• 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!

Rick Perry Enters G.O.P. Race for President

Logical fallacy. Texas governors are individuals. This is no worse than saying Obama is a corrupted thug simply because he comes from Chicago.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with Illinois politics. :lol:

Also, Bush had a Democrat congress when the economy went down, Obama hasn't helped the economy either and his stimulus promises were all flops. He's spending like crazy and many Americans are waking up to this.

The republicans spent like crazy too. This has been building up for some time now. Both parties are to blame.


The same thing runs through my mind when I think of Obama winning a 2nd term. Perry or Bachman would make better presidents than Obama.

Bachman thinks defaulting would fix the economy. That would not be better.
 
Bachman thinks defaulting would fix the economy. That would not be better.

Much as I like Digsbe, that statement about Bachman comes from his desire for a strong social conservative in the White House rather then a pragmatic leader.
 
Perhaps you aren't familiar with Illinois politics. :lol:

I think everyone in the country sadily is familiar now.....Thanks to Barry the liar.

The republicans spent like crazy too. This has been building up for some time now. Both parties are to blame.

Really dumb argument....Well, the other party did it too....So it's ok....Repubs got served in the '06 elections for acting like liberals, we'll see how it works out for demo's this time around...My guess is not too well.....heh, heh...

Bachman thinks defaulting would fix the economy. That would not be better.

Mischaracterizing her position, and outright lying is the only thing liberals have this election cycle, then it is going to be ugly for libs.

j-mac
 
Mischaracterizing her position, and outright lying is the only thing liberals have this election cycle, then it is going to be ugly for libs.

j-mac

You will disagree of course but I believe Palin hurt Bachmann more than anything.
 
Mischaracterizing her position, and outright lying is the only thing liberals have this election cycle, then it is going to be ugly for libs.

Her actual position was even crazier than that. She maintained that not paying our debts would not be a default. She has stated that she would not raise the debt ceiling then or in the future, which is complete insanity. And of course she lies all the time.

Michele Bachmann’s inaccurate recounting of the debt-ceiling saga - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post
 
Which means the policies of both parties was at fault right? I don't think it's fair to look at Bush and say "Republicans did it" while ignoring that he had a Dem senate that pushed for deficit spending. Obama had two years of Democrat monopoly in congress and nothing was fixed. His stimulus bill failed and only plunged us deeper in debt. I think the economy is more complex than party lines, but I don't think it's fair or right to blame the collapse on Republicans and for people to proclaim that Obama has saved us and is turning the economy around.



Do I have to agree with Bachmann on everything? I would have raised the debt ceiling but made cuts to programs more so than what happened. I view Obama as crazy. As a senator he was one of the most liberal Democrats in congress. He's spent and spent and spent while acting like an arrogant child towards any opposition he may face. His answer is "blame Bush, blame the Republicans" to pretty much everything wrong with this country. I would certainly hope Americans are intelligent enough to see through Obama and understand that his policies are only bankrupting the country. I'm not saying that Bachmann is the best choice, I'm just saying she (and Perry) would be better choices than Obama.

My main concern is the recession... We can work on the deficit when the economy is healthy and people are working. Right now government revenue is going to lower than usual because so many people are unemployed and the economy is in a slump. When I went to college I racked up debt... now that I am work force, I am paying it down fast. When in college, I still made my payments but I wasn't worried about paying off my loans immediately...
 
Really dumb argument....Well, the other party did it too....So it's ok....Repubs got served in the '06 elections for acting like liberals, we'll see how it works out for demo's this time around...My guess is not too well.....heh, heh...

I never said it's ok. You get an "F" for reading comprehension.

Mischaracterizing her position, and outright lying is the only thing liberals have this election cycle, then it is going to be ugly for libs.

She said it was easy to fix the economy. Don't raise the debt ceiling. What have I mischaracterized?
 
Did Obama's stimulus get us down to the 8% unemployment like he promised? Did Obama's healthcare law really preform good healthcare reform (No)? Look at how Obama is spending. He's spending like a fiscal moron and it's devaluing the dollar. Obama got us in a war with Libya and essentially mooned congress and said he would not seek approval for his military actions (Worse than Bush no?) So because I said I wouldn't raise the debt ceiling without at least trying to reform spending makes me illogical? what's illogical is handing out a blank check to a president and congress that is spending at record levels and bringing us deeper and deeper in debt. I agree that raising the debt ceiling would be required, I never denied that. What I said is that I would not have raised it unconditionally and would attempt to reform spending. This said, my priority would be to raise the ceiling to prevent America from defaulting even if my goals could not be achieved.

Why do you think that I didn't have a problem with Bush's wars and Bush's spending? I do, and his spending was bad for our country much like how Obama's spending is bad for the country. I'll flip the question on you now. Why was it a problem for Bush to raise the debt ceiling and pay for wars while it isn't a problem for Obama to raise the debt ceiling, continue the wars, and start his own in Libya without even seeking congressional approval?

Obama worked with the GOP and they cut spending... They didn't raise taxes, one of the things S&P recommended doing and look where it got us... downgraded. Now we'll have to pay more interest on our loans... :shrug:

Bachmann is crazy. She shouldn't be president, she'd wreck this country just to show she sticks to her principles. Nothing personal towards you, but I can't take the concerns about spending seriously from the right. They didn't complain when Bush ran up the debt, and now, it's all about the spending... even if spending cuts destroy jobs and spending cuts hurt people. I don't agree with that.
 
My main concern is the recession... We can work on the deficit when the economy is healthy and people are working. Right now government revenue is going to lower than usual because so many people are unemployed and the economy is in a slump. When I went to college I racked up debt... now that I am work force, I am paying it down fast. When in college, I still made my payments but I wasn't worried about paying off my loans immediately...


Here is another debt concern

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. Default rates are rising, especially among those who attended for-profit colleges.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/education/12college.html



For-profit colleges in the United States serve about 9 percent of the overall population at higher education institutions nationwide.
The Obama administartion has been engaged in a running battle with the for-profit industry over a proposed rule that would make the commercial schools ineligible for federal aid if too many of their students default on their loans.
The administration has already adopted several new rules that will give the Department of Education more authority over for-profit universities. But the most crucial rule, the “gainful employment” provision, is still awaiting approval, and the industry is pushing back hard.
Under the provision, the education department would examine for-profit colleges and nonprofit trade programs to see how much debt their students accumulated in paying for schooling, and whether the jobs they secured after graduation allowed them to repay their loans. Programs that had particularly high debt ratios combined with very low repayment rates could become ineligible for student aid.
The department calculated earlier in 2010 that about 5 percent of the programs covered under the proposed rule would be forced to shut down.
As the money has flowed to the for-profit university industry, questions are being raised in Congress and elsewhere about their recruitment practices, and whether they really deliver on their education promises.
The General Accountability Office in 2010 issued a harsh report that concluded the for-profit colleges visited by its undercover investigators, posing as prospective students and using hidden cameras to record admission representatives, had engaged in deception or fraud.
For-Profit Schools and For-Profit Colleges - The New York Times
 
Really dumb argument....Well, the other party did it too....So it's ok....Repubs got served in the '06 elections for acting like liberals, we'll see how it works out for demo's this time around...My guess is not too well.....heh, heh...

So are you telling us you voted for a bunch of dems to toss those republicans out? :lol:
 
Here is another debt concern

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. Default rates are rising, especially among those who attended for-profit colleges.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/education/12college.html



For-profit colleges in the United States serve about 9 percent of the overall population at higher education institutions nationwide.
The Obama administartion has been engaged in a running battle with the for-profit industry over a proposed rule that would make the commercial schools ineligible for federal aid if too many of their students default on their loans.
The administration has already adopted several new rules that will give the Department of Education more authority over for-profit universities. But the most crucial rule, the “gainful employment” provision, is still awaiting approval, and the industry is pushing back hard.
Under the provision, the education department would examine for-profit colleges and nonprofit trade programs to see how much debt their students accumulated in paying for schooling, and whether the jobs they secured after graduation allowed them to repay their loans. Programs that had particularly high debt ratios combined with very low repayment rates could become ineligible for student aid.
The department calculated earlier in 2010 that about 5 percent of the programs covered under the proposed rule would be forced to shut down.
As the money has flowed to the for-profit university industry, questions are being raised in Congress and elsewhere about their recruitment practices, and whether they really deliver on their education promises.
The General Accountability Office in 2010 issued a harsh report that concluded the for-profit colleges visited by its undercover investigators, posing as prospective students and using hidden cameras to record admission representatives, had engaged in deception or fraud.
For-Profit Schools and For-Profit Colleges - The New York Times

It's not surprising.... When I fist started college all my expenses were covered expect books. Tuition was free, but the longer I stayed in college the tuition costs increased and grants decreased...
 
Did Obama's stimulus get us down to the 8% unemployment like he promised?

Nope but it was a rather big hope on his side and everyone else's. He is not the only one who has been in denial over the problems in the US. And to be fair, when stimulus was put in place, the US was loosing jobs hands over fist. Now it is gaining jobs. And if you are one of those that think that stimulus is a bad thing in a crashing economy, then frankly I have no words to say how stupid that view is.

Did Obama's healthcare law really preform good healthcare reform (No)?

Was it perfect? hell no, but it was reform. I would have done it much differently... taking the whole "job = healthcare" bit apart and putting healthcare over taxes or contributions instead burdening US companies with the costs. That partisan bickering from both sides and "holy cows" were being used to derail and minimize the reform only shows how bad the US political system is at them moment.. Like it or not, the number one thing burdening the US economy at the moment is healthcare costs... pushing that fact under the carpet wont change it. At least he tried tackling the bull by the horns.. that he came away with one ball, an eye and an arm less while the bull it self got scratches does not change the fact that the fight should be done.

Look at how Obama is spending. He's spending like a fiscal moron and it's devaluing the dollar.

Devaluing the dollar is actually a good thing for the US.... just saying. Means you can sell your crap to the rest of us cheaper. Problem is of course, is that the US is the reserve currency and the rest of the world dont like that being devalued.. and of course the mental hit the average unknowing Americans will take on hearing their dear dollar is worth less.. But at least most people are not as stupid as Bachmann who thinks a dollar today should be worth the same as the dollar of 1911...

Obama got us in a war with Libya and essentially mooned congress and said he would not seek approval for his military actions (Worse than Bush no?)

What war? I dont see US troops engaged in combat... And how is it the Libya thing any different than Clinton or Bush sending special forces or tomahawk missles into sovereign nations without said nations permission? Did Clinton get congressional permission for every tomahawk strike? Did Bush? Just saying as "wars" go, the involvement of the US in Libya at present is very limited to say the least. But I understand where you are coming from, just dont agree that it is a major problem...

So because I said I wouldn't raise the debt ceiling without at least trying to reform spending makes me illogical? what's illogical is handing out a blank check to a president and congress that is spending at record levels and bringing us deeper and deeper in debt. I agree that raising the debt ceiling would be required, I never denied that. What I said is that I would not have raised it unconditionally and would attempt to reform spending. This said, my priority would be to raise the ceiling to prevent America from defaulting even if my goals could not be achieved.

I agree fully, but that is not how Washington at the present time works, and you know it. Things take longer to do things in Washington than they do in Spain or Mexico.. the amount of "Siestas" and "mañana" the US congress does makes the image of Mexico and Spain look like worker bees. Like it or not, holding the debt ceiling as a hostage and making the economy even worse than it is, is just as irresponsible (if not more in the short term), than not tackling spending and income increasing. But when both sides, with special focus on the GOP refuse to budge on their holy grails, then frankly nothing will ever be done, and a person like Bachmann and Perry are so partisan and brain dead that they make Obama look like a freaking genius.

Why do you think that I didn't have a problem with Bush's wars and Bush's spending? I do, and his spending was bad for our country much like how Obama's spending is bad for the country. I'll flip the question on you now. Why was it a problem for Bush to raise the debt ceiling and pay for wars while it isn't a problem for Obama to raise the debt ceiling, continue the wars, and start his own in Libya without even seeking congressional approval?

Did not know the dems held the debt ceiling as a hostage during Bush... And Bush had a GOP congress when he "paid" for his wars... And in the end, we both know, the problem is more than often not the President (yes even under Bush), but Congress itself...
 
I never said it's ok. You get an "F" for reading comprehension.

You are out of your element up here dude. That nasty little attitude of yours may serve you well down under, but here, as in the real world it just gets the hand.

She said it was easy to fix the economy. Don't raise the debt ceiling. What have I mischaracterized?

We've tried it Obama's and your way, it failed let's move on to something that works.

j-mac
 
You do realize that if Bachmann was president, she would have refused to raise the debt ceiling. Have you seen wallstreet? If we wouldnt have raised the debt ceiling the markets could have collapsed and I cant even imagine what our credit rating would be.

What alternate universe have you been living in?

You do realize that raising the debt ceiling did nothing to prevent all that you said not raising the debt ceiling would cause. Right?
 
Last edited:
Being born a certain race is not the same as being a Republican Texas Governor.

It's equally as irrelevant.

Because race and profession are so analogous....


Good lord this has to be one of the most silly posts in a long time.

It's not silly, he's right. Being from the same state (and being governor, like *most* presidents in recent memory) is just as irrelevant as race when it comes to leadership qualities. Is everyone from Texas a bad leader now? Is everyone from Illinois?

Nobody chooses to be black. People choose to be Republicans.

Which wasn’t the issue to begin with. He was being compared to Bush not for being Republican, but for being Governor of Texas.

Or, because Bush was a conservative with a similar background to Perry and similar positions on issues, they might be similar...HOLY COW, that actually makes sense and follows logically!
Nobody was saying that Bush and Perry have the same positions. Not only is that not the issue here, it’s also just plain wrong (otherwise Bush’s family wouldn’t have endorsed Perry’s primary opponent). You’re completely making up a new issue here; the original one was that they were both Texas Governors, which again, says absolutely nothing about any similarity between them.

Good lord it’s going to be annoying when the actual election comes and that same illogical non-argument gets used over and over again.
 
You are out of your element up here dude. That nasty little attitude of yours may serve you well down under, but here, as in the real world it just gets the hand.

Thanks for the laugh.

We've tried it Obama's and your way, it failed let's move on to something that works.

Are you speaking about the supply-side economics that got us here?
 
Back
Top Bottom