• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Growth: Economy v debt

This sort of analysis is always terribly flawed. It often hinges on the idea that Obama was suppose to come in and start cutting right away on a budget that was so out of control it didn't even have the 2 wars we were running on the books. It also doesn't take into the account the economic situations that could reduce tax revenue, further increasing the budget deficit.

Some things can be cut right away, others can't (defense due to two wars, medicare donut hole, etc). It's often a slow process.

Now, if you believe that electing a Republican will improve things... how much proof do you need other than the fact that every Republican since Reagan has grossly increased the deficit and debt? Just take a look at Romney's plans, none of which will reduce the deficit without fairy dust and a unicorn. If he's elected, for all accounts and historical evidence, he'll increase the deficit and completely ruin the budget.
 
Rainman05 said:
You must be trolling right?

If you take all the profits, all the profits, of the fortune 500 companies, you get around 600 bil $. If you take all the income of all the people in the USA who make over 250k $, including the super rich, you only get 1.3 tril $. So you can only get 1.9tril$ if you get all the profits from all the top 500 corporations and companies and all the income of all the US citizens who make over 250k $/year including the worlds richest US citizens like Bill Gates, the Koch brothers and such.
Click to expand...

You msut be lying.

BP ALONE made $66B last year.....
Mcdonalds $6B
Exxon $180B ttm........
So with 3 companys I just looked up right now, it looks like you are full of BS.


and IRS says all over $200k make $3.125 T - so tax average of 80% means $2.5T in new taxes.
And no I dont have the link anymore.......I just remember the number.s
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Obviously, you don't understand the budget process, when the budget was worked out, who was involved, what programs/policies were funded. The original TARP funding was Bush's, the original auto bailouts were Bush, the funding of AFPAK (which was FINALLY included in the budget) was on Bush.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh..
So, Bush gets credit for putting the economy back on the right track.
Right?
 
Tettsuo said:
This sort of analysis is always terribly flawed. It often hinges on the idea that Obama was suppose to come in and start cutting right away...
Click to expand...
Every penny is spent voluntarily. Not a single penny MUST be spent. Not one.
 
H. Lee White said:
Ahhhh..
So, Bush gets credit for putting the economy back on the right track.
Right?
Click to expand...
That's a joke. If he is responsible for that, then he is also responsible for the crash, but the point would be that most are arguing that we are NOT back on track.

If you are conceding that the vast majority of spending in 2009fy budget was on Bush, just say so. Admitting you are wrong when you are is the first step in having civil discourse.
 
H. Lee White said:
Every penny is spent voluntarily. Not a single penny MUST be spent. Not one.
Click to expand...
Um, wrong again, we have discretionary and NON-discretionary spending.

Why are libertarians, who are defined primarily by fiscal issues, so BAD at understanding the US budget?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, wrong again, we have discretionary and NON-discretionary spending.
Click to expand...
Non-discretionary spending is, in every way, voluntary in that it is spent because there is a law says it must be spent.
The law does not need to say so; the government chooses to pass the laws that mandtate that spenidng, and so the government chooses to spend the money.
Congress passed that law. Obama signed it. Thus, they chose to spend it

Why are libertarians, who are defined primarily by fiscal issues, so BAD at understanding the US budget?
Click to expand...
Clearly, my understanding far outpaces yours.
 
Tettsuo said:
This sort of analysis is always terribly flawed. It often hinges on the idea that Obama was suppose to come in and start cutting right away on a budget that was so out of control it didn't even have the 2 wars we were running on the books. It also doesn't take into the account the economic situations that could reduce tax revenue, further increasing the budget deficit.

Some things can be cut right away, others can't (defense due to two wars, medicare donut hole, etc). It's often a slow process.

Now, if you believe that electing a Republican will improve things... how much proof do you need other than the fact that every Republican since Reagan has grossly increased the deficit and debt? Just take a look at Romney's plans, none of which will reduce the deficit without fairy dust and a unicorn. If he's elected, for all accounts and historical evidence, he'll increase the deficit and completely ruin the budget.
Click to expand...


This reminds me about a story... if you have to go with one of two devils, better with the one you know.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That's a joke.
Click to expand...
Can't have it both ways - either Bush gets the deficit and the positive effects, or Obama does.
Decide which way you want it to be and let me know.

but the point would be that most are arguing that we are NOT back on track.
Click to expand...
Ah. So, after 4 years in power, the enconomy is still not on track - that is, Obama has been ineffectual.
I guess there's no reason to re-elect him, as he has apparently failed.
 
274ina said:
You msut be lying.

BP ALONE made $66B last year.....
Mcdonalds $6B
Exxon $180B ttm........
So with 3 companys I just looked up right now, it looks like you are full of BS.


and IRS says all over $200k make $3.125 T - so tax average of 80% means $2.5T in new taxes.
And no I dont have the link anymore.......I just remember the number.s
Click to expand...

Would you care for me to provide you with a link?
First off... BP is a British company. What right does the US have to take the profits from BP? Also, it only made around 22B $ in 2011.

Exxon only made 41B$... not 180B$... I don't know where you got those numbers from.

2011 Was Very Good to ExxonMobil | Center for American Progress

And Walmart and Exxon Mobil are the 2 top companies in the US... and together, full profits... they get to a bit under 60B with Walmart making ~15B in profits. The rest, much lower... and lower... and lower. Don't get me wrong, it is a lot of money. It all adds up around the numbers I gave you.

And the numbers I gave are from the IRS and collaborated with other sources. The problem with memory is that it can be deceitful. Numbers get mixed up.

EDIT: You must be a die-hard socialist or commie... 80% tax rate... even the thought... it also explains your hyperbole. Bad evil companies making too much money...
 
Last edited:
H. Lee White said:
Can't have it both ways - either Bush gets the deficit and the positive effects, or Obama does.
Decide which way you want it to be and let me know.
Click to expand...
I'll give Bush credit for most of the TARP spending, but he is then totally responsible for causing the crash that required TARP....but again, TARP hasn't/didn't get us on "track".....since we still are NOT on "track".


Ah. So, after 4 years in power, the enconomy is still not on track - that is, Obama has been ineffectual.
I guess there's no reason to re-elect him, as he has apparently failed.
Click to expand...
Um...no, it isn't a black or white situation, the economy is good if you are a major corporation, not so good if you are an older male worker. It seems you recognize the severity of the collapse but your understanding of economic recovery from such a collapse is lacking. I'll agree that the econ response for many Americans has been insufficient, but I know that the GOP response would be less and the recovery would be worse.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'll give Bush credit for most of the TARP spending, but he is then totally responsible for causing the crash that required TARP....but again, TARP hasn't/didn't get us on "track".....since we still are NOT on "track".


Um...no, it isn't a black or white situation, the economy is good if you are a major corporation, not so good if you are an older male worker. It seems you recognize the severity of the collapse but your understanding of economic recovery from such a collapse is lacking. I'll agree that the econ response for many Americans has been insufficient, but I know that the GOP response would be less and the recovery would be worse.
Click to expand...
LOL
1: Blame Bush for the whole problem
2: Re=elect Obama, regardless of how inept he'd been at fixing it.
LOL

Be honest, even if only to yourself: If everything were the same today, save that McCain was in office, we both know you'd not give him any such benefit of the doubt.
 
H. Lee White said:
Non-discretionary spending is, in every way, voluntary in that it is spent because there is a law says it must be spent.
Click to expand...
WTF?? How in the world do you understand that REQUIRED spending by STATUTE is "voluntary"?


The law does not need to say so; the government chooses to pass the laws that mandtate that spenidng, and so the government chooses to spend the money.
Congress passed that law. Obama signed it. Thus, they chose to spend it
Click to expand...
"The laws" are passed by representatives of the people, we decided what was REQUIRED by Congress to fund versus what Congress can or not fund. You are getting into a SILLY semantic argument, ignoring the facts of funding laws. But then Libertarians operate in a separate universe when it comes to the Constitution.


Clearly, my understanding far outpaces yours.
Click to expand...
Better check that scoreboard, so far you are 0 for 3 on the main points.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'll give Bush credit for most of the TARP spending, but he is then totally responsible for causing the crash that required TARP....but again, TARP hasn't/didn't get us on "track".....since we still are NOT on "track".


Um...no, it isn't a black or white situation, the economy is good if you are a major corporation, not so good if you are an older male worker. It seems you recognize the severity of the collapse but your understanding of economic recovery from such a collapse is lacking. I'll agree that the econ response for many Americans has been insufficient, but I know that the GOP response would be less and the recovery would be worse.
Click to expand...

How do you know the 2nd part? I mean, what do you base your arguments on? From what I gather from all sort of threads where they discuss Romney's career in MA, he did quite good after whats her face from the democrats lost the elections and was replaced by him... I mean, come on. The truth is, you just can't know if he will be terrible or not. Sure, there are plenty of indications to point for that but you just can't be sure. With Obama, you can be sure of what he will do in the next 4 years because he said so... forward with the same things I've been doing these past 4 years.

Also, why can't you get it through your heads... Obama is on the corporate and bankers payroll. He has a warchest 4x the size of Romney's and most of the money in it comes from special interest groups... which some are also sponsoring Romney. He isn't there for you. He is there for them. Who do you work for? The man who pays you. He is getting paid by the banks first and foremost. This is why when GM asked for a bailout... they spent a week bickering over the sum and if they should give the bailout or not... but when the banks asked for it, it took them 1 day to deliver the money (Congress which was democrat) and wondered if the money is sufficient... if they shouldn't give more away. Put these notions in your head in order to be a more balanced individual.
 
H. Lee White said:
LOL
1: Blame Bush for the whole problem
Click to expand...
Tell me again, if he got us "ontrack" with TARP...then who created the need for TARP? Obama?
2: Re=elect Obama, regardless of how inept he'd been at fixing it.
LOL
Click to expand...
Well....if he is "fixing it", then I guess he is fixing it.

Be honest, even if only to yourself: If everything were the same today, save that McCain was in office, we both know you'd not give him any such benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
What benefit of doubt? If McCain was in charge, he would NOT have implemented TARP, put in any stimulus, not bailed out Detroit...on and on....since he SAID SO. If we went that way, it would have made 1929-39 look like a picnic.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Where did I mention Willard?

You OK?
Click to expand...

"Um...no, it isn't a black or white situation, the economy is good if you are a major corporation, not so good if you are an older male worker. It seems you recognize the severity of the collapse but your understanding of economic recovery from such a collapse is lacking. I'll agree that the econ response for many Americans has been insufficient, but I know that the GOP response would be less and the recovery would be worse."

If u weren't talking about Mittens there, who were you talking about? Because Mittens is, for better or worse, the GOP response to Obama.
 
Rainman05 said:
On the other hand, inflation seems to have dropped after reaching about 4% in August last year... to about less than 1.7% this august. This means that 1 $ today is worth more than 1$ in august last year... which means that when you pay off the debt, you will pay more than what you borrowed in august last year. And since the US burrows 40cents out of every 1$... well... it is just a mess. There is no telling if the inflation will rise again or not. I guess there are positives and negatives.

This is just a random fact to add to the dimension.
Click to expand...

Too bad it's a lie

Rising Commodity Prices = Inflation

Inflation is a hidden tax. You need to calculate the Opportunity Costs
 
Rainman05 said:
"Um...no, it isn't a black or white situation, the economy is good if you are a major corporation, not so good if you are an older male worker. It seems you recognize the severity of the collapse but your understanding of economic recovery from such a collapse is lacking. I'll agree that the econ response for many Americans has been insufficient, but I know that the GOP response would be less and the recovery would be worse."

If u weren't talking about Mittens there, who were you talking about? Because Mittens is, for better or worse, the GOP response to Obama.
Click to expand...
Um...read for context....it was about MCCAIN....the possible candidate other than Obama in 2008.

FFS.
 
Bronson said:
Too bad it's a lie

Rising Commodity Prices = Inflation

Inflation is a hidden tax. You need to calculate the Opportunity Costs
Click to expand...

United States Inflation Rate

This is where I got the data. I am not talking about inflation from the 1913's when the Federal Reserve was founded... just for the past few years. And these are the official datas... I don't know if they are correct or not, but this is what the business world is using as a compass.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
WTF?? How in the world do you understand that REQUIRED spending by STATUTE is "voluntary"?
Click to expand...
See: My very next line, which you quoted and (ineffectively) responded to:

The law does not need to say so; the government chooses to pass the laws that mandtate that spenidng, and so the government chooses to spend the money.
Congress passed that law. Obama signed it. Thus, they chose to spend it

"The laws" are passed by representatives of the people, we decided what was REQUIRED by Congress to fund versus what Congress can or not fund.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to my point, which you leave unaddressed.

Nothing --requires-- Congress to pass laws that mandate spending on SocSec or medicare or any of the other mandatory spending programs; congres --chooses-- to do so.
Thus, the spending, all of it, is voluntary.

Disagree? Cite the Constitutional/legal requirement for Congress to pass legislation that mandates spending on, say, SocSec, and for the President to sign it.
Hint: You cannot.

And so, again:
Clearly, my understanding far outpaces yours.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Tell me again, if he got us "ontrack" with TARP...then who created the need for TARP? Obama?
Click to expand...
The issue here is FY2009 spending and iys positive the economy.
If you blame Bush for the FY2009 deficit, then you have to give him crefit for the positive effects of the 2009 spendng;
If you want to give Obama credit for the positive efefcts of the FY2009 spending, you have to blame him for the deficit.
There's no intellectually honest way around it.

Well....if he is "fixing it", then I guess he is fixing it.
Click to expand...
You dliberately missed the "inept" part.

What benefit of doubt? If McCain was in charge, he would NOT have implemented TARP, put in any stimulus, not bailed out Detroit...on and on....since he SAID SO. If we went that way, it would have made 1929-39 look like a picnic.
Click to expand...
Don't sidestep what I said -- If everything were the same today, save that McCain was in office.
Be honest, even if only to yourself.
 
H. Lee White said:
Non-discretionary spending is, in every way, Voluntary in that it is spent because there is a law says it must be spent.
The law does not need to say so; the government chooses to pass the laws that mandtate that spenidng, and so the government chooses to spend the money.
Congress passed that law. Obama signed it. Thus, they chose to spend it

Clearly, my understanding far outpaces yours.
Click to expand...
Clearly you need a dictionary instead of the Dissociation handbook.
Another Off the wall post.
 
H. Lee White said:
Obama's performance here can be easily quantified:

Total Public Debt:
$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]
$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]
GDP
$13,923T [Q1 2009]
$15,606T [Q2 2012]

Thus:
For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt
OR
50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output

And yet, there are people that think he needs a second term.

Taken from:
For Every $1 Added to the Economy, Obama Added More Than $3 in Debt - Government Spending - Fox Nation
Click to expand...

BTW those numbers should be in billions $15,606T is 15 quadrillion should be $15,606B

Ok, lets do some arithmetic. The debt is Cumulative debt, and the numbers are a little off (about 1 trillion higher). That means the debt is acured over 3 years. So the annual deb it (we'll take your numbers) ($15,856B - $10626B)/3years = $1,743B

So Debt is $1,743B per year

GDP is $15,606B - $13,923B = $1,683B per year

So it's about even (less debt if you take the non-bias numbers). Two things to keep in mind. One, economic growth is more lasting than debt especially at only the lower 1% interest, Two, he inherited a collapsing economy. Also Bush spent at about the same rate by % growth while shrinking the economy.

Typical Fox flat out lying to idiots.
 
Last edited:
Bronson said:
Too bad it's a lie

Rising Commodity Prices = Inflation

Inflation is a hidden tax. You need to calculate the Opportunity Costs
Click to expand...

WHAT!?!?!? inflation is not a tax bro. It does tend to favor the rich over the poor as salaries don't tend to be adjusted accordingly, while business profit does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom