• 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!

Breaking: Agreement has been reached on raising the debt limit....

Re: U.S. leaders strike debt deal to avoid default

If that 2.4 Trillion figure includes Reid's "winding down of the wars" that were going to be wound down anyway... this feels like much ado about nothing.

You mean Ryan.. The "winding down of the wars" was part of the Ryan plan.. you know the GOP wunderkid Ryan.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Of course there's proof that the tax cuts increased deficits. Don't be silly. They increased the debt by over $1.2 TRILLION. Some peg the cost at over $2 trillion.

Then prove it, how can you keeping more of what you earn be an expense to the govt. Stop buying the liberal spin. Do you think they want you to keep more of what you earn? Where do the liberal elite get their power?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Is this what you hired Obama to create?

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
Ummm, underemployment would be more around 18.6 million (your numbers) without Obama's stimulus.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

If that were true, the growth in employment wouldn't have begun before Republicans took over the Congress in 1995 -- but it did. At jobs kept growing until Bush took over, even though Republicans still controlled the Congress.

You want badly to talk about the housing bubble but not the dot.com bubble, how convenient. Bush inherited conditions that put us in recession in March 2001, less than two months after he took office.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

What could have happened? You want to believe what Obama tells you yet has never been right on any economic prediction. What is it about Obama that creates such loyalty. Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts.

The house(economy) wasn't burning down when Obama took office, the recession was winding down. You want so badly to believe he saved the economy but ignore the results today which show a different story. 14.4 trillion in debt, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans, most unemployed than when he took office, and a disastrous GDP which indicates a double dip possibility. Obama is an empty suit lacking in any leadership skills yet you buy the smile and the rhetoric.

I base my conclusions on economic data and facts -- not what Obama or Rush Limbaugh or what anyone else says.

You are living in a fantasy world if you don't think the economy was burning down when Obama took over. We were losing over 600,000 jobs a MONTH at that time. GDP was contracting at better than a 6% pace. So it only expanded by 0.4%? That's still a 6.4% improvement.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Ummm, underemployment would be more around 18.6 million (your numbers) without Obama's stimulus.

That is your opinion which is every bit as good as the Obama promises
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I base my conclusions on economic data and facts -- not what Obama or Rush Limbaugh or what anyone else says.

You are living in a fantasy world if you don't think the economy was burning down when Obama took over. We were losing over 600,000 jobs a MONTH at that time. GDP was contracting at better than a 6% pace. So it only expanded by 0.4%? That's still a 6.4% improvement.

I have seen no evidence of that, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury offer actual data. That is where go to get actual numbers. We lost jobs in 2008 and we are losing jobs today. Obama has worse unemployment than when he took office, bls.gov
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Then prove it, how can you keeping more of what you earn be an expense to the govt. Stop buying the liberal spin. Do you think they want you to keep more of what you earn? Where do the liberal elite get their power?

Now you're just reduced to playing word games. Deficits are calculated by offsetting spending against revenue. When you reduce revenue you increase deficits. This is again pretty basic arithmetic and not something you can make go away by babbling about government taking your money.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I have seen no evidence of that, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury offer actual data. That is where go to get actual numbers. We lost jobs in 2008 and we are losing jobs today. Obama has worse unemployment than when he took office, bls.gov

If you see no evidence of that it's because you don't want to see it -- not because it isn't there:

Employment_May2010.PNG
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Sheik Yerbuti said:
If that were true, the growth in employment wouldn't have begun before Republicans took over the Congress in 1995 -- but it did. At jobs kept growing until Bush took over, even though Republicans still controlled the Congress.

You want badly to talk about the housing bubble but not the dot.com bubble, how convenient. Bush inherited conditions that put us in recession in March 2001, less than two months after he took office.
Still, employment grew while Clinton was president regardless of which party controlled Congress. Yet employment both grew and shrunk while Republicans controlled Congress. That pretty much sums up who is credited with employment growth.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You are living in a fantasy world if you don't think the economy was burning down when Obama took over. We were losing over 600,000 jobs a MONTH at that time. GDP was contracting at better than a 6% pace. So it only expanded by 0.4%? That's still a 6.4% improvement.
Actually, it's a 9.3 point improvement.

And yet, Conservatives think that sucks. :roll:
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Now you're just reduced to playing word games. Deficits are calculated by offsetting spending against revenue. When you reduce revenue you increase deficits. This is again pretty basic arithmetic and not something you can make go away by babbling about government taking your money.

Revenues weren't reduced due to the Bush tax cuts and in fact your take home pay today is higher so unless your pay is an expense to the govt. then stop buying what you are told.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That is your opinion which is every bit as good as the Obama promises
I'm using your numbers, how can that be my opinion? You said 15.1 million are underemployed and you said Obama's stimulus saved and created 3.5 million jobs. That's not my opinion, those are using figures you posted; without Obama's stimulus there would be 18.6 million underemployed.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Still, employment grew while Clinton was president regardless of which party controlled Congress. Yet employment both grew and shrunk while Republicans controlled Congress. That pretty much sums up who is credited with employment growth.

Clinton isn't President and Obama is doing nothing that Clinton did, so what is your point? The Obama record speaks for itself

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I'm using your numbers, how can that be my opinion? You said 15.1 million are underemployed and you said Obama's stimulus saved and created 3.5 million jobs. That's not my opinion, those are using figures you posted; without Obama's stimulus there would be 18.6 million underemployed.

The Obama record speaks for itself. 15.1 million is the unemployment number, the under employed is another 10 million or so. U-6 unemployment 16.2%. This is leading to the 40% approval rating Obama has today.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Revenues weren't reduced due to the Bush tax cuts and in fact your take home pay today is higher so unless your pay is an expense to the govt. then stop buying what you are told.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I'm not going to waste my time if you're premise is that 2 + 2 = 5.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I'm not going to waste my time if you're premise is that 2 + 2 = 5.

It isn't my opinion, here are the income tax numbers, Bush had a recession and 9/11 in 2001-2002, and the Housing crisis in 2008

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

By the way, the fiscal year for these numbers remains October 1 to Sept. 30. Fiscal year 2001 ended Sept. 30, 2001
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Now you're just reduced to playing word games. Deficits are calculated by offsetting spending against revenue. When you reduce revenue you increase deficits.
This is ONLY true if you choose to not reduce spending.
Reducing revenue cannot, by itself, cause a deficit
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I'm using your numbers, how can that be my opinion? You said 15.1 million are underemployed and you said Obama's stimulus saved and created 3.5 million jobs. That's not my opinion, those are using figures you posted; without Obama's stimulus there would be 18.6 million underemployed.

The Obama record speaks for itself. 15.1 million is the unemployment number, the under employed is another 10 million or so. U-6 unemployment 16.2%. This is leading to the 40% approval rating Obama has today.
Ya think anyone else noticed that you avoided my post in preference to the same thing you post 80 times a day?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

It isn't my opinion, here are the income tax numbers, Bush had a recession and 9/11 in 2001-2002, and the Housing crisis in 2008

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

By the way, the fiscal year for these numbers remains October 1 to Sept. 30. Fiscal year 2001 ended Sept. 30, 2001

Are you serious? Obviously when we say that the tax cuts reduced revenue we are talking about revenue relative to what it would have been without the cuts.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

This is ONLY true if you choose to not reduce spending.
Reducing revenue cannot, by itself, cause a deficit

A lot of spending is nondiscretionary, i.e., you can't simply choose not to spend that money.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Are you serious? Obviously when we say that the tax cuts reduced revenue we are talking about revenue relative to what it would have been without the cuts.
What would revenue have been w/o the cuts, and how do you know?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Then prove it, how can you keeping more of what you earn be an expense to the govt. Stop buying the liberal spin. Do you think they want you to keep more of what you earn? Where do the liberal elite get their power?

Here we go again, as I pointed out to you, conservative economists don't believe tax cuts pay for themselves, so its not just a liberal thingy. Fact is that President Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus. We know appropriations that were approved after the budget cycle are not part of the budget, so these are not reflected in the surplus. So even though Clinton had a budget surplus, the debt still grew some, but the debt was becoming manageable. The in comes Bush with his "starve the beast" tax cuts. That's when the debt became unmanageable.

national debt = previous national debt + current years deficit + plus appropriations.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Are you serious? Obviously when we say that the tax cuts reduced revenue we are talking about revenue relative to what it would have been without the cuts.

Without the cuts we would have higher unemployment and thus people paying less in taxes. Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and that makes it easier for economic growth and higher tax revenue. You have no way of knowing what the revenue would have been without the tax cuts but we do know what happened with the tax cuts so tell me how growing revenue from 2.002 trillion to 2.951 trillion can happen with tax cuts? This is FIT not total taxes either as corporate taxes and exise taxes also grew
 
Back
Top Bottom