• 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

How is it then that every bad thing that happens is the fault of the president (according to his opponents), and every good thing that happens is also because of the president (according to his supporters)?

Politics. That exactly what Im trying to get away from. Reduce the President back to what it was supposed to be, an executor of the policies of the congress, a military leader, a single voice in foreign policy, and a check on the absolute power of congress.
 
You really have no idea what you are talking about if you believe that the President of the United States doesn't dictate the legislative agenda to the Congress. you seem very naïve and gullible. We do have a celebrity President right now who acts like a king ruling by executive order.

So im dumb?
 
I'm sure you didn't support the bailouts of the S and L, nor the arms sales to the Iranians. You probably weren't too happy about amnesty for illegals, either, and yet you bring Reagan up as a great example of leadership. That is quite puzzling.

But, back to the subject of the thread: It appears that the deficit is about half of what it was during the campaign. I can recall both candidates claiming to plan to reduce the deficit over ten years, but neither of them projecting anything like a halving of it this soon.

It seems pretty unlikely that Obama has done anything to bring about such a reduction, and yet the opposition seems to be intent on claiming that the economy can't possibly be improving with a Democrat still in the White House, while Obama supporters are equally intent on his claiming credit.

It's almost like beliefs and biases trump facts.

What's that? Oh, take out "almost" and insert "politics"? Right. Insert politics into anything, and facts really don't matter any more.

What do you think putting 21 plus million Americans back to work full time would do for the economy and that deficit? What do you think a pro growth economic policy would do for economic growth which some economists are claiming contracted the last quarter? This is about lack of leadership and lack of a positive economic policy by Obama that is being ignored by supporters.
 
What do you think putting 21 plus million Americans back to work full time would do for the economy and that deficit? What do you think a pro growth economic policy would do for economic growth which some economists are claiming contracted the last quarter? This is about lack of leadership and lack of a positive economic policy by Obama that is being ignored by supporters.

Oh, I'm sure that that many full time jobs would do wonders for the economy. I'm just not sure how the government could accomplish such a thing.
 
Oh, I'm sure that that many full time jobs would do wonders for the economy. I'm just not sure how the government could accomplish such a thing.

In a private sector economy, the role of the govt. is to provide the incentive and get out of the way.
 
In a private sector economy, the role of the govt. is to provide the incentive and get out of the way.

To a point, yes. Some regulation is necessary to assure that the private sector economy doesn't make bad loans and then sell them off as solid investments, among other things.

When has the government ever actually provided the incentive and gotten out of the way? Is out of control growth of government something new, just of the past few years, or has it been going on under both Republicans and Democrats for several decades now?
 
To a point, yes. Some regulation is necessary to assure that the private sector economy doesn't make bad loans and then sell them off as solid investments, among other things.

When has the government ever actually provided the incentive and gotten out of the way? Is out of control growth of government something new, just of the past few years, or has it been going on under both Republicans and Democrats for several decades now?

We have a thriving economy when we have a pro private sector economy and a govt. that isn't implementing policies like Obamacare, higher taxes, and extensions of unemployment benefits that stunt economic growth and job creation.
 
We have a thriving economy when we have a pro private sector economy and a govt. that isn't implementing policies like Obamacare, higher taxes, and extensions of unemployment benefits that stunt economic growth and job creation.

You mean like we had back in the 1930s?
 
Technically speaking, not a Budget Surplus (projected revenue in excess of projected spending)

It's a revenue (in revenue vs. outlays) surplus, in which actual revenue exceeded outlays in a given accounting period.

Think of the US Budget in the same vein you would your household budget, were you and your SO to sit down on Jan 1 and make a budget: would it be spot-on come December 31? Nope. Just a guideline, with some wishful thinking. Ditto on US Budgets.
 
I had no interest in living through the great depression, so I held off being born until it was over.

See, you do control your own destiny much to the dismay of liberal politicians who believe you aren't smart enough to survive without their help.
 
Nearly all of human history we are aware of involves tyranny. Our experiment in self rule is nearly at an end. Imagine me agreeing with something that PowerRob agrees with. Perhaps he misread it.

If our experiment in self rule is nearly at an end, should we not we expand, improve, and uphold it? Failure to do would mean the fall of America itself. In addition, extended periods of war always result in economic recession, decisive defeat, increased dictatorial and tyrannical mindsets from rulers, or worse.

It happened to the Romans, it happened to all of the Colonial powers including England, it happened to the Soviets, and now it's happening to us.

Furthermore, many wars in which nations attempt occupation of other states and face enemies using irregular tactics and strategies eventually lead to the victory of the defenders. Again, Rome. Before that, the Wu-Chu war where Sun Tzu practiced his genius. The American Revolution. The little-known Peninsular War primarily between France and Spain where the term "guerrilla"was actually coined. Vietnam, of course. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Point is, we are involved in two wars in which we are up against irregular fighters and have no decisive victory goals. To maintain public support, our leaders are hilariously and hypocritically fighting the "War on Terror" while causing far more fear, uncertainty, and doubt than existed before their new authoritarian policies were put into place. In fact, a recent poll has shown that Americans now fear their own government more than terrorism.

This is a perfect storm, a perfect storm for the collapse of an empire. Of course, people are just going to sit back, let it happen, then find that it is far too late to do anything about it. The government has conditioned us to do so.
 
See, you do control your own destiny much to the dismay of liberal politicians who believe you aren't smart enough to survive without their help.

We all control our own destiny to a degree. We make our own decisions, then the results of those decisions determine what happens to us.
But, is it only "liberal" politicians who think we need them to protect us from ourselves? It seems to me that there are authoritarians on both sides of the aisles, each with different goals, but neither with the goal of individual self determination.
 
If our experiment in self rule is nearly at an end, should we not we expand, improve, and uphold it? Failure to do would mean the fall of America itself. In addition, extended periods of war always result in economic recession, decisive defeat, increased dictatorial and tyrannical mindsets from rulers, or worse.

It happened to the Romans, it happened to all of the Colonial powers including England, it happened to the Soviets, and now it's happening to us.

Furthermore, many wars in which nations attempt occupation of other states and face enemies using irregular tactics and strategies eventually lead to the victory of the defenders. Again, Rome. Before that, the Wu-Chu war where Sun Tzu practiced his genius. The American Revolution. The little-known Peninsular War primarily between France and Spain where the term "guerrilla"was actually coined. Vietnam, of course. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Point is, we are involved in two wars in which we are up against irregular fighters and have no decisive victory goals. To maintain public support, our leaders are hilariously and hypocritically fighting the "War on Terror" while causing far more fear, uncertainty, and doubt than existed before their new authoritarian policies were put into place. In fact, a recent poll has shown that Americans now fear their own government more than terrorism.

This is a perfect storm, a perfect storm for the collapse of an empire. Of course, people are just going to sit back, let it happen, then find that it is far too late to do anything about it. The government has conditioned us to do so.

You'd have thought we would have learned from history, or at least from our own experience in Vietnam, but no, we're still trying to be the world cop.

And when the American "empire" collapses, who will take over as world "superpower?"
 
We all control our own destiny to a degree. We make our own decisions, then the results of those decisions determine what happens to us.
But, is it only "liberal" politicians who think we need them to protect us from ourselves? It seems to me that there are authoritarians on both sides of the aisles, each with different goals, but neither with the goal of individual self determination.

Obama and Democrats since 2007 have put programs designed for "helping" individuals on steroids such as expansion of unemployment benefits to over two years, Obamacare, expansion of food stamps and other welfare programs.

I agree that Republicans have contributed with programs such as TARP but you don't see Republicans promoting expansion of welfare programs and other anti growth programs.
 
Obama and Democrats since 2007 have put programs designed for "helping" individuals on steroids such as expansion of unemployment benefits to over two years, Obamacare, expansion of food stamps and other welfare programs.

I agree that Republicans have contributed with programs such as TARP but you don't see Republicans promoting expansion of welfare programs and other anti growth programs.

Medicare part D?

It's the so called "social conservatives" who seem to want to save us from ourselves.
 
Medicare part D?

It's the so called "social conservatives" who seem to want to save us from ourselves.

Yes, but Medicare Part D was half the cost of what Democrats wanted and actually put market based incentives into the program.
 
Obama and Democrats since 2007 have put programs designed for "helping" individuals on steroids such as expansion of unemployment benefits to over two years, Obamacare, expansion of food stamps and other welfare programs.

I agree that Republicans have contributed with programs such as TARP but you don't see Republicans promoting expansion of welfare programs and other anti growth programs.

"Anti-growth" programs. :lamo

I suppose another dozen fighter jets would help us grow more?
 
You'd have thought we would have learned from history, or at least from our own experience in Vietnam, but no, we're still trying to be the world cop.

And when the American "empire" collapses, who will take over as world "superpower?"

China, of course. They're already setting themselves up to be less reliant on the dollar. They've already got Australia on board and will be trading between the Australian dollar and the yuan by sometime next year.
 
"Anti-growth" programs. :lamo

I suppose another dozen fighter jets would help us grow more?

You have no idea the amount of industry involved in the manufacture of a dozen fighter jets do you?
 
You have no idea the amount of industry involved in the manufacture of a dozen fighter jets do you?

Let's see... make a dozen fighter jets, that creates jobs for sure. They are jobs paid for by the taxpayer, but, then, they are jobs.
Then give those fighter jets away, and build some more

or...

build a dozen new bridges, and you've also created jobs.

and, once they're built, we have new bridges to replace the ones that were built half a century or more ago and are ready to be replaced.

but, you can't give the bridges away to Egypt, now can you? We just have to use them ourselves.
 
You'd have thought we would have learned from history, or at least from our own experience in Vietnam, but no, we're still trying to be the world cop.

And when the American "empire" collapses, who will take over as world "superpower?"
America will not end because of external wars. It will end because we elected dishonorable people who would plunder our neighbors on our behalf. We are collapsing from the inside. The enemy are all traitors within.
 
Back
Top Bottom