• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Bush's final budget ran through September, 2009, at which point the budget deficit was $1.9 trillion.
Click to expand...

Keep reliving the past and explain to me why Obama had to spend the Bush budget since he took over in January 2009. Thread topic-Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged yet real unemployment s 16.2%. Great job, Liberals.
 
Conservative said:
Gee, imagine that, the 2010 budget was less than the 2009 budget which had TARP and the stimulus as supplementals to that budget.
Click to expand...
I like how you make excuses for why the 2010 budget spent less than the 2009 budget after lying that it was more.
 
winston53660 said:
Well not if you are poor:

[h=1]Paul Krugman says poorest 40 percent of Texans pay more in Texas than national average[/h]
rulings%2Ftom-true.gif


PolitiFact Texas | Paul Krugman says poorest 40 percent of Texans pay more in Texas than national average
Click to expand...

Politifact? Who funds Politifact? I find quoting Paul Krugman hysterical. Thanks for the laugh. Do you believe you are paying more than the national average?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I like how you make excuses for why the 2010 budget spent less than the 2009 budget after lying that it was more.
Click to expand...

It is more, TARP and Stimulus are one time programs, supplementals and thus not part of the budget. The liar in this thread seems to be you or you don't understand the difference between budgeted amounts and supplementals.
 
Conservative said:
Politifact? Who funds Politifact? I find quoting Paul Krugman hysterical. Thanks for the laugh. Do you believe you are paying more than the national average?
Click to expand...

Do you have anything that counters the article I posted?
 
Conservative said:
Keep reliving the past and explain to me why Obama had to spend the Bush budget since he took over in January 2009.
Click to expand...
Because the president doesn't control the purse strings. The president cannot tell the Congress how to spend money on a budget they passed in the previous year and under a previous administration. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of how our government functions knows that.

Bush's final budget led to nearly $2 trillion in shortfalls. Minus the $200B Obama spent on stimulus for FY2009 still leaves some $1.7 trillion directly due to Bush's FY2009 budget and his policies. You can't wish that away. Nor can you grasp how much of an impact that $1.7 trillion had on the $4 trillion you're blaming Obama for.
 
winston53660 said:
Do you have anything that counters the article I posted?
Click to expand...

Based upon what Krugman or Politifact posted? I have no idea where they got their information nor do I find it relevant without details. Provide the context
 
Conservative said:
Yep, debt grew from 5.7 trillion to 10.7trillion or 5 trillion added to the debt. Obama debt today is 14.7 trillion so obviously the 4 trillion added to the debt since 2009 is much, much better than 5 trillion added in 8 years. Got it!
Click to expand...

Did I say better? Not doing the squirrel thing again are you you. Look back, I said both spend. You said Obama spent on steroids. Now you show Bush added 5 trillion and Obama 4 trillion. Taking your numbers, you're making quite a leap in your comments.

Just saying. . . . :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Did I say better? Not doing the squirrel thing again are you you. Look back, I said both spend. You said Obama spent on steroids. Now you show Bush added 5 trillion and Obama 4 trillion. Taking your numbers, you're making quite a leap in your comments.

Just saying. . . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Right, see your point, spending enough to create 5 trillion in 8 years certainly is spending a lot more than 4 trillion in less than 3. I can see how the Obama spending on steroids was the wrong thing to say, LOL
 
Goldenboy219 said:
A loan is not a bailout.... The Fed is expected to be the lender of last resort.

You made a statement that $16 billion in secret loans were given to banks, as though the Fed was doing something wrong. Consider this statment:



Primary dealer credit facility (PDCF) loans were certainly not secret, and were a function of either the discount window or Fed funds overnight market. The manner in which they are being described is intellectually dishonest. Let's go directly to the source:



Source

Which is why posting "$16 trillion in loans" is not technically correct because it does not make a distinction between time frames. You may admit your error, there is no shame.
Click to expand...

First its a conspiracy ... did you respond to your conspiracy accusation? Now its not a conspiracy ... its worthy of discussion.

Each time you try you ignore reality. "Secret" is not above board. Did you mention they didn't have 16 trillion .... hmmm run those printing presses.

A loan is not a bailout?

Bailout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to an entity (a company, a country, or an individual) that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion.[1]
Click to expand...


hmmmm lol

www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-trillion-in-emergency-loans/
The audit was conducted on a one-time basis, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed last year. Fed officials had strongly discouraged lawmakers from ordering the audit, claiming it may serve to undermine confidence in the monetary system.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
It is more, TARP and Stimulus are one time programs, supplementals and thus not part of the budget. The liar in this thread seems to be you or you don't understand the difference between budgeted amounts and supplementals.
Click to expand...
Stop lying. Spending in 2010 was down from 2009...

2009: 3518
2010: 3456


usgs_line.php



Spending drops in Obama's first budget year from $3,518B to $3,456B and you call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:

Looks to me like it was Bush who was spending like Bush on steroids.
 
AdamT said:
Interesting, but most of that appears to be dated or speculative, as in "some elements in Germany want to...." Since the first article was written in 2009 have we seen German banks pulling capital back in country? I'd say it's just the opposite. Germany has been the main (albeit reluctant) party keeping the troubled EU economies afloat. There are some interesting points in there, though. Particularly that protectionism these days is tending to take a less direct form, such as government support for industry (like our own subsidies for green energy, or cash for clunkers). South Korea has been a master of that, helping its industrial conglomerates outperform foreign competitors.

But I guess that begs the question: is it really protectionism for a government to lends its resources to domestic private industry? I think there has to be a distinction between government helping industry become more competitive, and government directly intervening to benefit industry because it can't compete internationally. In for the former case government is helping to improve efficiency and competitiveness while in the latter government is in effect fostering inefficiency and uncompetitiveness by shielding companies from stronger competition.
Click to expand...

Wish I had bookmarked the other info it might have helped the discussion ... part of it was related to the auto industry and Japan ... EU countries limiting imports relative to Japans imports.

Q2 was a dump by the FED of 600 billion to aid Europe. Germanies interests lie with the PIGS as they run a current account surplus with them ... they have to help.

Germany publicly is very pro free trade ... when I find more examples ... I'll provide them ... I don't want to be slinging BS.

I view any subsidy or tariff from government as protectionist. I've done some R+D with government funding that made my company more efficient, stuff that would not have been done otherwise. Just my opinion of protectionism ... and being progressive in support of such protectionism I've no desire to deny it exists.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop lying. Spending in 2010 was down from 2009...

2009: 3518
2010: 3456


usgs_line.php



Spending drops in Obama's first budget year from $3,518B to $3,456B and you call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:

Looks to me like it was Bush who was spending like Bush on steroids.
Click to expand...

I am getting pretty sick and tired of you claiming lies. Spending was down in 2010 because most of TARP and much of the stimulus was SPENT in 2009. you seem to have a very hard time understanding basic facts.
 
Conservative said:
Right, see your point, spending enough to create 5 trillion in 8 years certainly is spending a lot more than 4 trillion in less than 3. I can see how the Obama spending on steroids was the wrong thing to say, LOL
Click to expand...
Umm, the debt under Bush's budgets increased $6.1 trillion and $2.8 trillion under Obama's.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop lying. Spending in 2010 was down from 2009...

2009: 3518
2010: 3456


usgs_line.php



Spending drops in Obama's first budget year from $3,518B to $3,456B and you call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:

Looks to me like it was Bush who was spending like Bush on steroids.
Click to expand...

There is a book out called "Arguing with Idiots" which seems to be appropriate here. Most of TARP and much of the stimulus was spent in 2009 as was the Obama Afghanistan supplemental. Guess those facts escape you.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, the debt under Bush's budgets increased $6.1 trillion and $2.8 trillion under Obama's.
Click to expand...

Obama has been in office 2 1/2 years, Bush was in office 8. Like it or not the 2009 debt is Obama's just like the 2001 debt was Bush's, the 1993 debt was Clinton and so on. Keep lying, Sheik.
 
Conservative said:
There is a book out called "Arguing with Idiots" which seems to be appropriate here. Most of TARP and much of the stimulus was spent in 2009 as was the Obama Afghanistan supplemental. Guess those facts escape you.
Click to expand...

Someone wrote a book about you? The point is that spending was down in 2010 over 2009. Spin it however you like.
 
Conservative said:
Spending was down in 2010 because most of TARP and much of the stimulus was SPENT in 2009.
Click to expand...
But you said it was UP.

That's the lie (which is yours, not mine). Claiming Obama was spending like Bush on steroids when in fact, spending fell during Obama's first budget.

You've gone from claiming Obama spends like Bush on steroids to making excuses for why spending fell under Obama's first budget.

Think about it for a moment before you type ... both statements cannot be true. You can't claim Obama spends more than Bush while at the same time explain why Bush spent more than Obama.

Capiche?
 
AdamT said:
Someone wrote a book about you? The point is that spending was down in 2010 over 2009. Spin it however you like.
Click to expand...

If you don't have TARP and don't have Stimulus, and don't have the Afghanistan supplemental what do you think that would do to the next years spending?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
But you said it was UP.

That's the lie (which is yours, not mine). Claiming Obama was spending like Bush on steroids when in fact, spending fell during Obama's first budget.

You've gone from claiming Obama spends like Bush on steroids to making excuses for why spending fell under Obama's first budget.

Think about it for a moment before you type ... both statements cannot be true. You can't claim Obama spends more than Bush while at the same time explain why Bush spent more than Obama.

Capiche?
Click to expand...

It was up, supplementals aren't part of the budget process, they are additions. The Bush budget was much less than Obama's but the supplementals took it up.
 
Since Jimmy Hoffa wants a war and wants to "take out those SOB's" it looks like a war is what he is going to get and my bet is Obama isn't going to like the outcome nor are his supporters

We The People - YouTube
 
Conservative said:
Right, see your point, spending enough to create 5 trillion in 8 years certainly is spending a lot more than 4 trillion in less than 3. I can see how the Obama spending on steroids was the wrong thing to say, LOL
Click to expand...

As noted above:

The debt under Bush's budgets increased $6.1 trillion and $2.8 trillion under Obama's.

I was merely kind enough to use your numbers. You might read some of the links you've been given. Just saying . . . . :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
As noted above:

The debt under Bush's budgets increased $6.1 trillion and $2.8 trillion under Obama's.

I was merely kind enough to use your numbers. You might read some of the links you've been given. Just saying . . . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I am sure that even you know that what was posted was a lie. TARP was a loan that was paid back, where did that payback show up. TARP was spent in 2009 along with the stimulus and the Afghanistan 100 billion supplemental so unless those continued well into 2010 at the same level of spending then 2010 spending is going to be less. Problem is you don't seem to understand the debt and willingly buy anything that another liberal tells you. No President has to spend the budget amount and since Obama did and since Obama was in the Congress(Democrat controlled) that approved that budget Obama is charged with the debt. Like it or not, that is reality.
 
Conservative said:
There is a book out called "Arguing with Idiots" which seems to be appropriate here. Most of TARP and much of the stimulus was spent in 2009 as was the Obama Afghanistan supplemental. Guess those facts escape you.
Click to expand...
Seriously, Con ... how many times must you be shown exactly how much of TARP and ARRA were actually applied to the FY2009 deficit until it seeps in?

TARP: $152B

The Budget Outlook

ARRA: $200B

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

TARP is Bush's so $200B of the $1.9 trillion deficit is Obama's, leaving the other roughly $1.6 trillion is Bush's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom