• 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: Obama: We have a deal

As seen here, it's a good bet that, when ubale to defend a point, a lberal will resort to a red herring, personal insults, or both.

Yep, along with diverting, distorting, and then name calling
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Because ... again ... there are many different reasons for why such exceptions would need to be in there.

No, there's not. War is about it.
You -tried- to show the need for an exception other than war, but you failed.
And so, while you want to claim it is bad idea, you have yet to show how or why.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Would love to discuss GHW Bush vs. Clinton with you but you need to start a GHW Bush vs. Clinton thread.
Translation: GHW Bush's economic plan was to raise taxes, Conservative voted for that, but doesn't want to admit it now. :lol:

This thread isn't about GHW Bush, GW Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. What you want to do is divert from the current President and try to justify your vote by bashing previous Presidents.
So? The thread topic never hindered your interest in veering away from it when it suits you. I've seen you posting about Obama and the economy in a thread about "why the left hates Sarah Palin."

Regrettably, you use the thread topic as a shield to defend yourself from losing arguments.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Not happy with this agreement at all.
But at least we didnt default...:shrug:
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You mean the "Great Recession" that ended in June 2009? Here we are two years later and the GDP Growth is .4% and 1.3% the first two qtrs of 2011. Please tell me how Bush is responsible for those numbers?
Ok, how 'bout we blame the Republican-led, party of "no", House of Representatives?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Translation: GHW Bush's economic plan was to raise taxes, Conservative voted for that, but doesn't want to admit it now. :lol:


So? The thread topic never hindered your interest in veering away from it when it suits you. I've seen you posting about Obama and the economy in a thread about "why the left hates Sarah Palin."

Regrettably, you use the thread topic as a shield to defend yourself from losing arguments.

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

Yep, along with diverting, distorting, and then name calling
Stop projecting.

You just left a thread about JFK, Reagan, and Bush, where you couldn't refrain yourself from diverting about Obama and insulting everyone you spoke to.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Stop projecting.

You just left a thread about JFK, Reagan, and Bush, where you couldn't refrain yourself from diverting about Obama and insulting everyone you spoke to.

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

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).

Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression.

The nation has 5% fewer jobs today — a loss of 7 million — than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s.

In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.

Job creation limps along after recession - USATODAY.com
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No, there's not. War is about it.
You -tried- to show the need for an exception other than war, but you failed.
And so, while you want to claim it is bad idea, you have yet to show how or why.
Yes, I have shown why. There's a natural disaster which requires federal aid but the federal government can't spend any more money during that fiscal year due a Constitutional amendment.

Your way, Congress has to battle, like they did over the debt ceiling, to figure out what other expenses they're going to cut. Sorry, but people stuck on their rooftops like they were after Katrina can't wait 11 weeks for the Congress to sort it all out like they did with the debt ceiling.

And again ... it's not just natural disasters ... it may be a market crash ... it may be another housing crash ... it may be a recession ... it may be a terrorist attack like 9.11 ... it may be a war.

Last time I'm gonna say this ... I don't think it's wise to tie Congress' hands like that while you still have the option to vote them out.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Ok, how 'bout we blame the Republican-led, party of "no", House of Representatives?


Could you outline for me how a demo house, and Senate from '06 on, and then both houses, and the Presidency from '08 to present allows you to still, nearly 5 years later still focus blame on Bush, and the repubs?

I will concede that repubs totally screwed things up when they had the total control, and Bush did some things that I don't agree with on that front as well, but if you are still trying to blame this present day economy, and amount of out of control spending on the repubs, then with all due respect you are really deluding yourself.

This is Obama's economy and dismal outcome lock, stock, and barrel.

j-mac
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal


More problems for Obama

When It Rains it Pours! Obama Losing Support Even Among African Americans
by Christopher Arps

My favorite contributor over at Black Entertainment Television wrote a piece on President Obama’s eroding support among African Americans –specifically on his dismal handling of the economy. According to aWashington Post/ABC News poll, Obama’s African American support has dropped from 77%, to just over half supporting his stewardship of the economy. What a difference just two and a half years can make! When the president was elected, the exuberance among African Americans was infectious, joyous, and a bit overly optimistic as this clip from the day after the election shows:

Liberals and African Americans still clinging to “hope and change” cite in the president’s defense that he inherited a terrible economy from President Bush and that Obama can’t be expected to turn the economy around in only two and half years. It’s almost a plausible argument – until you start comparing this presidency and economy with the economy our 40th President inherited from Jimmy Carter in 1981.
When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, interest rates were at 21%, inflation was at a wrenching 13.5%, and unemployment was at 7%. In contrast, when President Obama was inaugurated in 2009, interest rates were at a historically low 3.25%, inflation stood at 4.2%, and unemployment was at 7.8%. The misery index (the addition of inflation and unemployment numbers) when Reagan entered office was 20.5%, for Mr. Obama, 12.8%. Currently under President Obama, inflation is 2.7% and unemployment is at 9.2% and climbing with many economists believing it’s really 16% giving Obama a real misery index of 18.7%. Even the liberal Washington Post suggests that President Obama has had enough time to jump start the economy
:
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Translation: GHW Bush's economic plan was to raise taxes, Conservative voted for that, but doesn't want to admit it now. :lol:


So? The thread topic never hindered your interest in veering away from it when it suits you. I've seen you posting about Obama and the economy in a thread about "why the left hates Sarah Palin."


Regrettably, you use the thread topic as a shield to defend yourself from losing arguments.

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).


:lamo :lamo
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Could you outline for me how a demo house, and Senate from '06 on, and then both houses, and the Presidency from '08 to present allows you to still, nearly 5 years later still focus blame on Bush, and the repubs?

I will concede that repubs totally screwed things up when they had the total control, and Bush did some things that I don't agree with on that front as well, but if you are still trying to blame this present day economy, and amount of out of control spending on the repubs, then with all due respect you are really deluding yourself.

This is Obama's economy and dismal outcome lock, stock, and barrel.

j-mac
No, I can't, as I don't really mean it. That was meant as a joke for Conservative who shifts blame on everything to the nearest Democrat he can find.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Yes, I have shown why. There's a natural disaster which requires federal aid but the federal government can't spend any more money during that fiscal year due a Constitutional amendment.
You REALLy arent paying attention.
I offered -4- solutions to this. You AGREED to one of them as viable, and you have yet to argue against the 4th.
So, nothing you've offered here creates a solid argument against a BBA.

And again ... it's not just natural disasters ... it may be a market crash ... it may be another housing crash ... it may be a recession ... it may be a terrorist attack like 9.11 ... it may be a recession.
And these differ from your original assertion, because...?
ALL of these things are unexpeted events that you believe require the government to do something.
ALL of the solutions I presented apply to all of these perdicaments.

Last time I'm gonna say this ... I don't think it's wise to tie Congress' hands like that while you still have the option to vote them out.
What you really mean to say, for the last time, is that, like most liberals, your -first- solution for the government needing money is to borrow it.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No, I can't, as I don't really mean it. That was meant as a joke for Conservative who shifts blame on everything to the nearest Democrat he can find.

Um, ok...Well, as a joke it came strikingly close to some of the talking point pap you can hear at any given moment on MSNBC. So, still wondering if you really deep down aren't really expressing a hint of your true feeling there.

In any case, do you think that Obama led in this process?

j-mac
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

could you outline for me how a demo house, and senate from '06 on, and then both houses, and the presidency from '08 to present allows you to still, nearly 5 years later still focus blame on bush, and the repubs?
Well duh...
Bush (R)
Obama (D)
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Could you outline for me how a demo house, and Senate from '06 on, and then both houses, and the Presidency from '08 to present allows you to still, nearly 5 years later still focus blame on Bush, and the repubs?

I will concede that repubs totally screwed things up when they had the total control, and Bush did some things that I don't agree with on that front as well, but if you are still trying to blame this present day economy, and amount of out of control spending on the repubs, then with all due respect you are really deluding yourself.

This is Obama's economy and dismal outcome lock, stock, and barrel.

j-mac

The answer is obviously that both sides have to take responsibility for their own actions. Obama is responsible for the things he has done, and the republicans are responsible for the things they have done. Not sure why this is so confusing to some.

Obama would have preferred a larger stimulus which might have actually allowed the economy to become self sustaining (or might not have), but Republicans opposed his effort and the stimulus had to be scaled back to get even moderate (but necessary) support.

Obama wanted a public option in the health care reform bill, which would have reduced the deficit, but that was a line in the sand for republicans, who opposed it. So they can claim credit for that.

Obama wanted to the top-tier Bush tax cuts to expire, which would have reduced the deficit, but republicans insisted that they had to remain. So they can claim credit for that.

Obama agreed in principle to $4 trillion in deficit reduction, comprised of elimination of tax loopholes and spending cuts, but republicans would not go along with that, opting instead for under $2 trillion in deficit reduction. So they can claim credit for that.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

What the hell is funny about that?

j-mac
I find it amusing that Conservative uses the thread topic like a condom to protect himself from losing an argument.

You don't find that funny?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The answer is obviously that both sides have to take responsibility for their own actions. Obama is responsible for the things he has done, and the republicans are responsible for the things they have done. Not sure why this is so confusing to some.

Obama would have preferred a larger stimulus which might have actually allowed the economy to become self sustaining (or might not have), but Republicans opposed his effort and the stimulus had to be scaled back to get even moderate (but necessary) support.

Obama wanted a public option in the health care reform bill, which would have reduced the deficit, but that was a line in the sand for republicans, who opposed it. So they can claim credit for that.

Obama wanted to the top-tier Bush tax cuts to expire, which would have reduced the deficit, but republicans insisted that they had to remain. So they can claim credit for that.

Obama agreed in principle to $4 trillion in deficit reduction, comprised of elimination of tax loopholes and spending cuts, but republicans would not go along with that, opting instead for under $2 trillion in deficit reduction. So they can claim credit for that.
Lesse...

-Blame the GOP. Check
-Absolve the Dems. Check.
-Defend The Obama. Check

Good boy! Well done! Go collect your treat!
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Lesse...

-Blame the GOP. Check
-Absolve the Dems. Check.
-Defend The Obama. Check

Good boy! Well done! Go collect your treat!

Translation: I have no substantive response.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Translation: I have no substantive response.
1: Partisan bigotry requires none
2: The partisan bigot will accept none.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Um, ok...Well, as a joke it came strikingly close to some of the talking point pap you can hear at any given moment on MSNBC. So, still wondering if you really deep down aren't really expressing a hint of your true feeling there.

In any case, do you think that Obama led in this process?

j-mac
Of course he led. The two sides reached an agreement, didn't they? Conservatives can't have it both ways. While the two sides are a chasm apart, Conservatives attack Obama saying a real leader would have been able to bring the two sides together. Well, Obama did that and they reached an agreement. Y'all can't attack his leadership abilities for accomplishing what you were attacking his leadership abilities for.

:naughty:
 
Back
Top Bottom