• 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

:lamo

You're celebrating that for the first time as much a HALF the people approve of the job he's doing? Any other business and that employee would be fired.

When Obama was first elected, the presidential approval rate was at about 30% (Bush), so assuming that Obama maintains 50% or higher approval rating the dem nominee will have a much easier time than the republican nominee did in 2008.
 
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.

And you just don't understand the difference between 200 years and 39 presidents accumulating 900 billion in debt, and one old movie star, coming in and single handedly borrowing TWO TRILLION dollars, destroying our lender status and setting the stage for runaway debt. That's truly pathetic. The next guy to follow suit was that pos Bush who borrowed FIVE TRILLION!! So what the hell do you expect. Stop being a partisan, acknowledge that both parties own this shameful debt, and start insisting that it be paid down, or run the bastards out of DC, even if they do have an R behind their name. Or, just continue to be a partisan hypocrite.
 
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

Look, I know how hard it is for you to keep more of what you earn but the reality is 9/11 had something to do with the debt and the deficits but then again you were probably too young to remember it.

I am so sorry that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a problem for you so my suggestion is to send it back to the Federal Govt. and to continue to do that with every paycheck you get when and if you get one.

What isn't surprising to me is the reality that you are off the kick that Bush generated a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit in fiscal year 2009. Secondly thanks for explaining how my contributions to SS and Medicare are assets, didn't know that just like apparently I didn't know that the unified budget took those assets and spent them creating IOU's that have to be funded. Apparently you think the money tree will fund those IOU's when they come due but until that time they are unfunded and thus a liability that has to be accounted for. Guess the unified budget is another term you don't understand.
 
And you just don't understand the difference between 200 years and 39 presidents accumulating 900 billion in debt, and one old movie star, coming in and single handedly borrowing TWO TRILLION dollars, destroying our lender status and setting the stage for runaway debt. That's truly pathetic. The next guy to follow suit was that pos Bush who borrowed FIVE TRILLION!! So what the hell do you expect. Stop being a partisan, acknowledge that both parties own this shameful debt, and start insisting that it be paid down, or run the bastards out of DC, even if they do have an R behind their name. Or, just continue to be a partisan hypocrite.

Never have I been an advocate of debt but the reality is when debt is created something positive has to happen or it just that debt. You buy a home, you create debt and if that home doesn't appreciate then that debt will consume you. Reality is Reagan's share of the debt was the growth in military spending which created a peace dividend with the destruction of the Soviet Union. Much of the debt was created by a Congress that saw revenue coming in and growing social spending which they attached to the defense appropriations. Tell me that a peace dividend isn't a good use of money. It was that peace dividend that was squandered just like the growth in social spending.

I know this is hard for you to understand but Reagan saw a growth in the size of govt. from 619 billion dollars to 1.2 trillion dollars or a 500 billion dollar increase in 8 years. Today our govt. is more than triple that yet you blame it on Reagan? Yes, the debt was created by both parties but the debt that generated the most benefit to the average American was the Reagan debt as indicated by the verifiable results including job creation, GDP growth, and peace dividend. In addition what you don't seem to understand is one trillion of the Bush debt according to the GAO was due to 9/11

Want to continue playing this game? I will continue to destroy your credibility and argument
 
Never have I been an advocate of debt but the reality is when debt is created something positive has to happen or it just that debt. You buy a home, you create debt and if that home doesn't appreciate then that debt will consume you. Reality is Reagan's share of the debt was the growth in military spending which created a peace dividend with the destruction of the Soviet Union. Much of the debt was created by a Congress that saw revenue coming in and growing social spending which they attached to the defense appropriations. Tell me that a peace dividend isn't a good use of money. It was that peace dividend that was squandered just like the growth in social spending.

I know this is hard for you to understand but Reagan saw a growth in the size of govt. from 619 billion dollars to 1.2 trillion dollars or a 500 billion dollar increase in 8 years. Today our govt. is more than triple that yet you blame it on Reagan? Yes, the debt was created by both parties but the debt that generated the most benefit to the average American was the Reagan debt as indicated by the verifiable results including job creation, GDP growth, and peace dividend. In addition what you don't seem to understand is one trillion of the Bush debt according to the GAO was due to 9/11

Want to continue playing this game? I will continue to destroy your credibility and argument

You've destroyed nothing. Setting in retirement banging away at your keyboard all day. But Reagan destroyed Americas lender status, transformed the United States into a debtor state that is now borrowing our way into oblivion. And in eighty years, you've learned nothing about that. Play with yourself.
 
You've destroyed nothing. Setting in retirement banging away at your keyboard all day. But Reagan destroyed Americas lender status, transformed the United States into a debtor state that is now borrowing our way into oblivion. And in eighty years, you've learned nothing about that. Play with yourself.

No question about it, Reagan destroyed America's lender status by creating a peace dividend. Bet you never made a good investment in your life. Facts, data, logic, and common sense always destroy people like you and you just cannot handle it.
 
No question about it, Reagan destroyed America's lender status by creating a peace dividend. Bet you never made a good investment in your life. Facts, data, logic, and common sense always destroy people like you and you just cannot handle it.

My finances aren't the subject, but they're fine. Reagan destroyed far more than our lender status, that's just a bit of it. Ballooning national debts, set by his example of borrowing unprecedented amounts of money is his legacy, and we're not likely to see that trend reversed.
 
My finances aren't the subject, but they're fine. Reagan destroyed far more than our lender status, that's just a bit of it. Ballooning national debts, set by his example of borrowing unprecedented amounts of money is his legacy, and we're not likely to see that trend reversed.

Do you know what a peace dividend is? You believe the amount spent to create that dividend was a good investment? Apparently you believe that President Reagan actually investing money in our defense and destroying the Soviet Union gave a green light to all future Presidents to spend money. Is that your contention?

Here is the debt by President

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
Clinton 1.4 trillion
GW Bush 4.9 trillion
Obama 7.6 trillion

Reagan doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, and created a peace dividend, and increased the size of the govt. by 600 billion dollars in 8 years. Wonder how many agree with you that the spending wasn't a good investment?

Obama increased GDP 2.8 trillion dollars(842 billion in stimulus), created 6 million jobs, added 7.6 trillion dollars to the debt, lost the peace in Iraq, but he did promote same sex marriage. Wonder how may believe that is a good return on investment.

I suggest you learn what ROI is and then we can talk about the actual results.
 
Do you know what a peace dividend is? You believe the amount spent to create that dividend was a good investment? Apparently you believe that President Reagan actually investing money in our defense and destroying the Soviet Union gave a green light to all future Presidents to spend money. Is that your contention?

Here is the debt by President

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
Clinton 1.4 trillion
GW Bush 4.9 trillion
Obama 7.6 trillion

Reagan doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, and created a peace dividend, and increased the size of the govt. by 600 billion dollars in 8 years. Wonder how many agree with you that the spending wasn't a good investment?

Obama increased GDP 2.8 trillion dollars(842 billion in stimulus), created 6 million jobs, added 7.6 trillion dollars to the debt, lost the peace in Iraq, but he did promote same sex marriage. Wonder how may believe that is a good return on investment.

I suggest you learn what ROI is and then we can talk about the actual results.

Until Reagan, the United States held its head high, at least in terms of fiscal responsibility, and as the greatest in lender status. Not only did Reagan flush that down the toilet, he told every president that followed him that debt isn't bad, just borrow and spend until your hearts content. And yet the democrats are constantly ridiculed as the tax and spend party. Tax and spend is better than borrow and spend, by any measure.
 
Until Reagan, the United States held its head high, at least in terms of fiscal responsibility, and as the greatest in lender status. Not only did Reagan flush that down the toilet, he told every president that followed him that debt isn't bad, just borrow and spend until your hearts content. And yet the democrats are constantly ridiculed as the tax and spend party. Tax and spend is better than borrow and spend, by any measure.

No, before Reagan there was the Vietnam War and Jimmy Carter. Fiscal responsibility means making an investment in national security so other Presidents don't have to spend that money. Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and returned this country to a nation of power and respect. You have a distorted view of history.

Seems you buy the liberal rhetoric about what Reagan told other Presidents and totally ignore the return on investment Reagan generated. The debt of 2.6 was manageable with a 5.6 trillion dollar economy but hardly now with an 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy

Tax and spend in a private sector economy is an prescription for disaster and the European Socialist model. Greece is an example of that type economic model.
 
No, before Reagan there was the Vietnam War and Jimmy Carter. Fiscal responsibility means making an investment in national security so other Presidents don't have to spend that money. Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and returned this country to a nation of power and respect. You have a distorted view of history.

Seems you buy the liberal rhetoric about what Reagan told other Presidents and totally ignore the return on investment Reagan generated. The debt of 2.6 was manageable with a 5.6 trillion dollar economy but hardly now with an 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy

Tax and spend in a private sector economy is an prescription for disaster and the European Socialist model. Greece is an example of that type economic model.

Setting the atrocious example of compounded debt that Reagan did, borrowing that heretofore unheard of sum of money, set a horrible example that every president has followed since, and the next GOPer will as well. Such is Reagan's wretched legacy. But really, this thread is about how that Obama's approval rating is destroying Bush's from the same time period in their respective presidencies. ;)
 
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.

Does "ignoring" mean mentioning several times in your version of the English language. Several times I mentioned that the interest on past borrowing to cover deficits kept the debt from actually going down despite Clinton's 4 well documented years of budgetary revenue surpluses. Of course, I should have known that you wouldn't be able to understand that that comes from the purchase of T-bills by the SocSec trust fund which are the intergovernmental holdings. I must remember that someone like you always needs the training wheels and one has to start over with each post to have a chance of making you understand which is futile because you're hard-wired not to understand these things.
 
Reagan destroyed the solvency of the US treasury and began the process of this country to become a permanent debtor state.

Fixed for accuracy. No charge and you're welcome.
 
Setting the atrocious example of compounded debt that Reagan did, borrowing that heretofore unheard of sum of money, set a horrible example that every president has followed since, and the next GOPer will as well. Such is Reagan's wretched legacy. But really, this thread is about how that Obama's approval rating is destroying Bush's from the same time period in their respective presidencies. ;)

How do you think the Vietnam War was paid for and do you endorse that technique? You think LBJ was right? Did LBJ and Congress set the example for other Presidents in using SS and Medicare funds for that war? What exactly do you think the role of the Federal Govt. is? Bush's approval rating was misguided and based upon a war that the surge won and now a peace that Obama has lost. I know you have no understanding of evil and world affairs but the reality is the situation in Iraq is worse today than when Bush left office and the world is less safe today than when Bush left office. The liberal ignorance and support for incompetence is staggering.
 
Fixed for accuracy. No charge and you're welcome.

Really? so you believe a 2.6 trillion dollar debt on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy is insolvency? Do you even know what insolvency is? Hard to insolvent when you can print money, don't you think?
 
Until Reagan, the United States held its head high, at least in terms of fiscal responsibility, and as the greatest in lender status. Not only did Reagan flush that down the toilet, he told every president that followed him that debt isn't bad, just borrow and spend until your hearts content. And yet the democrats are constantly ridiculed as the tax and spend party. Tax and spend is better than borrow and spend, by any measure.

Voted up but just for accuracy sake, all those deficit amounts in conservative's post are bogus. He used that favorite and totally dishonest rightwing tactic (but I repeat myself) of using the inauguration dates of each of those presidents which has no relationship whatsoever with which budgets belong to which president. It's a perversion of the reality and a scam they've been trying to get away with ever since BushII blew all other contenders out in 2009 with a whopping $1.4T which is still the largest single one year deficit in history (and let's hope forever unless republicans get control of the WH and Congress as they did in 2001.
 
correcting the "conservative" record (or is it a recording by now?):

Here is the completely bogus debt fantasy that I've created by violating every convention of how budgets are created and by which president. It's pathetic but it's all I've got:

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
Clinton 1.4 trillion
GW Bush 4.9 trillion
Obama 7.6 trillion

Another fix for accuracy at no charge. Again, you're welcome
 
Really? so you believe a 2.6 trillion dollar debt on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy is insolvency? Do you even know what insolvency is? Hard to insolvent when you can print money, don't you think?

It was the beginning of a failed republican moronic (but, again, I repeat myself) fiscal idea which George W. "The Catastrophe" Bush doubled down on and nearly destroyed this country's economy.
 
How do you think the Vietnam War was paid for and do you endorse that technique?

At least that horrible war (which rightwingers like you pushed for at the time and still pretend "we could have won it, if only we'd used nukes" or some such insane rubbish) was paid for. The national debt from JFK's first budget year to LBJ's last increased only $55B or 18.5%. Reagan's increase was $1.9T was increase 200% and Bush II's was $6.1T was a 103% increase. Right now, Obama's increase comes to about 50% from what BushII left behind.
 
How do you think the Vietnam War was paid for and do you endorse that technique? You think LBJ was right? Did LBJ and Congress set the example for other Presidents in using SS and Medicare funds for that war? What exactly do you think the role of the Federal Govt. is? Bush's approval rating was misguided and based upon a war that the surge won and now a peace that Obama has lost. I know you have no understanding of evil and world affairs but the reality is the situation in Iraq is worse today than when Bush left office and the world is less safe today than when Bush left office. The liberal ignorance and support for incompetence is staggering.

Btw, the Vietnam war was another wholly unnecessary war, and as such, there is no proper way to pay for it.
 
correcting the "conservative" record (or is it a recording by now?):



Another fix for accuracy at no charge. Again, you're welcome


Yep, budgets vs. spending is another topic neither of you understand. The debt and deficit numbers come directly from the Bank Account of the United States. Neither of you understand that. For some reason you ignore Treasury data and thus ignore the debt service the taxpayers pay on that data. Suggest you both take a road trip to DC and show the Treasury where they are wrong. Let me know the outcome.
 
It was the beginning of a failed republican moronic (but, again, I repeat myself) fiscal idea which George W. "The Catastrophe" Bush doubled down on and nearly destroyed this country's economy.

Thankfully Obama has saved us, 7.6 trillion in debt, 2.8 trillion in GDP growth of which 842 billion was stimulus, record numbers of discouraged workers, and the loss of Congress, a true liberal success story.
 
Btw, the Vietnam war was another wholly unnecessary war, and as such, there is no proper way to pay for it.

Yet it was paid for by SS and Medicare funds which of course made the deficit and debt look better just like all Presidents EXCEPT Reagan did afterwards. Reagan would have done it too but Carter left it almost broke thus the increase in FICA taxes, another tax you don't understand
 
At least that horrible war (which rightwingers like you pushed for at the time and still pretend "we could have won it, if only we'd used nukes" or some such insane rubbish) was paid for. The national debt from JFK's first budget year to LBJ's last increased only $55B or 18.5%. Reagan's increase was $1.9T was increase 200% and Bush II's was $6.1T was a 103% increase. Right now, Obama's increase comes to about 50% from what BushII left behind.

Very easy not to have a deficit or debt when you use trust fund money from SS and Medicare to pay for it. You don't get it and never will, SS and Medicare are unfunded liabilities because the money was used for everything other than SS and Medicare thus are part of the debt which you refuse to acknowledge or apparently understand. I dare you to research SS and the unified budget under LBJ
 
Yet it was paid for by SS and Medicare funds which of course made the deficit and debt look better just like all Presidents EXCEPT Reagan did afterwards. Reagan would have done it too but Carter left it almost broke thus the increase in FICA taxes, another tax you don't understand

The ND was 3-400 billion during the time period of that war. Pocket change compared to the Reagan disaster.
 
Back
Top Bottom