- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 42,985
- Reaction score
- 14,350
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
A lot of Scotsmen in your argument...
-
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!
Obama as one of the Greatest Presidents Ever
- Thread starter MrT
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,932
- Reaction score
- 4,221
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Considering your avatar; your signature line...and the tone of your posts...I doubt we will ever reach agreement.
In any case, Ronald Reagan is the darling of the far right conservatives of America...and he were alive today and running for office, they would probably be carrying signs reading, "Anyone but Reagan."
Anyway...thanks for the laughs.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 10,934
- Reaction score
- 2,278
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,965
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
But Con, the stimulus did bring us out of the recession. You even posted the link from an unbiased factual source to show the stimulus ended the Great Bush Recession.
"The stimulus has done what it was supposed to do: end the Great Recession and spur recovery. “
ah look, more questions as if you're making a point. and bonus you asked about civics. You can always tell when Con is running out of dishonest deflections.
Con, I don't have to explain it. You posted it as proof "Obama didn't care about the deficit". The fact that he reduced it 70% while republicans were fighting to keep it high or increase it proves he cared. You've ignored the fact that republicans have proven they don't care about deficits. these facts prove it
deficits go up faster when republicans are in charge
republicans obstructed President Obama from reducing the Bush Deficits faster
republicans tried to sabotage the economy which would have increased the deficit
Trump's tax cuts will balloon the deficit so much it would make look Bush look good.
and Con, when I want to talk about the budget deficit, you want deflect to the total federal deficit When I want to talk about the total federal deficit, you cut and run.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In 20 years Obama added 8.6 in 7 with another trillion plus this year. Wonder what that will be in 20 years
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 42,985
- Reaction score
- 14,350
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Muh cell keyboard is hard to use....
So whut if my argument didnt hold....i cun type nunsense and divert....hurr durr.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So let's see if I have this righr, the guy liberals love to hate, Bush, added 6.2 trillion in 8 years by your numbers and Obama 8 6 trillion in 7?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 42,985
- Reaction score
- 14,350
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Uh, the shrub managed to add that level of debt without a collapse in revenue due to a depression, it was due to his tax cuts:
In fact, total federal revenues declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO said total revenues declined by 1.7 percent, but otherwise would have increased by 1.5 percent.
CBO, Nov. 14, 2001: That decline, the first since 1983, was caused by a combination of factors: the slowing economy, tax reductions, and shifts in the timing of tax payments. Even without the recent tax changes (mainly the tax cuts and timing shifts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001), revenues would have grown by only about 1.5 percent.
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush's cuts was "put in" starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.
Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
PS...are you going to concede that Raygun+GHB+Shrub debts far and away exceeded Obama's debt, or are you just going to keep on ignoring that you were wrong?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Uh, the shrub managed to add that level of debt without a collapse in revenue due to a depression, it was due to his tax cuts:
In fact, total federal revenues declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO said total revenues declined by 1.7 percent, but otherwise would have increased by 1.5 percent.
CBO, Nov. 14, 2001: That decline, the first since 1983, was caused by a combination of factors: the slowing economy, tax reductions, and shifts in the timing of tax payments. Even without the recent tax changes (mainly the tax cuts and timing shifts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001), revenues would have grown by only about 1.5 percent.
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush's cuts was "put in" starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.
Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
PS...are you going to concede that Raygun+GHB+Shrub debts far and away exceeded Obama's debt, or are you just going to keep on ignoring that you were wrong?
Wrong, the bush tax cuts as you call them came thanks to the Clinton recession which started in March 2001 before Bush was able to enact anything and was due to the dot.com bubble bursting which of course you will blame on Bush. The Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003 and the growth in revenue exploded.
Look, you are a leftwing ideologue who believes people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the govt. that is true liberal indoctrination. If you feel so strongly about the govt. keeping more of what you earn send them more and tell them not to refund any of your taxes
Now back to Obama, 8.6 trillion in 7 years, Bush 6.2 trillion in 8 years =(inflation adjusted) Looks like another win for Bush
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 42,985
- Reaction score
- 14,350
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In fact, total federal revenues declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO said total revenues declined by 1.7 percent, but otherwise would have increased by 1.5 percent.
CBO, Nov. 14, 2001: That decline, the first since 1983, was caused by a combination of factors: the slowing economy, tax reductions, and shifts in the timing of tax payments. Even without the recent tax changes (mainly the tax cuts and timing shifts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001), revenues would have grown by only about 1.5 percent.
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush's cuts was "put in" starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.
I have no idea why you keep trying to put that straw in my mouth, tax cuts drop revenue.
Again, Bush got there without a depression causing massive declines in revenue, his massive declines were due to his tax cuts.
Further, combined with the cuts came the massive spending increases:
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,965
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Just for laughs, you should ask Con to back up the "debt totals" he claims. He has to pretend Bush was president in 2000.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 42,985
- Reaction score
- 14,350
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
For your claim to be true, personal income should have dropped massively during the 2001 recession....which would explain the declines in revenue...but they didn't:
ergo, the declines in revenue...were due to...Shrub tax cuts.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 22,166
- Reaction score
- 808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Of course thats insane!! If govt spending caused economic growth then we would never have to worry about economic growth since the govt can always spend!! Liberals believe when govt spends a dollar it becomes a magical dollar. In fact robbing Peter to pay Paul does not result in one penny of stimulus.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I know how hard you want to make this thread about Bush all to divert from the Obama record. Tell me exactly when the Bush tax cuts were implemented in fiscal year 2000 and one? Also please explain how government revenue increased after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts we're fully implementedFor your claim to be true, personal income should have dropped massively during the 2001 recession....which would explain the declines in revenue...but they didn't:
ergo, the declines in revenue...were due to...Shrub tax cuts.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm sorry fiscal year 2001
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Pls post where I said Bush was President in 2000? Nice dodge and diversion
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It would be quite a change for Vern to actually address the posts made. Vern, still waiting for you to tell us what the Democrat Controlled Congress was doing the last two years of the Bush Administration? Still waiting for an explanation as to how the Obama stimulus which was all spending brought us out of recession yet the entire 2009 deficit was Bush's? Also still waiting for you to admit that you actually found the 2016 actual deficit from the Treasury link I gave you? Obama 8.6 trillion in debt for 7 years, Bush 6.2 trillion!!
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,965
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Here it is Con.
that was as short sighted a flail as the time you posted the Zandi Blinder that showed the stimulus ended the Great Bush Recession and then claimed you read it several times and this sentence wasn't in it
"The stimulus has done what it was supposed to do: end the Great Recession and spur recovery. “
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,965
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
James, this isn't a chat room. This is a debate forum. You constantly flailing at reality is not debate. I'll try to give you a simple explanation that even you'll be able to understand.
When the Great Bush Recession was losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was cratering at -8.2 %, the govt borrows money to pump back into the economy to prop up demand. Private sector demand has collapsed so unless someone spends money, the Great Bush Recession simply would have dragged on. And James, Reagan tripled the national debt because he was allowed to spend borrowed money, massive amounts of borrowed money. You just don't get to praise his "economic performance" and then ignore his massive deficit spending.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Good Lord, Vern, 10 trillion minus 5.6 trillion is 4.4 trillion, Vern. Is there any thing you are good at because it certainly isn't math. The 6 trillion number is yours NOT mine. On January 21, 2009 the debt was 10.6 trillion including 350 billion in Stimulus which was repaid in 2009 which of course you ignored. Again, Vern, there was NO Budget for fiscal year 2009 and Bush's spending authority ran out on March 31, 2009, basic civics.
As for the stimulus you claimed it brought us out of recession and the stimulus was spending, Spending is part of the deficit so how could a stimulus bring us out of the recession if Bush is responsible for the entire 2009 deficit? The claim is certainly made but the claim is false because the data doesn't support it. We now know that data isn't a strong point of yours as you will buy any rhetoric that supports your beliefs.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Hey, Vern, let's try some math, the debt at the beginning of the Bush term fiscal year 2001 was 5.7 trillion dollars and at the end of his fiscal year 2008 it was 10.0 trillion, so Vern, 10.0 trillion MINUS 5.7 trillion equals WHAT, Vern??__________
Now Vern, another test for you during the Bush term how many months were there where the economy lost 700,000 jobs? BLS.gov will give you that information? Vern, now tell me how accepting an economy with 142 million employed when he took office and having 1.3 million becoming discouraged because of the Obama recovery, and then having 139 million employed two years later thus a 3 million loss in employment is a success in the liberal world?
You claimed it was the Obama stimulus that brought us out of recession, the 842 billion stimulus that was signed in February 2009 and was for shovel ready jobs. Vern, why didn't those shovels get to the job sites to hire new workers thus help grow tax revenue? I know this was a long sentence and tough questions, Vern, but get some help reading them and then how about an answer??
Come on, Vern, you can do it? You can admit that you need help with your BDS. You can actually do the subtraction to come up with the numbers.
I do love how Obama supporters like you tout Obama's success creating private sector jobs but ignore the quality of those jobs and how many of those jobs were part time jobs for economic reasons. I also love how Obama did a great job ridding the market of employees thus helping make the unemployment rate look better than it actually is and how Obamabots ignore the under employed, discouraged workers, and labor participation rate.
For someone to claim that Obama is one of America's greatest is someone who ignores actual data and buys rhetoric. That would be you, vern
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,965
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Con, you can post the same dishonest claim over and over but Bush's first budget was FY 2002. Bush was handed a surplus and he took the debt from 5.8 trillion to 11.9 trillion. Even you admit he destroyed the economy and left President Obama trillion dollar deficits.
I do so enjoy your flailing and dishonest deflecting.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,849
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I know that you don't need me to tell you that the logic of this argument is just brilliant, but I am going to tell it to you anyways.
This logic. Amaze-balls.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Vern, you obviously never took a civics class and don't understand that budgets are not spending bills but rather a guideline, After Clinton left office Bush had the authority to start spending money so what matters is what he spent not what the budget said. He is responsible for the fiscal year 2001 results that started on October 1, 2000 because that is the way leadership works, maybe not in your world but in the real world. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion dollar debt and left it at 10.6 trillion or 4.9 trillion, not 6 trillion added to the debt and of that 4.9 trillion 350 billion was TARP which was repaid per Treasury so the actual Bush debt was 4.6 trillion dollars.
You don't seem to have a lot of credibility on that issue even with your fellow leftwing nuts.
I am still waiting for you to give us the number of 700,000 jobs lost months during the Bush Term and then how the Obama stimulus worked when it took employment from 142 million to 139 million in 2 years?
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,965
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
and there it is, Con gets shredded and magically is unable to use the quote function properly. Oh look, Con wants to discuss (tepidly) that when Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion and the day he left office it was 10.6. But Con, if you to ignore the Treasury data that you brag about posting that breaks out debt by fiscal years then you cant ignore that Bush was handed a surplus and President Obama was handed Bush's Great Depression, a destroyed financial system, losing 700,000 jobs a month etc. Even you admit that Bush destroyed the economy and left trillion dollar deficits.