sell the oil globally, duh! And what happens then? The price rises.
 
Moderate Right said:
But, but, but the goal is to get people on government programs.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's your goal. Mine is to get people off government programs by getting higher wages. After all, welfare eligibility is determined by income. That's thanks to the welfare reform Conservatives gave us in the 90's. They're still unsure how they feel about it, though...
 
Last edited:
Incisor said:
Yu silly goose! It's not an infrastructure project because none of the sludge carried by that pipeline will ever be sold in the US. Why do you think a Canadian company wants to build a pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast? So they can sell the oil globally, duh! And what happens then? The price rises.
Click to expand...

It's just a question of what is technically infrastructure and what is not. Does it give American's jobs?
 
Incisor said:
Maybe that's your goal. Mine is to get people off government programs by getting higher wages. After all, welfare eligibility is determined by income. That's thanks to the welfare reform Conservatives gave us in the 90's. They're still unsure how they feel about it, though...
Click to expand...

The left wants them to have higher wages and then give them benefits as well, just not as much. And, huge increases in wages will put a lot of people out of work and they will be getting government benefits when they were not before or more than they were before.
 
Incisor said:
Ummm...the bullets, in this case, are the subprimes that had "dramatically weakened" standards. That's why they say the economic crisis was triggered by the sudden surge in subprime lending. Funny how you can't even understand what words mean.
Click to expand...

Look, nothing is going to change your mind as it is made up and filled with nothing but partisan bs. the sudden surge burst the bubble but didn't create it. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick all benefited from the crisis, just like the Democratic Party in general. Your ignorance of that fact is quite staggering.
 
Incisor said:
Maybe that's your goal. Mine is to get people off government programs by getting higher wages. After all, welfare eligibility is determined by income. That's thanks to the welfare reform Conservatives gave us in the 90's. They're still unsure how they feel about it, though...
Click to expand...

You have no understanding of how the market works, do you? How you coming on reporting the actual Walmart wages for full time employees including benefits? Didn't Clinton sign welfare reform?
 
Incisor said:
Maybe that's your goal. Mine is to get people off government programs by getting higher wages. After all, welfare eligibility is determined by income. That's thanks to the welfare reform Conservatives gave us in the 90's. They're still unsure how they feel about it, though...
Click to expand...

Nope, it is determined by household income and household size. For some strange reason employers do not base pay on your household size or other household income. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, it is determined by household income and household size. For some strange reason employers do not base pay on your household size or other household income. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny, but in the old days they paid married men more than women solely based on the fact that married men had a family to support. Single women with kids were a rarity and if a woman was working it was because she did not have a family to support.
 
Conservative said:
You have no understanding of how the market works, do you? How you coming on reporting the actual Walmart wages for full time employees including benefits? Didn't Clinton sign welfare reform?
Click to expand...

Funny how the pubs get blasted for that when Clinton signed it.
 
Conservative said:
when all is said in done, Obama lost the house in 2010, 2012, the Congress in 2014 and the Democrats lost it all in 2016. You pick and choose a moment in time but Obama was hired to bring us back to pre recession numbers which were 146 million employed in December 2007 when we had 312 million Americans, today we have 323 million Americans and 152 million employed. that is why you are so out of touch with reality and the country got it, you lost.
Click to expand...

2007 ... 146 / 312 = 46.8%

today ... 152 / 323 = 47.1%

Looks like an increase even by your numbers.
 
“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Conservative said:
Triggered meaning the bullets were already in the gun and the bubble burst. You simply do not understand basic civics at all nor actual independent studies on the crisis. Interesting how much power Bush had to create the problem and how little power Obama had to generate the worst recovery from a major recession in history.

Conservative said:
I suggest you read the President's working groups actual words instead of inserting you own, the turmoil caused the bubble to burst ... didn't cause the bubble. Here we are 12 years later and all you can do is continue to blame bush alone....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It CLEARLY states that the weak underwriting standards caused the "turmoil". And by your own words, the "turmoil" caused the bubble to burst.
 
Critter7r said:
2007 ... 146 / 312 = 46.8%

today ... 152 / 323 = 47.1%

Looks like an increase even by your numbers.
Click to expand...

Looks like someone civics challenged to me. How in the world could someone with such incredible economic numbers and results lose the House, fail to regain it then lose the Congress and now the entire govt? Looks like someone in denial to me

Yep 6 million increase in 9 years with a population growth of 11 million, 20 trillion in debt and in context what are the numbers of part time for economic reasons in that 152 million? What is the U-6 rate today vs when the recession began? you see, the American people got it, especially the working class but apparently that is too much to ask for the radical left to understand. Going to be fun watching that leftwing utopian world crumble around them
 
Moderate Right said:
I find this funny. The left is real big on spending on infrastructure and even putting it on Uncle Sam's charge card, claiming that it gives people jobs and grows the economy. But, the Keystone pipeline won't do this.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It won't.
 
Critter7r said:
“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



It CLEARLY states that the "turmoil" was caused by the weak underwriting standards. And by your own words, the "turmoil" caused the bubble to burst.
Click to expand...

Yep, the bubble burst under Bush but there wouldn't have been a bubble had it not started in the 90's. Interesting how Bush alone destroyed the economy and had that power but Obama lacked the power to bring us out of that crisis as he continues to blame Bush. It apparently doesn't matter how many reports refute your claims as nothing ever changes the mind of a leftwing ideologue that you are proving to be part of
 
Critter7r said:
You are correct. It won't.
Click to expand...

It certainly is a start, pro growth economic policy that sends the right message, just like the proposal of Trump to cut Federal Spending 10% an the federal employment 20%
 
Conservative said:
It certainly is a start, pro growth economic policy that sends the right message, just like the proposal of Trump to cut Federal Spending 10% an the federal employment 20%
Click to expand...

Sweet. Over a half million people looking for jobs in the private sector. That should help boost wages. NOT!
 
Critter7r said:
Sweet. Over a half million people looking for jobs in the private sector. That should help boost wages. NOT!
Click to expand...

Yep, and 400 billion in cash not extracted from the private sector to pay for that govt. expense will help greatly
 
Conservative said:
Yep, and 400 billion in cash not extracted from the private sector to pay for that govt. expense will help greatly
Click to expand...

lol at thinking that the federal gov't will spend or tax less because they employ fewer people.
 
Critter7r said:
lol at thinking that the federal gov't will spend or tax less because they employ fewer people.
Click to expand...

A 10% reduction in the federal budget is 400 billion dollars that will not be needed from the taxpayers allowing them to keep that money
 
Conservative said:
A 10% reduction in the federal budget is 400 billion dollars that will not be needed from the taxpayers allowing them to keep that money
Click to expand...

lol if you think that the 20% reduction in employees isn't nested into that $400B spending reduction.

And I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Critter7r said:
lol if you think that the 20% reduction in employees isn't nested into that $400B spending reduction.

And I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

There isn't anything you are going to believe because you choose not to believe it ,the proposal is for a 10% reduction in spending AND 20% federal employee reduction.
 
Conservative said:
There isn't anything you are going to believe because you choose not to believe it ,the proposal is for a 10% reduction in spending AND 20% federal employee reduction.
Click to expand...

AND I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm not saying he can't or won't, but I'm skeptical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom