• 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!

POLL: one-third say Impeach Obama

Anthony60 said:
Oh, good point. And who pays for all that?{list in post#248}
Click to expand...
The same people that have been paying for it for decades. The notion that the country can't afford to pay for a smaller social safety net than other countries have is baseless.
 
MTAtech said:
Reading comprehension is your friend. This is what I wrote in post# 206. I bolded the relevant portion to help you:
Click to expand...

Oh, good. Then your point was that is wasn't Bush's fault, and that he inherited the recession from Clinton. Who, I might add, raised taxes. Comprendo?
 
MTAtech said:
The same people that have been paying for it for decades.
Click to expand...

Here, let me just cut to the chase. It's a government. They suck up our money. They are a drain on the GDP. They contribute nothing to it. They produce nothing.

The notion that the country can't afford to pay for a smaller social safety net than other countries have is baseless.
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be a complete though? Or is there a point in there? Maybe some context? So we can pay less?
 
Boehner is a blatant irrational liar--and 80 or so GOP Reps are scared, looking for cover starting Friday.
And #3 Scalise, who represents the TEAbangers, refused to take impeachment off the table today and this past Sunday.
6 years of being for something before being against it--truly bi-polar.
It was just a month ago when impeachment was full steam ahead.
And then came the polls and the $2.1 million raised by Dems off of impeachment .
j-mac said:
I think Boehner has already answered that question...

Boehner flatly denies GOP plans to impeach Obama - CNN.com
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Boehner is a blatant irrational liar--and 80 or so GOP Reps are scared, looking for cover starting Friday.
And #3 Scalise, who represents the TEAbangers, refused to take impeachment off the table today and this past Sunday.
6 years of being for something before being against it--truly bi-polar.
It was just a month ago when impeachment was full steam ahead.
And then came the polls and the $2.1 million raised by Dems off of impeachment .
Click to expand...

Ofcourse Scalise shouldn't take anything off the table. It is a congressional check on the executive when the executive commits a high crime of misdemeanor. As a practical sense it is NOT going to happen no matter who wants it too. Demo's know this, but are stirring up **** to raise money because rightfully so they are scared of this November....And they should be.
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse Scalise shouldn't take anything off the table. It is a congressional check on the executive when the executive commits a high crime of misdemeanor. As a practical sense it is NOT going to happen no matter who wants it too. Demo's know this, but are stirring up **** to raise money because rightfully so they are scared of this November....And they should be.
Click to expand...

Dems have simply repeated what GOPs have said and it's the fault of Dems . :lamo
 
NIMBY said:
Dems have simply repeated what GOPs have said and it's the fault of Dems . :lamo
Click to expand...

No, that is not true. Demo's have seized on a few within the party's more zealous element, and as usual, according to playbook, you know try and paint the entire party with it...It's dishonest Nimby, and you know it.
 
You're talking about your GOP--we've heard nothing but impeachment talk since before the 2010 election.
Impeachment galvanizes the TEAs and the GOP fundraises/feeds off of it.

The GOP has been fund-raising off suing the President and impeaching him.
The GOP refuses to do their job in the House on Immigration and then fundraises off of it.

I'd say the Dems had pretty good teachers .
j-mac said:
No, that is not true. Demo's have seized on a few within the party's more zealous element, and as usual, according to playbook, you know try and paint the entire party with it...It's dishonest Nimby, and you know it.
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, good. Then your point was that is wasn't Bush's fault, and that he inherited the recession from Clinton. Who, I might add, raised taxes. Comprendo?
Click to expand...
First, try debating and not twisting other's words. What you are doing is what 10 year olds do. What I said was that Bush was not responsible for business cycles. Anyone who inferred that meant the predecessor was responsible would be stupid, so I know that's not what you could possible have meant. All presidents are not responsible for business cycles.

Second, yes, Clinton raised taxes in 1994 and although Republicans said it would kill the economy, what followed was the biggest economic boom in history. To suggest that the 1994 tax increases caused the recession of 2001 would also be a stupid conclusion, so I know that isn't what you meant.
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Here, let me just cut to the chase. It's a government. They suck up our money. They are a drain on the GDP. They contribute nothing to it. They produce nothing.


Is this supposed to be a complete though? (Sic). Or is there a point in there? Maybe some context? So we can pay less?
Click to expand...

Your first assertion that government doesn't contribute to GDP is easily dispelled by the fact that the formula for GDP contains government spending:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:

"C" is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy
"G" is the sum of government spending
"I" is the sum of all the country's businesses spending on capital
"NX" is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports. (NX = Exports - Imports)

My overall point is that the economy is highly dependent upon government investments, like roads, bridges, etc., but also the mechanics of government. Because I don't have to worry that my food, drugs and the airplane that I travel on are safe -- because a government inspector took care of that, I can focus on what I do. That makes an economy much more efficient.

150 years ago, the government built canals that the private sector wouldn't build. That increased commerce and expansion in marvelous ways that certainly did contribute to economic activity. The same is true for the interstate highway system. To deny that government helps the economy is merely ideological blindness.

Yes, I know that right-wingers cling to the faith like a religion that the government doesn't do anything good, just takes money and does nothing with it but even the most rudimentary review reveals that view is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
9/11 happened on Clinton's watch? The housing bubble occurred between 2005 and 2007. It must be, according to you, that one has the right to blame anything bad on the Democrats, no atter how long they left office.
Click to expand...

I never said 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch. You should read my post that you quoted again.
 
I say impeach the voters that re-elected both GW Bush and Obama (the initial elections are forgivable...they were unknowns then).


;)
 
NIMBY said:
The GOP fundraises to increase voter turn-out off of Impeaching President Obama--OKAY.
The Democrats fundraise to increase voter turn-out defending the President against Impeachment--not Okay .
Click to expand...

No NIMBY. There's a huge difference between people on the right like Sarah Palin advocating impeachment - she holds no office - and the WH and virtually every ranking leftist member of Congress claiming the right is after impeachment.
 
tres borrachos said:
I never said 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch. You should read my post that you quoted again.
Click to expand...
This is from post#232 (emphasis added):
tres borrachos said:
Paul Krugman would agree, because he's another full-on partisan.

It started on "Bush's watch". :roll: Everything was on "Bush's watch" to the partisans. The fact that the actions of the recession (and 9/11, and the housing bubble) all happened during Clinton's "watch" are never mentioned by the partisans. It doesn't suit the talking points.

By the way, Obama apparently doesn't have a "watch". Everything wrong in Obama's world is Bush's fault, just like everything wrong in Bush's world was Bush's fault. It wasn't Clinton's fault, none of it. It's always the predecessor's fault - unless of course the predecessor was a Democrat.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
This is from post#232 (emphasis added):
Click to expand...

The fact that the actions of the recession (and 9/11, and the housing bubble) all happened during Clinton's "watch"

The actions that caused.

I'm not stupid. Obviously i know who was President on 9/11/01.
 
MTAtech said:
First, try debating and not twisting other's words. What you are doing is what 10 year olds do. What I said was that Bush was not responsible for business cycles. Anyone who inferred that meant the predecessor was responsible would be stupid, so I know that's not what you could possible have meant. All presidents are not responsible for business cycles.

Second, yes, Clinton raised taxes in 1994 and although Republicans said it would kill the economy, what followed was the biggest economic boom in history. To suggest that the 1994 tax increases caused the recession of 2001 would also be a stupid conclusion, so I know that isn't what you meant.
Click to expand...

Ah, just business cycles. But you don't want to be stupid about it, okay.
 
MTAtech said:
Your first assertion that government doesn't contribute to GDP is easily dispelled by the fact that the formula for GDP contains government spending:

GDP = C + G + I + NX
Click to expand...
You know that government just spends money that it takes from the private sector, right?

My overall point is that the economy is highly dependent upon government investments, like roads, bridges, etc., but also the mechanics of government. Because I don't have to worry that my food, drugs and the airplane that I travel on are safe -- because a government inspector took care of that, I can focus on what I do. That makes an economy much more efficient.

Yes, I know that right-wingers cling to the faith like a religion that the government doesn't do anything good, just takes money and does nothing with it but even the most rudimentary review reveals that view is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Roads and bridges, etc... go through government because nobody builds that stuff on their own. Private companies actually build them.
I don't know where you got that last part. Government, under proper cantrol, can do a lot of good things. Our government is out of control.
 
humbolt said:
No NIMBY. There's a huge difference between people on the right like Sarah Palin advocating impeachment - she holds no office - and the WH and virtually
every ranking leftist member of Congress claiming the right is after impeachment
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

Yeah...it ain't gonna happen
Which is not to say he doesn't deserve it ... and ... it's not only ranking leftist members they have singing the same tune.
When you have so many of 'em saying the same words, every sentient observer should realize what game they're playing.
 
tres borrachos said:
This------------------^. That's the truth. It always seems to me like 1/3 is hard left, 1/3 is hard right, and 1/3 waffles around in the middle.
Click to expand...

Yup. From the OP:

The numbers generally fall in line with CNN results from the past two presidencies — 30 percent of Americans support impeachment for former President George W. Bush in 2006 and 29 percent support impeachment for former President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Click to expand...

Thirty (give or take a few) definitely seems to be the magic number.

To be fair, though, only 35% of Republicans thought it wouldn't be at all crazy to support impeachment in 2009. I guess the rest of them decided to wait for Obama to, you know, do stuff first.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
Paul Krugman would agree, because he's another full-on partisan.

It started on "Bush's watch". :roll: Everything was on "Bush's watch" to the partisans. The fact that the actions of the recession (and 9/11, and the housing bubble) all happened during Clinton's "watch" are never mentioned by the partisans. It doesn't suit the talking points.

By the way, Obama apparently doesn't have a "watch". Everything wrong in Obama's world is Bush's fault, just like everything wrong in Bush's world was Bush's fault. It wasn't Clinton's fault, none of it. It's always the predecessor's fault - unless of course the predecessor was a Democrat.
Click to expand...

I don't even consider Krugman to be an economist, his decisions are not based on economics at all, they are based on left wing ideas. He is a true disgrace.
I don't think Obama's "watch" has started yet, he's still campaigning, taking vacations, and generally living a lavish life, on our dime. He's still learning the ropes, as we suffer his incompetence.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Nice try......however Reagan ultimately regretted signing that immigration/amnesty bill...
Click to expand...

Oh, that's alright then. Let's just call it a mulligan. :roll:

Reagan signed the bill; he owns it. It doesn't matter how he felt later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom