• 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!

Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
Hasn't stopped you before so I don't believe that I am not very high on your list to respond to. Interesting how you have attacked all previous Presidents but have yet to say if you support Obama and will vote for him in 2012? What is it about his results that warrant support?
Click to expand...
What is it about a Republican that warrants support?
 
Conservative said:
Debt by President

Reagan 900 billion to 2.6 trillion +1.7 trillion in 8 years

GHW Bush 2.6 trillion to 4.4 trillion +1.8 trillion in four years

Clinton 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion +1.3 trillion in 8 years

GW Bush 5.7 trillion to 10.6 trillion +4.9 trillion in 8 years

Obama 10.6 trillion to 14.6 trillion +4 trillion in 3 years.

Think anyone today cares about previous President's addition to the debt or percentage change? The issue today is the failure of Obamanomics as has been posted many times but ignored.
Click to expand...
I trust most people are smart enough to not compare 1988 dollars with 2011 dollars.

Still at this point in his presidency, Reagan's first two budgets increased the debt 38%.

Obama ... 23%.

Conservative: Reagan=4 more years ... Obama=impeach
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
real numbers are the elite attempt to compare administrations for political purposes and actually mean very little.
Click to expand...
If real numbers mean very little, then why are you using real numbers when talking about GDP under Obama?

And if real numbers mean very little, why did you say nominal numbers are irrelevant for any measurment?



"Nominal numbers (sometimes called categorical numbers) are numerals used for identification only. The numerical value is irrelevant, and they do not indicate quantity, rank, or any other measurement." ~ Conservative​
 
pbrauer said:
What is it about a Republican that warrants support?[/QUOTE

The fact that Republicans support your right to earn as much as you are capable of earning and believe in personal responsibility something that is foreign to a liberal
Click to expand...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If real numbers mean very little, then why are you using real numbers when talking about GDP under Obama?

And if real numbers mean very little, why did you say nominal numbers are irrelevant for any measurment?



"Nominal numbers (sometimes called categorical numbers) are numerals used for identification only. The numerical value is irrelevant, and they do not indicate quantity, rank, or any other measurement." ~ Conservative​
Click to expand...

Except when talking about dollars

In economics, nominal value refers to a value expressed in money terms (that is, in units of a currency) in a given year or series of years. By contrast, real value adjusts nominal value to remove effects of price changes over time.
Click to expand...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I trust most people are smart enough to not compare 1988 dollars with 2011 dollars.

Still at this point in his presidency, Reagan's first two budgets increased the debt 38%.

Obama ... 23%.

Conservative: Reagan=4 more years ... Obama=impeach
Click to expand...

Hey, make that a campaign poster comparing Obama to Reagan and see if you don't get laughed out of the neighborhood. Let me know when Obama has a 17 million net job creation and doubles GDP
 
Conservative said:
Except when talking about dollars
Click to expand...
I see, so you think it's reasonable to exclude inflation when talking about dollars. Toyou, 1988 dollars equals 2011 dollars, is that right? Because that's what you're saying.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I see, so you think it's reasonable to exclude inflation when talking about dollars. Toyou, 1988 dollars equals 2011 dollars, is that right? Because that's what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you convince the govt. to change the way they calculate the debt service on the debt. Reagan had debt service on 1.7 trillion more and Obama has debt service on 4 trillion more in 3 years.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I see Fox News compared them ... They weren't laughed at ...

Reagan And Obama -- Comparing Two Presidents | FoxNews.com
Click to expand...

Good, then you won't have a lot of work to do since you apparently want to make that case. Make sure you put the net job loss on there for Obama and declining labor force as well. That will be great for a laugh or two except for those 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans. Hope they don't see the sign
 
Conservative said:
Let me know when you convince the govt. to change the way they calculate the debt service on the debt. Reagan had debt service on 1.7 trillion more and Obama has debt service on 4 trillion more in 3 years.
Click to expand...
I see you're stuck on a debt service red herring.

That red herring doesn't help you compare 1988 dollars with 2011 dollars.
 
Conservative said:
Good, then you won't have a lot of work to do since you apparently want to make that case. Make sure you put the net job loss on there for Obama and declining labor force as well. That will be great for a laugh or two except for those 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans. Hope they don't see the sign
Click to expand...
Well Obama has lost about 2.4 million jobs while up till this point, Reagan lost well over 3 million. And that was with a workforce 1/3 the size of today's. Makes Reagan's loss equivalent to more like losing 5 million by today's workforce.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I see you're stuck on a debt service red herring.

That red herring doesn't help you compare 1988 dollars with 2011 dollars.
Click to expand...

I always get stuck on what costs me money something apparently you don't understand. The dollars in the 80's also relate to the expenses of the 80's so there is no logic applying those dollars to 2011 prices. You seem to be stuck on chained dollars as well as real numbers which aren't so real.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Well Obama has lost about 2.4 million jobs while up till this point, Reagan lost well over 3 million. And that was with a workforce 1/3 the size of today's. Makes Reagan's loss equivalent to more like losing 5 million by today's workforce.
Click to expand...

Let me know when Obama generates 17 million jobs and what is the economic program that Obama has to do that?
 
Conservative said:
I always get stuck on what costs me money something apparently you don't understand. The dollars in the 80's also relate to the expenses of the 80's so there is no logic applying those dollars to 2011 prices. You seem to be stuck on chained dollars as well as real numbers which aren't so real.
Click to expand...
Yet you're using real numbers when talking about GDP under Obama. Why is that?
 
Conservative said:
Let me know when Obama generates 17 million jobs and what is the economic program that Obama has to do that?
Click to expand...
I guess that means you have no confidence in Bush's tax rates, huh?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not constitutionally you can't.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying. We can change the Constitution. If we do not like the courts ruling, we can just change the Constitution.
 
Conservative said:
Let me know when Obama generates 17 million jobs and what is the economic program that Obama has to do that?
Click to expand...

Ahhheeeemmmm Reagan's unemployment average at 2.5 years in was 9.0%.
 
winston53660 said:
Ahhheeeemmmm Reagan's unemployment average at 2.5 years in was 9.0%.
Click to expand...

At which point it started to rapidly fall. If you think that's going to happen now, I wish you well.
 
winston53660 said:
Ahhheeeemmmm Reagan's unemployment average at 2.5 years in was 9.0%.
Click to expand...

Reagan isn't on the ballot in 2012 but if he was I would take his 17 million net job creation and getting us out of the Carter malaise and 20 plus misery index. I don't think Democrats want to run against Reagan's actual record and the economic conditions he inherited
 
Conservative said:
You seem to be stuck on chained dollars as well as real numbers which aren't so real.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yet you're using real numbers when talking about GDP under Obama. Why is that?

Conservative said:
Not a lot to talk about with Obama GDP but plenty to talk about with unemployment, declining labor force, and the debt.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hey, did ya notice you didn't even come remotely close to addressing my question?

Maybe you'll get lucky though and no one else will notice. :lol:
 
1Perry said:
At which point it started to rapidly fall. If you think that's going to happen now, I wish you well.
Click to expand...

Amazing how liberals today compare Reagan's economic results 2 1/2 years after taking office to Obama's record 2 1/2 years in office when the Reagan economic plan wasn't even passed until August and went into effect in 1982. Obama's was passed in February 2009, a few weeks after taking office. The economy came out of recession in June 2009 and the recession during the Reagan term started in July 1981 to November 1982. Let's compare numbers two years after the end of each recession?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom