• 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!

Surprise! Huge US Budget Surplus Shatters Record

1. Thank "sequester", which democrats did nothing but badmouth.
2. The budget is not going to be cut in half in any span of time because there's no "less spending" going on.
3. If your "budget" is twice as much as you actually earn, don't get all excited because you only spent 90% of your "budget" and think you're getting rich because of that.

My bad, i mis-spoke. The deficit has the potential. :3oops:
 
1. Thank "sequester", which democrats did nothing but badmouth.
2. The budget is not going to be cut in half in any span of time because there's no "less spending" going on.
3. If your "budget" is twice as much as you actually earn, don't get all excited because you only spent 90% of your "budget" and think you're getting rich because of that.

One thing about #1....didn't Republicans call it "Obama's sequester" a couple of months ago when it went into effect? Wasn't it "Obama's failure" that led to it being implemented. Wasn't it a "White House plan" when Republicans were running from their failure to make cuts so that it wouldn't go into effect?

Keep in mind...sequestration was in lieu of other supposed cuts. The method was sequestration because Congress couldn't decide on what they would specifically cut. Both parties had agreed to cut how it was cut is the reason sequestration kicked in.
 
My bad, i mis-spoke. The deficit has the potential. :3oops:

Wait for a trend if you want to have a solid argument about that. One month isn't a trend and cutting the deficit in half still leaves us with a huge deficit.
 
You obviously weren't following. I pointed out that the black vote won't be so strong in 2016 and got accused of making a "racist" remark because of that. Pundits WILL be talking about that as 2016 approaches and it's not "racist". It's just demographics and statistics.

I did miss that.
 
If your "budget" is twice as much as you actually earn, don't get all excited because you only spent 90% of your "budget" and think you're getting rich because of that

Also, it is errorenous to relate a business/household budget to that of a sovereign nation. If i have to explain why, perhaps you do not belong discussing such topics to begin with.
 
One thing about #1....didn't Republicans call it "Obama's sequester" a couple of months ago when it went into effect? Wasn't it "Obama's failure" that led to it being implemented. Wasn't it a "White House plan" when Republicans were running from their failure to make cuts so that it wouldn't go into effect?

Keep in mind...sequestration was in lieu of other supposed cuts. The method was sequestration because Congress couldn't decide on what they would specifically cut. Both parties had agreed to cut how it was cut is the reason sequestration kicked in.

Seems to me that how it worked out was that refusing to agree on cuts meant everyone could try to take credit for cutting spending and no one had to take the blame for anything that got cut. I do remember the lefties squealing that sequestration was an awful thing that only happened because republicans wouldn't "compromise" (in other words, go along with the democrats). In fact, Obama seemed to have his knickers in a twist because sequestration was where we ended up.
 
Also, it is errorenous to relate a business/household budget to that of a sovereign nation. If i have to explain why, perhaps you do not belong discussing such topics to begin with.

You don't have to explain why. Households can't print money as they need it, so the dynamics aren't the same. Not that money printing is a good thing, though.
 
it's too early to tell what it means, but it's enough to worry the GOP ... the last thing they need in 2014, but especially in 2016 is an improved economy ... that, coupled with their wars agtainst women, the poor, the working class, gays, minorities, will kill them ....

Putting politics on the side, this is a great sign for the country. We are moving at least in the right direction. Regardless if you are Republican or Democrat, you have to cheer for this if you truly love your country.


Now bringing politics back into the fold, the GOP can not be happy about this coming so close to election time. Regardless of what they say or believe it is how the public views it.
 
Putting politics on the side, this is a great sign for the country. We are moving at least in the right direction. Regardless if you are Republican or Democrat, you have to cheer for this if you truly love your country.


Now bringing politics back into the fold, the GOP can not be happy about this coming so close to election time. Regardless of what they say or believe it is how the public views it.

It's a good sign as far as spending vs. revenue goes - at least it's a step in the right direction. It means ZIP as an economic indicator, though. That's just a bunch of pom-pom waving from folks who don't have a lot to cheer about otherwise. DOW down -2.6 points as we speak. It's been treading water all day despite this "breaking news".
 
You don't have to explain why. Households can't print money as they need it, so the dynamics aren't the same. Not that money printing is a good thing, though.

Thats not the reason... Households dont have a guaranteed income... countries/governments in the industrialized world do.
 
Thats not the reason... Households dont have a guaranteed income... countries/governments in the industrialized world do.

That wouldn't really explain why "household budgets" are so different from government budgets since some households DO have a guaranteed income and the government's revenue is NOT fixed.
 
It is good for our economy. But it is also driven by short-term factors; it doesn't exactly put us anywhere close to even for the year.

IOW, if we were morbidly obese, this month we actually got off the couch and walked on the treadmill for 15 minutes a day. Before going back to eating cheeseburgers. Hooray.

Can I steal this? This is classic. :lol:
 
Seems to me that how it worked out was that refusing to agree on cuts meant everyone could try to take credit for cutting spending and no one had to take the blame for anything that got cut. I do remember the lefties squealing that sequestration was an awful thing that only happened because republicans wouldn't "compromise" (in other words, go along with the democrats). In fact, Obama seemed to have his knickers in a twist because sequestration was where we ended up.
Sure that's wasn't the goal...but the debt limit deal was reached and included was cuts. It was...as usual at the last minute without time to hammer out where the cuts would happen. In place was put sequestration since it was assumed Congress would prefer to go in with a scalpel rather than a sledghammer. Ultimately...the cuts would happen...sequestration is still the worse way to do it. Using kitchen table talk speech...if you need to cut spending 300 bucks a month you probably would prefer to cut out "going out to eat" spending or "going to the movie" spending rather than a 5% cut to all your outlays regardless of importance or impact.
 
I just told you the black turnout won't be so good and the vote won't be so lopsided - And that was just one of many reasons I listed for why democrats are the ones that are worried right now. Thing is, you know it because you're a democrat. That's why you tried to derail the whole thread based on one FACTUAL statement that I made about democrats realizing they'll not get as much support from the black community without Obama as an historical "first black president" to vote for. That's not racism. That's reality. But the race card.... it's what you guys do.

You've overplayed it. It's worn completely out.

You maybe right that the black turnout will not be as high if the candidate was any other candidate but Hilary. We love the Clintons. If Obama didn't run I think Hilary would have still won because of the woman's vote.

A little advice to the GOP. If you want to dilute the black vote, stop ***king around with voting rights. We still have a bitter taste in our mouth from the 50s and that is a very sensitive subject. Honestly, I think that is what hurt you guys in the 2012 election. It was a self inflicted womb because you fire up the base.

Personally I am still shock that you guys are messing with women's right when you know the democrats are putting up the first woman presidential nominee in 2016 who is a very strong candidate. If Hilary is the democratic candidate, then you guys are going to destroyed with the women vote.
 
Sure that's wasn't the goal...but the debt limit deal was reached and included was cuts. It was...as usual at the last minute without time to hammer out where the cuts would happen. In place was put sequestration since it was assumed Congress would prefer to go in with a scalpel rather than a sledghammer. Ultimately...the cuts would happen...sequestration is still the worse way to do it. Using kitchen table talk speech...if you need to cut spending 300 bucks a month you probably would prefer to cut out "going out to eat" spending or "going to the movie" spending rather than a 5% cut to all your outlays regardless of importance or impact.

I have no doubt everyone would have preferred to go in with a scalpel than a bludgeon. No way that was going to happen, though. No one wanted to be the one that voted for cuts to programs that would be used against them in the next election. "John Doe voted to cut the funding for your blah blah blah".

Sequester solved that political problem for everyone in congress and all they had to do was pretend they were holding their grounds based on principles and honesty and they could all go home without any personal political fallout.
 
I know this is hard for partisans to
accept but... deficit ≠ debt.

Yes yes of-course.

It's the twisted reality of modern day liberal driven Fiscal rationalization.

Any news no matter how contrived is good news.
 
I have no doubt everyone would have preferred to go in with a scalpel than a bludgeon. No way that was going to happen, though. No one wanted to be the one that voted for cuts to programs that would be used against them in the next election. "John Doe voted to cut the funding for your blah blah blah".

Sequester solved that political problem for everyone in congress and all they had to do was pretend they were holding their grounds based on principles and honesty and they could all go home without any personal political fallout.

I agree with this. Cuts needed to be made, one way or another. Because no one in DC seems to have any real political backbone anymore, sequestration was the only reasonable option left.
 
It's a good sign as far as spending vs. revenue goes - at least it's a step in the right direction. It means ZIP as an economic indicator, though. That's just a bunch of pom-pom waving from folks who don't have a lot to cheer about otherwise. DOW down -2.6 points as we speak. It's been treading water all day despite this "breaking news".

And that is something to cheer for. I'm not saying our problems are over, all I am saying is spending is starting to slow down and this is something that I would assume would bring a little smile to the GOP, especially the tea party. But I understand the politics about it. If Romney was president today and the same news came out, the GOP would be all over it saying that it was the leadership of Romney that got us turned into the right direction.

I get it...Its all good ;)
 
You maybe right that the black turnout will not be as high if the candidate was any other candidate but Hilary. We love the Clintons. If Obama didn't run I think Hilary would have still won because of the woman's vote.

A little advice to the GOP. If you want to dilute the black vote, stop ***king around with voting rights. We still have a bitter taste in our mouth from the 50s and that is a very sensitive subject. Honestly, I think that is what hurt you guys in the 2012 election. It was a self inflicted womb because you fire up the base.

Personally I am still shock that you guys are messing with women's right when you know the democrats are putting up the first woman presidential nominee in 2016 who is a very strong candidate. If Hilary is the democratic candidate, then you guys are going to destroyed with the women vote.

I don't think the "woman vote" is a big deal, either. Those fire-breathing feminazis that would vote based on gender are already hardcore democrats. I doubt any woman that would otherwise vote "republican" would be swayed by a female democrat. Republican woman are either pro-lifers or at the very least apathetic to the whole "women's rights" schtick. There's not that much upside due to that, in my opinion. Women who "feel oppressed" and would vote for a woman president based on the fact that she's a woman - and vote cross-party to do it..... not many of those, I think.

Then you have to deal with the fact that misogyny is absolutely not a "white thing" and democrats may find they'll lose votes from other races because of those individuals that would never vote for a woman. I have a hunch there are some of those in the black and hispanic communities; having lived in both.
 
And that is something to cheer for. I'm not saying our problems are over, all I am saying is spending is starting to slow down and this is something that I would assume would bring a little smile to the GOP, especially the tea party. But I understand the politics about it. If Romney was president today and the same news came out, the GOP would be all over it saying that it was the leadership of Romney that got us turned into the right direction.

I get it...Its all good ;)

Probably would have resulted in GOP Pom Poms. IT would have still been complete crap as an economic indicator or a sign that the economy is doing better than expected. The street knows exactly what to expect from the economy and this isn't any surprise good news. It's just political talking points on parade.
 
You maybe right that the black turnout will not be as high if the candidate was any other candidate but Hilary. We love the Clintons. If Obama didn't run I think Hilary would have still won because of the woman's vote.

A little advice to the GOP. If you want to dilute the black vote, stop ***king around with voting rights. We still have a bitter taste in our mouth from the 50s and that is a very sensitive subject. Honestly, I think that is what hurt you guys in the 2012 election. It was a self inflicted womb because you fire up the base.

Personally I am still shock that you guys are messing with women's right when you know the democrats are putting up the first woman presidential nominee in 2016 who is a very strong candidate. If Hilary is the democratic candidate, then you guys are going to destroyed with the women vote.

without a black candidate, turnout might have been lower in 2016, but voter suppression laws will keep turnout high, and those who vote in 2016, will vote, as they have historically, in the high 80s or low 90s for whomever the Dem candidate is (black, white, green, or blue -- and if Cruz and Rubio are on the GOP ticket, Latinos will vote in even greater numbers for the Dems). BTW, can we assume that the Dem candidate will not be black or Latino, if it's not Hillary? Remember, Obama came out of no where pretty much ...
 
Then why does the right-wing have a persistent bearish mentality beginning with the election of Barrack Obama in 2008? The economy is obviously stronger than it was when the man went into office.

Obvious to you, perhaps. I can't tell the difference but I'm a small businessman, not a corporate giant.
 
That wouldn't really explain why "household budgets" are so different from government budgets since some households DO have a guaranteed income

Which?

and the government's revenue is NOT fixed.

No but it is there, unlike the average Joe who can loose his job and then have no income what so ever.
 
without a black candidate, turnout might have been lower in 2016, but voter suppression laws will keep turnout high, and those who vote in 2016, will vote, as they have historically, in the high 80s or low 90s for whomever the Dem candidate is (black, white, green, or blue -- and if Cruz and Rubio are on the GOP ticket, Latinos will vote in even greater numbers for the Dems). BTW, can we assume that the Dem candidate will not be black or Latino, if it's not Hillary? Remember, Obama came out of no where pretty much ...

Obama isn't black, either.
 
Then why does the right-wing have a persistent bearish mentality beginning with the election of Barrack Obama in 2008? The economy is obviously stronger than it was when the man went into office.

"Stronger than when he went in office", isn't saying much
 
Back
Top Bottom