• 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.
When someone suffering from ODS says something positive about Obama, especially when they don't realize what they're saying, it's evidence enough for me.

Without understanding what you were saying, you said the results of Obama's stimulus cost us $228,000 per job, i.e., 3½ million jobs saved or created.

"let me be perfectly clear"
Obamanomics is a complete and total failure.
 
You don't seem to get it, that is a state responsibility, not a Federal Responsibility. States weren't forced to make tough choices, they were offered money and took it. there is no proof that those people were going to get pink slips, could is not a guarantee. It is not the Federal Government's role to make up state shortfalls but Obama bailed out his base, the unions.
Not true at all. The federal government often steps up when problems are too big for states to handle. Like when FEMA provided aid to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina because the state couldn't handle the enormity of the situation.
 
Obamanomics is a complete and total failure.
Ok, you're on record as preferring -9% GDP and losing 700,000 jobs in a month, like we saw under Bush as he handed Obama the wheel to the U.S.S. Titanic.
 
You don't seem to get it, that is a state responsibility, not a Federal Responsibility.

Stop trying to change the subject. The question isn't whose responsibility it is, but rather, how many jobs were saved by the stimulus.
 
Ok, you're on record as preferring -9% GDP and losing 700,000 jobs in a month, like we saw under Bush as he handed Obama the wheel to the U.S.S. Titanic.

Thats true Sheik...it was all going down during bushs watch and his tax cuts failed...but lets be honest, if obama hasnt made it worse, he sure hasnt made it any better and all his bailouts were just as much a failure as the bush tax cuts.
 
Not true at all. The federal government often steps up when problems are too big for states to handle. Like when FEMA provided aid to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina because the state couldn't handle the enormity of the situation.

there is quite a bit of difference between a natural disaster and a man made financial mess. It isn't the role of the govt. to cover state shortfalls so there is no way of knowing how many of those so called saved jobs would have been saved without stimulus money. Someone offers you money so you don't have to use yours,what would you do?
 
Stop trying to change the subject. The question isn't whose responsibility it is, but rather, how many jobs were saved by the stimulus.

There is no way of knowing as you stated,
It's impossible to say with precision. You have to rely on self reporting by the states and estimates by economists
 
Ok, you're on record as preferring -9% GDP and losing 700,000 jobs in a month, like we saw under Bush as he handed Obama the wheel to the U.S.S. Titanic.

Don't see great results from Obama, net job loss, declining labor force, 3 million fewer people working, and higher unemployment and it only cost a trillion dollars to generate those numbers. Looks like a net loss to me.
 
There is no way of knowing as you stated,

I said there is no way of knowing with precision, which is not the same thing as saying that we have no idea.
 
I said there is no way of knowing with precision, which is not the same thing as saying that we have no idea.

So if someone asked you to prove your claim, you couldn't do it and that is the point. You could cite opinions but nothing that can actually be counted. Your support for Obama and liberalism is noted, doesn't help your credibility at all.
 
So if someone asked you to prove your claim, you couldn't do it and that is the point. You could cite opinions but nothing that can actually be counted. Your support for Obama and liberalism is noted, doesn't help your credibility at all.

I could prove a circumstantial case, sure. But not to a precise number.
 
Thats true Sheik...it was all going down during bushs watch and his tax cuts failed...but lets be honest, if obama hasnt made it worse, he sure hasnt made it any better and all his bailouts were just as much a failure as the bush tax cuts.
Sorry, I do see things being better than they were when Obama took over. I see unemployment shrinking by 19,000 jobs in a month as better than unemployment growing by 732,000 jobs in a month. I see 1% GDP growth better than 8.9% GDP contraction. By no means do I think we're out of the woods, but we're definately out of the part of the woods that are on fire.

I also don't equate one president who led us to the mess Bush led us to with another president who may be unable to fix that mess. It requires a far great level of incompetence to produce the Great Recession than it does to not be able of repairing it in less than 3 years.
 
there is quite a bit of difference between a natural disaster and a man made financial mess. It isn't the role of the govt. to cover state shortfalls so there is no way of knowing how many of those so called saved jobs would have been saved without stimulus money. Someone offers you money so you don't have to use yours,what would you do?
Well we know what Rick Perry did. :cool:
 
Check the date of the article.

Okay, now you prove that employment wouldn't have been any different without the stimulus. :popcorn2:

If we had not spent what amounted to well over a trillion dollars when you add everything up, sure, it might have been a little worse. Temporarily.

IMO, unemployment would be better today if we had not put ourselves into that much more debt.
 
Last edited:
Well we know what Rick Perry did. :cool:

He did exactly as you would do or anyone else. It is taxpayer money that was being distributed so why wouldn't the state of TX take some of the TX taxpayer money back? Then of course there is the issue of expansion of Medicaid and Unemployment insurance. Who do you think should pay that?
 
Someone offers you money so you don't have to use yours,what would you do?

You would take the money -- especially if you didn't have any and the alternative was to lay off employees. Hey! We just saved some jobs!
 
He did exactly as you would do or anyone else. It is taxpayer money that was being distributed so why wouldn't the state of TX take some of the TX taxpayer money back? Then of course there is the issue of expansion of Medicaid and Unemployment insurance. Who do you think should pay that?
Umm, the money he took was from the federal government, meaning it came from all 57 states :cool:, not just Texas.
 
Sheik Yerbuti;1059765817]Sorry, I do see things being better than they were when Obama took over. I see unemployment shrinking by 19,000 jobs in a month as better than unemployment growing by 732,000 jobs in a month. I see 1% GDP growth better than 8.9% GDP contraction. By no means do I think we're out of the woods, but we're definately out of the part of the woods that are on fire.

I also don't equate one president who led us to the mess Bush led us to with another president who may be unable to fix that mess. It requires a far great level of incompetence to produce the Great Recession than it does to not be able of repairing it in less than 3 years.

what I see is someone with a bad case of BDS unable to objectively look at actual data and make an intelligent decision especially someone so lacking in civics understanding. Guess Congress under Democrat Control had no impact at all over legislation and spending. Obama loves having people like you supporting him.
 
Umm, the money he took was from the federal government, meaning it came from all 50 states, not just Texas.

How do you know that some of the tax dollars returned to TX didn't come from TX. You seem to know how to count saved jobs so apparently you can prove that TX taxpayer money didn't come back to TX
 
You would take the money -- especially if you didn't have any and the alternative was to lay off employees. Hey! We just saved some jobs!

How do you know the states didn't have money, they weren't forced to make tough choices. When my school district lost money from the state, they came to the people and we gave it to them. States could have done the same thing but you buy theObama rhetoric at face value without thinking
 
what I see is someone with a bad case of BDS unable to objectively look at actual data and make an intelligent decision especially someone so lacking in civics understanding.
Awww, how cute coming from the person who kept insisting that Obama used teleprompters to speak to school children. Yeah, you don't suffer from ODS yourself. :roll:

Guess Congress under Democrat Control had no impact at all over legislation and spending. Obama loves having people like you supporting him.
Well I've challenged you repeatedly to produce the bill(s) the Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) in 2007 that led to the Great Recession and when you couldn't site even one, I accepted that as your tacit admission that you were lying when you blamed the Democrat-led Congress.

Has that changed? Have you found even one bill they passed (or failed to pass) that caused the mess?

I can point to 2 that Republicans failed to pass ... H.R. 1461 and S. 190, both failed to pass in 2005 when the damage was occurring.
 
Last edited:
How do you know that some of the tax dollars returned to TX didn't come from TX.

Because the money was borrowed. The people of Texas will be on the hook to pay it back.
 
Well I've challenged you repeatedly to produce the bill(s) the Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) in 2007 that led to the Great Recession and when you couldn't site even one, I accepted that as your tacit admission that you were lying when you blamed the Democrat-led Congress.


In 2007 they continued to deny and do nothing about the obvious which they were well aware of years before then.

Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air
 
He did exactly as you would do or anyone else. It is taxpayer money that was being distributed so why wouldn't the state of TX take some of the TX taxpayer money back? Then of course there is the issue of expansion of Medicaid and Unemployment insurance. Who do you think should pay that?
Without the stimulus, he wouldn't gotten the money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom