• 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!

U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

At this stage the figures coming from America are unreliable and cannot be trusted.

And how the hell does the worlds sole superpower run a deficit? Way to lead America.

Why don't you turn profit? Like China.

Why don't you cut spending and live within your means? When will you have real austerity? You can't keep Reserve Status! Why won't you live within means!?

The world is going to take reserve status from you and then you will be forced to live within means.
 
You say that you agree but still would not acknowledge that the GOP blames Obama for every single thing that goes wrong.

So what? The reverse is true as well. Obama is not famous for taking responsibility but is quick to point fingers.
 
You continue to paint me with a particular brush in an effort to create some parity between me and Republicans.

Indeed, I continue to paint you with a brush that you're using facts to give an exaggerated impression of the realities of Obama's supposed successes and are grossly exaggerating in your attitude and presentation how much good he's actually done as it relates to deficits.

I'm stating facts.

So have I. I've still been waiting for you to point out which of the facts I've stated are incorrect.

I haven't disagreed that you've been stating facts. What I have been doing is highlighting that your OPINION that you use those facts as a basis for is still an OPINION despite being butressed by fact. And I've been highlighting that your facts are presented through the subjective scope of context that you've chosen and that if a different scope of context is chosen then those "facts" we see change the overall picture.

Under the Obama presidency, the deficit has continued the drop year after year. Under all of the Republican presidents of recent history, the deficit has increased overall, sometimes by wide margins.

Both statements are facts.

Indeed.

And the statement that under Republican controlled congresses the deficits has continued to drop year after year, and under all of the Democratic congresses in recent history, the deficit has increased overall, sometimes by wide margins.

That statement is also fact.

That is not to say that I necessarily give more credit to congress than the President, or vise versa, as it comes to deficits. Rather, it's to highlight that pointing out a fact (That Obama has brought the deficit down each year) doesn't necessarily mean your implied assertion (that Obama is doing a good job with the deficit) is a "fact". One is a fact, the other is an opinion. Your opinion being butressed by fact doesn't magically make said opinion a fact.

Much like you're doing now.

Up to the post you quoted I've done no such thing. I've simply highlighted numerous FACTS that show that one can argue that while Obama has done good in relation to the start of his term, over all he has done rather poorly with regards to the deficit in the context of history. Additionally, even after the post you quoted when I did lay out the notion of congress, I did so not actually asserting that Congress deserves MORE or LESS credit for the deficit but rather highlighting exactly why scream "FACT FACT FACT" at the top of your lung doesn't actually make your opinion based conclussion from those facts a fact in and of itself.
 
At this stage the figures coming from America are unreliable and cannot be trusted.
Yeah, generally speaking, it can. The figures are fine. It's all public, it's all reviewed.


And how the hell does the worlds sole superpower run a deficit? Way to lead America.
So what you're saying is, you don't understand macroeconomics?


Why don't you turn profit? Like China.
You mean, like this?

china-government-budget-value.png


china-government-budget.png


Oh, and I'm sure we can trust budget numbers from a single-party totalitarian government with zero transparency. Yep, no problems there :lamo


Why don't you cut spending and live within your means?
You, uh, do understand that governments don't actually operate like teenagers with an allowance, right?


When will you have real austerity?
You, uh, do understand that austerity is the worst thing you can do during a recession and recovery, right?

You do understand that this thread is about how the deficit actually shrank this year?

Can you actually go through the budget, line by line, and tell us what to cut in order to produce a surplus big enough to take a bite out of the total debt in a 10 year period? While you're at it, which taxes should we raise, since it's unrealistic to assume we can cut our way to a surplus, especially since many of those cuts will drag down the economy as a whole?


You can't keep Reserve Status! The world is going to take reserve status from you and then you will be forced to live within means.
:lol

What, is the ECB going to send us a nastygram in the mail? Does the UN confer "reserve status" on a nation?

You do know that reserve holdings of the USD increased in the past few years, right? That 87% of the world's reserves is in USD?

Can you articulate why other nations expanding the use of the Euro or some other currency as a reserve will magically force the US to "live within its means?" Will no one want to buy Treasuries if the USD is not a reserve currency?
 

Clearly you lack an understanding of the subtlety of satire, or else you'd have noticed that I purposefully parodied the exact language of Tettsuo's post to demonstrate a point rather than to put forth a sincere argument based on my own beliefs. It's too bad you apparently lack the grasp of such a technique, it's one routinely used by a number of posters such as Redress or Captain Courtsey. I'd suggest you seek to understand such a thing. A good hint is when the start of someones post is the exact mirror image of the person they're responding to.

All the rest of your post is blabbering on and on attempting to explain away, give context to, or provide alternative reasonings for the facts I presented...but in no way, shape, or form actually stating the FACTS I stated were wrong.

And you know what, that's absolutely fine.

But it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Multiple people in this thread continue to make or imply conclussions and scream loudly that they are being backed up by FACTS. When people question them about the context and actual reasoning behind those facts, as you're doing here to my post, these individuals have generally launched back with a "these are facts, deal with it" style attitude dismissing any further discussion as to the "what" or "why" behind said facts.

Your questioning of my facts does a wonderful job of illustrating the issue with just screaming "Facts facts facts" over again and acting like they are gospel truth that can't possibly be examined or interprited in a variety of ways. Which is exactly one of the points I was attempting to make. Perhaps you missed it with my final paragraph where I highlighted specifically the fact that I was illustrated the issue with trying to present statistical facts as some kind of absolute method of proving ones opinion.

Let's be perfectly blunt here with yourself though and what you find "nice". You have no issue with the people who initiated the providing of overly simplified and selective analysis labeled as "facts" because it meshes with your hyper partisan world view, but you suddenly do have an issue when I'm presenting it not as a serious argument but as an example highlighting the issue with their premise. Yeah, that is "nice".
 
That's a nice list... but you've not actually addressed anything I said.

Sure I have. I've acknowledged already in this thread that Obama has reduced the deficit as it relates to it's level at the time he came into office. This post wasn't and hasn't tried to argue that claim is incorrect.

What this post is doing...and I assure you, it absolutely is addressing your post...is highlighting the faulty nature of your logic.

Your entire premise seems to be that your OPINION based conclussions are butressed by "facts" and therefore must be absolute truths, rather than opinions, that must have no other explanations other those facts you've presented. What my post was doing was highlighting that through the use of arbitrary contextual selections and methods of measurement one can craft a variety of facts that one can use to try and present their opinion as something other than an opinion.

Secondly, it does address your original assertion. It's not my fault you've since moved the goal posts, nor is it my responsability to deal singularly with your moved goal posts. Your initial sneering comment suggested REPUBLICANS in general, not republican presidents, have not been "consistent and reliable deficit increasers". My facts were presented to highlight the issue that you were trying to present your OPINION as "Fact" based on one set of facts, while ignoring another set of facts that tells an entirely different story.

If one looks only at the presidency, one could say republicans have been a consistent and reliable deficit increasers. If one looks at the Congress, one could say republicans have been a consistent and reliable deficit decrease. In both cases, the assertion's legitimacy depends on the "facts" one is subjectively choosing to use. Which was my point.

Conservative presidents don't preside over deficit reduction is a fact (in recent history).

And Republican congresses do preside over deficit reduction is a fact (in recent history) as well. So while it's accurate if one wishes to talk about just conservative presidents, which you've since done by moving the goal posts, it's inaccurate to claim it for "republicans" in general as you did in the OP.

Another fact is the deficit does not consistently rise and fall based on which party controls Congress.

Um. yes it does. I'm sorry that "fact" bothers you, but it does.

It fell both times Republicans had full controll since 1989. It's risen both times the Democrats have had control since 1989. The only time it's been inconsistent in that time frame is the two periods of time that congress has been split. That is absolutely consistent.

Of the 10 years of total republican control it fell 80% of the time. Of the 10 years of total democratic control it fell 50% of the time. That's a pretty consistent rate for falling under the republicans, and a pretty consistent walk down the middle of the democrats.

which is why you had to hopscotch years in order for your narrative to work.

I had to "hopscotch" years because the congress changes controll. Just because congresses changes control more often then a president doesn't mean I'm "hopscotching".

Dem's had control 89 to 1994.
Reps had control 95 to 2000
Split controll from 01 to 2002
Reps had control from 03 to 2006
Dems had control from 07 to 2010
Split control from 11 to the present

That's fact, that's reality. I didn't "hop" over any time frame, I looked at every single year during that time frame...just as you were doing with the presidency.

Your annoyance and pitiful attempt to dismiss my facts (while desperately avoiding acknowledging they're true since you can't prove otherwise) highlights exactly my point as to what you're doing. You were hoping to sit here and scream "fact fact fact" and make everyone just think that your assertion based on those facts are absolutely true without any further analysis. Now that someone is presenting a similar style, but with the opposite effect, you're getting huffy about it and trying to just hand wave it away.

My "facts" are no less true than yours. My pointing at them is no more arbitrary or less "clear" than yours.

I thank you for the reasonable argument, but I'd wish you'd actually address my point instead of redirecting it.

No, what you wish is that I'd just accept your "facts" as the only "facts" avialable, that I'd accepted your subjective starting point as the only one available, that I accept your opinion of what it should be measured against as fact, and that I should ignore you moving the goal posts and that there are more "republicans" in government than just the President. Unfortunately, that "wish" is not going to happen. I am addressing your point, and to do so I have to address the flawed method in which you're making your point.
 
Jobs created would be additional jobs from when the recession started.

Now you are recreating terminology to suit your position of weakness. There were 10 million jobs created on Obama's watch. It is a fact, whether you care to admit it or not.
 
Why should I answer any question of yours if you refuse to answer any question I've posted?

I just answered your question, the Republicans only controlled the Congress and WH during the Bush term from 2004-2007 and did you notice the budget deficits. You asked the question and I gave you the answer. You just don't like the answer. That is the only time in the last 50 years that happened thus your chart is distorted at best
 
And yet Bush, who had full control of both Houses, increased the deficit. Reagan also increased the deficit.

Why do Republicans not seem to be able to reduce the deficit when they have the White House? Is it their policies? What?

Personally, I blame their policy of supply side economics. Until they release that fetish, they'll always increase the deficit.

You really don't seem to have a grasp on history. The Republicans only controlled the Congress and WH after the 2004 election until Democrats took control in the 2006 elections. I believe most here will accept an apology from you for being wrong so try it.
 
I'm tired of this false narrative. The Obama economy has far outstripped all other western economies is GDP growth and unemployment reduction since the Bush meltdown.
The question should be why has Obama succeeded where other leaders have failed?


Two-Speed Recovery: US vs. EU | World Affairs Journal
chart-of-the-day-real-gdp-rebased-to-100-in-2003-april-2012.jpg


CHART OF THE DAY: US Vs. UK Growth - Business Insider

Then please explain to me why Obama has lost 13% of his support since taking office? Could it be that the majority in this country don't see what you see? Could it be that the numbers that really matter are the stagnant economic growth, 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 7 plus trillion added to the debt, and a world that is less safe today than when he took office?

Guess the real facts will always get in the way of your opinions. As for the U.S. economy outpacing the world, when has never been the case?
 
You really don't seem to have a grasp on history. The Republicans only controlled the Congress and WH after the 2004 election until Democrats took control in the 2006 elections. I believe most here will accept an apology from you for being wrong so try it.

Sooo, the Republican did indeed control both Congress and the White House.

What am I apologizing for again?
 
So you are pretending that the tax cuts, the Iraq war and the prescription drug benefit bill that he signed were not Bush's responsibility? Who was responsible then?

Do you believe keeping more of what you earn has to be paid for? Don't you spend, save, invest, or pay down debt with that extra money? How does that affect economic growth and the economy?
 

I'll also be honest, I may be more irked by your post then is rightly fair. There's been a host of various posters over the past week or so that I've ran into in various threads that have basically been using the tactic of:

1. Imply or say an assertion
2. Say a fact that backs up that assertion
3. Present said fact as if it's the only way to view the issue
4. Act as if initial assertion is fact by continually pointing to the fact stated in step 2

Simply spit balling out statistics and facts helps give some meat to a persons opinion, but doesn't magically turn ones opinion into fact. Additionally, something being a fact doesn't mean how one interprits that fact is ALSO a fact.

To explain another way.

Say I state "It's 50 degrees outside, it's cold".

The notion that it's "50 degrees outside" is a fact. Whether or not it's "cold" however is subjective opinion and depends entirley on how I'm viewing and measuring that fact I initially stated.

Then say someone goes "It's not cold! It was 20 degrees yesterday, this is practically spring". And I retort "It's 50 degrees out, that's a fact"...ignoring that they didn't actually argue that it wasn't 50 degrees, they were arguing with my assertion that it's cold. But all I'm doing is pointing back to the "fact" I posted and acting like my subjective opinion of what that fact means (that it's cold) is the only way to interprit it. Thus, I think that just repeating the fact over and over again somehow is disproving their disagreement with my assertion.

So back to my point with you...

I get, in general, what you're doing. You're annoyed that SOME republicans went over board decrying Obama as an apocolyptic budgetary figure who would drive us into horrible horrible deficits and the facts, based on your subjective choice of the scope you wish to look at, suggests that's not the case and you're having a good laugh at it. And that's fine.

My annoyance however was that you seemingly weren't simply implying he's not as bad as the Republicans made him out to be but rather than he's actually been GOOD. Those are two WILDLY different assertions. And it seemed you were presenting that implication as fact, when really it's opinion, by continually pointing at your "facts" that are widely based on subjective measurements and choices.

However most likely my greater annoyance was that you were just one in a line of multiple posters (some others in this very thread actually) that have been taking this kind of tactic and style lately and my frustration with all of it compounded likely came out directed just at you. That likely made my posts a bit more hostile then you deserved and I apologize for that.

I disagree with your seemingly implied assertion that Obama's been good as it relates to the deficit. I disagree with your seeming assertion that the President alone should be given ALL credit and ALL blame as it comes to the deficit. I disagree with your broad assertion that republicans, not just republican presidents, are consistent deficit increasers. However, I do agree with you that some of the republican fear mongering of what Obama would do regarding the economy was over the top and erronious and I do agree that he has lowered the deficit as it relates to his time in office and that is a good thing (we just strongly disagree it seems on the level of how "good" it is).
 
Sooo, the Republican did indeed control both Congress and the White House.

What am I apologizing for again?

For saying that the Republican in total control of the Govt. did not control or reduce the deficits? The only time in the last 50 years when they controlled the House, Senate, and the WH was in 2004-2007 but that reality escapes you and you cannot admit that your chart is wrong and meaningless. Please take a civics course so you understand who controls the spending
 
Now you are recreating terminology to suit your position of weakness. There were 10 million jobs created on Obama's watch. It is a fact, whether you care to admit it or not.

I am waiting for any proof that the jobs created were 10 million and from what base? Did those shovels ever get to their destination from those shovel ready jobs stimulus?
 
Sure I have. I've acknowledged already in this thread that Obama has reduced the deficit as it relates to it's level at the time he came into office. This post wasn't and hasn't tried to argue that claim is incorrect.
Good, we agree.

What this post is doing...and I assure you, it absolutely is addressing your post...is highlighting the faulty nature of your logic.

Your entire premise seems to be that your OPINION based conclussions are butressed by "facts" and therefore must be absolute truths, rather than opinions, that must have no other explanations other those facts you've presented. What my post was doing was highlighting that through the use of arbitrary contextual selections and methods of measurement one can craft a variety of facts that one can use to try and present their opinion as something other than an opinion.
If that was the point of the OP, then you'd be correct. But it wasn't, so your rebuttal was solely an effort to strip Obama of any credit for deficit reduction by pointing to Congress as the main reason for deficit reduction. Your reason for doing that I can only guess at.

What is my opinion is that Republicans don't do jack when they have the Presidency. In fact, they do exactly what Republicans are railing against when Democrats have the White House. Thus, Republicans are snake oil salesmen wanting nothing more than to put money into the hands of those at the top while raiding the poor and middle classes.

That's my opinion.

Secondly, it does address your original assertion. It's not my fault you've since moved the goal posts, nor is it my responsability to deal singularly with your moved goal posts. Your initial sneering comment suggested REPUBLICANS in general, not republican presidents, have not been "consistent and reliable deficit increasers". My facts were presented to highlight the issue that you were trying to present your OPINION as "Fact" based on one set of facts, while ignoring another set of facts that tells an entirely different story.

If one looks only at the presidency, one could say republicans have been a consistent and reliable deficit increasers. If one looks at the Congress, one could say republicans have been a consistent and reliable deficit decrease. In both cases, the assertion's legitimacy depends on the "facts" one is subjectively choosing to use. Which was my point.
In the OP I was addressing the President. Thus, the comparison is focused on presidents. I'll accept that I didn't do it was clearly as I should have, but that was indeed what I was driving at.

And Republican congresses do preside over deficit reduction is a fact (in recent history) as well. So while it's accurate if one wishes to talk about just conservative presidents, which you've since done by moving the goal posts, it's inaccurate to claim it for "republicans" in general as you did in the OP.
I accept that correction. Republicans Congresses have been in office and presided over a shrinking deficit.

Republican presidents don't end their terms with a lower deficit than when they got into office.

Um. yes it does. I'm sorry that "fact" bothers you, but it does.

It fell both times Republicans had full controll since 1989. It's risen both times the Democrats have had control since 1989. The only time it's been inconsistent in that time frame is the two periods of time that congress has been split. That is absolutely consistent.

Of the 10 years of total republican control it fell 80% of the time. Of the 10 years of total democratic control it fell 50% of the time. That's a pretty consistent rate for falling under the republicans, and a pretty consistent walk down the middle of the democrats.
This is why you've solely focused on Congress and ignored the Presidency.

I had to "hopscotch" years because the congress changes controll. Just because congresses changes control more often then a president doesn't mean I'm "hopscotching".

Dem's had control 89 to 1994.
Reps had control 95 to 2000
Split controll from 01 to 2002
Reps had control from 03 to 2006
Dems had control from 07 to 2010
Split control from 11 to the present

That's fact, that's reality. I didn't "hop" over any time frame, I looked at every single year during that time frame...just as you were doing with the presidency.
Which presidency am I hopscotching over?

Your annoyance and pitiful attempt to dismiss my facts (while desperately avoiding acknowledging they're true since you can't prove otherwise) highlights exactly my point as to what you're doing. You were hoping to sit here and scream "fact fact fact" and make everyone just think that your assertion based on those facts are absolutely true without any further analysis. Now that someone is presenting a similar style, but with the opposite effect, you're getting huffy about it and trying to just hand wave it away.

My "facts" are no less true than yours. My pointing at them is no more arbitrary or less "clear" than yours.
I never tried to refute the facts you presented because they're facts.

What you've done is ignored the fact that Republican presidents have not been the bringers of balance. They've increased the deficit when they have the presidency. You'd have to go back pretty far to find this to not be true.

No, what you wish is that I'd just accept your "facts" as the only "facts" avialable, that I'd accepted your subjective starting point as the only one available, that I accept your opinion of what it should be measured against as fact, and that I should ignore you moving the goal posts and that there are more "republicans" in government than just the President. Unfortunately, that "wish" is not going to happen. I am addressing your point, and to do so I have to address the flawed method in which you're making your point.
Please don't reshape my argument.

As far as goal post moving, you'd clearly done this by your dogged focus on Congress, which was something I never actually address (or at least meant to address).
 
Did those shovels ever get to their destination from those shovel ready jobs stimulus?

You mean those stimulus checks that the GOP bitched about not doing anything then going to pose with constituents with giant checks as if they were not only for it but did it all themselves? That money? :lamo

Jindal presents parish with $500K

Stimulating Hypocrisy: 114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success

Republican hypocrites vote no on stimulus but take money and credit for 'good policy'

Schwarzenegger Slams GOP Stimulus Hypocrisy

Many Republican politicians have railed against the stimulus while praising or taking credit for stimulus money provided to their districts. One prominent Republican governor is calling out his colleagues' hypocrisy.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was proud to accept stimulus dollars for his state praised the program for creating or saving over 150,000 jobs. "I have been the first governor of the Republican governors to come out and to support the stimulus money because I say to myself, this is terrific," Schwarzenegger told ABC's Terry Moran Sunday.​
 
Do you believe keeping more of what you earn has to be paid for? Don't you spend, save, invest, or pay down debt with that extra money? How does that affect economic growth and the economy?

No why should we pay for it when we can just borrow more and more. Cutting taxes without cutting spending does just that. It is the signature GOP move and you love them for it.
 
Do you think that all of Bush's deficit causing policies just ended when Obama took office? You do know that at least 2 trillion of Obama's deficits were caused solely by the revenue loss from Bush's Great Recession?

Neither Bush Nor Obama Caused Our Deficit Problem - Mic
LOl Bushs great recession. How did Bush cause that global recession again? I love how you liberals hang everything on Bush and nothing on Obama. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts which means they effectively became the Obama tax cuts. So any deficit that arose out of the Obama tax cuts should hang around Obamas neck. Obama didn't end the Prescription Drug program so it was just another entitlement. That means Obama cant blame Bush for that any more than Bush could blame Johnson for the deficit caused by Medicare/Medicaid. And finally, Obama increased the cost of Afghanistan through the surge he authorized. Even though Bush inherited a recession and from his predecessor and a terror plot hatched under Clinton, none of you liberals give him a pass on that. You start counting from his first day in office. Be honest for once and do the same thing for your guy.
 
I'll also be honest, I may be more irked by your post then is rightly fair. There's been a host of various posters over the past week or so that I've ran into in various threads that have basically been using the tactic of:

1. Imply or say an assertion
2. Say a fact that backs up that assertion
3. Present said fact as if it's the only way to view the issue
4. Act as if initial assertion is fact by continually pointing to the fact stated in step 2

Simply spit balling out statistics and facts helps give some meat to a persons opinion, but doesn't magically turn ones opinion into fact. Additionally, something being a fact doesn't mean how one interprits that fact is ALSO a fact.

To explain another way.

Say I state "It's 50 degrees outside, it's cold".

The notion that it's "50 degrees outside" is a fact. Whether or not it's "cold" however is subjective opinion and depends entirley on how I'm viewing and measuring that fact I initially stated.

Then say someone goes "It's not cold! It was 20 degrees yesterday, this is practically spring". And I retort "It's 50 degrees out, that's a fact"...ignoring that they didn't actually argue that it wasn't 50 degrees, they were arguing with my assertion that it's cold. But all I'm doing is pointing back to the "fact" I posted and acting like my subjective opinion of what that fact means (that it's cold) is the only way to interprit it. Thus, I think that just repeating the fact over and over again somehow is disproving their disagreement with my assertion.

So back to my point with you...

I get, in general, what you're doing. You're annoyed that SOME republicans went over board decrying Obama as an apocolyptic budgetary figure who would drive us into horrible horrible deficits and the facts, based on your subjective choice of the scope you wish to look at, suggests that's not the case and you're having a good laugh at it. And that's fine.

My annoyance however was that you seemingly weren't simply implying he's not as bad as the Republicans made him out to be but rather than he's actually been GOOD. Those are two WILDLY different assertions. And it seemed you were presenting that implication as fact, when really it's opinion, by continually pointing at your "facts" that are widely based on subjective measurements and choices.

However most likely my greater annoyance was that you were just one in a line of multiple posters (some others in this very thread actually) that have been taking this kind of tactic and style lately and my frustration with all of it compounded likely came out directed just at you. That likely made my posts a bit more hostile then you deserved and I apologize for that.

I disagree with your seemingly implied assertion that Obama's been good as it relates to the deficit. I disagree with your seeming assertion that the President alone should be given ALL credit and ALL blame as it comes to the deficit. I disagree with your broad assertion that republicans, not just republican presidents, are consistent deficit increasers. However, I do agree with you that some of the republican fear mongering of what Obama would do regarding the economy was over the top and erronious and I do agree that he has lowered the deficit as it relates to his time in office and that is a good thing (we just strongly disagree it seems on the level of how "good" it is).

Obama has been good on the deficit... of course that depends on many other factors, but if we are going to measure a presidency by the end results and not specific policies (as the Republican talk machine often does) then we have to say Obama is in fact doing well. I'm targeting the duplicity of many Republican complains and poking fun at it.

My assertion about the President alone getting credit is based on the overall idea that the president is where the buck stops. If people are going to focus on that, then they have to also give credit when it appear to be positive.

In terms of Republicans not decreasing the deficit, I was focusing on President because these elected official represent the culmination of their party's policy directives. I was not being specific as it's also a fact that Republican governors do balance budgets at times and Democrat governors do increase deficits at times. I never meant to address a wholesale view of all elected Republicans in all publicly held offices. I would be completely incorrect and totally outside of the facts on that.
 
You mean those stimulus checks that the GOP bitched about not doing anything then going to pose with constituents with giant checks as if they were not only for it but did it all themselves? That money? :lamo

Jindal presents parish with $500K

Stimulating Hypocrisy: 114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success

Republican hypocrites vote no on stimulus but take money and credit for 'good policy'

Schwarzenegger Slams GOP Stimulus Hypocrisy

Many Republican politicians have railed against the stimulus while praising or taking credit for stimulus money provided to their districts. One prominent Republican governor is calling out his colleagues' hypocrisy.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was proud to accept stimulus dollars for his state praised the program for creating or saving over 150,000 jobs. "I have been the first governor of the Republican governors to come out and to support the stimulus money because I say to myself, this is terrific," Schwarzenegger told ABC's Terry Moran Sunday.​

Yep, those stimulus checks that were supposed to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. That didn't happen did it? Now with regard to Republican Governors requesting their taxpayers money back, not sure why you have a problem with that but apparently you believe the money paid by the taxpayers of Louisiana and TX belong to you and the other states. I would have asked for it too. Now please tell me how Republicans blocked usage of the money with Democrats in control of Congress??

I really would like to find the site that measures saved jobs and is credible? Please point me to that site? how do you know jobs were saved?
 
Good, we agree.

Cool

so your rebuttal was solely an effort to strip Obama of any credit for deficit reduction by pointing to Congress as the main reason for deficit reduction.

Not at all. My rebuttal was solely an effort to highlight that there are multiple "facts" one can look at as it relates to republicans increasing or decreasing deficits, and attempting to highlight that just because something is a "Fact" doesn't necessarily mean it tells the whole story by demonstrating a set of facts that tell a different story than yours in terms of Republicans / Democrats.

My personal take on deficits is that it's a mix of Congress and the Presidency. I see Presidents like QB's in football...often getting too much blame and too much credit. I've long held on this forum, and I can give you quotes from old posts if you need proof, that I personally think the best results occur when we have a congress that's one party and a president that's another. Specifically, my preference tends to be Moderate Dem pres and conservative congress. The reason for this is because I believe it best helps to find a good middle ground...especially with my specific preferenec which I think tends to result in good fiscal policy with a check on some of the crazier social stuff and maintaining of some of our social safety nets.

You seemed to be giving all credit and blame to the Presidents. I simply was offering a similar one sided, and to my mind narrow viewed, reading of the situaiton and attempted to highlight how simply saying something is a "fact" doesn't necessarily give your assertion more weight.

In the OP I was addressing the President. Thus, the comparison is focused on presidents. I'll accept that I didn't do it was clearly as I should have, but that was indeed what I was driving at.

Thank you for accepting that you should've been more clear. Can't read your mind, and your OP to me seemed much more an attack on Republicans in general, not just republican presidents, which is what gave the implication your comment about "republicans" actually mean REPUBLICANS, not "republican [presidents]".

This is why you've solely focused on Congress and ignored the Presidency

Go back and check my posts in this thread. My first few posts addressed the presidency almost exlcusively and still pointed to reasons why I don't view the Obama economic realities anywhere near as positively as you. My posts in this thread simply does not jive with the reality you're trying to paint.

Which presidency am I hopscotching over?

I didn't say you hopscotched over one. I said the EXACT OPPOSITE about you. I specifically said you looked at every president over the time period you were looking at, just as I did. You were the one that accused ME of hopscotching, not the other way around.

What you've done is ignored the fact that Republican presidents have not been the bringers of balance.

How can I ignore something I never disputed. Whether or not republicans presidents have brought balance has nothing to do with my disagreement with the seeming implicatoin from you that Obama's efforts are worthy of praise or cheering, nor to do with my disagreement with what APPEARED to be your assertion that republicans in general cause increased deficits.
 
No why should we pay for it when we can just borrow more and more. Cutting taxes without cutting spending does just that. It is the signature GOP move and you love them for it.

Cutting taxes increased revenue as has been proven so please tell me why tax cuts that increase revenue aren't being paid for with that increase in revenue? Please show me the math that proves your claim that tax cuts contributed a major part of the debt generated?

What is a signature Democrat move is convincing good people that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt. and has to be paid for. Keep eating that up, liberals love you
 
Yep, those stimulus checks that were supposed to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. That didn't happen did it? Now with regard to Republican Governors requesting their taxpayers money back, not sure why you have a problem with that but apparently you believe the money paid by the taxpayers of Louisiana and TX belong to you and the other states. I would have asked for it too. Now please tell me how Republicans blocked usage of the money with Democrats in control of Congress??

I really would like to find the site that measures saved jobs and is credible? Please point me to that site? how do you know jobs were saved?

Why don't you ask the governors? Like Schwarzenegger who said it did... in the link provided in the post of mine you just quoted.

Or you can source the Congressional Budget Office as cited here at Factcheck.org...

the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."

linkypoo...
 
Last edited:
Why don't you ask the governors? Like Schwarzenegger who said it did... in the link provided in the post of mine you just quoted.

Why should I listen to any politician? Name for me the site that measure saved jobs? Thanks in advance. By the way what was the California unemployment rate with those saved jobs??

You willingly buy what you are told when that person tells you what you want to hear. I buy the data and there is no such site that measure saved jobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom