• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Yep, you have been indoctrinated well and Gruber was absolutely correct. I gave you the link to the deficit by day and debt by year. If there was a surplus the debt wouldn't increase but it did, why? If there was a surplus the debt service would be on a lower debt, but it wasn't, why? Why is it that the Treasury Dept. doesn't show the yearly surplus you claim and why is it that the revenue you posted doesn't equal the budget amount as listed on the U.S. Treasury website? Have you called them and told them we paid too much debt service during the Clinton years and to correct their website on actual deficit numbers?

Do you realize that a civics class will give you the definition of public debt and inter-government holdings? You are right, we need bigger govt. and less personal responsibility to create that liberal utopia that I know exists somewhere in the world. Please tell me what country that is, Greece?

You're hilarious. You make a big deal out of the "Misery Index" then when someone points out it's lower now than it ever was under Reagan, you move the goal posts and and call people "Gruders" for simply following along with your stated measuring sticks and using them as you insist we must do. :lamo
 
Exactly.
We built our first family house 1973.
The high interest rate of the late 70s early 80s did not affect us personally.

You people can cheerlead each other while ignoring context and poor economic policies. Are you telling me that the high inflation on top of the 81-82 recession didn't affect the value of your dollar? How did this recession affect you and your family? Do you realize that many banks were forced to take TARP and that the 350 billion Bush lent was paid back with interest? What did Obama do with the money?
 
You're hilarious. You make a big deal out of the "Misery Index" then when someone points out it's lower now than it ever was under Reagan, you move the goal posts and and call people "Gruders" for simply following along with your stated measuring sticks and using them as you insist we must do. :lamo

Of course it is lower, but it started out much lower than Reagan inherited. we are talking about the comparison between recessions and the fact is the 19.3 misery index going to 9.6 is significant and indicates that the American public was affected much more by the 81-82 recession. One of these days that light bulb is going to go off in that head of yours and you are going to realize how wrong you are.
 
I think liberals like you will never get it or understand leadership or the lack of it. What you don't seem to understand is that the misery index under Carter went close to 22 percent in mid 1980 and it was that economy that Reagan inherited and it was Reagan leadership that had the greatest drop in that misery index. It was the misery index that most people felt during both recessions making the 81-82 worse but shorter because of leadership which is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984

Most of the drop in the misery index was due to interest rates coming down after the Fed raised them to put a stake in the 70s era inflation, in part because of Nixon (R) taking us off the gold standard. Reagan's big tax cuts and huge deficit spending had nothing to do with those interest rates coming down, although Keynesian stimulus probably did bring the unemployment rate around quicker than if he'd raised taxes or slashed spending to fight the evils of DEFICITS!! "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
 
Of course it is lower, but it started out much lower than Reagan inherited. we are talking about the comparison between recessions and the fact is the 19.3 misery index going to 9.6 is significant and indicates that the American public was affected much more by the 81-82 recession. One of these days that light bulb is going to go off in that head of yours and you are going to realize how wrong you are.

Look, if the Misery Index is a gauge of economic policies and if lower is better and that's all we need to know about how effective are an Administration's policies, then clearly and obviously Obama has done a better job than Reagan who could never bring the Misery index down to current levels, even with two full terms.

Now you're caught and have to backtrack because the data don't show what you hoped to prove, which is always republicans ==> Good, democrats ==> BAD!!!
 
Most of the drop in the misery index was due to interest rates coming down after the Fed raised them to put a stake in the 70s era inflation, in part because of Nixon (R) taking us off the gold standard. Reagan's big tax cuts and huge deficit spending had nothing to do with those interest rates coming down, although Keynesian stimulus probably did bring the unemployment rate around quicker than if he'd raised taxes or slashed spending to fight the evils of DEFICITS!! "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Yes, and do you understand what the Reagan tax cuts did? Think the 17 million jobs created has anything to do with a reduction in the misery index? Reagan proved that deficits that generated double the GDP, created 17 millions jobs and a total debt of 52% of GDP is a pretty good return on investment. Deficits obviously don't matter to you and Obama because we have created 7.6 Trillion of them and 3 million jobs in 8 years after the end of the recession.
 
Look, if the Misery Index is a gauge of economic policies and if lower is better and that's all we need to know about how effective are an Administration's policies, then clearly and obviously Obama has done a better job than Reagan who could never bring the Misery index down to current levels, even with two full terms.

Now you're caught and have to backtrack because the data don't show what you hoped to prove, which is always republicans ==> Good, democrats ==> BAD!!!

Actually Conservative economic policies that empower people good, Democrat economic policies that empower govt. bad.
 
You people can cheerlead each other while ignoring context and poor economic policies. Are you telling me that the high inflation on top of the 81-82 recession didn't affect the value of your dollar? How did this recession affect you and your family? Do you realize that many banks were forced to take TARP and that the 350 billion Bush lent was paid back with interest? What did Obama do with the money?

"Forced to take TARP." LMAO. I suppose there is some truth to that - they didn't really need TARP because sugar daddy Uncle Federal Reserve was funneling those same banks who "didn't need" the TARP bailouts 10 times TARP in liquid capital behind the scenes. When the Fed allows banks to put up the equivalent of toilet paper as collateral for Fed loans, sure, the taxpayer TARP funds were just gravy.
 
Really? so people don't compare the affects of a recession to their own economic conditions? Therein is another difference between conservatives and liberals. conservatives understand leadership and the U.S. economy whereas liberals understand one thing, spending in the name of compassion.

When you get a tax cut what does that do to your paycheck and what do you do with the money? As I stated millions and millions of Americans weren't affected by this recession and you have yet to refute that. You don't get it and never will. This country's economy isn't built on govt. spending whereas most of the world's economy is. That is where austerity and the debt bubble hurt the most.

I don't know about liberals and conservatives, but people who know how economics work understand that GDP = private sector spending + government spending - trade deficit. They also understand that a recession is defined as two consecutive reductions in GDP. Federal spending is 20% of GDP, State Spending is 9% and local government is 10%.

That means the government as a whole directly accounts for 40% of the US GDP. Indirectly it's considerably higher. When you consider that the Federal Highway system, the initial internet infrastructure, and almost all of the basic research behind things like computer chips were all government programs, it's easy to see that effective government is single most effective economic driver.
 
"Forced to take TARP." LMAO. I suppose there is some truth to that - they didn't really need TARP because sugar daddy Uncle Federal Reserve was funneling those same banks who "didn't need" the TARP bailouts 10 times TARP in liquid capital behind the scenes. When the Fed allows banks to put up the equivalent of toilet paper as collateral for Fed loans, sure, the taxpayer TARP funds were just gravy.

Yep

Bankers: Take your TARP money back - Mar. 27, 2009

Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Bank of New York/Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) - all 'mega-banks' that the government forced to take bailout money - say they want to return taxpayer funds "as soon as practical."

Get it yet? Light bulb go off yet? Ready to admit you are wrong yet? Ready to admit that Obama and liberal elites have lied to you yet?
 
I don't know about liberals and conservatives, but people who know how economics work understand that GDP = private sector spending + government spending - trade deficit. They also understand that a recession is defined as two consecutive reductions in GDP. Federal spending is 20% of GDP, State Spending is 9% and local government is 10%.

That means the government as a whole directly accounts for 40% of the US GDP. Indirectly it's considerably higher. When you consider that the Federal Highway system, the initial internet infrastructure, and almost all of the basic research behind things like computer chips were all government programs, it's easy to see that effective government is single most effective economic driver.

Ok, and we have taxes that fund those things, not INCOME TAXES. The unified budget has been indoctrinated into the minds of liberals who buy the rhetoric that all dollars are the same. There is quite a difference between local, federal, and state spending as a percentage of GDP and the movement more towards a European economic model. Greece hasn't had any affect on the liberal thought process or the Paul Krugman ideology.
 
You people can cheerlead each other while ignoring context and poor economic policies. Are you telling me that the high inflation on top of the 81-82 recession didn't affect the value of your dollar? How did this recession affect you and your family? ...

We are fortunate , and this last recession did not effect us personally.
Our stocks did go down but since we just let them ride the recession out they have recovered and are doing better than they were before the great recession hit.
 
Last edited:
Yep

Bankers: Take your TARP money back - Mar. 27, 2009

Get it yet? Light bulb go off yet? Ready to admit you are wrong yet? Ready to admit that Obama and liberal elites have lied to you yet?

OK, here's an article from Bloomberg. The Fed doled out $7,700 billion. TARP was only 700 billion. So Fed loans to the same banks who didn't need any bailout were TEN TIMES the TARP money. As I said, they didn't need TARP funds when Uncle Fed was willing to and did extend them all the short term capital they needed, backed by toilet paper.

The six biggest U.S. banks, which received $160 billion of TARP funds, borrowed as much as $460 billion from the Fed
....
Bank of America and New York-based Citigroup each received $45 billion from TARP. At the time, both were tapping the Fed. Citigroup hit its peak borrowing of $99.5 billion in January 2009, while Bank of America topped out in February 2009 at $91.4 billion.

What's hilarious is you mention Bank of America. At their peak, BoA borrowed $280 billion from just one program, the TAF - by far the number one borrower. Go look at the GAO report, Table 30. It's linked in this article from Forbes. Golden boy Jamie Dimon's firm (JPM) only borrowed $100 BILLION from that Fed program. More from others.
 
OK, here's an article from Bloomberg. The Fed doled out $7,700 billion. TARP was only 700 billion. So Fed loans to the same banks who didn't need any bailout were TEN TIMES the TARP money. As I said, they didn't need TARP funds when Uncle Fed was willing to and did extend them all the short term capital they needed, backed by toilet paper.



What's hilarious is you mention Bank of America. At their peak, BoA borrowed $280 billion from just one program, the TAF - by far the number one borrower. Go look at the GAO report, Table 30. It's linked in this article from Forbes. Golden boy Jamie Dimon's firm (JPM) only borrowed $100 BILLION from that Fed program. More from others.

What you failed to recognize or acknowledge is the reality that some banks were forced into taking TARP meaning that the financial crisis wasn't nationwide or all banks suffering the same way. Keep believing what you are told and ignoring reality.
 
I find that people like you have such passion for ignorance. When someone claims it was the worst recession in history and I respond with information proving that 81-82 was worse because it affected more people that isn't derailing the thread that is responding to someone who already did that.

You 'proved' it?

LOL. You threw out one number. I dont recall anyone thinking the economy was going to completely crash, like we did in 2008, and I dont recall anyone in 1983 talking about how horrible the economy was. This crash was both deeper and longer, and was not self imposed deliberately, like the 81 one was. Kind of a big difference.

But congratulations, you derailed us from the main topic, which was showing how clownish all your responses to this health care thread have been.
 
Yeah, that is great it dropped 2 points under Obama and 9.6 under Reagan so obviously we need less Reagan and more Obama, LOL. What people like you do is read the headlines and ignore the content. Do you know what a discouraged worker is? How about what under employed means? That is the Obama economy and the low expectations of liberalism. You represent them well.

You do realize that if the misery index were to drop 9.6 points under Obama, then we would have a negative misery index, right?

I was not using the misery index as some proof of how well Obama has done because I only just learned about the misery index today. I was just pointing out a statement you made that was factually inaccurate about the misery index.

As for your little divergence towards a discussion of discouraged and underemployed workers, I would note that yes, I do understand those terms and those those workers, as measured by the U-6 unemployment rate has dropped from a height of 17.1% at its height in 2009 to 10.5% (with 0.3% of that drop occurring in the last month alone), a rate that is lower than the rate inherited by Obama.
 
You do realize that if the misery index were to drop 9.6 points under Obama, then we would have a negative misery index, right?

I was not using the misery index as some proof of how well Obama has done because I only just learned about the misery index today. I was just pointing out a statement you made that was factually inaccurate about the misery index.

As for your little divergence towards a discussion of discouraged and underemployed workers, I would note that yes, I do understand those terms and those those workers, as measured by the U-6 unemployment rate has dropped from a height of 17.1% at its height in 2009 to 10.5% (with 0.3% of that drop occurring in the last month alone), a rate that is lower than the rate inherited by Obama.

The issue is the severity of the 81-82 recession vs. what you and others call the Great Recession of 07-09 but then again that is typical liberal diversion.

As for the unemployment rate dropping, did that happen after the Obama stimulus or after the GOP Took the House and then Congress? Isn't a stimulus supposed to be a short term economic policy to stimulate economic growth and job creation? Can you explain how Obama inherited 142 million working Americans and two years later and two years after the signing and passage of the Stimulus the employment was 139 million? Is that the kind of economic success you attribute to Obama and his stimulus? Isn't the U.S. Private sector economy great. Suggest you give more credit to incentive and the private sector than Obama and his failed policies that delayed recovery.
 
The issue is the severity of the 81-82 recession vs. what you and others call the Great Recession of 07-09 but then again that is typical liberal diversion.

As for the unemployment rate dropping, did that happen after the Obama stimulus or after the GOP Took the House and then Congress? Isn't a stimulus supposed to be a short term economic policy to stimulate economic growth and job creation? Can you explain how Obama inherited 142 million working Americans and two years later and two years after the signing and passage of the Stimulus the employment was 139 million? Is that the kind of economic success you attribute to Obama and his stimulus? Isn't the U.S. Private sector economy great. Suggest you give more credit to incentive and the private sector than Obama and his failed policies that delayed recovery.

I would suggest you be less willing to denigrate Obama and his supposed job killing policies when nearly all of the economic indicators suggest otherwise. As for the reason for a total decrease in jobs, I would point to increased productivity amongst those workers who were not fired during the Great Recession and computer automation replacing millions of jobs as the primary reasons - neither of those are the result of Obama's policies.
 
What you failed to recognize or acknowledge is the reality that some banks were forced into taking TARP meaning that the financial crisis wasn't nationwide or all banks suffering the same way. Keep believing what you are told and ignoring reality.

You quoted Bank of America claiming they didn't need TARP. The DATA show of course they didn't because they borrowed $280 Billion from Uncle Fed. They didn't need the Treasury bailout because they got a Fed bailout 10 TIMES BIGGER, and that bailout was private.

The only reason they complained about TARP is that came with strings on how big their exorbitant bonuses could be. The Fed just handed them the money, no strings at all, in what was intended to be total secrecy. Of course lying, sniveling, corrupt bankers preferred the latter.
 
The issue is the severity of the 81-82 recession vs. what you and others call the Great Recession of 07-09 but then again that is typical liberal diversion..


If you are attempting to compare the severity of the Great Recession to the Recession experienced in the early 1980s, then I would note the drop in GDP from the Great Recession was -4.3% and the GDP drop from the early 1980s recession was -2.7%. When you take into account the difference in the size of the GDP during those two time periods (14.7 trillion and 3.2 trillion respectively), then the argument that the early 1980s recession was worse becomes a laughable proposition at best.

Edit: Also laughable is an allegation of "typical liberal diversions" from someone who has shifted a forum thread devoted to the Supreme Court upholding ACA subsidies into a discussion of Recession economics.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest you be less willing to denigrate Obama and his supposed job killing policies when nearly all of the economic indicators suggest otherwise. As for the reason for a total decrease in jobs, I would point to increased productivity amongst those workers who were not fired during the Great Recession and computer automation replacing millions of jobs as the primary reasons - neither of those are the result of Obama's policies.

The economic indicators as you want to discuss show 142 million employed when Obama took office and 139 million two years later after the Stimulus was implemented. You should be praising the private sector economy that grew in spite of Obama but took time to overcome his incompetence. I know it really excites you to see so many full time part time employees because that lowers the unemployment rate and the high number of discouraged workers, still higher than the average during the Bush term but declining because of the private sector not Obama.
 
You quoted Bank of America claiming they didn't need TARP. The DATA show of course they didn't because they borrowed $280 Billion from Uncle Fed. They didn't need the Treasury bailout because they got a Fed bailout 10 TIMES BIGGER, and that bailout was private.

The only reason they complained about TARP is that came with strings on how big their exorbitant bonuses could be. The Fed just handed them the money, no strings at all, in what was intended to be total secrecy. Of course lying, sniveling, corrupt bankers preferred the latter.

I posted an article from CNN Money and you picked out BOA ignoring the fact that others were mentioned as well. If one bank was the only bank still shows that the crisis wasn't national in scale but rather still not what you and others want to claim. What TARP did was reward bad behavior but it is credited with saving the banks and the economy, nothing that Obama did. I wasn't for TARP as I understand with poor choices should come failure.
 
If you are attempting to compare the severity of the Great Recession to the Recession experienced in the early 1980s, then I would note the drop in GDP from the Great Recession was -4.3% and the GDP drop from the early 1980s recession was -2.7%. When you take into account the difference in the size of the GDP during those two time periods (14.7 trillion and 3.2 trillion respectively), then the argument that the early 1980s recession was worse becomes a laughable proposition at best.

Edit: Also laughable is an allegation of "typical liberal diversions" from someone who has shifted a forum thread devoted to the Supreme Court upholding ACA subsidies into a discussion of Recession economics.

I love people like you picking up the liberal term Great Recession and ignoring a much worse one in 1981-82. Then you point to numbers to prove your point ignoring economic policies and leadership. There is a reason the numbers were worse longer under this recession and that is because of poor leadership and incompetence of Obama. Do you realize that GDP was overstated by the 842 Billion Obama stimulus? Take that out of the 2.8 trillion Obama economic growth in almost 7 years and you can see how stagnant the Obama economy is.
 
The economic indicators as you want to discuss show 142 million employed when Obama took office and 139 million two years later after the Stimulus was implemented. You should be praising the private sector economy that grew in spite of Obama but took time to overcome his incompetence. I know it really excites you to see so many full time part time employees because that lowers the unemployment rate and the high number of discouraged workers, still higher than the average during the Bush term but declining because of the private sector not Obama.

Well look there, the total number of employed has continued to increase and currently sits about SIX MILLION above the point when Obama took office.

US Employment and Jobs | Department of Numbers

Edit: So that is the second time (at least), in the span of an hour, that you have lied about the economic indicators in order to help support your argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom