• 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

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.

Do you know what the debt is compiled from? Think about it, DEFICITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Clinton had deficits which added to the debt, not surpluses which reduced the debt.
 
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.

He's not the one making a fool of himself, and I'm enjoying every bit of it.
 
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?

The money comes from the sweat and blood of the American worker.
 
Aw, yes, Reagan created 17 million of them, the Obama stimulus created 3 million less.

While tripling a 900 billion dollar debt that took 200 years to accumulate. :lamo
 
While tripling a 900 billion dollar debt that took 200 years to accumulate. :lamo

Yep, tripling the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion which is still 52% of GDP is a lot worse that increasing the debt 7.6 trillion to 18.2 trillion which is more than 100% of GDP because it is a lower percentage increase. Is that liberal logic?
 
I understand, results don't matter in your world whereas liberal rhetoric does.

Most people know when they have had their asses kicked. I suggest you see a neurologist or perhaps a psychologist, as something is definitely wrong with your inability to see the damage done to you in this debate.
 
You can always tell when a liberal is confused by actual data that refutes their opinions because they stop cheerleading each other and stop posting. The light bulb finally goes off but the maturity level isn't there to admit they were wrong.
 
Most people know when they have had their asses kicked. I suggest you see a neurologist or perhaps a psychologist, as something is definitely wrong with your inability to see the damage done to you in this debate.

It appears not since you are still here.
 
Yep, tripling the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion which is still 52% of GDP is a lot worse that increasing the debt 7.6 trillion to 18.2 trillion which is more than 100% of GDP because it is a lower percentage increase. Is that liberal logic?

Yes, in eight short years he did three times the damage as every president before him combined and turned the US from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation. And the debt he accumulated was his only (stated) regret. And it set the precedence for runaway debt. And the next GOPer president will NOT be paying it down, but will continue the runaway accumulation. Only difference is, you'll be here blaming it on a democratic president predecessor.
 
You can always tell when a liberal is confused by actual data that refutes their opinions because they stop cheerleading each other and stop posting. The light bulb finally goes off but the maturity level isn't there to admit they were wrong.

As DF is keen to say, "you're in the toilet on this, now reach up and pull the chain!
 
Last edited:
Yes, in eight short years he did three times the damage as every president before him combined and turned the US from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation. And the debt he accumulated was his only (stated) regret. And it set the precedence for runaway debt. And the next GOPer president will NOT be paying it down, but will continue the runaway accumulation. Only difference is, you'll be here blaming it on a democratic president predecessor.

Guess those 17 million new taxpayers as well as all the millions and millions that benefited from the doubling of GDP would disagree with you on your definition of damage. Notice how you failed to respond to the comparison between the 1.7 trillion added to the debt and the 7.6 trillion added today. you think it is the role of the Govt. to run a profit? How about generating positive economic results that actually benefit the private sector economy? You also ignore something called the peace dividend which benefited other Presidents but then I don't expect you to admit you are wrong or just could be mistaken.
 
Guess those 17 million new taxpayers as well as all the millions and millions that benefited from the doubling of GDP would disagree with you on your definition of damage. Notice how you failed to respond to the comparison between the 1.7 trillion added to the debt and the 7.6 trillion added today. you think it is the role of the Govt. to run a profit? How about generating positive economic results that actually benefit the private sector economy? You also ignore something called the peace dividend which benefited other Presidents but then I don't expect you to admit you are wrong or just could be mistaken.

Stop bitching about the national debt sense your god got the damn ball rolling, even though he regretted it, you haven't the integrity to concede the damage as he did.
 
As DF is keen to say, "your in the toilet on this, now reach up and pull the chain!

Noticed that you are still here and still ignoring the data or interpreting it the way you want, mostly out of context and with total lack of understanding as to the components of GDP and the nature of the U.S. economy. Care to comment on the doubling of GDP vs. what we have today? How about the 17 million jobs vs. what we have today? How about the 1.7 trillion added to the debt vs. 7.6 trillion added to the debt today?
 
Stop bitching about the national debt sense your god got the damn ball rolling, even though he regretted it, you haven't the integrity to concede the damage as he did.

No, he didn't, he recovered from the Carter malaise, destroyed the Soviet Union, and restored the spirit in the American public reviving nationalism and the entrepreneurial spirit in this country. That shining city on the hill was revived. Stop whining and complaining about something you don't even understand.
 
Noticed that you are still here and still ignoring the data or interpreting it the way you want, mostly out of context and with total lack of understanding as to the components of GDP and the nature of the U.S. economy. Care to comment on the doubling of GDP vs. what we have today? How about the 17 million jobs vs. what we have today? How about the 1.7 trillion added to the debt vs. 7.6 trillion added to the debt today?

How about Reagan destroying our creditor status with debtor status. A loser, he and his voodoo economics.
 
No, he didn't, he recovered from the Carter malaise, destroyed the Soviet Union, and restored the spirit in the American public reviving nationalism and the entrepreneurial spirit in this country. That shining city on the hill was revived. Stop whining and complaining about something you don't even understand.

That old fart was stricken with Alzheimer's from the beginning, did not destroy the Soviet Union and waged war on the middle class, unions that protect the middle class, removed regulations from big business that protected the middle class, was essentially a curse to the american middle class. That fossil is gone, but we're still working to repair his damage, some of which may not be reversible!
 
How about Reagan destroying our creditor status with debtor status. A loser, he and his voodoo economics.

Really? so doubling the GDP, having a 60% growth in FIT, creating 17 million jobs, and having debt at 52% of GDP created a worse economy in this country than what he inherited and thus created us as a debtor nation? Do you know what a debtor nation is? It is a debtor nation that has a 2.6 trillion dollar debt on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy or a 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy? Better yet how does a 1.7 trillion dollar debt affect the debt service vs. the 7.6 trillion dollar debt? Adjust the 1.7 trillion for inflation you have a 3.4 trillion dollar debt vs. the 7.6 trillion today.
 
That old fart was stricken with Alzheimer's from the beginning, did not destroy the Soviet Union and waged war on the middle class, unions that protect the middle class, removed regulations from big business that protected the middle class, was essentially a curse to the american middle class. That fossil is gone, but we're still working to repair his damage, some of which may not be reversible!

Yet Reagan was the right person at the right time and people like you still cannot get over his economic successes 27 years after he left office. Rather sad that you will never understand the U.S. economy or what drives it nor will you ever understand leadership and the lack of competence Obama has for the office he holds.
 
Yet Reagan was the right person at the right time and people like you still cannot get over his economic successes 27 years after he left office. Rather sad that you will never understand the U.S. economy or what drives it nor will you ever understand leadership and the lack of competence Obama has for the office he holds.

30+ years of voodoo reaganomics and the middle class is still suffering from it. The first president in history to ruin the largest economy in the world by turning the country from a lender to a borrower. It's amazing you made 80!
 
30+ years of voodoo reaganomics and the middle class is still suffering from it. The first president in history to ruin the largest economy in the world by turning the country from a lender to a borrower. It's amazing you made 80!

Yep, that is why the American public old enough to understand what Reagan inherited revere him still today. Guess something like personal responsibility remains a foreign concept to you just like what it means to have more money in your pocket which I believe is the bottom line problem for people like you. The 80's were the best period of my life and my families.
 
Yep, that is why the American public old enough to understand what Reagan inherited revere him still today. Guess something like personal responsibility remains a foreign concept to you just like what it means to have more money in your pocket which I believe is the bottom line problem for people like you. The 80's were the best period of my life and my families.

Yeah, borrowing two trillion dollars, destroying our lender status and setting a precedence for all future presidents to borrow is peak personal responsibility. :lamo And the eighties were the best for you because Reagan didn't make you pay for any of his bull **** ideas. He just borrowed it. And you have the balls to lecture about personal responsibility. What a farce.
 
Yeah, borrowing two trillion dollars, destroying our lender status and setting a precedence for all future presidents to borrow is peak personal responsibility. :lamo

Guess you just don't understand the differences that I described and even what a peace dividend is. Thanks for playing but you are a waste of time just like far too many here who ignore facts and the data that supports them.
 
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?

Oh, we're going for a subject change now, are we? This might be the first wise thing you've done to get out of the hole you created were it not for the fact that yet again you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of not just the budgeting and fiscal terms but not even the mechanism of how SS functions. You really don't even understand basic accounting terms. Contributions to SS/MC are assets not liabilities; distributions are the liabilities. When you deposit money into your bank account do you call that the creation of a liability since you will spend some of that money later? Maybe you do but that's not how accountants look at it. But you have (inadvertently, of course) put your finger on why there can be budget surpluses and yet the debt still goes up. In Clinton's case, the money borrowed from the SS trust fund (in the form of TBills issued to the trust fund) due to the massive Reagan/BushI deficits and the interest had to be paid back to the trust fund so the debt didn't actually decrease. But one can see strong evidence of reduction of the rate of increase by looking at your favorite site (treasury direct, debt to the penny). Here's a summary of the few years right before the Clinton surpluses and then the years during the surpluses. Even you might be able to see that there was a 90% decrease (in the rate of increase). I also included the first Bush FY to demonstrate how drastically it went up again after his disastrous tax cuts took effect (FY 2002). Just look at how the debt only increased by $18B from 1999-2000 but is up over $400B by end of FY2002, just two years into the Bush Disaster tax cuts.

09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
 
Back
Top Bottom