• 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

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*

More opinions backed by nothing other than feelings. Show me the data which supports your claims. What I find disturbing are people like you who point specifically to numbers and ignore what generated those numbers, things such as poor leadership, economic policies, and competence like we are seeing with Obama. The 2007 to June 2009 recession was prolonged by a failed stimulus plan, poor leadership, and total Presidential and ideological incompetence leading to the worst recovery on record so people like you claim it was a Great Recession because of how bad it was perceived due to the lack of generating positive results. In the liberal world social results trump economic results and because Obama is a closet socialist that excites people like you
 
Actually it was 13.6 million jobs and his 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


Here we go again, do you have a short attention span. Obama took office with 142 million people employed, implemented a stimulus plan that then showed 139 million working Americans two years later. He was elected to return us to the times before the recession which were 146 million employed, today that is 149 million so please show me the 13.6 million?

It is very easy to take any point in time to generate the numbers you want but this President's numbers are a disaster for the amount of money spent and the debt created. Keep promoting failure
 
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*

Please by all means, post data that refutes my posts?
 
Here we go again, do you have a short attention span. Obama took office with 142 million people employed, implemented a stimulus plan that then showed 139 million working Americans two years later. He was elected to return us to the times before the recession which were 146 million employed, today that is 149 million so please show me the 13.6 million?

It is very easy to take any point in time to generate the numbers you want but this President's numbers are a disaster for the amount of money spent and the debt created. Keep promoting failure

You were saying that Reagan's tax cuts created 17 million jobs. I merely corrected your inflated number and pointed out that Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs. Obama took the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and turned it around in 2 years. He also has had the most sustained job growth in our history.
 
You were saying that Reagan's tax cuts created 17 million jobs. I merely corrected your inflated number and pointed out that Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs. Obama took the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and turned it around in 2 years. He also has had the most sustained job growth in our history.

No, what you did was ignore BLS data as there were 99 million employed when Reagan took office and when he left it was 116 million. Then what you ignored is that Clinton had a Republican Congress that gave us business tax cuts in 1997 that actually created jobs. You have a very selective memory and I can beat you up all day with official data

Yes, and in two years he took employment from 142 million to 139 million, thank you Obama
 
Last edited:
Cannot admit when you are wrong, can you? Explain a peace dividend to us all?

Have you ever seen anybody on a political debate forum concede such a thing. You certainly haven't. The point however is that the actor destroyed our creditor nation status and set the example for every president that has followed to do likewise, borrow and spend. He set a terribly irresponsible precedence for every president that followed and we'll never be below a trillion in debt again. That is your heroes legacy.
 
Yes, what do you expect when attacked?

I expect that if we go to war we pay for it like we always have. It's not a liberal idea to pay for the wars. It's a responsible idea and conservatives (before Reagan came along and sold the rabble on the idea we could cut taxes, overspend and pay for everything at the same time) used to live by it. But these tea baggers seem to think we can get something for nothing. They're the biggest free-loaders this country has ever seen. They don't want government to touch their Medicare (which shows us how clueless they are) and they don't want to have to pay anything for it (which shows us how idiotic they are). Most three year olds are more responsible than these clowns.
 
Last edited:
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.

At least you've stopped making up crap and fudging data about deficits and debt. On to new set of fact destruction now it seems.
 
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

Well, yes, I do have a problem understanding that gibberish. It reads like a delirium.
 
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

Yes, well that's what a massive recession like Bush's Great Republican Recession will do to an economy and the refusal of republicans to now raise taxes on the people who created that recession (and who are already richer than ever before) to repair the damage they caused. The republicans have succeeded in putting us on the path to being a third world country. SUCCESS!!! tea bagger version.
 
Have you ever seen anybody on a political debate forum concede such a thing. You certainly haven't. The point however is that the actor destroyed our creditor nation status and set the example for every president that has followed to do likewise, borrow and spend. He set a terribly irresponsible precedence for every president that followed and we'll never be below a trillion in debt again. That is your heroes legacy.

Yes, I have seen it done as I have done it in the past when proven wrong.

Your problem is you cannot see the big picture and there are a lot like you. The big picture is the peace dividend created by Reagan defense spending which caused the destruction of the Soviet Union and thus created an opportunity for future President's to not have to spend as much on Defense as he did.

You also ignore the benefits of creating 17 million jobs and doubling the economy which created for many less of a need from that so called govt. help. That should translate int0 less spending. So when you say he set an example for others to spend more just goes to show how little you know about return on investment
 
I expect that if we go to war we pay for it like we always have. It's not a liberal idea to pay for the wars. It's a responsible idea and conservatives (before Reagan came along and sold the rabble on the idea we could cut taxes, overspend and pay for everything at the same time) used to live by it. But these tea baggers seem to think we can get something for nothing. They're the biggest free-loaders this country has ever seen. They don't want government to touch their Medicare (which shows us how clueless they are) and they don't want to have to pay anything for it (which shows us how idiotic they are). Most three year olds are more responsible than these clowns.

Except you don't realize that Reagan cut taxes, increase employment by 17 million which grew FIT revenue by 60%.

Why should people have their medicare and SS put on budget when the taxes were created to fund those programs for that purpose? Imagine that, people upset that they were forced to contribute to SS and Medicare only to have it put on budget and spent creating an unfunded liability

Not sure what you understand as the role of our Federal Govt. but it appears you have been indoctrinated into believing what you are told that Govt. is here to save you from yourself and provide all that you want. The true clowns are the people who don't understand the role of the Federal Govt. and transfer personal responsibility to them
 
At least you've stopped making up crap and fudging data about deficits and debt. On to new set of fact destruction now it seems.

It is amazing that all those idle threats yet never posting any data that refutes what I have posted. Your surplus data is only half the story and ignores Inter-government holding deficits which led Clinton to have debt from 4.1 to 5.7 trillion. Amazing how that 1.6 trillion dollar debt of Clinton is so much better than the 1.7 trillion of Reagan's. LOL. Sorry but you are out of your element here
 
Yes, I have seen it done as I have done it in the past when proven wrong.

Your problem is you cannot see the big picture and there are a lot like you. The big picture is the peace dividend created by Reagan defense spending which caused the destruction of the Soviet Union and thus created an opportunity for future President's to not have to spend as much on Defense as he did.

You also ignore the benefits of creating 17 million jobs and doubling the economy which created for many less of a need from that so called govt. help. That should translate int0 less spending. So when you say he set an example for others to spend more just goes to show how little you know about return on investment

The BIG PICTURE IS THE BAD EXAMPLE AND PRECEDENCE HE SET FOR RUNAWAY DEBT!!!!!!!!! Thanks to his incompetence, we'll likely never see it below a trillion again.
 
No, what you did was ignore BLS data as there were 99 million employed when Reagan took office and when he left it was 116 million. Then what you ignored is that Clinton had a Republican Congress that gave us business tax cuts in 1997 that actually created jobs. You have a very selective memory and I can beat you up all day with official data

Yes, and in two years he took employment from 142 million to 139 million, thank you Obama

And at the same time you refuse to realize that America's population is changing and growing older (and our birth rate is not high enough to replace those who are growing older), and the baby boomers such as myself are leaving the workplace and retiring. Not only that, but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there's many who were ready to retire but had to work in order to have health insurance, but are now able to retire.

And it's not just here in America - it's happening in most of the first-world democracies, especially in Japan. It's not a matter of fewer people having jobs - it's a matter of demographics, of there being fewer people who want to work or who must work.

And when it comes to taxes, remember when Bush 41 said, "Read my lips, no new taxes"? After Bush 41 raised taxes, he lost the next election to Clinton...but the economy was already improving thanks to him raising taxes...and Clinton raised the top marginal rate even further. In other words, Bush had already done what was necessary to get the economy back on track and deserves more credit than Clinton for the mid-90's boom.
 
Yes, well that's what a massive recession like Bush's Great Republican Recession will do to an economy and the refusal of republicans to now raise taxes on the people who created that recession (and who are already richer than ever before) to repair the damage they caused. The republicans have succeeded in putting us on the path to being a third world country. SUCCESS!!! tea bagger version.

Yep, you are right, Bush destroyed the economy all by himself under the nose of the Democrat Congress. Where do you get this kind of crap? I can see this has to be an act for no one could really be this dense.
 
The BIG PICTURE IS THE BAD EXAMPLE AND PRECEDENCE HE SET FOR RUNAWAY DEBT!!!!!!!!! Thanks to his incompetence, we'll likely never see it below a trillion again.

That is your opinion, I am done with this argument as you are incapable of understanding what a peace dividend did to future defense spending and what the 17 million jobs and double the GDP did to allow for lower Federal spending as well.
 
That is your opinion, I am done with this argument as you are incapable of understanding what a peace dividend did to future defense spending and what the 17 million jobs and double the GDP did to allow for lower Federal spending as well.

You've been corrected on both of those multiple times, you're wrong! And not only that, you think that your god damn PD was worth setting a trend of runaway national debt. You're wrong about that, too!
 
Glen Contrarian;1064798215]And at the same time you refuse to realize that America's population is changing and growing older (and our birth rate is not high enough to replace those who are growing older), and the baby boomers such as myself are leaving the workplace and retiring. Not only that, but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there's many who were ready to retire but had to work in order to have health insurance, but are now able to retire.

Do you realize that retired people aren't part of the labor force? So what you are saying is that in a population of 312 Million where there are 50 million uninsured we need a massive Central govt. run entitlement program rather that making improvements to the existing healthcare program? Can you explain to me why Obama lost the House in 2010, didn't regain it in 2012, and lost the Congress in 2014. Guess there aren't as many selfish liberals looking out for themselves and asking other people to pay their subsidies as the liberal elites thought. Ever try to ask your neighbor to help you with your healthcare expenses rather than have a federal bureaucrat take money from a faceless taxpayer?

And it's not just here in America - it's happening in most of the first-world democracies, especially in Japan. It's not a matter of fewer people having jobs - it's a matter of demographics, of there being fewer people who want to work or who must work.

What you fail to recognize is incentive but you are right there are fewer people who want to work but would rather live off the spoils of others.

And when it comes to taxes, remember when Bush 41 said, "Read my lips, no new taxes"? After Bush 41 raised taxes, he lost the next election to Clinton...but the economy was already improving thanks to him raising taxes...and Clinton raised the top marginal rate even further. In other words, Bush had already done what was necessary to get the economy back on track and deserves more credit than Clinton for the mid-90's boom.

Yes, I remember that, GHW Bush lost because of that claim and Clinton lost the entire Congress because of what he did. The Republican Congress implemented the Tax Reduction Act of 1997 which most liberals want to ignore
 
You've been corrected on both of those multiple times, you're wrong! And not only that, you think that your god damn PD was worth setting a trend of runaway national debt. You're wrong about that, too!

Look maybe you simply aren't smart enough to see the big picture and what the Reagan investment(Spending) created. Please seek some help for your debt derangement syndrome problem you have. Debt that is 50% of GDP and leaving a peace dividend isn't nearly the same as debt today over 100% of GDP.

Your so called corrections are out of context and mostly personal opinion or the opinion of others. With your type attitude there would never be any investment in hopes of getting a greater gain.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom