• 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

No, it is your opinion for other Presidents created significant debt but hid it well kicking the can down the road. It does appear you have no understanding of getting a return on investment which in this case is the debt created. Keep running from the peace dividend which is why you have no credibility.

Not one of the 39 presidents Prior to Reagan created anything near his debt. He destroyed our lender status, turned us into the irresponsible fiscal slob that we are today. That's not opinion.
 
I keep reading posts of yours and others here many of whom talk about Public Debt as a percentage of GDP and how bad Reagan's performance was and although debt is made up of two items, public debt PLUS Inter-government holdings the percentage of debt to GDP is an interesting topic for discussion. Attached is a chart showing those numbers and what is quite telling is the Clinton public debt as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than Reagan's and Obama's debt if off the charts. Makes me wonder why liberals believe what they are told and never research to verify the rhetoric.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S

Ah, trying to switch the subject again. Uncharacteristically wise move on your part.
 
Ah, trying to switch the subject again. Uncharacteristically wise move on your part.

Not at all, just showing the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of liberal rhetoric that ignores actual factual data and results. Keep running from reality. Wonder what it is about liberal indoctrination that creates people like you who ignore actual data and continue to think with your heart. Ever find that Clinton surplus reflected in actual Treasury data? Notice how Clinton's public debt to GDP ratio was higher than Reagan's? Notice where Obama's is?
 
Exactly, lol. Thanks for making my point. It was in decline until Reagan, and save but a brief period during the Clinton administration, it's been climbing ever since. The actor brought us the slave debt state. ;)

Yes, I made the point, Reagan created a peace dividend giving Clinton the opportunity to cut spending, he increased social spending and didn't cut spending at all. That destroys your belief that Reagan created policies that authorized other Presidents to increase the debt. You obviously don't understand what a peace dividend was or what the return on investment was from the Reagan economy. Reagan set the stage for reducing spending, not increasing it.
 
When that money is spent and you allow others to fund your retirement it becomes a Ponzi Scheme.
Only if a certain party continues to unfund those future liabilities.

What the hell are SE taxes?
Self-employment taxes. You don't even know what those are?

T-Bills are issued but when they come due where does the money come from to convert them to cash or do you think your grocery store will take T-bills?

How many times have I referred to the interest payments on the debt....maybe 6, 8? I'm beginning to wonder about your cognitive ability.

Please tell me why SS and Medicare are being funded by general revenue?

For the nth time, because your party refuses to adequately fund both programs in the hope that that will force their destruction in the future.

You don't seem to have any concept of how the budget works, what taxes you pay, and what those taxes are for. SS and Medicare were pay as you go programs funded by FICA taxes ONLY.

This from someone who didn't know what SE taxes are and didn't understand how the debt could go up even in the face of budget surpluses.


Stop it, stop making a fool of yourself and mature by admitting you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about or any clue about the budget, the deficit, and the debt.

You'd be well served following your own advice. You've bungled, fumbled and stumbled on every aspect of this discussion so many times I'm surprised you aren't in intensive care for the self-inflicted wounds.

You obviously have no idea how foolish you sound but I will continue to beat your ass with actual data and facts. You ought to stop when you are way behind.

How you do make me laugh.
 
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.

Oh, Reagan absolutely did it. Where do you think his $1.9T addition to the debt came from? You have no connection at all with reality.
 
Oh, Reagan absolutely did it. Where do you think his $1.9T addition to the debt came from? You have no connection at all with reality.

So you are concerned about the 1.7 trillion Reagan added to the debt but not the 7.6 trillion Obama added. I know what we got for the Reagan debt but you cannot explain what we got from the Obama debt, you can tell what you feel but not support that by actual data
 
Sure did and I see you managed to let yourself ignore that, too.

No, sorry, BEA.gov and the Treasury Department disagree with you and the link I gave you supports my claim but like far too many you have been indoctrinated to buy rhetoric and ignore results.
 
That is just pure confabulation. It's pathological.

Really? So point out the Soviet Union today and the Cold war? I totally understand Treasury is wrong with regard to the Debt and Gorbachev is wrong regarding Reagan winning the cold war. You truly are a legend in your own mind with no self respect as you don't mind looking and sounding foolish
 
digitusmedius;1064796872]Only if a certain party continues to unfund those future liabilities.

Who are those certain parties?

Self-employment taxes. You don't even know what those are?

Thank you and yes I do. Do you understand what those taxes fund and where that money goes? Think it belongs on budget?

How many times have I referred to the interest payments on the debt....maybe 6, 8? I'm beginning to wonder about your cognitive ability.

Doesn't matter, does it, that is part of the budget and a responsibility of the Congress. What is the interest payments on the 7.6 trillion Obama has added vs. the 1.7 trillion of Reagan?

For the nth time, because your party refuses to adequately fund both programs in the hope that that will force their destruction in the future.

As they should, since you congratulation others on attacking the Reagan debt you trumpet any social program that increases the debt. That is part of the reason you have no credibility. Social programs are state and local responsibilities not the Federal Taxpayers responsibility


This from someone who didn't know what SE taxes are and didn't understand how the debt could go up even in the face of budget surpluses.

Can you show me which year Clinton spent less than the previous year and which budget items contributed to those spending cuts? Do you know what a peace dividend is?


You'd be well served following your own advice. You've bungled, fumbled and stumbled on every aspect of this discussion so many times I'm surprised you aren't in intensive care for the self-inflicted wounds.

Your opinion noted but from what I see and the data supports you are describing you and your posts
 
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.

Military spending went up sharply after 9/11, of course. In any other presidency in our past except Reagan and BushII, tax rates would have been raised to create revenue that would have paid for that. Thanks for bringing that up as an excuse because it highlights just how criminally irresponsible those two in particular but republicans in general have been.
 
Military spending went up sharply after 9/11, of course. In any other presidency in our past except Reagan and BushII, tax rates would have been raised to create revenue that would have paid for that. Thanks for bringing that up as an excuse because it highlights just how criminally irresponsible those two in particular but republicans in general have been.

Yes, what do you expect when attacked? What was the cost of 9/11 to the U.S. Treasury? GAO will tell you that

Only in the liberal world do higher taxes not change human behavior which leads me to believe you don't work for a paycheck or you would understand how taxes affect take home pay. Apparently you believe that the Reagan tax cuts didn't affect economic activity and that activity didn't create 17 million jobs? There are four components to GDP, find out what they are and find out how higher take home pay affects them?
 
Not one of the 39 presidents Prior to Reagan created anything near his debt. He destroyed our lender status, turned us into the irresponsible fiscal slob that we are today. That's not opinion.

Interesting chart that destroys your myth about previous Presidents, use the chart to map whatever years you want but notice the debt to GDP ratio prior to Reagan and now with Obama. Cannot help but notice how digitusmedius likes your post in attacking Reagan which must mean he has a problem with Obama's spending record as well.

United States Government Debt to GDP | 1940-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar
 
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



Apparently you didn't read or couldn't understand the contents of your own link since it gives precisely the same information I posted from the usgovernmentspending.com website. Although I didn't need it to debunk to your continually false claims I do appreciate your help.
 
Apparently you didn't read or couldn't understand the contents of your own link since it gives precisely the same information I posted from the usgovernmentspending.com website. Although I didn't need it to debunk to your continually false claims I do appreciate your help.

It precisely destroys your belief that we had a 2 trillion dollar budget thus when revenue exceeded 2 trillion that gave us a surplus. The budget of the United States is NOT 2 trillion dollars and public debt is only part of the national debt. That is something you have a problem understanding
 
Out of the ashes of at least the second worst recession in this country's history.

How do you know it was the worst recession in the country's history? You buy the headlines and ignore the data. The Great Recession was a term created by the media and the left knowing you and others like you(the Gruber electorate) would buy it. Problem is you cannot prove it nor can the left. 81-82 affected more Americans than this one and that makes it worse.
 
How do you know it was the worst recession in the country's history? You buy the headlines and ignore the data. The Great Recession was a term created by the media and the left knowing you and others like you(the Gruber electorate) would buy it. Problem is you cannot prove it nor can the left. 81-82 affected more Americans than this one and that makes it worse.

And your post is yet another example of conservative cognitive dissonance: if the data do not fit conservative dogma, the data must be false. Same thing goes for anthropomorphic global warming, gun violence, basic economics, education, and family values: if the liberals agree with the hard-and-fast numbers, then the numbers must somehow be wrong.

*sigh*
 
Yes, what do you expect when attacked? What was the cost of 9/11 to the U.S. Treasury? GAO will tell you that

Only in the liberal world do higher taxes not change human behavior which leads me to believe you don't work for a paycheck or you would understand how taxes affect take home pay. Apparently you believe that the Reagan tax cuts didn't affect economic activity and that activity didn't create 17 million jobs? There are four components to GDP, find out what they are and find out how higher take home pay affects them?

Actually it was 13.6 million jobs and Reagans tax cuts were as responsible for them as Clinton's tax increases were for the 19.6 million jobs that he created. There has never been any reliable evidence that tax cuts increase growth in the economy. There is plenty of data that shows they do reduce revenue though.

U.S. Job Creation by President / Political Party » truthful politics
 
Back
Top Bottom