• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swit said:
Well this is a very narrow view of our national economy.... Its like looking through a pinhole trying to see the big picture
Click to expand...
True, the DOW is a narrow indicator, but it's an indicator. My description also included the concept of "prosperity" vs. just the DOW itself. I would submit, that the DOW may be the MOST favorable indicator for Obama. Many other indicators such as unemployment, national debt in relation to GDP, etc. are less favorable.

If he's defeated in 2012. History might say something like "President Obama was notable as the first Black President (or, whatever is politically correct in 2050) and the first downgrade to US credit rating. He served one term with no other notable accomplishments.

Bush2 will get discussion on 9/11 & perhaps be credited with democracy in Iraq or even a freedom trend in Middle East if both don't end up failing.

Clinton will have scandal and general maintenance.

Bush1 gets nothing.

Reagan gets long term economic prosperity and the end of the cold war.
 
winston53660 said:
RE:

H.R. 2 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

[h=1]ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT[/h] The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2 is shown in following table. Most of the budgetary effects of the legislation are reductions in revenues. However, the bill also would increase outlays by making various changes to the income tax brackets and rates of taxation. By reducing the amount of taxes owed, those changes would result in a larger portion of tax credits being refundable--and thus recorded as outlays rather than reductions in revenues. The act also would increase the child credit, which is refundable under the tax code and counted as outlays in the budget to the extent that it results in "refunds" of income taxes not actually paid. In addition, H.R. 2 would increase outlays by increasing the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2003 and 2004 and by providing funds directly to states.


[h=2]Direct Spending[/h] Outlays from Refundable Tax Credits. JCT provided the outlay effects resulting from the refundable tax credits contained in titles I and III of the bill. JCT estimates that enacting those provisions would increase outlays by $3.6 billion in 2003 and by $9.5 billion over the 2003-2009 period (with no effects after 2009).
Fiscal Relief for States. Section 401 of the act would increase the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2003 and 2004 and provide a total of $10 billion in funds for states to use on government services. CBO estimates that these provisions would increase spending by a total of $7.7 billion in 2003 and $12.3 billion in 2004.
Increase in Medicaid match rate. The federal government pays a portion of the costs for each state's Medicaid program. The federal government's share, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), varies for each state and is based on each state's per capita income. Under current law, FMAPs are updated annually to reflect new data on per capita income in each state. The act would change the FMAPs in three ways:

  • The FMAP for the last two quarters of 2003 would equal the higher of the FMAPs (as determined under current law) for 2002 or 2003;
  • The FMAP for the first three quarters of 2004 would equal the higher of the FMAPs (as determined under current law) for 2003 or 2004; and
  • The FMAP for all states would increase by 2.95 percentage points for the last two quarters of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004.
These provisions are not mutually exclusive; states could potentially qualify for all three increases. CBO estimates that these provisions would increase federal Medicaid spending by $2.7 billion in 2003 and $7.3 billion in 2004.
Aid to states. The act would provide $5 billion in each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for states to use on maintaining essential government services or to cover the cost of complying with unfunded federal intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Under H.R. 2, payments would be made to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Such payments would be based on the population of each state, except that the provision would establish minimum payment levels. CBO estimates that this provision would result in outlays of $5 billion in 2003 and $5 billion in 2004.


H.R. 2, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Click to expand...

Great, is there a purpose for this post? What does Bush have to do with the Obama record today, 2011? How is you keeping more of your money an expense to the govt and since it isn't, why would someone else keeping
more of what they earn be an expense to the govt? Increasing outlays means increasing expenses but has nothing to do with keeping more of your money. When you want to reduce debt you cut spending. Govt wants to reduce the debt they increase taxes and increase spending.

Aid to state or aid to unions? There is a difference. Why is it the people of TX's responsibility to bail out the state of Illinois? Aid to states has to be paid for and will be paid for by the state taxpayer when that Federal funding runs out.
 
Conservative said:
Great, is there a purpose for this post? .
Click to expand...

I was responding to your comment about do tax cuts have to be paid for and the costs of tax cuts. It is incidental that it was bush.

BTW in Obama jobs bill there are provisions to pay for it.

Now if you were truly worried about running deficits and increasing debt these things would have meaning to you. However we all know that NOT to be the case in regards to you.
 
Swit;1059897655]I didn't vote for him... how is he mine.... and fine.... I will give you $1,000,000 if you can show a single post of mine where I made the claim that somehow individuals keeping money is a government expense.
Click to expand...

then either refute the data I have posted or stop defending him. His record is indefensible and makes you look foolish

Ahh but this is clearly not what my response was to.... you said... and I quote:

how is adding confusion to a conversation anything other than an attempt at deception?
Click to expand...

Seems it is only confusing to Obama supporters. I posted the data, gave the verifiable source for the data, and Obama supporters claim that data is distorted yet have never proven it but they have proven that they can distort data quite well, i.e. private sector job grow which doesn't tell the whole story but makes it look like an Obama success. The real number is 2.6 million NET JOB LOSS.

bold part irrelevant as it was not part of the original request for information further attempts at moving this goal post will be ignored.
proof
and if you don't like Taiwan here is Canada's
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for proof that the single payer system has lowered costs and improved health care quality. There aren't 310 million people in Canada and healthcare costs in Canada haven't improved nor has the quality.

Can you please explain what I was wrong about? k, thnx
Click to expand...

You are wrong in trying to defend the indefensible.
 
winston53660 said:
I was responding to your comment about do tax cuts have to be paid for and the costs of tax cuts. It is incidental that it was bush.

BTW in Obama jobs bill there are provisions to pay for it.

Now if you were truly worried about running deficits and increasing debt these things would have meaning to you. However we all know that NOT to be the case in regards to you.
Click to expand...

The point remains, if you keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt then someone else doing the same thing isn't either.

What happens when the money runs out and how is increasing the taxes on the job creators going to pay for any job creation? Who pays those expenses when the money runs out?

Keep trying but the fact remains, spending causes debt not tax cuts. When you have debt you cut spending.

By the way, time for Church, bbl
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
The point remains, if you keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt then someone else doing the same thing isn't either.

What happens when the money runs out and how is increasing the taxes on the job creators going to pay for any job creation? Who pays those expenses when the money runs out?

Keep trying but the fact remains, spending causes debt not tax cuts. When you have debt you cut spending.

By the way, time for Church, bbl
Click to expand...

Spending is not going away:


  • The aging of the population and increases in per-person costs throughout the U.S. health care system (in both the public and private sectors) will increase the cost of meeting longstanding federal commitments to seniors and people with disabilities. Together, these factors will drive up spending for the three largest domestic programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Limiting total federal spending to 21 percent of GDP despite these developments would have enormous implications for those programs as well as the rest of government.
  • The federal government’s responsibilities have grown since 2000, with developments at home and abroad pushing spending above the average for earlier decades. These responsibilities include homeland security (in the aftermath of September 11, 2001​); aid to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (many of whom need health care and income support); education (with the federal government providing more resources to improve educational quality and outcomes); the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress added in 2003); and health reform (which extends health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and will increase federal spending, even though it will reduce the deficit).
  • Spending for interest on the federal government’s debt also will be substantially higher in coming decades than it was during the past 40 years. By the end of 2010 — largely as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the large Bush-era tax cuts, and the current severe recession — debt held by the public will be nearly twice as large (as a percentage of GDP) as in 2001, with a commensurate increase in interest costs.
Federal Spending Target of 21 Percent of GDP Not Appropriate Benchmark for Deficit-Reduction Efforts — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
Conservative said:
Bush lost the elecction in 2008 but your obsession with him says a lot about you and your attempt to divert from the Obama record. So I will keep providing it to you. Thanks again for proving the GDP numbers right and I am sure you will find the others right as well and believe you have.

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...

Conservative's cut and paste punditry crap debunked here:
 
Conservative said:
Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...

Debunked cut and paste tripe found here:
 
Conservative said:
Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...

Conservative's cut & paste lies debunked here:
 
Conservative said:
why would you support a President that generated these results TODAY, over 2 years after the recession ended? These your ideas of great ideas?

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)


Slightly liberal? LOL
Click to expand...

Conservative's cut & paste lies debunked here:
 
Conservative said:
Context? 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans? When did Bush ever have that many? 2.6 million fewer employed, when did Bush ever have that? Almost 13 misery index, when did Bush have that? 4.2 trillion added to the debt in 3 years, when did Bush ever have that? 39% JAR? When did Bush have that during his first term?

You want badly to insert inflation into the numbers, well insert inflation into those numbers? Those are the numbers that the American people are looking at and actually feel.
Click to expand...

Conservative's cut & paste lies debunked here:
 
Not once in these posts did I reply to the same post. These are all separate posts by Conservative. Don't know if this board allows it or not but this is starting to schmack of one of those paid spammers who get paid per post and target message boards. Especially because of his penchant for cut and paste and not actually writing his own posts so often.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...
This appears to be a new format for the same message you have posted hundreds of times here at DP. What makes you think this format is any better than the last one? Or that anyone is even interested in reading it? Printing this information on a roll of toilet paper would me more useful, in my opinion.
 
pbrauer said:
This appears to be a new format for the same message you have posted hundreds of times here at DP. What makes you think this format is any better than the last one? Or that anyone is even interested in reading it? Printing this information on a roll of toilet paper would me more useful, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I've seen I think three formats of where he cuts and pastes the same information. Pasting the same crap over and over makes for good google results so if you want to propagate a lie on the internet, cut and paste. You change your format occasionally so that mods don't catch on.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Conservative's cut & paste lies debunked here:
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that the GDP trend that poweRob posted over and over and over shows a drop in GDP from the 2nd quarter to the 3rd quarter of 2008. That quarter was actually the first quarter that it dropped. It grew a bit in the 2nd quarter compared to the first quarter. Here's the data.

I mention this because the House and Senate were both controlled by the Democrats in 2006 & 2007. Going into 2008, the House, Senate, and Executive Branch were controlled by Democrats. And, yet, GDP continued to fall until the 3rd quarter of 2009 - no rally of consumer confidence. Finally, by the end of 2011, it's caught back up to where it was at the beginning of 2008.
 
winston53660 said:
Spending is not going away:


  • The aging of the population and increases in per-person costs throughout the U.S. health care system (in both the public and private sectors) will increase the cost of meeting longstanding federal commitments to seniors and people with disabilities. Together, these factors will drive up spending for the three largest domestic programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Limiting total federal spending to 21 percent of GDP despite these developments would have enormous implications for those programs as well as the rest of government.
  • The federal government’s responsibilities have grown since 2000, with developments at home and abroad pushing spending above the average for earlier decades. These responsibilities include homeland security (in the aftermath of September 11, 2001​); aid to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (many of whom need health care and income support); education (with the federal government providing more resources to improve educational quality and outcomes); the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress added in 2003); and health reform (which extends health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and will increase federal spending, even though it will reduce the deficit).
  • Spending for interest on the federal government’s debt also will be substantially higher in coming decades than it was during the past 40 years. By the end of 2010 — largely as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the large Bush-era tax cuts, and the current severe recession — debt held by the public will be nearly twice as large (as a percentage of GDP) as in 2001, with a commensurate increase in interest costs.
Federal Spending Target of 21 Percent of GDP Not Appropriate Benchmark for Deficit-Reduction Efforts — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...

Again, you ignore that FICA funds SS and Medicare for the aging population and yet you support cutting taxes that fund those programs. Brilliant strategy
 
pbrauer said:
This appears to be a new format for the same message you have posted hundreds of times here at DP. What makes you think this format is any better than the last one? Or that anyone is even interested in reading it? Printing this information on a roll of toilet paper would me more useful, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You are right, liberals have no use for facts and actual data. Says a lot about you and all other Obama supporters
 
poweRob said:
I've seen I think three formats of where he cuts and pastes the same information. Pasting the same crap over and over makes for good google results so if you want to propagate a lie on the internet, cut and paste. You change your format occasionally so that mods don't catch on.
Click to expand...

What I did was take the information and add the source of that data which of course confuses liberals. You don't want facts to get in the way of your support for liberalism.
 
poweRob said:
I've seen I think three formats of where he cuts and pastes the same information. Pasting the same crap over and over makes for good google results so if you want to propagate a lie on the internet, cut and paste. You change your format occasionally so that mods don't catch on.
Click to expand...

Please show me where verifiable data is a violation of forum rules?
 
Conservative said:
Again, you ignore that FICA funds SS and Medicare for the aging population and yet you support cutting taxes that fund those programs. Brilliant strategy
Click to expand...

You don't even know what you support much less what I do.:lamo
 
winston53660 said:
You don't even know what you support much less what I do.:lamo
Click to expand...

Obama economic results in 2011,

.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
2009 2010 2011
I II III IV I II III IV I II
-6.7 -0.7 1.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3

25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)

2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
2010 153353 153558 153895 154520 154237 153684 153628 154117 154124 153960 153950 153690
2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017

16.5% X 154.0=25.4 million

2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov) Employment by month

2008 146421
2009 142221
2010 138333
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627

142.2-139.6=2.6 million

4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)

Debt 14.8 trillion debt today-10.6 trillion end of fiscal year 2008

Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)

Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)

38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup
 
Conservative said:
Obama economic results in 2011,

.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
2009 2010 2011
I II III IV I II III IV I II
-6.7 -0.7 1.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3

25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)

2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
2010 153353 153558 153895 154520 154237 153684 153628 154117 154124 153960 153950 153690
2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017

16.5% X 154.0=25.4 million

2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov) Employment by month

2008 146421
2009 142221
2010 138333
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627

142.2-139.6=2.6 million

4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)

Debt 14.8 trillion debt today-10.6 trillion end of fiscal year 2008

Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)

Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)

38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...n-obama-grows-strongly-59.html#post1059891740

This is getting ridiculous:

1) Cut
2) Paste
3) Get Debunked
4) Ssssspppppiiiiiiinnnnnnn!
5) Make personal insult

Are you just trying to skew google search results or something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom