• 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!

Obama's approval rating grows following memorable week

Oh, I don't know how about experience running a business thus the 17.5 trillion dollar economy and actually growing it?

What are you trying to say?? Reagan tripled the ND, Bush doubled it. You really think the next republican president will pay down on it. Bush promised a plan to reduce the ND by several trillion over ten years, instead he doubled it. When people start putting America before party loyalty, we'll fix this problem. Until then, the growth of this debt continues to grow no matter who occupies the WH.
 
What are you trying to say?? Reagan tripled the ND, Bush doubled it. You really think the next republican president will pay down on it. Bush promised a plan to reduce the ND by several trillion over ten years, instead he doubled it. When people start putting America before party loyalty, we'll fix this problem. Until then, the growth of this debt continues to grow no matter who occupies the WH.

Oh, here we go again, this is typical BS, Reagan took the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion and doubled the GDP, created 17 million jobs, and got a 60% growth in FIT with his tax cuts. Your revisionist is just like everything else you post, opinions based upon ignorance of basic economics and the private sector economy.
 
Oh, here we go again, this is typical BS, Reagan took the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion and doubled the GDP, created 17 million jobs, and got a 60% growth in FIT with his tax cuts. Your revisionist is just like everything else you post, opinions based upon ignorance of basic economics and the private sector economy.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that Reagan tripled the ND. And for ignoring that Bush doubled it, despite his promise to pay it down. Such stupid partisan bull ****.
 
What 'important landmarks' will add to BHO's positive legacy?

It doesn't seem right that someone else should fail in order to make Obama look good. Keep in mind that Obama will be leaving behind a $20 trillion dollar debt, troubled race relations, international policies in chaos and little or no respect from any world leaders. I can't see any accomplishments at all but I'd like to hear of some..

Not saying someone should fail, but average can look much better when successor is worse. I wouldn't want the next person to fail though, especially since still live in the US and probably will for most of my life, so the better things go here the better =p.

If we are looking at history book potential listed accomplishments the main ones would probably be: Healthcare expansion (even with it's issues), Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, same sex marriage (even though it was the courts, not Obama, that caused it, it'd probably be attributed to happening "under his presidency"), first Hispanic named to the Supreme Court, first Supreme Court with 3 women
 
Some people will never get it tell me is the debt service on the 1.7 trillion dollar Reagan debt more or less than the 7.6 trillion dollar debt that Obama has created results matter you look at percentage change Reagan left the country with 2.6 trillion dollars in debt on a 5.2 trillion dollar GDP compare that to what Obama has done
 
Thank you for finally acknowledging that Reagan tripled the ND. And for ignoring that Bush doubled it, despite his promise to pay it down. Such stupid partisan bull ****.

Percentage change, tell me which would you prefer given a choice, 2.6 trillion debt on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy or 18.2 trillion in debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy?

Another way of looking at it, Reagan inherited a 2.8 trillion dollar economy that went to 5.6 trillion or an increase of 2.8 trillion dollars. for that the cost was 1.7 trillion dollars in debt.

Obama inherited a 14.7 trillion dollar economy that is now 17.5 trillion or a 2.8 trillion dollar increase at a cost of 7.6 trillion in debt.

Doesn't appear that you have much of a case for your hated of tripling the debt.
 
Percentage change, tell me which would you prefer given a choice, 2.6 trillion debt on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy or 18.2 trillion in debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy?

Another way of looking at it, Reagan inherited a 2.8 trillion dollar economy that went to 5.6 trillion or an increase of 2.8 trillion dollars. for that the cost was 1.7 trillion dollars in debt.

Obama inherited a 14.7 trillion dollar economy that is now 17.5 trillion or a 2.8 trillion dollar increase at a cost of 7.6 trillion in debt.

Doesn't appear that you have much of a case for your hated of tripling the debt.

At the expense of the middle class that thirty years of Reaganomics, (also known as voodoo economics by his Vice President) has waged war upon.
 
At the expense of the middle class that thirty years of Reaganomics, (also known as voodoo economics by his Vice President) has waged war upon.

Exactly, that is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984, he alienated the middle class.
 
Right. Because providing health care and equal rights is destruction. Same thing the GOP said when we were busy providing social security, Medicare and civil rights in times past.

Obama did neither of those things, lib.
 
Exactly, that is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984, he alienated the middle class.

Obama and Bush were both re-elected to second terms. ;) 1984 was too soon to realize that Reaganomics was going to hurt the middle class. Nice to see you ignore HW Bush's opinion of Reaganomics. :lamo
 
Obama and Bush were both re-elected to second terms. ;) 1984 was too soon to realize that Reaganomics was going to hurt the middle class. Nice to see you ignore HW Bush's opinion of Reaganomics. :lamo

Tell me exactly how creating 17 million jobs, doubling the GDP hurt the middle class? You really are out of touch with reality. How old were you during the 80's. I was in my early 40's
 
Tell me exactly how creating 17 million jobs, doubling the GDP hurt the middle class? You really are out of touch with reality. How old were you during the 80's. I was in my early 40's

****ing geezer, now I know. I voted for Reagan.
 
Tell me exactly how creating 17 million jobs, doubling the GDP hurt the middle class? You really are out of touch with reality. How old were you during the 80's. I was in my early 40's

Raising payroll taxes probably did not help out the middle class very much
 
At the expense of the middle class that thirty years of Reaganomics, (also known as voodoo economics by his Vice President) has waged war upon.

The only thing Reaganomics did to the middle class was provide as a vehicle for upward mobility. Why would someone want to be middle class when they could have a President who implements policy that provides them the opportunity to become upper class?


Liberal logic.
 
Then what's your beef con??

My beef is that you give him credit for things he didnt do.


And you are giving Democrats credit for things Republicans did. Typical lib. Let me guess, you think Lincoln was a liberal Democrat? :lol:
 
My beef is that you give him credit for things he didnt do.


And you are giving Democrats credit for things Republicans did. Typical lib. Let me guess, you think Lincoln was a liberal Democrat? :lol:

Lincoln certainly did not believe in popular sovereignty
 
Raising payroll taxes probably did not help out the middle class very much

Then you don't understand payroll taxes, that funds their retirement account, SS, but big govt. liberals don't understand that.
 
While the other half provide them with a republican congress.

Technically that's not actually true. We have a Republican congress because less people vote in midterm elections than in presidential election years.
 
Technically that's not actually true. We have a Republican congress because less people vote in midterm elections than in presidential election years.

Oh really? Explain the 2006 midterm then, liar.
 
Oh really? Explain the 2006 midterm then, liar.

Not cool just to throw around the term "liar" like that. In fact, its shameful and ugly.

Turnout for Federal Elections:

National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960

You will notice that turnout for midterm elections is consistently lower than for presidential election years. Typically the incumbent president's party does poorly in midterms, particularly midterms in their second term. This is because the opposition party's voters are more motivated to come out and vote than the incumbent party's voters. This is also why midterm election results are not usually very predictive of the following presidential election year election when the electorate will be much larger and both sides are typically motivated to get out and vote.
 
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

With that said, you will notice that his average sits at -2.8, and that is the best split for Obama since June of 2013.

RCP is pretty rightwing (as testified by how prominently it features polling from Rasmussen and Fox). I also would point out that Gallup's tracking polls are rather famous lately for being not very close to accurate on Obama's popularity (see its final polling for the 2012 election) and its latest snapshot doesn't reflect that over the past week that margin has fluctuated between the -6 shown at RCP to +1. But I always go back to how wrong polls have been compared to election results every time Obama has run for office. As the hackneyed saying goes, elections are the only polls that matter.
 
Last edited:
My beef is that you give him credit for things he didnt do.


And you are giving Democrats credit for things Republicans did. Typical lib. Let me guess, you think Lincoln was a liberal Democrat? :lol:

Lincoln was a progressive. The Republican party used to be the more "progressive" of the two parties. Then, the conservatives took over, and it's been downhill since.
 
Lincoln was a progressive. The Republican party used to be the more "progressive" of the two parties. Then, the conservatives took over, and it's been downhill since.

:roll: Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure the old, tired, PATHETIC "parties switch" claim as an attempt from Democrats to hide from their disgustingly racist and bigoted past.


Interesting how segregation and Jim Crow ended in the South the same time Democratic control ended in the South....very, VERY interesting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom