• 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.
Like I already said. Scroll up and answer some of the questions I asked you already.

The only thing I'm seeing from you is generic **** like "oh librulz are so typical librulz.. argggghhh... librulz." No one can debate that crap. That is just you whining about how you don't like those evil librulz.

Why is it so hard for you to just pick one policy? Honestly. Pick on that you think I'm sooooo far off base other than the S&P downgrade I hope because that would just be circular... Pick one and we'll discuss it.
 
Actually, the GDP has been growing every since q4 of 2009 - about 8 months into Obama's presidency.

Yes but those positive numbers were negated by the massive amount of spending done by Obama and his bail out programs. Look at the unemployment rate during the same period and then tell me the economy was in good shape.
 
Last edited:
Why should they? FICA taxes are the basis for social security and medicare both of which the tax payer will (should) get back upon retirement. How many of the 1% do you REALLY think will sign up for either SS or MC?

If the FICA taxes had not funded our unfunded wars and other general fund spending, you might have a point. Why do you think they say that SS is short by trillions? Up until just recently, SS has taken in more money than it paid out in benefits, where do you think those trillions went to?
 
The only thing I'm seeing from you is generic **** like "oh librulz are so typical librulz.. argggghhh... librulz." No one can debate that crap. That is just you whining about how you don't like those evil librulz.

Why is it so hard for you to just pick one policy? Honestly. Pick on that you think I'm sooooo far off base other than the S&P downgrade I hope because that would just be circular... Pick one and we'll discuss it.

Actually you are putting quotes around things I didn't say. You can't honestly believe that other people can't just scroll up a couple of posts where I replied DIRECTLY TO YOU and asked you specific questions that you are obviously ignoring. Why is it so hard for you to answer the questions (they are the lines of text with the "?" at the end) that I clearly asked you?

Start with post #1775. I make specific mention of the word policy there and you just simply ignored it. Twice.
 
Last edited:
Yes but those positive numbers were negated by the massive amount of spending done by Obama and his bail out programs.

Did you see the spending before he got into office? It was just as bad. As I showed earlier, GWB spend 2.7 trillion in his last 3 years, and Obama spent a projected 3 trillion in his first. Are you going to split hairs over that? Also, as part of Keynesian economics, he is doing exactly what he should, and may have not only ended the recession early, but has perhaps staved off a double dip. But you clearly have no idea what any of that means.

*Edit:

And Obama has clearly shown that he is willing to negotiate on spending cuts.
 
Last edited:
Actually you are putting quotes around things I didn't say. You can't honestly believe that other people can't just scroll up a couple of posts where I replied DIRECTLY TO YOU and asked you specific questions that you are obviously ignoring. Why is it so hard for you to answer the questions (they are the lines of text with the "?" at the end) that I clearly asked you?

Link to it. Being that I'm bouncing around reading various threads I honestly don't know what post you made that you are referring to.

For Gods sake, pick something to discuss other than me and how you don't like me and/or librulz.
 
Pointing out your hypocrisy isn't relevant?

Oh, because the economies switch the day the new POTUS is sworn in? Please elaborate. Bush can be partly blamed. So can Obama.

No getting all bent out of shape over an obvious joke is what is irrelevant. You don't seem to chime in when people are debating anything intelligent, yet you want to come in here ready to go to war with me over something silly? I assure you you are not equipped for battle.
 
Did you see the spending before he got into office? It was just as bad. As I showed earlier, GWB spend 2.7 trillion in his last 3 years, and Obama spent a projected 3 trillion in his first. Are you going to split hairs over that? Also, as part of Keynesian economics, he is doing exactly what he should, and may have not only ended the recession early, but has perhaps staved off a double dip. But you clearly have no idea what any of that means.

I beg to differ with the bolded part. As Paul Krugman has noted, he's half-assed his attempts. He should have done more.
 
I beg to differ with the bolded part. As Paul Krugman has noted, he's half-assed his attempts. He should have done more.

Well, by that I just mean keeping taxes low and deficit spending during a recession. Perhaps he should have spent more, but considering the deficit he inherited and the witch hunt he faced the day he took office, that would have been nearly impossible.
 
Did you see the spending before he got into office? It was just as bad. As I showed earlier, GWB spend 2.7 trillion in his last 3 years, and Obama spent a projected 3 trillion in his first. Are you going to split hairs over that? Also, as part of Keynesian economics, he is doing exactly what he should, and may have not only ended the recession early, but has perhaps staved off a double dip. But you clearly have no idea what any of that means.

*Edit:

And Obama has clearly shown that he is willing to negotiate on spending cuts.

So what does that have to do with Obama's ability to correct and/or better the situation? He has done nothing of the sort and in fact made things worse. The increase in the GDP means nothing when it compares to the decrease in the value of our dollar.

Obama has shown that he is clearly not willing to negotiate. He simply passes blame for his failures and then presents another half assed bill with the sole aim of winning voters and with little understanding of actually solving the real problem.
 
Well, by that I just mean keeping taxes low and deficit spending during a recession. Perhaps he should have spent more, but considering the deficit he inherited and the witch hunt he faced the day he took office, that would have been nearly impossible.

Perhaps but FDRs deficit spending was much higher as a percentage of GDP. Obama could've done more but more importantly he could have done the spending he did more effectively. Like the bank bailout money should have been a loan forgiveness to mortgages for the amount they gave the banks. Instead we bailed out the banks for those loans AND they get to collect on the loans on top of that.
 
Well, by that I just mean keeping taxes low and deficit spending during a recession. Perhaps he should have spent more, but considering the deficit he inherited and the witch hunt he faced the day he took office, that would have been nearly impossible.

He did not solve anything, he simply delayed it. The solutions you are so proud of came strictly from borrowed money. Money that my children will have to pay back. Now take the deficit he inherited and the increased deficit that he created and tell me that you really believe things are better now. You are being short sighted and ignoring the long term effects of these actions.
 
Link to it. Being that I'm bouncing around reading various threads I honestly don't know what post you made that you are referring to.

For Gods sake, pick something to discuss other than me and how you don't like me and/or librulz.

For God's sake just scroll up to post 1775 and read it. If you would have not ignored it and danced around it like you did we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Do your own work Liberal.

It is not my fault that you are bouncing around and can't keep your thoughts straight. Maybe that should be an indicator to you about how maybe you really just don't know what you are talking about.
 
So what does that have to do with Obama's ability to correct and/or better the situation? He has done nothing of the sort and in fact made things worse. The increase in the GDP means nothing when it compares to the decrease in the value of our dollar.

Obama has shown that he is clearly not willing to negotiate. He simply passes blame for his failures and then presents another half assed bill with the sole aim of winning voters and with little understanding of actually solving the real problem.

The dollar has gotten stronger since he took office (though only by four pennies). Do you research anything or are you just making this up as you go?
 
Last edited:
No getting all bent out of shape over an obvious joke is what is irrelevant. You don't seem to chime in when people are debating anything intelligent, yet you want to come in here ready to go to war with me over something silly? I assure you you are not equipped for battle.

Making outrageous claims is pointless. If you look at my posts, I do, in fact, chime in when people are debating. However, "Liberals will claim its Obama's economy when it goes upward" isn't debating. That is making a statement which leaves no room for debate.
 
You are very confused. Which percentage did you pay 30 years ago compared to now? How about the rich? What was your EFFECTIVE TAX RATE last year? Mine was 4.3%...Doesn't seem like I have too much to complain about in my poor middle class life being abused and opressed by all of the rich people I chose to buy things from....

I'm happy for you but for the majority of middle class, their effective taxes have gone up over the last 30 years compared to millionaires taxes having been decreased significantly.

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

That is why the majority of Americans now feel that the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated.
 
He did not solve anything, he simply delayed it. The solutions you are so proud of came strictly from borrowed money. Money that my children will have to pay back. Now take the deficit he inherited and the increased deficit that he created and tell me that you really believe things are better now. You are being short sighted and ignoring the long term effects of these actions.

Seeing how you won't answer my posts about policy discussion and you seem to be trying to discuss policy here, I'll try to jump in.

I see what you are saying about debt and I agree that it is bad, but do you think it was possible to take over a recession of this depth and not spend? What, IYO, would be the economic results of that?
 
He did not solve anything, he simply delayed it. The solutions you are so proud of came strictly from borrowed money. Money that my children will have to pay back. Now take the deficit he inherited and the increased deficit that he created and tell me that you really believe things are better now. You are being short sighted and ignoring the long term effects of these actions.

Look guy, it's a style of economics that many economists happen to agree with (dare I say most?). It involves spending more and cutting taxes during recessions, while spending less and raising taxes during booms. Unfortunately, we lowered taxes and spent a lot during our boom, so Obama doesn't have as much as he should to work with, but spending more now will help us end the recession faster - thereby allowing us to raise taxes, cut spending, and reduce the deficit properly in the near future. If Obama were to receive a second term (or whoever gets office actually), that should be the next move once the economy gets back to full strength.

If you disagree with this method, perhaps you should study economics, get a PhD, and discover a better way.
 
The dollar has gotten stronger since he took office (though only by four pennies). Do you research anything or are you just making this up as you go?

But in the real world where the dollar is actually generated, it doesn't go as far. The cost of living is up, and therefore the value of the dollar as it applies to econmic growth is down.
 
But in the real world where the dollar is actually generated, it doesn't go as far. The cost of living is up, and therefore the value of the dollar as it applies to econmic growth is down.

I don't see how that is possible. Interest rates and inflation are at historical lows - so you aren't getting waxed when you take out a loan and housing prices couldn't get any better if they tried.. Food and gas prices have gone up, but I don't see how you could possibly be blaming Obama for that.

Where do you get your information?
 
i don't see how that is possible. Interest rates and inflation are at historical lows - so you aren't getting waxed when you take out a loan and housing prices couldn't get any better if they tried.. Food and gas prices have gone up, but i don't see how you could possibly be blaming obama for that.

Where do you get your information?

found it!

head_up_your_ass.jpg
 
Look guy, it's a style of economics that many economists happen to agree with (dare I say most?). It involves spending more and cutting taxes during recessions, while spending less and raising taxes during booms. Unfortunately, we lowered taxes and spent a lot during our boom, so Obama doesn't have as much as he should to work with, but spending more now will help us end the recession faster - thereby allowing us to raise taxes, cut spending, and reduce the deficit properly in the near future. If Obama were to receive a second term (or whoever gets office actually), that should be the next move once the economy gets back to full strength.

If you disagree with this method, perhaps you should study economics, get a PhD, and discover a better way.

Ah economists, the educated elite with their facts and knowledge of financial history....................... Are you going to believe economists and the majority of Americans, or are you going to believe those that represent the people that own most of the wealth in the country?
 
Last edited:
Look guy, it's a style of economics that many economists happen to agree with (dare I say most?). It involves spending more and cutting taxes during recessions, while spending less and raising taxes during booms. Unfortunately, we lowered taxes and spent a lot during our boom, so Obama doesn't have as much as he should to work with, but spending more now will help us end the recession faster - thereby allowing us to raise taxes, cut spending, and reduce the deficit properly in the near future. If Obama were to receive a second term (or whoever gets office actually), that should be the next move once the economy gets back to full strength.

If you disagree with this method, perhaps you should study economics, get a PhD, and discover a better way.

Taking water out of the same bucket and putting it back into that same bucket does not solve anything. How do you spend more but cut your income at the same time to improve your situation when there is not enough money to cover the current spending? You have to borrow, and borrowed money has to be paid back. You don't need a PhD to figure that out, you need middle school math skills.

Why do we need to raise taxes after we cut spending if cutting taxes to raise spending is the solution during the first phase of the problem per your explanation?

If I run into hardship in my life, I don't cut my income and increase my spending. I adjust my living to meet my financial situation. Whether you like it or not, that is the only way we can really stabilize our economy in the long term even if that means making sacrifices in the mean time.
 
Taking water out of the same bucket and putting it back into that same bucket does not solve anything. How do you spend more but cut your income at the same time to improve your situation when there is not enough money to cover the current spending? You have to borrow, and borrowed money has to be paid back. You don't need a PhD to figure that out, you need middle school math skills.

Why do we need to raise taxes after we cut spending if cutting taxes to raise spending is the solution during the first phase of the problem per your explanation?

If I run into hardship in my life, I don't cut my income and increase my spending. I adjust my living to meet my financial situation. Whether you like it or not, that is the only way we can really stabilize our economy in the long term even if that means making sacrifices in the mean time.

I think you are confused. You think you are arguing with me, but what you are arguing with is the general consensus of economic theory. I am not sure where you are getting mixed up, but under the theory, Obama has not handled this recession wrong, but rather, Congress and Bush did by spending too much and lowering taxes too far during good economic times.

Can you at least go read about Keynesian economic theory and try to understand it before you argue against it? So, just to recap, I am using economic theory to back my argument up, and you are using... well, nothing.
 
Last edited:
Taking water out of the same bucket and putting it back into that same bucket does not solve anything. How do you spend more but cut your income at the same time to improve your situation when there is not enough money to cover the current spending? You have to borrow, and borrowed money has to be paid back. You don't need a PhD to figure that out, you need middle school math skills.

Why do we need to raise taxes after we cut spending if cutting taxes to raise spending is the solution during the first phase of the problem per your explanation?

If I run into hardship in my life, I don't cut my income and increase my spending. I adjust my living to meet my financial situation. Whether you like it or not, that is the only way we can really stabilize our economy in the long term even if that means making sacrifices in the mean time.

Macro economics =/= micro economics so doing comparisons on how you would spend your personal money in whatever times you are in does not equate to good policy making when you run an economy that has boatloads of subeconomies running underneath it. The idea of keynesian economics is that in tough times you prime the pump of the sub-economies with spending that will, in the long run, then stabilize and kick-back revenue that they otherwise wouldn't be able to if the sub-economies died out or went under.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom