• 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!

Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

haymarket said:
We have a group of people in elected positions of power in government who hate government and would like to see large parts of it destroyed or abolished.

What more needs to be explained to anyone?
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
SheWolf said:
Well a bunch of Republicans won the midterm, they kept arguing that Obama should do everything they wanted and get all their demands. Well that was BS, because in reality, nobody wants to take responsibility for what is passed. Nobody wants to be the fall guy, so all them pass the buck to the other party and drag their feet. Congress's approval rating is only 14 percent right now.
Click to expand...

We have seen what doing everything Obama wanted got us, 24 plus million unemployed and under employed, 4 trillion added to the debt, .4% and 1.3% GDP growth 2 1/2 years after taking office. Time for that change he called for in the campaign, a NEW President
 
TheDemSocialist;1059708144]I dont know how much more clear it can get...
..."the Commerce Department on Thursday said gross domestic product rose at a 1.8% annual rate between January and March, slower than the 3.1% pace in the prior three months."






News Release: Gross Domestic Product
Click to expand...

I think you should take a look at the study of your report: "Revised Estimates: 2003 through First Quarter 2011"
The other study of MarketWatch is from Jan to March......[/QUOTE]

You just cannot admit that you are wrong, there are preliminary and final numbers, April 28 was a preliminary number that was revised downward 1.8% GDP growth to .4% GDP. There are so many here that are misinformed and continue to buy the liberal rhetoric. 1.8% is terrible 2 years after the end of a recession but .4% is a disaster
 
PerfectStorm said:
Didn't realize there were 74 Tea Party members in the US Senate.
Click to expand...

But you do realize that the no-new-revenue...EVER crowd is responsible for the only bill that could avert imminent disaster?
 
AdamT said:
But you do realize that the no-new-revenue...EVER crowd is responsible for the only bill that could avert imminent disaster?
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to buy the lies of this Administration? Would you be this forgiving if it was Bush?
 
Conservative said:
I think you should take a look at the study of your report: "Revised Estimates: 2003 through First Quarter 2011"
The other study of MarketWatch is from Jan to March......
Click to expand...

You just cannot admit that you are wrong, there are preliminary and final numbers, April 28 was a preliminary number that was revised downward 1.8% GDP growth to .4% GDP. There are so many here that are misinformed and continue to buy the liberal rhetoric. 1.8% is terrible 2 years after the end of a recession but .4% is a disaster[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is claiming the numbers are anything but weak. As ever, however, you fail to make your point. Obama has not done enough to stimulate the economy. Conservatives would not have stimulated the economy at all. If their rhetoric is to be believed, they would have allowed the banking system to crumble, the auto industry to implode, and unemployment to skyrocket. I'll take the 1.8% GDP growth.
 
Conservative said:
Why do you continue to buy the lies of this Administration? Would you be this forgiving if it was Bush?
Click to expand...

The answer to that is in taking a few hours out in the middle of your day to watch the MSNBC line up..My guess is no, his rhetoric would be far different and closer to that of the disgraced Keith Olberman.

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
Why do you continue to buy the lies of this Administration? Would you be this forgiving if it was Bush?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to tell my what lies you're talking about.
 
AdamT said:
You just cannot admit that you are wrong, there are preliminary and final numbers, April 28 was a preliminary number that was revised downward 1.8% GDP growth to .4% GDP. There are so many here that are misinformed and continue to buy the liberal rhetoric. 1.8% is terrible 2 years after the end of a recession but .4% is a disaster

I don't think anyone is claiming the numbers are anything but weak. As ever, however, you fail to make your point. Obama has not done enough to stimulate the economy. Conservatives would not have stimulated the economy at all. If their rhetoric is to be believed, they would have allowed the banking system to crumble, the auto industry to implode, and unemployment to skyrocket. I'll take the 1.8% GDP growth.
Click to expand...

He did plenty, just spent the money wrong bailing out states and unions isn't stimulating as the numbers show. TARP was a Bush program, not an Obama problem. There wasn't 1.8% GDP growth, it was .4% and that is two years after the end of a recession. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I'm still waiting for you to tell my what lies you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You will just ignore them as you always do. Liberalism creates amazing loyalty even in the face of disastrous results.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think anyone is claiming the numbers are anything but weak. As ever, however, you fail to make your point. Obama has not done enough to stimulate the economy. Conservatives would not have stimulated the economy at all. If their rhetoric is to be believed, they would have allowed the banking system to crumble, the auto industry to implode, and unemployment to skyrocket. I'll take the 1.8% GDP growth.
Click to expand...


No you are not claiming that the numbers aren't weak, rather trying to deflect blame right on que with what the WH handlers over at MSNBC are feeding you. Using your own crystal ball I could just as easily say with the same certainty as you profess that had we not wasted over a Trillion dollars in paying off Obama supporters, the likely event would have been that we'd be wiping our collective brow right now with an improving economy after some real wake up pain.

Instead your argument seems to be that $5Trillion in less than 3 years isn't enough....Tell me, for how long does something have to fail before you actually see it as a failure? Or is that only reserved for the political ideology you disagree with?

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
I don't think anyone is claiming the numbers are anything but weak. As ever, however, you fail to make your point. Obama has not done enough to stimulate the economy. Conservatives would not have stimulated the economy at all. If their rhetoric is to be believed, they would have allowed the banking system to crumble, the auto industry to implode, and unemployment to skyrocket. I'll take the 1.8% GDP growth.
Click to expand...

He did plenty, just spent the money wrong bailing out states and unions isn't stimulating as the numbers show. TARP was a Bush program, not an Obama problem. There wasn't 1.8% GDP growth, it was .4% and that is two years after the end of a recession. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?[/QUOTE]

TARP was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, although Bush did sign it -- one of the few smart things he ever did. Re: GDP growth -- sorry, I meant to say 1.3%, which was the most recent quarter.
 
AdamT said:
He did plenty, just spent the money wrong bailing out states and unions isn't stimulating as the numbers show. TARP was a Bush program, not an Obama problem. There wasn't 1.8% GDP growth, it was .4% and that is two years after the end of a recession. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?
Click to expand...

TARP was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, although Bush did sign it -- one of the few smart things he ever did. Re: GDP growth -- sorry, I meant to say 1.3%, which was the most recent quarter.[/QUOTE]

He bailed out union contracts which are state responsibility. That isn't what the stimulus was supposed to do. It has been a failure as shown by the GDP numbers and the debt increase
 
j-mac said:
No you are not claiming that the numbers aren't weak, rather trying to deflect blame right on que with what the WH handlers over at MSNBC are feeding you. Using your own crystal ball I could just as easily say with the same certainty as you profess that had we not wasted over a Trillion dollars in paying off Obama supporters, the likely event would have been that we'd be wiping our collective brow right now with an improving economy after some real wake up pain.

Instead your argument seems to be that $5Trillion in less than 3 years isn't enough....Tell me, for how long does something have to fail before you actually see it as a failure? Or is that only reserved for the political ideology you disagree with?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Try to be factually accurate, at least. I am not claiming that the numbers aren't weak, i.e., I'm not saying that the numbers are strong. FACT.

You are correct that we cannot definitively say what would have happened if another course of action had been followed, but we can make credible assumptions. It is not credible to suggest that pumping over a trillion dollars into the economy didn't stimulate the economy. No one with even a rudimentary understanding of economics would suggest such a thing.
 
Conservative said:
TARP was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, although Bush did sign it -- one of the few smart things he ever did. Re: GDP growth -- sorry, I meant to say 1.3%, which was the most recent quarter.
Click to expand...

He bailed out union contracts which are state responsibility. That isn't what the stimulus was supposed to do. It has been a failure as shown by the GDP numbers and the debt increase[/QUOTE]

Unions are regulated by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) -- not states. What Obama did was save the auto industry and upwards of a million American jobs. Union members are working Americans.
 
AdamT said:
TARP was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, although Bush did sign it -- one of the few smart things he ever did. Re: GDP growth -- sorry, I meant to say 1.3%, which was the most recent quarter.
Click to expand...


You are distorting numbers. TARP was a huge loss for this country.

Of the $699 billion in total capital, $142 billion has yet to be committed. Of the funds already allocated, Uncle Sam has incurred a total cost of $159 billion. What does that mean?

Recall the number of times that government officials told taxpayers that we would make money on investments in AIG and the like. Well, so far we’ve lost $159 billion dollars across all our TARP investments. The loss is calculated as the difference in funds committed and allocated to securities and the market value of those securities. That loss represents 36% of the funds committed and actually allocated.

Have We Lost Money Under TARP | Sense on Cents
Click to expand...

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You are distorting numbers. TARP was a huge loss for this country.



j-mac
Click to expand...

Sadly, TARP was absolutely essential. If we had not done TARP, IMHO, we would be in a severe depression right now.
 
AdamT said:
He bailed out union contracts which are state responsibility. That isn't what the stimulus was supposed to do. It has been a failure as shown by the GDP numbers and the debt increase
Click to expand...

Unions are regulated by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) -- not states. What Obama did was save the auto industry and upwards of a million American jobs. Union members are working Americans.[/QUOTE]

That is your opinion, the taxpayer is going to lose billions on that deal and that isn't how the free market works. You continue to buy what you are told by this Adminstration and the results continue to disappoint and in fact are a disaster
 
AdamT said:
Sadly, TARP was absolutely essential. If we had not done TARP, IMHO, we would be in a severe depression right now.
Click to expand...

More crystal ball predictions? Come on man, you can not say that absolute confidence. TARP was initially given to the banks, and how much of that money was released back into the economy? Very little from what we have been told. Then it was used to Buy GM and Chrysler for the unions....We got screwed on that one. Now instead of paying it back Obama has kept the money as a slush fund to pay off his supporters....Bush was wrong to enact it, and Obama was criminal to steal the money.

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
Unions are regulated by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) -- not states. What Obama did was save the auto industry and upwards of a million American jobs. Union members are working Americans.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, the taxpayer is going to lose billions on that deal and that isn't how the free market works. You continue to buy what you are told by this Adminstration and the results continue to disappoint and in fact are a disaster[/QUOTE]

It is a fact that GM and Chrysler would have ceased operations without the bailout, thus putting hundreds of thousands out of work directly. It is also a fact that hundreds of thousands more workers for suppliers who rely on GM and Chrysler would have been put out of work.
 
AdamT said:
That is your opinion, the taxpayer is going to lose billions on that deal and that isn't how the free market works. You continue to buy what you are told by this Adminstration and the results continue to disappoint and in fact are a disaster
Click to expand...

It is a fact that GM and Chrysler would have ceased operations without the bailout, thus putting hundreds of thousands out of work directly. It is also a fact that hundreds of thousands more workers for suppliers who rely on GM and Chrysler would have been put out of work.[/QUOTE]

No, that is an opinion, you believe that had GM/Chrysler failed completely that there wouldn't have been someone to come in and take over the company. Hundreds of thousands out of work? We have over 24 million out of work or under employed today. Doubt that those GM/Chrysler workers would have been out of work long. Where is your concern for the 24 million unemployed or under employed now due to Obama policies.
 
AdamT said:
It is a fact that GM and Chrysler would have ceased operations without the bailout, thus putting hundreds of thousands out of work directly. It is also a fact that hundreds of thousands more workers for suppliers who rely on GM and Chrysler would have been put out of work.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the American people would have seen the true cost of unions in this country. But I've got news for you, had that happened, and demand was still there for other American cars, another company would have risen to fill the demand...That is how the free market system works.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom