• 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.
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?
TARP is Bush's. And even then, you've said attributed about $60 billion of it to Obama for FY2009. The war supplimental, which was for both of Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also Bush's.

That leaves you with $200B for Obama ... $1.65 trillion for Bush.

That reduces the $4 trillion increase to the debt you are blaming Obama for to more like $2.4 trillion.
 
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.
Read and learn ...

Total Federal Spending...


usgs_line.php


... That's not just budget spending, that's ALL federal spending. That includes supplimental spending for Bush's wars.

Spending fell under Obama and you falsely called that "Bush spending on steroids."

When do you apologize for lying?
 
TARP is Bush's. And even then, you've said attributed about $60 billion of it to Obama for FY2009. The war supplimental, which was for both of Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also Bush's.

That leaves you with $200B for Obama ... $1.65 trillion for Bush.

That reduces the $4 trillion increase to the debt you are blaming Obama for to more like $2.4 trillion.

Keep moving that goalpost, now talking about debt vs. claiming that 2010 spending was less than the budgeted Bush spending? Figured out yet that supplementals aren't part of the budget? Figured out yet that TARP was a loan and stimulus was actual spending? Do you know the difference between deficits and debt? Sorry, but regardless of what you claim the 2009 debt is Obama's just like the 2010-2011 which will be over 3 trillion dollars.
 
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
Are you going to cry that I'm off-topic if I respond to this?
 
Read and learn ...

Total Federal Spending...


usgs_line.php


... That's not just budget spending, that's ALL federal spending. That includes supplimental spending for Bush's wars.

Spending fell under Obama and you falsely called that "Bush spending on steroids."

When do you apologize for lying?

Of course it is all spending, when was TARP and most of the Stimulus spent? What was the Bush Budget vs the Obama 2010 budget?
 
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.
That may be your reality but that is not reality.

Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution ...

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

... kindly point out in there where it grants the president the power to tell Congress it can't spend money already budgeted by the previous administration.
 
That may be your reality but that is not reality.

Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution ...

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

... kindly point out in there where it grants the president the power to tell Congress it can't spend money already budgeted by the previous administration.

Fact, Obama debt 4 trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years! The President can always go back to Congress and request reduction in spending after the budget was passed. still waiting for you to post the 2009 Bush budget.
 
Keep moving that goalpost, now talking about debt vs. claiming that 2010 spending was less than the budgeted Bush spending?
Not moving anaything. The deficit (which is the increase to the debt, just so ya know), for FY2009 increased by $1.85 trillion.

That's one subject.

Federal spending dropped during Obama's first busget despite your lies to the contrary.

That's another subject.


Figured out yet that supplementals aren't part of the budget?
You said spending increased under Obama and you used the war supplimental as an excuse why when it turned out, you don't understand that "total federal spending" includes supplimentals.

Figured out yet that TARP was a loan and stimulus was actual spending?
Same as above, it's all included in "total federal spending" for FY2009 and spending was down in 2010, Obama's first budget year.
 
Of course it is all spending, when was TARP and most of the Stimulus spent? What was the Bush Budget vs the Obama 2010 budget?
You've been shown what was spent in FY2009....

TARP: $152B
ARRA: $200B
 
Fact, Obama debt 4 trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years! The President can always go back to Congress and request reduction in spending after the budget was passed. still waiting for you to post the 2009 Bush budget.
That may be your fact, but that is not a fact. The fact. As you've been shown, roughly $1.6 trillion of that is due to showrtfalls in Bush's FY2009 budget. Your acceptance of that is not required.
 
Not moving anaything. The deficit (which is the increase to the debt, just so ya know), for FY2009 increased by $1.85 trillion.

That's one subject.

Federal spending dropped during Obama's first busget despite your lies to the contrary.

That's another subject.



You said spending increased under Obama and you used the war supplimental as an excuse why when it turned out, you don't understand that "total federal spending" includes supplimentals.


Same as above, it's all included in "total federal spending" for FY2009 and spending was down in 2010, Obama's first budget year.

You claimed that the Bush budgets were higher than the Obama budgets so I am waiting for you to prove it. Posting actual Federal Spending doesn't report budget spending vs. supplemental spending. You don't seem to know the difference.
 
That may be your fact, but that is not a fact. The fact. As you've been shown, roughly $1.6 trillion of that is due to showrtfalls in Bush's FY2009 budget. Your acceptance of that is not required.

Your version of the facts normally mean diversions and distortions. Please post the actual Bush budget vs the Obama budgets. thanks in advance
 


Still waiting for you to show me where the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to override Congress' power of the purse strings of a previously passed budget by a previous Congress and passed by a previous president.

Good thing I'm not holding my breath, eh? My face would be as blue as my posts. :lol:
 


Still waiting for you to show me where the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to override Congress' power of the purse strings of a previously passed budget by a previous Congress and passed by a previous president.

Good thing I'm not holding my breath, eh? My face would be as blue as my posts. :lol:


I answered your question, get someone to read it for you since you don't seem to have the ability o comprehend what I posted.
 
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.

Ok I didn't find the article I was looking for ... but I found one similar. Some interesting practices. VAT is old news however a few other things. I didn't pull everything from the article just a few highlights.
How do Other Nations Balance Their Trade | Economy In Crisis

Non-tariff barriers reflected in EU and German policy include agricultural and manufacturing subsidies, quotas, import restrictions and bans for some goods and services, market access restrictions in some services sectors, non-transparent and restrictive regulations and standards, and inconsistent regulatory and customs administration among EU members. Restrictions in services markets and the burden of regulations and standards exceed EU policy.

Germany’s covert trade barriers—which should perhaps better be called “trade balancing measures,” as it would be a mistake to confuse them with crude protectionism—begin with careful control over Germany’s currency.

The corporate structure of Germany also fights trade deficits. Germany’s universal banks, for example, pressure the companies they own stakes in not to source components from abroad, which would weaken supplier companies they have big loans to. Similar pressures operate in retail and other parts of the supply chain. And the generally high level of German state involvement in industry, ranging from training schemes to state-owned banks, comes with similar strings attached. As one German puts it,

Germany as a whole has a near 48 percent share of its economy is some shape or fashion state controlled or run. The German is not even really fully aware of the true tax load he’s under nor the proportion of government that controls his life. Tell most Germans that the FRAPORT [airports] is a state entity and they are perplexed and confused. Explain to them about the GEZ, and how ARD, ZDF, HR3, SWF, DW, BR3, NDR, WDR etc. are more or less ‘state’ run entities and they are in disbelief. But the truth is, these agencies get their money through a tax that the state controls and their CEO is state-appointed by a committee. The Deutsche Bahn [national railway system] is another state entity, as is the Telecom.

The reason why France had Citroen Peugeot and Renault for all these years and even BMW and Mercedes, Fiat, Lancia etc. or Audi and VW could not break into their market is because even Germany, Great Britain and Italy were being kept out of the French market with such games for years. Now they ‘harmonized’ a lot of hidden trade barriers and while they no longer play the games they once did with each other, they still play them with the U.S.

German motor vehicle standards require many modifications to the US car despite the fact that German safety standards (No side impact struts in doors, safety glass that isn’t as good…..etc.) are lower. Example: On U.S. cars you had to disconnect the red brake light in the window of cars many years ago. Years ago (The U.S. used halogen lights first) you had to switch out headlights because the US used halogens on some cars and the Germans didn’t. Why? What safety aspect was impacted? None! It was pure games just to make it hard to import a car.
 
You claimed that the Bush budgets were higher than the Obama budgets so I am waiting for you to prove it. Posting actual Federal Spending doesn't report budget spending vs. supplemental spending. You don't seem to know the difference.
Read it one more time ... this time for clarity ...

total federal spending dropped during Obama's first budget.

You called a drop in spending, "Bush spending on steroids."

Only in Consverative la-la land is a drop in spending an increase. :roll:
 
Read it one more time ... this time for clarity ...

total federal spending dropped during Obama's first budget.

You called a drop in spending, "Bush spending on steroids."

Only in Consverative la-la land is a drop in spending an increase. :roll:

Let me know when Bush had a budget of 3.7 trillion dollars. as for Obama's first budget, you didn't disappoint at all, total and complete distortion of reality. You never posted budgets for either Bush or Obama and you totally ignored the supplementals which are never part of the budgets but were included in total spending, something you don't seem to understand.
 
I still don't see a lot of substance to support the contention. The second paragraph provides some clues, but it's short on specifics. As far as cars, every country is free to have its own safety standards. Lord knows the Germans have to make a slew of modifications to their cars to meet our safety and pollution regs., and then even stricter regs. for California.
 
I can already see where you are going Sheik. You want to tack TARP onto Bush's budget when the totality of the money wasnt available and wasnt spent until Obama was already in office and some of it still hasnt been spent. You also want to target the payback into Obama's budget impact. IE Have your cake and eat it too. Am I close?
 
I still don't see a lot of substance to support the contention. The second paragraph provides some clues, but it's short on specifics. As far as cars, every country is free to have its own safety standards. Lord knows the Germans have to make a slew of modifications to their cars to meet our safety and pollution regs., and then even stricter regs. for California.

Even the VAT is helpful to their economy ... its not about squelching trade ... its about balance. They are not the first to practice this and they manage to hold onto high paying manufacturing jobs ... jobs with multipliers. Compared to the US their compensation is much higher ... although wage growth is flat. Protecting 2% or 3% of manufacturing is huge ... so while tactics are different the end result is the same as protectionism ... more jobs. They do it the right way and benefit from their efforts.
 
Your version of the facts normally mean diversions and distortions. Please post the actual Bush budget vs the Obama budgets. thanks in advance
You're the one creating the diversions. You claim Obama is spending like Bush on steroids even though spending fell during FY2010.
 
I answered your question, get someone to read it for you since you don't seem to have the ability o comprehend what I posted.
Really? I didn't see you post which article and section in the Constitution allows the president to tell the Congress they can't spend money budgeted by a previous administration.

What's the article and section where I can find that?
 
Let me know when Bush had a budget of 3.7 trillion dollars. as for Obama's first budget, you didn't disappoint at all, total and complete distortion of reality. You never posted budgets for either Bush or Obama and you totally ignored the supplementals which are never part of the budgets but were included in total spending, something you don't seem to understand.
Stop lying already. I already posted the impact of TARP and ARRA on the FY2009 budget deficit and I pointed out that TARP and the war supplimental both are due to Bush. I said spending during Bush's final budget was more and it was as I showed you "total federal spending" dropped in 2010, despite your false claim that Obama is spending like Busdh on steroids."
 
Really? I didn't see you post which article and section in the Constitution allows the president to tell the Congress they can't spend money budgeted by a previous administration.

What's the article and section where I can find that?

I've read a couple of articles on Free trade and the loss of GDP and lost growth from lost GDP. I don't recall the numbers however I think it was 10% to 20%. I consider that taxable revenue ... not available to tax.

I suppose if quantified that would be a considerable amount, to apply to our deficit that just never made it the IRS. Something I'm going to have to research again cuzz I didn't bookmark it.
 
You're the one creating the diversions. You claim Obama is spending like Bush on steroids even though spending fell during FY2010.

And you keep ignoring what actually happened. Here let me help you

on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying "Yes."

3.1 trillion dollar budget? Hmmm, what was the first Obama budget? Need some help there as well? Still waiting for you to post both budgets side by side. You don't seem to offer much support for your wild claims

Keep digging that hole deeper and by all means keep distorting reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom