• 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!

Sanders VS Trump: The actual political argument

I stand by the numbers and they tell a very very very different story than your blah blah schtick.

Yes, actually quoting the numbers rather than saying they make Obama look good, I can see where you would have a problem with that. It requires actually making a point rather than posting something and going "look, Obama good".
 
Did you not read the stats?

11.8% increase in consumer prices, 20% business startups and 20% business deaths...meaning 0. Long term unemployed has fallen another 578,000 since the crash. Home ownership has fallen another 3.7%. Corporate profits up 182%.

That doesn't look like much of a turnaround.

You need to re-read the stats, as it appears you have a misunderstanding. Business startups are UP 20% (from 197,000 to 235,000 per quarter) and business deaths are DOWN 20% (from 247,000 to 200,000 per quarter)....
 
Lets be sure... lets be very sure.... again here it is

Obama’s Numbers (July 2015 Update)

Fact Check . Org.

Seriously?

Why not just get the numbers from the DNC?

According to the Federal Reserve Bank, the Median Household income is down. I'm not sure where the figures in your post come from.

From this impartial source, the Median Household income is down from the point at which Obama took office and way down since 2000.

Are you seriously asserting that this is a good economy?
 
facts on what? That a political party which has never given a wet crap about working people would make things better for those same working people?

Tell me what you do is tens of millions of people who are no longer necessary as workers in this economy? it makes me want to puke when I hear right wing politicians and their sycophants pretend to care about average workers when all they are doing is using them to advance policies which would kiss the fat bloated ass of the right and corporate America.

You solve that problem - and you solve the problem of the 21st century.

So you are saying that Obama has the key and is trying to use it?

Who's stopping him?

The average guy does not create a job. He accepts the offer of a job from the guys that you and Obama hate and seem prone to actively work against.

Have you ever gotten a job from a guy who is down and out? Are most employers fairly well to do?
 
Fact Check . Org.

Seriously?

Why not just get the numbers from the DNC?

According to the Federal Reserve Bank, the Median Household income is down. I'm not sure where the figures in your post come from.

From this impartial source, the Median Household income is down from the point at which Obama took office and way down since 2000.

Are you seriously asserting that this is a good economy?

Compared to what Obama inherited, yes, the economy has improved noticeably.
 
So you are saying that Obama has the key and is trying to use it?

Who's stopping him?

The average guy does not create a job. He accepts the offer of a job from the guys that you and Obama hate and seem prone to actively work against.

Have you ever gotten a job from a guy who is down and out? Are most employers fairly well to do?

What do you mean - has the key?
 
Compared to what Obama inherited, yes, the economy has improved noticeably.

Obama inherited the largest economy in the World and the richest population in the world with the most entrepreneurial minded class of business leaders in the world.

He happened to have entered office during a recession. There have been plenty of recessions in the country.

He had a choice to provide incentives to the population to reinvigorate the economy or to construct an elaborate boondoggle to reward his supporters and bribe those he wanted to follow him. We know what course he took and what the

result was: the longest recession since the 1930's.

Interestingly, his approach mimicked that of FDR. Both approaches were dismal failures. Obama almost got lucky as his foreign policy nearly resulted in a world war. That would have solved the problem. It worked for FDR.


When Will The U.S. Have Its Next Recession?
Following the Great Depression, the U.S. hasn’t experienced that type of business contraction since. Although it was the worst recession in the post-WWII period, even the Great Recession was relatively mild compared to the panics and depressions from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Here is a list of every recession since the Great Depression began in 1929 (click to enlarge):
 
What do you mean - has the key?

Your post to which I rtesponded:

"Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
facts on what? That a political party which has never given a wet crap about working people would make things better for those same working people?

Tell me what you do is tens of millions of people who are no longer necessary as workers in this economy? it makes me want to puke when I hear right wing politicians and their sycophants pretend to care about average workers when all they are doing is using them to advance policies which would kiss the fat bloated ass of the right and corporate America.

You solve that problem - and you solve the problem of the 21st century."

You seem to be implying that the Democrats are more capable of helping "the average guy" than any other force in the Universe.

This implies that Obama has the key to help "the average guy". As you may have noticed, "the average guy" is suffering.

If Obama has the key, he is not using it and this is tantamount to treason. If he has no clue, my guess on the subject by the way, then your assertion is empty.

So what is it? Does Obama have an unused key or is he clueless?
 
Obama inherited the largest economy in the World and the richest population in the world with the most entrepreneurial minded class of business leaders in the world.

He happened to have entered office during a recession. There have been plenty of recessions in the country.

He had a choice to provide incentives to the population to reinvigorate the economy or to construct an elaborate boondoggle to reward his supporters and bribe those he wanted to follow him. We know what course he took and what the

result was: the longest recession since the 1930's.

Interestingly, his approach mimicked that of FDR. Both approaches were dismal failures. Obama almost got lucky as his foreign policy nearly resulted in a world war. That would have solved the problem. It worked for FDR.


When Will The U.S. Have Its Next Recession?
Following the Great Depression, the U.S. hasn’t experienced that type of business contraction since. Although it was the worst recession in the post-WWII period, even the Great Recession was relatively mild compared to the panics and depressions from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Here is a list of every recession since the Great Depression began in 1929 (click to enlarge):

And the USA is a lot better today after 7 plus years of President Obama and his policies. Its sad that some of his efforts at a fuller and more robust recovery were thwarted by a do nothing Republican led Congress who made no bones about wanting him to fail.
 
Well, we finally have a well defined race shaping up for us.

A Capitalist vs a Communist.

it is absolutely nothing of the sort. It's an incredibly vulgar free-market-hating protectionist populist demagogue vs a free-market-hating protectionist populist demagogue with some manners.
 
Well, we finally have a well defined race shaping up for us.

A Capitalist vs a Communist.

MoveOn.org's Nazi-like behavior notwithstanding, the odds just don't favor Bernie. He crashes and burns. That's the end of the Capitalist v. Communist fantasy.
 
And the USA is a lot better today after 7 plus years of President Obama and his policies. Its sad that some of his efforts at a fuller and more robust recovery were thwarted by a do nothing Republican led Congress who made no bones about wanting him to fail.

You seem incapable of critical thought.

According to the table in the post to which you responded, the recession ended in June, 2009.

The incredibly expensive and Failed Stimulus did not have time to have ANY impact on the situation at that point. Of course, the entire package was a political reward and payoff system, so, helping the economy was never the the goal in any event.

The FACT remains, though, that the recession had ended BEFORE the political reward and payoff system was having any impact.

Where did stimulus money really go? | Fox News
<snip>
The stimulus money may have failed to go to the states the president promised, but a clear pattern does emerge. Stimulus dollars were highly correlated to which political party controlled the state: Having an entirely Democrat congressional delegation in 2009, when the bill passed, increases the per capita stimulus dollars that the state receives per person by $460. In addition, the states that Obama won by the largest percentage margin in 2008 got the most money.
<snip>


How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent? | Rutledge Capital
<snip>
[h=2]How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent?[/h]June 3, 2009 bond, bond yield, budget deficits, Economic Crisis, GDP, Government Policy, inflation, interest rates, Jobs,Rutledge, tweets, twitter, unemployment 4 Comments
One of the (many) problems with using big increases in federal government spending as an economic stimulus tool is timing. You can’t appropriate and spend it fast enough to matter much during the downturn. Spending it years later, after the economy has already begun to recover on it own, then becomes an inflation worry.
09-600x392.jpg

<snip>
 
You seem incapable of critical thought.

According to the table in the post to which you responded, the recession ended in June, 2009.

The incredibly expensive and Failed Stimulus did not have time to have ANY impact on the situation at that point. Of course, the entire package was a political reward and payoff system, so, helping the economy was never the the goal in any event.

The FACT remains, though, that the recession had ended BEFORE the political reward and payoff system was having any impact.

Where did stimulus money really go? | Fox News
<snip>
The stimulus money may have failed to go to the states the president promised, but a clear pattern does emerge. Stimulus dollars were highly correlated to which political party controlled the state: Having an entirely Democrat congressional delegation in 2009, when the bill passed, increases the per capita stimulus dollars that the state receives per person by $460. In addition, the states that Obama won by the largest percentage margin in 2008 got the most money.
<snip>


How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent? | Rutledge Capital
<snip>
How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent?

June 3, 2009 bond, bond yield, budget deficits, Economic Crisis, GDP, Government Policy, inflation, interest rates, Jobs,Rutledge, tweets, twitter, unemployment 4 Comments
One of the (many) problems with using big increases in federal government spending as an economic stimulus tool is timing. You can’t appropriate and spend it fast enough to matter much during the downturn. Spending it years later, after the economy has already begun to recover on it own, then becomes an inflation worry.
09-600x392.jpg

<snip>

Not one thing you have posted refutes the original statistics I linked to showing significant economic improvement under President Obama.

You seem fixated on the stimulus - which is but a tree in a larger forest. Perhaps you need to look at much much more than just one plank in a larger platform.
 
Not one thing you have posted refutes the original statistics I linked to showing significant economic improvement under President Obama.

You seem fixated on the stimulus - which is but a tree in a larger forest. Perhaps you need to look at much much more than just one plank in a larger platform.

Real Household Median Income was around $58K in 1998, around $57K in 2007 and about $54K in 2014.

Seems like it's headed in the wrong direction...

Was that a part of your original post? Does it support your idea that everything is great or maybe indicate that there is something we should be concerned about?

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N
 
Real Household Median Income was around $58K in 1998, around $57K in 2007 and about $54K in 2014.

Seems like it's headed in the wrong direction...

Was that a part of your original post? Does it support your idea that everything is great or maybe indicate that there is something we should be concerned about?

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Agree. Income insecurity and inequality grow each decade under candidates groomed and helped get elected by wealthy corporate donors.
 
Real Household Median Income was around $58K in 1998, around $57K in 2007 and about $54K in 2014.

Seems like it's headed in the wrong direction...

Was that a part of your original post? Does it support your idea that everything is great or maybe indicate that there is something we should be concerned about?

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

I never said that everything was great. And I also do not like the income reversals. And if the policies of President Bush had been allowed to continue without correction, I strongly suspect the downward spiral would be far more steep and the average person far far worse off today that under President Obama.

Let me be brutally frank here: Things are turning bad for the middle class and under Obama this has continued. Under ANY president this would have continued because there are far bigger forces and far more devastating trends at work here.

Among these are
1- a society were tens of millions of people simply are no longer needed for work
2- a decline in unions and their power which leads to lower wages , longer hours and poorer benefits
3- outsourcing of jobs overseas
4- an obsession with the short term evensong those most hurt by it, IE: the Wal Mart shopper of the working class
5- trade policies which have cost us jobs

Make no bones about it - Republicans are happy to quote statistics like you did about income decline but there is no doubt that republicans do not give two craps about average workers and their policies would be even worse for average people.

I hope that was clear.
 
The incredibly expensive and Failed Stimulus did not have time to have ANY impact on the situation at that point. Of course, the entire package was a political reward and payoff system, so, helping the economy was never the the goal in any event.

The FACT remains, though, that the recession had ended BEFORE the political reward and payoff system was having any impact.

Where did stimulus money really go? | Fox News
<snip>
The stimulus money may have failed to go to the states the president promised, but a clear pattern does emerge. Stimulus dollars were highly correlated to which political party controlled the state: Having an entirely Democrat congressional delegation in 2009, when the bill passed, increases the per capita stimulus dollars that the state receives per person by $460. In addition, the states that Obama won by the largest percentage margin in 2008 got the most money.
<snip>

If one were to look at where Medicaid expansion dollars flow today, one would undoubtedly find that they preferentially flow to blue states. Is that because the Medicaid expansion is a "political payoff and reward system"? Of course not. It's because blue states are more enthusiastic about drawing down those funds, and red states tend to be reluctant to do so. The ACA is a politically polarizing piece of legislation and thus in practice the flow of dollars under it has turned out to be politically polarized.

The ARRA was similarly polarizing. I remember red state governors at the time suggesting they would not accept funding under it ("GOP govs consider rejecting stimulus money"). If the author you cite is correct, it would suggest that red states did tend to reject stimulus money, or were at least more reluctant to draw down stimulus funds than their blue state counterparts. I wouldn't find that particularly surprising, nor would I find it suggestive of political favoritism (indeed from a political perspective I would expect that the administration would be more eager to see those "This project funded by the ARRA" signs going up in red states than in reliably blue states).
 
Last edited:
Agree. Income insecurity and inequality grow each decade under candidates groomed and helped get elected by wealthy corporate donors.

You are skipping the critical element in the equation.

The donations in the largest part are distributed through the tow political parties.

The money originates from those that have it, both wealthy and average, but the spigot of cash to the run of the mill politician is turned on and off by the party bosses.

Party loyalty is rewarded and anything else is punished.

Do you think that the Stop Trump Movement is a one party effort?

Of course not! It is the result of combined efforts of both establishment parties. BOTH parties are attacking Trump.

What is it that unites the parties in this bi-partisan effort? Think control and you will find the answer.
 
I never said that everything was great. And I also do not like the income reversals. And if the policies of President Bush had been allowed to continue without correction, I strongly suspect the downward spiral would be far more steep and the average person far far worse off today that under President Obama.

Let me be brutally frank here: Things are turning bad for the middle class and under Obama this has continued. Under ANY president this would have continued because there are far bigger forces and far more devastating trends at work here.

Among these are
1- a society were tens of millions of people simply are no longer needed for work
2- a decline in unions and their power which leads to lower wages , longer hours and poorer benefits
3- outsourcing of jobs overseas
4- an obsession with the short term evensong those most hurt by it, IE: the Wal Mart shopper of the working class
5- trade policies which have cost us jobs

Make no bones about it - Republicans are happy to quote statistics like you did about income decline but there is no doubt that republicans do not give two craps about average workers and their policies would be even worse for average people.

I hope that was clear.

You are blinded by partisan loyalty.

BOTH parties are working for the same thing.

The hogwash about Bush policies is just that. Barney Frank was proclaiming right up to the bubble bursting that there was nothing to worry about. So were the bought and paid for from BOTH parties. Bush weakly made something like 20 pleas to do something about the free money to the unqualified borrowers while loudly proclaiming that a higher percent of ALL citizens "owned" their won home.

The Democrats, AFTER the real estate bubble burst, were campaigning, AGAIN, for relaxed regulations that would allow more unqualified folks to get mortgages. This is insanity and reveals the coat of paint depth of their understanding of the issue.

The real estate bubble that burst was inflated by BOTH parties. If you can't see that and don't know that then you are attacking causes that simply don't exist.

Regarding the economy failing to grow at a rate sufficient to satisfy the needs of those that work within it: The reason is simply that the folks who could make growth happen have been sidelined by those that seek power to control.

Imagine Babe Ruth being coached by a novice, unqualified manager who would bench him every time he tried to swing his natural swing. He never would have hit a home run. This is what the regulation happy, snot nosed a-holes in government have done to the entrepreneurial class in our country.

The most risk embracing population of rich folks in the history of the world have decided that investment in risk ventures is no longer a good bet so they sit on the sidelines with a couple trillion dollars in their pockets to just sit it out until the conditions change.

Until the conditions are once again favorable to justify the expenditure of risk capital, there will be little risked.

The real effect of the real estate bubble bursting was that the government controllers gained too much control. Now the players that could win the game for us are afraid to play.

Those that have banned them from the game have convinced people like you that the failure of the government is the failure of the people that they have terrified into inaction.
 
If one were to look at where Medicaid expansion dollars flow today, one would undoubtedly find that they preferentially flow to blue states. Is that because the Medicaid expansion is a "political payoff and reward system"? Of course not. It's because blue states are more enthusiastic about drawing down those funds, and red states tend to be reluctant to do so. The ACA is a politically polarizing piece of legislation and thus in practice the flow of dollars under it has turned out to be politically polarized.

The ARRA was similarly polarizing. I remember red state governors at the time suggesting they would not accept funding under it ("GOP govs consider rejecting stimulus money"). If the author you cite is correct, it would suggest that red states did tend to reject stimulus money, or were at least more reluctant to draw down stimulus funds than their blue state counterparts. I wouldn't find that particularly surprising, nor would I find it suggestive of political favoritism (indeed from a political perspective I would expect that the administration would be more eager to see those "This project funded by the ARRA" signs going up in red states than in reliably blue states).

The fact remains that this was a political program. Any economic benefit delivered to the economy was a by-product of the main intent.

I remember that my clients in public education received the cash one year and had to do the cut backs the next AFTER the cash had been spent. There was no solution offered in this. Just a payoff to the unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom