• 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

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.

LOL, now that is funny and that makes Gruber proud. By what standards?
 
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.

I gave you the link to the Treasury data so would you please point out the four straight years of Clinton surpluses? Thanks
 
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.

Interesting how you ignore reality as usual, budget numbers are irrelevant as it is spending that counts, budget spending AND intergovt. holdings. You really need a civics class
 
As a human being with personal opinions, I judge Obama and all other politicians by my own personal standards.

Seriously though, what kind of question is that?

Then you judge by those liberal standards that Gruber was talking about, thinking with your heart and not your brain. Actual results matter and Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good. You made the statement that Obama was one of our greatest Presidents so the logical question is by what standards?
 
Then you judge by those liberal standards that Gruber was talking about, thinking with your heart and not your brain. Actual results matter and Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good. You made the statement that Obama was one of our greatest Presidents so the logical question is by what standards?

You're making sweeping generalizations based on no evidence whatsoever. Don't try to pretend that there's a "correct" opinion about Obama (or a correct opinion about anything, for that matter).
 
You're making sweeping generalizations based on no evidence whatsoever. Don't try to pretend that there's a "correct" opinion about Obama (or a correct opinion about anything, for that matter).

You made a statement that you cannot back up showing that you think only with your heart and results don't matter. I provide actual data that is verifiable and what you do is post your opinions based upon your feelings
 
You made a statement that you cannot back up showing that you think only with your heart and results don't matter. I provide actual data that is verifiable and what you do is post your opinions based upon your feelings

I elaborated on my position earlier in the thread if you didn't read it:

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.
 
I elaborated on my position earlier in the thread if you didn't read it:

Just as I thought you have no idea what you are talking about and results don't matter. I am not going there again but if the Obama record was so good he wouldn't have lost the Congress. The stimulus was a disaster and with that stimulus the recovery was the worst in history and as a result he has added 7.6 trillion to the debt. The U-6 rate is still 10.8% but to a liberal that is a success? He didn't end the Iraq War the Status of Forces Agreement in November 2008 did, but what Obama did was lose the peace or are conditions better in Iraq today than they were when Obama took office? ACA? LOL, ok, just like a socialist that has no problem spending someone else's money. Is that what you were taught growing up that it was ok to take money from someone else for your own personal responsibility issues? I could go on but that is nothing but a waste of time as nothing is going to change your mind including the 18.2 trillion dollar debt

I cannot believe how naïve, gullible, poorly informed and such low standards/expectations liberals are. I guess I will never understand people like you
 
Just as I thought you have no idea what you are talking about and results don't matter. I am not going there again but if the Obama record was so good he wouldn't have lost the Congress. The stimulus was a disaster and with that stimulus the recovery was the worst in history and as a result he has added 7.6 trillion to the debt. The U-6 rate is still 10.8% but to a liberal that is a success? He didn't end the Iraq War the Status of Forces Agreement in November 2008 did, but what Obama did was lose the peace or are conditions better in Iraq today than they were when Obama took office? ACA? LOL, ok, just like a socialist that has no problem spending someone else's money. Is that what you were taught growing up that it was ok to take money from someone else for your own personal responsibility issues? I could go on but that is nothing but a waste of time as nothing is going to change your mind including the 18.2 trillion dollar debt

I cannot believe how naïve, gullible, poorly informed and such low standards/expectations liberals are. I guess I will never understand people like you

You're right in that you're not going to change my mind, but you could drop the condescension. First of all, I'm not a liberal by any means, so don't think that you don't understand liberalism because you don't understand my position. Regarding the Stimulus, it has stimulated (no pun intended) a recovery from the recession. It had the worst PR campaign in history on the administration's part, so Obama doesn't receive credit for it. The 'peace' in Iraq was automatically lost in Iraq when Bush decided to invade the country for no reason. For all your claims that you use 'reason' and 'evidence' to support your beliefs, your refutation against the ACA makes no sense. Do you not understand the concept of taxation funding government programs? Debt is not a major issue. If the government runs a balanced budget by essentially running like a business, it deprives citizens of their most basic rights to a decent life through cutting social spending to the bare bone. Government is elected democratically, and is therefore run completely differently than businesses or household paychecks.

However, we're just rehashing the same old points of the past 7 years since Obama was elected, so there's really no point in continuing here.
 
Interesting how you ignore reality as usual, budget numbers are irrelevant as it is spending that counts, budget spending AND intergovt. holdings. You really need a civics class

You just dig in on the ignorance with each one of your responses, con. A sensible person would stop digging but I think we can count on you to keep digging. I didn't give you "budget numbers." I gave you actual deficit/surplus numbers. But, of course, you're so desperate you have to try to throw any crap up and hope that it sticks. I'd return the insult about civic class but actually you need to start all over at the beginning of elementary school to have a chance at understanding anything (not to mention get your mind wiped clean of all the rightwing sewage you've filled it with over the years).
 
However, we're just rehashing the same old points of the past 7 years since Obama was elected, so there's really no point in continuing here.

Our "con" is some kind of piece o' work. I've seen so many of his ilk and it's amazing to watch them spin the disinformation they've ingested from the pukefunnel of rightwing lies.
 
I gave you the link to the Treasury data so would you please point out the four straight years of Clinton surpluses? Thanks

I knew you wouldn't accept the data even from a very conservative source because to do so would destroy the mythology you've accepted. Here's the actual historical CBO data of deficits/surpluses for the last 4 years of Clinton's presidency (apologies if the columns don't line up neatly; this happens a lot when spread sheet documents get copied and pasted):

Table H-1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public Since 1974


Revenue Outlays

1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8

Numbers represent billions. Because I know arithmetic is not your thing, I'll do it for you: 1998, $69.2B surplus; 1999, $125.7B surplus; 2000, $236.2B surplus; 2001, $128.3B surplus.

Here's a link to the source even though I know you will never go to it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf It's on page 156

Like I said before, I'm more than happy to keep humiliating you as long as you want to keep being humiliated. You seem to need it.
 
Only in the liberal world where people like you buy the Obama narrative.

So now your calling the Treasury's numbers (that you misused) the "Obama narrative." You're now chasing your own tail and I couldn't be enjoying it more.
 
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.

Ah,the last ditch, desperation move of every rightwinger I've ever dealth with: when nothing else works, blame the other side for the disaster the rightwing scumbag politicians created and whom we (i.e., the rightwinger in question) voted for with gusto and supported all the way along the road to hell. By 2007 the Bush Disaster was set in stone and with his idiotic, incompetent ass in the WH the Dems could not override any veto and Senate republicans using the filibuster to keep anything Bush didn't want from ever reaching his desk. When Obama was elected and had a filibuster proof Senate, we finally got enough fixed to get the economy going and thanks to tea bagger morons on the republican side who tried to shut down the government and get us to default, put Boehner and McConnell in such a bad position that he (Obama) finally was able to get much needed tax increases on the wealthy to start chopping down the deficits.
 
You were sure it was not going to go down, which you claiming you have a crystal ball.

Was I? Indicate the comment where I said that (don't bother looking, it never happened and you know it). I'm going to just write this off to your usual confusion rather than a deliberate lie. But I won't do that a second time.
 
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.

Don't be surprised when Con tells you Clinton had no surplus and never had a balanced budget. They use an accounting trick to "prove" it too. You see when a govt. agency like Social security has a surplus it is transferred into T-bills and appears to add to the debt. It's does not it is a SURPLUS but it makes it appear that the debt went up every year under Clinton if you pick the right govt. chart. No matter how many times you call them on it they just can't resist using it. We will see just how shameless Con is this time.
 
Last edited:
You just dig in on the ignorance with each one of your responses, con. A sensible person would stop digging but I think we can count on you to keep digging. I didn't give you "budget numbers." I gave you actual deficit/surplus numbers. But, of course, you're so desperate you have to try to throw any crap up and hope that it sticks. I'd return the insult about civic class but actually you need to start all over at the beginning of elementary school to have a chance at understanding anything (not to mention get your mind wiped clean of all the rightwing sewage you've filled it with over the years).

Yes, you gave me what you perceive as the actual budget and deficit numbers but I gave you the Treasury data and link which you ignored. Show me the Clinton surplus from Treasury data and then explain to me why the Treasury doesn't show the Clinton surplus. I can give you a hint, you have no clue as to what Inter-Government Holdings are and that SS and Medicare money was taken to put on budget to show a lower Public debt number but Public debt is only part of the National debt. Civics would help you and stop you from looking and sounding foolish although seems that you have some supporters here that don't understand it either.
 
I knew you wouldn't accept the data even from a very conservative source because to do so would destroy the mythology you've accepted. Here's the actual historical CBO data of deficits/surpluses for the last 4 years of Clinton's presidency (apologies if the columns don't line up neatly; this happens a lot when spread sheet documents get copied and pasted):

Table H-1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public Since 1974


Revenue Outlays

1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8

Numbers represent billions. Because I know arithmetic is not your thing, I'll do it for you: 1998, $69.2B surplus; 1999, $125.7B surplus; 2000, $236.2B surplus; 2001, $128.3B surplus.

Here's a link to the source even though I know you will never go to it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf It's on page 156

Like I said before, I'm more than happy to keep humiliating you as long as you want to keep being humiliated. You seem to need it.

CBO is the Congressional Budget Office not the Treasury Department and if you think that the Budget of the United States was 2.0 trillion dollars then you really do have a serious problem as you ignore the Unified Budget with SS and Medicare being on budget put there by LBJ in the 60's. Here is the budget of the United States. Stop making a fool of yourself.

The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report Page Has Moved
 
So now your calling the Treasury's numbers (that you misused) the "Obama narrative." You're now chasing your own tail and I couldn't be enjoying it more.

You aren't using complete Treasury numbers only the budget numbers. The deficit is made up of Public Debt and Inter-Government Holdings. I am glad you enjoy making a fool of yourself because you don't get it. You posted revenue numbers totaling 2.0 trillion dollars and thus a surplus obviously believing that the budget of the U.S. is less than 2.0 trillion dollars. Please post that 2 trillion dollar budget for me.

Obama Proposes $3.9 Trillion Budget
 
Don't be surprised when Con tells you Clinton had no surplus and never had a balanced budget. They use an accounting trick to "prove" it too. You see when a govt. agency like Social security has a surplus it is transferred into T-bills and appears to add to the debt. It's does not it is a SURPLUS but it makes it appear that the debt went up every year under Clinton if you pick the right govt. chart. No matter how many times you call them on it they just can't resist using it. We will see just how shameless Con is this time.

So as I have asked please post for me the 2 trillion dollar U.S. Budget? In order to have a surplus you have to have more revenue than spending so when you post 2 trillion in revenue and claim it was a surplus then obviously that would be the Surplus for the year off the budget. I anxiously await for you to post that budget?

Oh, by the way, when you contribute to SS and Medicare that creates a long term liability for the govt. That long term liability becomes unfunded when the Govt spends the money on things other than SS and Medicare and those TBills are an expense because they have to be funded by CASH. Where is the money going to come from to fund those T-Bills?
 
Last edited:
Don't be surprised when Con tells you Clinton had no surplus and never had a balanced budget.

It happened last evening just as you predicted and, no, I'm not surprised at all. I've run into the likes of con over and over on various fora like this. He demanded documentation of the surpluses and I supplied them and now I'm going see his responses to that and I'm sure he'll deny all the facts as usual. It's quite a psychological condition he and many rightwingers share: they simply cannot deal in, handle or live with actual facts.
 
Yes, you gave me what you perceive as the actual budget and deficit numbers but I gave you the Treasury data and link which you ignored.

Yes, you gave me treasury data and I've showed you how you misused them with a link to a rightwing economics writer which proves that you used bogus data. The DoT does not keep data on deficits or surpluses, only the debt. I gave you CBO data and the source for it (which I'm sure you didn't bother to go to). You reject it because it doesn't comport with your rightwing trashing of the facts. Your dishonesty has been exposed time and time again and as long as you keep putting it out there I'll keep smacking it down.
 
Last edited:
In order to have a surplus you have to have more revenue than spending so when you post 2 trillion in revenue and claim it was a surplus then obviously that would be the Surplus for the year off the budget.

Here again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of even the terms you're using much less even the least grasp of how the budget functions. If you had even the least bit of interest in educating yourself you'd have been able to do so at Christopher Chantrill's website ( usgovernmentspending.com ) which explains why budget surpluses don't necessarily show up as debt reduction. But, as I've said before, you're one of the uneducable types so rife in the rightwing. It is impossible to teach anything to those people even if the teacher is one of their own.
 
Here again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of even the terms you're using much less even the least grasp of how the budget functions. If you had even the least bit of interest in educating yourself you'd have been able to do so at Christopher Chantrill's website ( usgovernmentspending.com ) which explains why budget surpluses don't necessarily show up as debt reduction. But, as I've said before, you're one of the uneducable types so rife in the rightwing. It is impossible to teach anything to those people even if the teacher is one of their own.

Here is a problem you have, Treasury, the Bank account of the United States, doesn't support your claim because you ignore inter-govt. holdings. I gave you the link to Treasury, stop making a fool of yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom