• 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

Conservative said:
The idea that you call Treasury data bogus is quite telling about just how little credibility you have.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what an impossible situation you've placed yourself in, using Treasury data but using it with deliberate attempt to deceive. This has been a rightwing deception for some time. I'm surprised that you're still using these false starting dates to determine which president is responsible for what deficits but maybe you're not keeping up with your sides misinformation techniques as well as you should. I'll lay it out for you more precisely so you can see how I picked up your misinformation so easily (as well as to explain to others who may be seeing this exchange for the first time). Fiscal years run from Oct. 1 to Sep. 30 so, e.g., FY 2015 (which were in now) began on Oct. 1, 2014. Jan. 20 is not the start of any fiscal year and never has been. So by, e.g., by using the Treasury Debt-to-the-penny tables with that as the date for the debt amount is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. GWBush's last FY ended on Sep. 30, 2009 so the debt on that date belongs to him not to President Obama. So, again, I'm not calling you a liar but certainly are passing along well-established rightwing lies about this subject (and others, no doubt). I'd say you're more of a dupe of the rightwing pukefunnel of lies that you feed on constantly. You can keep throwing up your strawman evasions for as long as you draw breath. I will come right back and call you on them every time. I actually enjoy slamming this falsehood down so I can keep doing it as long as you keep pushing it.
 
digitusmedius said:
I appreciate what an impossible situation you've placed yourself in, using Treasury data but using it with deliberate attempt to deceive. This has been a rightwing deception for some time. I'm surprised that you're still using these false starting dates to determine which president is responsible for what deficits but maybe you're not keeping up with your sides misinformation techniques as well as you should. I'll lay it out for you more precisely so you can see how I picked up your misinformation so easily (as well as to explain to others who may be seeing this exchange for the first time). Fiscal years run from Oct. 1 to Sep. 30 so, e.g., FY 2015 (which were in now) began on Oct. 1, 2014. Jan. 20 is not the start of any fiscal year and never has been. So by, e.g., by using the Treasury Debt-to-the-penny tables with that as the date for the debt amount is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. GWBush's last FY ended on Sep. 30, 2009 so the debt on that date belongs to him not to President Obama. So, again, I'm not calling you a liar but certainly are passing along well-established rightwing lies about this subject (and others, no doubt). I'd say you're more of a dupe of the rightwing pukefunnel of lies that you feed on constantly. You can keep throwing up your strawman evasions for as long as you draw breath. I will come right back and call you on them every time. I actually enjoy slamming this falsehood down so I can keep doing it as long as you keep pushing it.
Click to expand...

Take a civics class and get back to me, learn what a continuing resolution is, learn what Bush actually spent vs. what the media tells you he spent but more importantly stop making a fool of yourself.

I gave you the information, the debt on January 21, 2009 was 10.6 trillion and January 21, 2009 is after the end of the fiscal year 2008. That is what Obama inherited, in addition Obama signed the fiscal year 2009 budget which of course you ignored and started spending when he took office. The continuing resolutions expired in March 2009 and those resolutions were based upon 2008 numbers. The Bush budget proposed less than a 500 billion dollar deficit so tell me again how Bush with continuing resolutions, no budget, and being in office only 4 months of fiscal year 2009 created a 1.7 trillion dollar debt?
 
Conservative said:
The stats I use don't provide you with the answer you want but the reality is it doesn't matter how many but why? How many are eligible for Medicaid or other State programs. You want a federal mandate because you cannot compete and do not understand personal responsibility. You are a legend in your own mind and that is where it will stay
Click to expand...

Since you can't use anything but tainted "data" you're now reduced to just rightwing cant.
 
Conservative said:
I gave you the information, the debt on January 21, 2009 was 10.6 trillion and January 21, 2009 is after the end of the fiscal year 2008.
Click to expand...

Well, congratulations. You just explained why your data is tainted much more succinctly than I did. But I would point out that Jan 21, 2009, was also AFTER the BEGINNING of FY2009 which was Oct. 1, 2008. I don't know when I've enjoyed something more than smacking you down on this and you just keep coming back for more.
 
digitusmedius said:
Since you can't use anything but tainted "data" you're now reduced to just rightwing cant.
Click to expand...

Tainted data to you is Treasury Data, the debt when fiscal year began was 10.1 trillion and when Obama took office it was 10.6 trillion. I don't see the 1.7 trillion you want to blame Bush for but then again I see a leftwing hack who hasn't a clue about civics, continuing resolutions, or even how to research data so you buy headlines and believe them but only if from the left.

Want to try again

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You will note this is Treasury Data so I can understand why you don't get it probably like you don't get your own bank account data.
 
digitusmedius said:
Well, congratulations. You just explained why your data is tainted much more succinctly than I did. But I would point out that Jan 21, 2009, was also AFTER the BEGINNING of FY2009 which was Oct. 1, 2008. I don't know when I've enjoyed something more than smacking you down on this and you just keep coming back for more.
Click to expand...

You don't pay attention, I have always claimed that Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt which was 5.7 trillion when Bush took office so he added 4.9 trillion in 8 years. Obama has added 7.6 trillion in less than 7. You are the one who claimed that Republican Presidents had higher debt than Democrats and that simply is a lie. You claimed Bush debt was 6.1 trillion. Do you ever admit that you are wrong?
 
digitusmedius said:
Well, congratulations. You just explained why your data is tainted much more succinctly than I did. But I would point out that Jan 21, 2009, was also AFTER the BEGINNING of FY2009 which was Oct. 1, 2008. I don't know when I've enjoyed something more than smacking you down on this and you just keep coming back for more.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple that the national debt has been a bi-partisan effort. Reagan tripled it, the first Bush added just shy of two trillion to it, the second Bush doubled it. In almost all things there's little difference between these two parties.
 
Conservative said:
You don't pay attention, I have always claimed that Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt
Click to expand...

Which is false. It stood at $11.9T on Sep. 30, 2009 which was the end of Bush's last FY in office. I'm going to take one more stab at educating you by giving you this link to a website run by a very conservative (a frequent contributor to American Thinker) named Christopher Chantrill. Please note the amount for the FY 2009 deficit at the top of the column title "Bush Deficits" and then read his footnote below. Never mind, I'll quote what he says here (emphasis added so even you can't claim you didn't see it):
Some people [like you, con] have emailed to insist that the FY 2009 deficit should be assigned to Obama. But conventional wisdom maintains that the deficit in the first year of a president’s first term belongs to his predecessor.
Click to expand...

I'm not optimistic that this will change your determination to continue to make false claims. In fact, I'm almost sure it won't. But it will show everyone following this exchange just how dishonest the "data" you keep putting up is.
 
This is a good sign that the presidency will stay in the hands of the Democrats in 2016. Nevertheless, Obama has had a pretty mixed record. He's probably one of our best presidents, which says something about the low standards set by previous presidents.
 
Montecresto said:
In almost all things there's little difference between these two parties.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, if we ignore the fact that Clinton had set us on a course of debt reduction with 4 straight years of surpluses just before Bush came in and he and the republicans immediately destroyed with massive tax giveaways to the rich. It also ignores the fact that although the first two years of Obama's presidency continued with trillion dollar deficits (in the midst of at least the second worst economic collapse in this country's history) deficits have dropped faster than at any time since WWII (when tax rates had the highest bracket at 90 percent). Republicans have successfully blocked almost every effort to use the tax system (as was done in the post-war period) to correct those deficits which could have put the country on long term fiscal stability. No. The two parties are not at all equal on this issue despite that simplistic urge of so many to make that claim.
 
Last edited:
SocialDemocrat said:
This is a good sign that the presidency will stay in the hands of the Democrats in 2016. Nevertheless, Obama has had a pretty mixed record. He's probably one of our best presidents, which says something about the low standards set by previous presidents.
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Obama promised increased whistleblower protection, but has in fact prosecuted more whistleblowers than any predecessor. Obama promised the most transparent presidency in history, but in fact has been the least. Obama promised that in contrast to Bush, he was going to talk to our "enemy's". In fact he has bombed more of them, conducted more regime change, and has put the predictor drone program on steroids. Under Obama's watch, the unconstitutional (read: illegal) programs of the NSA increased. Under Obama's watch the Middle East has gone from a fire under control to an out of control blaze and under Obama's watch, Russia and China are forging closer ties and pushing back on the US!!!!! And I've not listed everything. ;)
 
digitusmedius said:
Well, sure, if the fact that Clinton had set us on a course of debt reduction with 4 straight years of surpluses just before Bush came in and he and the republicans immediately destroyed. It also ignores the fact that although the first two years of Obama's presidency continued with trillion dollar deficits (in the midst of at least the second worst economic collapse in this country's history) deficits have dropped faster than at any time since WWII (when tax rates had the highest bracket at 90 percent). Republicans have successfully blocked almost every effort to use the tax system (as was done in the post-war period) to correct those deficits which could have put the country on long term fiscal stability. No. The two parties are not at all equal on this issue despite that simplistic urge of so many to make that claim.
Click to expand...

But I never said that they are equal. :shrug: And, are you denying that Clinton added two trillion to the ND??
 
Goshin said:
Heh.


Wait a few weeks, I expect that will change dramatically.
Click to expand...

True enough. But my pride in America has never been based on anything a president has done anyway, that seems odd to me.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Nevertheless, Obama has had a pretty mixed record. He's probably one of our best presidents, which says something about the low standards set by previous presidents.
Click to expand...

It can't be ignored that since 2011 he's had the worst Congress to deal with since before the Civil War and maybe ever.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Obama promised increased whistleblower protection, but has in fact prosecuted more whistleblowers than any predecessor. Obama promised the most transparent presidency in history, but in fact has been the least. Obama promised that in contrast to Bush, he was going to talk to our "enemy's". In fact he has bombed more of them, conducted more regime change, and has put the predictor drone program on steroids. Under Obama's watch, the unconstitutional (read: illegal) programs of the NSA increased. Under Obama's watch the Middle East has gone from a fire under control to an out of control blaze and under Obama's watch, Russia and China are forging closer ties and pushing back on the US!!!!! And I've not listed everything. ;)
Click to expand...

All of what you've stated is true. Obama has made significant progress in other areas: the stimulus package was an essential part of recovery from the recession, amnesty for illegal immigrants was a much needed humanitarian solution, ending the Iraq War was an improvement over Bush, while it wasn't the ideal reform, ACA was a huge improvement over our previous antiquated healthcare system, his foreign policy towards Cuba is the first rational approach in decades, he's the first president in favor of equal marriage rights for gays, he's in favor of free community college, actually holds a sane position on marijuana and scaling back the drug war in general, and would've been a lot more productive if not for congressional gridlock. His foreign policy in general, including a lack of respect for civil liberties, is one of his largest flaws, but overall, he's been one of our most productive presidents.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
All of what you've stated is true. Obama has made significant progress in other areas: the stimulus package was an essential part of recovery from the recession, amnesty for illegal immigrants was a much needed humanitarian solution, ending the Iraq War was an improvement over Bush, while it wasn't the ideal reform, ACA was a huge improvement over our previous antiquated healthcare system, his foreign policy towards Cuba is the first rational approach in decades, he's the first president in favor of equal marriage rights for gays, he's in favor of free community college, actually holds a sane position on marijuana and scaling back the drug war in general, and would've been a lot more productive if not for congressional gridlock. His foreign policy in general, including a lack of respect for civil liberties, is one of his largest flaws, but overall, he's been one of our most productive presidents.
Click to expand...

Oh, I could make a similar list to my list of criticisms, of Obama accomplishments, undoubtedly. But that's why I said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And for this beholder, civil liberties are paramount, period!!!!!!! And second to that, I want my president to be a peace maker abroad, as such, he's been a failure at both. So for this beholder, he won't be on the top of the list.
 
Montecresto said:
But I never said that they are equal. :shrug: And, are you denying that Clinton added two trillion to the ND??
Click to expand...

Here are the budget numbers for Clinton budgets (FY1994-2001, numbers are billions; a "-" sign indicates budget surpluses):

1994 203.18
1995 163.95
1996 107.43
1997 21.89
1998 -69.27
1999 -125.61
2000 -236.24
2001 -128.23

Here's the source: Government Spending MultiYear Download for United States 1994-2020 - Federal State Local

Here's the result of the arithmetic (rounding to the billion): $85 Net surplus for his 8 years in office. The reason the debt continued to go up was the fact that interest on the debt continued to add to the previously created debt, all but $300B, was from the Reagan tax cuts and profligate spending. No doubt you will refuse to believe any of these hard, cold facts but that doesn't change anything.
 
digitusmedius said:
It can't be ignored that since 2011 he's had the worst Congress to deal with since before the Civil War and maybe ever.
Click to expand...

Talk about biased ignorance. Democrats had control of the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 and what exactly did we get? Trillions added to the debt, 16 million unemployed/discouraged, stagnant GDP. You must be so proud.
 
digitusmedius said:
Well, congratulations. You just explained why your data is tainted much more succinctly than I did. But I would point out that Jan 21, 2009, was also AFTER the BEGINNING of FY2009 which was Oct. 1, 2008. I don't know when I've enjoyed something more than smacking you down on this and you just keep coming back for more.
Click to expand...

So let's see if I have this straight, Bush proposed a budget in 2008 as required, it was rejected by Congress so he agreed to continuing resolutions at 2008 level, got approved 3 of 12 spending bills, signed the TARP bill which was for 700 billion dollars and was a loan, spent 350 billion of it, had a deficit of 500 billion dollars in January 2009(350 billion of which was TARP, and he is responsible for all the spending after the continuing resolutions expired, after Obama signed the 2009 budget, and after Obama recycled TARP instead of reducing the deficit with the repayment? Is that right? I believe people can see now why Liberals like you have no credibility and why Gruber was right about the Democrat electorate
 
digitusmedius said:
Which is false. It stood at $11.9T on Sep. 30, 2009 which was the end of Bush's last FY in office. I'm going to take one more stab at educating you by giving you this link to a website run by a very conservative (a frequent contributor to American Thinker) named Christopher Chantrill. Please note the amount for the FY 2009 deficit at the top of the column title "Bush Deficits" and then read his footnote below. Never mind, I'll quote what he says here (emphasis added so even you can't claim you didn't see it):

I'm not optimistic that this will change your determination to continue to make false claims. In fact, I'm almost sure it won't. But it will show everyone following this exchange just how dishonest the "data" you keep putting up is.
Click to expand...

Only in the liberal world where people like you buy the Obama narrative. He knew you would blame Bush, Gruber knew you would blame Bush but the reality is you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. 350 billion TARP money in the deficit but was paid back but Obama recycled it, yet Bush is responsible. Absolutely stunning ignorance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom