• 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!

CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176:468]

What is impossible about the Republican demand, eliminating all exemptions and postponing implementation for a year? Explain please? Do you honestly believe that Obama and liberals give a damn about you?
obama ran on healthcare, won, had it upheld by the scotus, and it is law....time for the house to send the senate a clean spending bill, and get the government re-opened. no defunding it, no year long delay, time for repubs to move on.
 
Ever take a history course? You see to think that the Tea Party is a group of terrorists. the original Tea Party members were Patriots as is this current group. I

You do realize The Boston Tea Party was over tax cuts the British had passed so that legit importers could compete with smugglers. IOW they were protesting tax cuts
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

That would be true except for one thing: Barack Obama, he has proven that he is not a puppet by giving us--the people who hold your opinion--a fighting chance! That is the true genius of the Affordable care Act!

Wonder if ACA provides for free psychiatric care because a lot of liberals who aren't getting anything free and seeing their premiums go up are going to flood the industry seeking mental health treatment. How in the world could Obama lie to us? Increasing costs, lower service levels, and reduced quality.
 
What is impossible about the Republican demand, eliminating all exemptions and postponing implementation for a year? Explain please? Do you honestly believe that Obama and liberals give a damn about you?

What's wrong with postponing implementation for a year? Well, besides shutting down the government and risking a default, what's wrong with you waiting a year, at which point you can come back with real proof of the evils of Obamacare?--that is, unless you are fighting for what you know is an obvious lie, and that Obamacare is actually a good thing.

But, yes, I believe that Obama and the liberals care because now, thanks to the affordable care act, I can stay on my parents health plan until 26, which gives my parents that little extra bit of money they need, not only to send me to the school of my dreams, but send my little brother to college as well!
 
Last edited:
You do realize The Boston Tea Party was over tax couts the British had passed so that legit importers could compete with smugglers. IOW they were protesting tax cuts

Today's T.E.A. Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Thought you knew that.
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

Do you realize that a CR is based upon the previous budget which didn't have a trillion dollar deficit in it? What was 2008 spending levels and how could Bush create even a projected deficit in 2009 with 2 CR's at 2008 levels? You simply don't get it or are so bullheaded you refuse to get it. The Bush 2009 budget was submitted on time, never passed by the Democrat controlled Congress so CR's were passed all at current funding levels. Obama takes office, changes the 2009 budget, signs it, Congress approves it and of course blames Bush for the deficit. Obamabots and people like you buy the rhetoric but all that shows is ignorance.

REALITY: Bush Approved Or Planned To Spend Trillions Of Dollars In 2009

Fiscal Year 2009 Was More Than One-Fourth Over Before Obama Even Took Office. The federal government's fiscal year begins on October 1, ends on September 30, and is designated by the year in which it ends. Therefore, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, more than three months before Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009. [U.S. Senate, accessed 5/25/12]

Bush Signed A Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations Bill That Included More Than $600 Billion In Spending. In September 2008, Bush signed H.R. 2638, a bill that consolidated three of the 12 annual appropriations bills and provided more than $600 billion in spending, including $487.7 billion for the Defense Department, $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $72.9 billion for military construction and Veterans Affairs. [H.R. 2638, 9/30/08]

Bush Signed Appropriations For The Rest Of The Government That Covered Almost Half Of The 2009 Fiscal Year. H.R. 2638 included appropriations for the rest of the federal government from October 1, 2008, through March 6, 2009, more than five months of the 2009 fiscal year. [H.R. 2638, 9/30/08]

Without Counting TARP, Other Bailouts, And Other Emergency Spending, Bush Had Proposed To Spend $3.1 Trillion In 2009. From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush's original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009. [Ludwig von Mises Institute, 3/21/11]

Bush's FY 2009 Budget Also Did Not Include Funding For the Afghanistan And Iraq Wars. Bush's budget requested only $70 billion for "activities related to the Global War on Terror." Rather than include a number for Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget stated: "The Administration will request additional funding once the specific needs of our troops are better known." [White House FY 2009 Department of Defense budget, 2/4/08]
Based On Policies Enacted Before Obama Came Into Office, CBO Had Already Projected A $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2009. In a budget report released on January 7, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated, "The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP." CBO further stated, "A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending (much of it related to the government's actions to address the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute to the robust growth in this year's deficit. Compared with receipts last year, collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow by several percentage points. In addition, the estimated deficit includes outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of transactions of the TARP." [Congressional Budget Office, 1/7/09]

MarketWatch Column On Obama's Spending Restraint Stands Up To Attacks | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Today's T.E.A. Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Thought you knew that.

You are the one asking if people have ever taken a history class and rambling about the Tea Party,
 
What's wrong with postponing implementation for a year? Well, besides shutting down the government and risking a default, what's wrong with waiting a year, at which point you can come back with real proof of the evils of Obamacare?--that is, unless you are fighting for what you know is an obvious lie, and that Obamacare is actually a good thing.

But, yest, I believe that Obama and the liberals care because now, thanks to the affordable care act, I can stay on my parents health plan until 26, which gives my parents that little extra bit of money they need, not only to send me to the school of my dreams, but send my little brother to college as well!


What default? Why do you buy what Obama tells you? What is preventing the Federal Govt. from paying debt service on the debt with the income coming in monthly from the taxpayers? We a 17 trillion dollar debt or didn't you know that? I think you are naïve, gullible, and poorly informed so we are at an impasse. Both of us have different opinions.
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

REALITY: Bush Approved Or Planned To Spend Trillions Of Dollars In 2009

Fiscal Year 2009 Was More Than One-Fourth Over Before Obama Even Took Office. The federal government's fiscal year begins on October 1, ends on September 30, and is designated by the year in which it ends. Therefore, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, more than three months before Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009. [U.S. Senate, accessed 5/25/12]

Bush Signed A Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations Bill That Included More Than $600 Billion In Spending. In September 2008, Bush signed H.R. 2638, a bill that consolidated three of the 12 annual appropriations bills and provided more than $600 billion in spending, including $487.7 billion for the Defense Department, $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $72.9 billion for military construction and Veterans Affairs. [H.R. 2638, 9/30/08]

Bush Signed Appropriations For The Rest Of The Government That Covered Almost Half Of The 2009 Fiscal Year. H.R. 2638 included appropriations for the rest of the federal government from October 1, 2008, through March 6, 2009, more than five months of the 2009 fiscal year. [H.R. 2638, 9/30/08]

Without Counting TARP, Other Bailouts, And Other Emergency Spending, Bush Had Proposed To Spend $3.1 Trillion In 2009. From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush's original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009. [Ludwig von Mises Institute, 3/21/11]

Bush's FY 2009 Budget Also Did Not Include Funding For the Afghanistan And Iraq Wars. Bush's budget requested only $70 billion for "activities related to the Global War on Terror." Rather than include a number for Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget stated: "The Administration will request additional funding once the specific needs of our troops are better known." [White House FY 2009 Department of Defense budget, 2/4/08]
Based On Policies Enacted Before Obama Came Into Office, CBO Had Already Projected A $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2009. In a budget report released on January 7, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated, "The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP." CBO further stated, "A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending (much of it related to the government's actions to address the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute to the robust growth in this year's deficit. Compared with receipts last year, collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow by several percentage points. In addition, the estimated deficit includes outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of transactions of the TARP." [Congressional Budget Office, 1/7/09]

MarketWatch Column On Obama's Spending Restraint Stands Up To Attacks | Research | Media Matters for America

Love it, do you ever think before you post? What was the spending in 2009? CR's covered spending from October to March and didn't accumulate the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit the fiscal year generated but then again I guess the Treasury Dept was wrong. After all they only pay the bills and collect the revenue. Instead of getting your information from our bank you go on the outside and buy what you are told. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and ignorance. I hope you are getting paid well by the Obama Administration.

Do you realize that actual proposals and actual spending are two different things?

Without Counting TARP, Other Bailouts, And Other Emergency Spending, Bush Had Proposed To Spend $3.1 Trillion In 2009. From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Had we spent the 3.1 trillion dollars, had we credited TARP Repayment, we wouldn't have had a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit
 
What default? Why do you buy what Obama tells you? What is preventing the Federal Govt. from paying debt service on the debt with the income coming in monthly from the taxpayers? We a 17 trillion dollar debt or didn't you know that? I think you are naïve, gullible, and poorly informed so we are at an impasse. Both of us have different opinions.

Man, call me gullible, but when Barack Obama spoke at the DNC and said that it was all thanks to people like me, even though I didn't believe him at first, it hit me deep, and now I realize that this whole time he was in fact telling the truth. Look, all we need is a chance--I'm talking about you and me--but the truth is that the tea party and republicans are the ones who don't want us to have a chance, and why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HOLD ON TO ALL THE POWER!--honestly, think about it.
 
Last edited:
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

Love it, do you ever think before you post? What was the spending in 2009? CR's covered spending from October to March and didn't accumulate the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit the fiscal year generated but then again I guess the Treasury Dept was wrong. After all they only pay the bills and collect the revenue. Instead of getting your information from our bank you go on the outside and buy what you are told. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and ignorance. I hope you are getting paid well by the Obama Administration.

Do you realize that actual proposals and actual spending are two different things?



Had we spent the 3.1 trillion dollars, had we credited TARP Repayment, we wouldn't have had a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit
FFS con, you cannot take repayment into account until you actually have it. First you use projections in previous posts, then argue against them, then want to use them........ before you even know what the repayment will be!
 
Man, call me gullible, but when Barack Obama spoke at the DNC and said that it was all thanks to people like me, even though I didn't believe him at first, it hit me deep, and now I realize that this whole time he was in fact telling the truth. Look, all we need is a chance--I'm talking about you and me--but the truth is that the tea party and republicans are the ones who don't want us to have a chance, and why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HOLD ON TO ALL THE POWER!--honestly, think about it.

P.S. I'm from Virginia

LOL, you play a great liberal, glad you are having fun. You are right, those damn T.E.A. Party members who believe that if you have the freedom of choice to murder your own unborn baby that you should also have the freedom of choice to be an idiot and not purchase healthcare insurance and not be forced by the Federal Govt. to do it.
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

FFS con, you cannot take repayment into account until you actually have it. First you use projections in previous posts, then argue against them, then want to use them........ before you even know what the repayment will be!

The TARP repayment schedule shows when money came back into the Treasury and there was significant repayment in 2009 especially by banks that didn't want TARP in the first place.
 
What good is supporting the politicians(GOP, TEA PARTY, RIGHT-WING) with all the connections if they won't make those connections work for people like us? I'm talking about what's best for you... ARE YOU A MILLIONAIRE? Do you want to be one? Well, okay then, you better wake up and help us break the tea party!; otherwise, you will find yourself in a losing battle, and guess what?--They are going to put you on the front lines! Are you willing to die for them? Well guess what I'm willing to die for what I believe in!
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

The bottom line is that the minute the "Communist from Kenya" was elected, the GOP strategy has been to play to their racist base and obstruct everything he tried to do, blaming all failure on the "nigger". It's pretty disgusting. But, it's exactly what they have been doing for 5 years.

If that were true, then you would believe that if Obama adopted a program the same as the republicans (no to government healthcare, cut taxes, decrease government, etc...) they would still try to make him a failure, even though he was doing what they wanted. That's where your offensive, childish, vulger argument falls apart. Yours is one of the most pathetic posts I've ever seen on these boards. Nice job.
 
What good is supporting the politicians(GOP, TEA PARTY, RIGHT-WING) with all the connections if they won't make those connections work for people like us? I'm talking about what's best for you... ARE YOU A MILLIONAIRE? Do you want to be one? Well, okay then, you better wake up and help us break the tea party!; otherwise, you will find yourself in a losing battle, and guess what?--They are going to put you on the front lines! Are you willing to die for them? Well guess what I'm willing to die for what I believe in!

The country was founded on equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

Uh, no I didn't I answered the question raised about Bush's job growth which is better than Obama's yet liberals want to divert from that Obama record. Suggest you read a little more and post a little less for you would see who I am responding to. Might make things a little easier for you to understand. Obamabots buy what they are told and ignore the Obama economic results today but that doesn't stop them from diverting to Bush. I will always set the record straight and do so with actual verifiable numbers. Here are the employment numbers for both Bush and Obama

Sorry, I chimed in because you posted a completely false statement. Here are cumulative graphs of private and public sector job growth (through April of this year). At this point their Presidencies, we had lost 1,000,000 private sector jobs under Bush, but gained 2,000,000 under Obama. That's a difference of 3,000,000 private sector jobs.

In contrast, by this point in his presidency Bush had increased the size of the Government workforce by 850,000. Under Obama the government workforce lost 750,000 jobs.

That brings the score to Obama presided over the creation of 3,000,000 more private sector jobs than Bush, while Bush added 1.6 million more government jobs.

Now I'm not going to pretend that job creation under Obama has been good. But Obama has been more successful and achieved more CONSERVATIVE priorities than Bush. Thems are facts.
PrivateBushObama.jpgPulbicBushObama.jpg
 
The country was founded on equal opportunity, not equal outcome...

You're right; Barack Obama has restored good faith to the country on this premise, but, still, that's even more of a reason to destroy the tea party! You see, as long as the tea party can shut down the government on a whim, simply because they have the money to do it--our job is not done. Now is the time to stand together and transcend these petty political differences; we are on the verge of a new era--it's called world peace--and the only thing standing in our way is the tea party and their complaisant republican allies!
 
You're right; Barack Obama has restored good faith to the country on this premise, but, still, that's even more of a reason to destroy the tea party! You see, as long as the tea party can shut down the government on a whim, simply because they have the money to do it--our job is not done. Now is the time to stand together and transcend these petty political differences; we are on the verge of a new era--it's called world peace--and the only thing standing in our way is the tea party and their complaisant republican allies!

Were you equally appalled when the Dems shut down government?
 
Were you equally appalled when the Dems shut down government?

Like Obama said, it's time to move forward! So if you are in any way trying to justify the position of the republicans, by blaming American politics or our system instead, then I will have to, respectfully, disagree.
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

The TARP repayment schedule shows when money came back into the Treasury and there was significant repayment in 2009 especially by banks that didn't want TARP in the first place.
What point are you making other than some repayment was made AFTER the 2009 budget was signed off on, by and large, by Bush prior to Obama's inauguration.

Are you arguing that the 2009 spending budget has to guess at future recovery of bank bailouts?
 
Like Obama said, it's time to move forward! So if you are in any way trying to justify the position of the republicans, by blaming American politics or our system instead, then I will have to, respectfully, disagree.

If it's time to move forward, why is the President refusing to sit down with all sides to try to find a resolution to the impasse? As it is now, the President wants to get everything in exchange for future negotiations which we all know will never occur...
 
The country was founded on equal opportunity, not equal outcome...

Ironic how that message has been blurred lately! It does, however, serve to divide, which is interesting when you consider that those doing the dividing are part of the wealthy that are being vilified. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and many others in DC are multi-millionaires today, but you sure wouldn't know know that if, as a poor person, all you heard from them was "it's the wealthy that are the problem." Uninformed people are certainly a plus when one has an agenda!

Greetings, AP. :2wave:
 
If it's time to move forward, why is the President refusing to sit down with all sides to try to find a resolution to the impasse? As it is now, the President wants to get everything in exchange for future negotiations which we all know will never occur...

Because the crux of the disagreement is over the issue of obamacare. The healthcare exchanges are already up and running so what is the point of delaying it now? Besides the democrats are sick of having to return to the issue of health care reform every time the house votes to defund or repeal obamacare. Why is it neccessary to to vote on the same law 40 times when there are other things do.
 
Back
Top Bottom