• 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!

Perry Leads Republican Field in National Poll

Gill said:
Then I guess by extension, Obama borrowed money from the Chinese to finance "his" war with Libya on the backs of the next generation and on the backs of the middle and poor classes after signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts to the poor, middle class, and the wealthy last December.

Right ??
Click to expand...

Since Obama took office 4 trillion has been added to the debt and it was Obama's spending in 2010 and 2011 that has added 3 trillion to the debt, guess that wasn't borrowed from the Chinese and doesn't burden our kids and grandkids.

Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates such loyalty?

Can anyone tell me when the last Republican Mayor was for the attached list of cities?

Real Clear Thoughts » The 10 Poorest Cities are All Run by Liberals
 
Gill said:
Then I guess by extension, Obama borrowed money from the Chinese to finance "his" war with Libya on the backs of the next generation and on the backs of the middle and poor classes after signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts to the poor, middle class, and the wealthy last December.

Right ??
Click to expand...

Sure but you left out the fact that comparing the costs of the Libyan war with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan is like comparing the cost of a $700 used Honda civic vs a brand new $700,000 Lamborghini.

Spot the difference?

Total cost of Iraq and Afghani wars: ~$1-3 Trillion
Total cost of war in Libya: ~$1 billion
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
Sure but you left out the fact that comparing the costs of the Libyan war with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan is like comparing the cost of a $700 used Honda civic vs a brand new $700,000 Lamborghini.

Spot the difference?

Total cost of Iraq and Afghani wars: ~$1.2 trillion
Total cost of war in Libya: ~$1 billion
Click to expand...

do you realize who authorized the Iraq War? Who controlled the Senate in 2002 and what was the vote on that resolution? Any idea what the quotes were from Democrats regarding Saddam Hussein prior to Bush taking office? Do you know what the Iraq Liberation Act was and who signed it?

Now we can go on and on and on but again living the past ignores the present and I don't blame you.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.

Then of course there is that new tone of civility. You must be so proud!

Not long ago we heard Democrat vice-president Joe Biden liken Tea Partiers to "terrorists."

Then later, Representative Maxine Waters, D-CA, suggested that "...the Tea Party can go to Hell!"

Following that, Democrat Representative Frederica Wison,D-Fl,at a Town Hall meeting in Miami sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said, "The real enemy is the Tea Party!"

Last week, Representative Andre Carson, D-IN at another CBC meeting in Miami said, "...that some in Congress would love to see us as second-class citizens and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me... hanging on a tree.”

Now today, Labor Day 2011 in Detroit, Michigan, Teamster Union boss Jimmy Hofa had this to say when introducng the president of the united States, Barack H. Obama, as posted verbatim from realclearpolitics.com:

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some profane, combative words for Republicans while warming up the crowd for President Obama in Detroit, Michigan on Monday.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
do you realize who authorized the Iraq War? Who controlled the Senate in 2002 and what was the vote on that resolution? Any idea what the quotes were from Democrats regarding Saddam Hussein prior to Bush taking office? Do you know what the Iraq Liberation Act was and who signed it?

Now we can go on and on and on but again living the past ignores the present and I don't blame you.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.

Then of course there is that new tone of civility. You must be so proud!
Click to expand...

Dude, Cool down! Hold your horses!

I was just making a point that the Libyan war and it’s cost to taxpayers is miniscule when compared to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When did I assign any Republican or Democratic blame? (I'm all ears)

Also, I find it curious how you link all ‘bad things’ to the Democratic senate in 2002 when Bush was in office while at the same time don’t link any of the 'bad things' to the Republican senate while Obama is in office in 2011. If you're going to play that game at least be consistent.

What gives Mr. C? I’m getting bored with your broken record of statistics.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
Sure but you left out the fact that comparing the costs of the Libyan war with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan is like comparing the cost of a $700 used Honda civic vs a brand new $700,000 Lamborghini.

Spot the difference?

Total cost of Iraq and Afghani wars: ~$1-3 Trillion
Total cost of war in Libya: ~$1 billion
Click to expand...

The amount is inconsequential to the discussion, your hypocrisy is the point.

Off topic, but Congress approved both Iraq and Afghanistan. Did Congress approve Libya ??
 
Conservative said:
My question is why would anyone support allowing someone to pay into the system and not get anything back in return which is what many on the left want? Why not just give out addresses for the poor and let the rich send the checks direct eliminating the middle man? Class warfare is alive and well living inside today's Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

They would get something back in return, just not as much. But I don't want that. I want SS to no longer be an entitlement. I want it only to be used on the actual poor. It should be set up in a way that people who don't save get less from SS than the people who couldn't save or people who saved but were whipped out. What would be even better would be to simply have a reverse income tax, were older people get an "old person" credit
 
David D. said:
Dude, Cool down! Hold your horses!

I was just making a point that the Libyan war and it’s cost to taxpayers is miniscule when compared to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When did I assign any Republican or Democratic blame? (I'm all ears)

Also, I find it curious how you link all ‘bad things’ to the Democratic senate in 2002 when Bush was in office while at the same time don’t link any of the 'bad things' to the Republican senate while Obama is in office in 2011. If you're going to play that game at least be consistent.

What gives Mr. C? I’m getting bored with your broken record of statistics.
Click to expand...

My broken rhetoric of statistics will continue to be changed as the results change. It is time for people to hold Obama accountable for the results and stop blaming Bush. You cannot change what happened but you can change what is going to happen but not with this ideologue in the WH.

I only post the record, not the rhetoric which often doesn't coincide with the record. The anti Bush rhetoric here tries to divert from the record and it is the record that will be on the ballot in 2012. Democrats controlled the Senate from 2001-2002 and Controlled the Congress from 2007-2008. To ignore that reality is the problem
 
Gill said:
The amount is inconsequential to the discussion
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’m in agreement with this.

Gill said:
your hypocrisy is the point.
Click to expand...
Explain?


Gill said:
Off topic, but Congress approved both Iraq and Afghanistan. Did Congress approve Libya ??
Click to expand...

Good point, Libya was not approved.

Is this thanks to the War Powers Act? I think we need to do away with that.
 
Conservative said:
My broken rhetoric of statistics will continue to be changed as the results change. It is time for people to hold Obama accountable for the results and stop blaming Bush. You cannot change what happened but you can change what is going to happen but not with this ideologue in the WH.

I only post the record, not the rhetoric which often doesn't coincide with the record. The anti Bush rhetoric here tries to divert from the record and it is the record that will be on the ballot in 2012. Democrats controlled the Senate from 2001-2002 and Controlled the Congress from 2007-2008. To ignore that reality is the problem
Click to expand...

and Republicans controlled the Congress from 2002 to 2007. So what? Do you think that the Republicans in Congress are all that different from the Democrats? Both voted for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Both have kept them going. Both have voted for policies that have resulted in that 14 trillion dollar debt we're seeing now. Neither are now seriously considering any real reforms that have a snowball's chance of bringing the budget into balance any time in my lifetime.

Do the voters think that electing Republicans in '12 will make a difference? Maybe they do. They thought that electing Democrats in 2006 would make a difference. You'd think they would have learned by now.

It's time to throw the rascals out of Congress and start over. Politics isn't supposed to be a career anyway, but a limited time of public service.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and Republicans controlled the Congress from 2002 to 2007. So what? Do you think that the Republicans in Congress are all that different from the Democrats? Both voted for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Both have kept them going. Both have voted for policies that have resulted in that 14 trillion dollar debt we're seeing now. Neither are now seriously considering any real reforms that have a snowball's chance of bringing the budget into balance any time in my lifetime.

Do the voters think that electing Republicans in '12 will make a difference? Maybe they do. They thought that electing Democrats in 2006 would make a difference. You'd think they would have learned by now.

It's time to throw the rascals out of Congress and start over. Politics isn't supposed to be a career anyway, but a limited time of public service.
Click to expand...

From 2003-2007 and you might want to check out the results during that period of time, net job gain, strong economic growth, coincidence? Hmmm
 
Conservative said:
From 2003-2007 and you might want to check out the results during that period of time, net job gain, strong economic growth, coincidence? Hmmm
Click to expand...

I don’t know Conservative; I think your point would be 10x more convincing if the largest economic collapse in United States history since the Great Depression didn't take place in 2007 as well.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
I don’t know Conservative; I think your point would be 10x more convincing if the largest economic collapse in United States history since the Great Depression didn't take place in 2007 as well.
Click to expand...

The recession began in December 2007. The economy was clicking along fine for most of the year. The real problems didn't begin until the second half of 2008.
 
David D. said:
I don’t know Conservative; I think your point would be 10x more convincing if the largest economic collapse in United States history since the Great Depression didn't take place in 2007 as well.
Click to expand...

Doubt that many who lived and worked during the 81-82 recession will agree with you however Obama claimed he had the answers and in fact has lower employment, higher unemployment, higher debt, higher misery index, and greater debt than when he took office. There is nothing anyone can do about what happened in the past, only what is happening now and in the future. Obama isn't the answer.
 
Gill said:
The recession began in December 2007. The economy was clicking along fine for most of the year. The real problems didn't begin until the second half of 2008.
Click to expand...



It's official: Recession since Dec. '07

The National Bureau of Economic Research declares what most Americans already knew: the downturn has been going on for some time."

"it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise."
It's official: U.S. in a recession since December 2007 - Dec. 1, 2008
 
Gill said:
Thanks for confirming my post, but it wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...

I must have missed in your post that while the recession officially started in Dec 2007, it got rolling in 2006.
 
Catawba said:
I must have missed in your post that while the recession officially started in Dec 2007, it got rolling in 2006.
Click to expand...

Please cite the economic numbers that show the recession began in 2006, thanks
 
Conservative said:
Please cite the economic numbers that show the recession began in 2006, thanks
Click to expand...

Don't you understand ????

It got rolling under Bush's watch in 2006 according to Catawba.................

But, it is no longer rolling after 3 years of Obama because it no longer meets the "official" designation of a recession.

Don't you realize that the economy is so much better now than it was in 2006 ????
 
Catawba said:
That isn't what i said, go back and re-read post #515
Click to expand...

If we were rolling into a recession in 2006 the numbers would show it, so I have seen nothing to support your claim or the article's claim other than wishful thinking on your part
 
Gill said:
Don't you understand ????

It got rolling under Bush's watch in 2006 according to Catawba.................

But, it is no longer rolling after 3 years of Obama because it no longer meets the "official" designation of a recession.

Don't you realize that the economy is so much better now than it was in 2006 ????
Click to expand...

Actually I am surprised that they waited so long to blame Bush, thought it actually happened on January 21, 2001
 
Conservative said:
Please cite the economic numbers that show the recession began in 2006, thanks
Click to expand...

I believe 2006 was considered the point when the housing bubble burst, as home values began to decline steeply during that year, which is what Catawba said - "it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006”. Catawba never mentioned anything about the recession starting 2006.

It's widely accepted that the official ‘recession’ started Q4 2007, as that is when we first saw GDP contract (from what I can remember), confirming what Gill said.

So everybody wins (except for Conservative).

Also, “from what I can remember” is code for “what I just found on the internet 40 seconds ago”.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
From 2003-2007 and you might want to check out the results during that period of time, net job gain, strong economic growth, coincidence? Hmmm
Click to expand...

Unless you can come up with some specific legislation supported by those Republicans in Congress during that time that caused that economic growth, then yes, coincidence.

It was also a period of deficit spending and soaring costs of government. Coincidence? Yes, most likely.
 
Conservative said:
If we were rolling into a recession in 2006 the numbers would show it, so I have seen nothing to support your claim or the article's claim other than wishful thinking on your part
Click to expand...

"The United States housing bubble is an economic bubble affecting many parts of the United States housing market, including areas of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Housing prices peaked in early 2006, started to decline in 2006 and 2007, and may not yet have hit bottom as of 2011."
United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom