• 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 announces his Candidacy for 2012.

You keep repeating those statistics, but what you fail to realize is just because those things happened UNDER Obama's tenure doesn't mean he is COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for those numbers. To blame obama for $4 gas is moronic.

Exactly, correleation =/= causation.
 
Repeating the same stats he does not understand is not really discussing intricacies pf economic policies.

And about those sources, any sign of them yet?

Just a question, is it appropriate for three moderators to bait another poster in this forum?
 
Oh boy, you picked a very bad time to misrepresent numbers again. Sheik Yerbuti is here. You are in big trouble again. I'll give you a couple of aspirin after he is done with you. Call it compassionate Conservatism. :mrgreen:

some of the numbers look about right.
 
You keep repeating those statistics, but what you fail to realize is just because those things happened UNDER Obama's tenure doesn't mean he is COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for those numbers. To blame obama for $4 gas is moronic.

Which brings me back to my original question that STILL hasn't been answered. Who is ultimately responsible for US economic policy... Congress or the President.

And your post presents another issue. What US situations are the responsiblity of the current adminstration and which ones are the responsibility of a past administration... and how does one determine the difference? For example, since it happened under his watch, was the Great Depression the fault of Hoover?
 
not relevant

sham wow wanted to jack up taxes on those who already pay far more than their share of the national income

it was pandering for votes and he is a dishonest asshole for claiming that the Rich (ie anyone making over 250K a year) weren't paying their fair share
First of all, I would hardly define a 3½ point increase, as "jacking up" taxes. Secondly, that is $250K after deductions; most likely, such a person is earning more like $300K to $400K. Thirdly, for someone paying tax on $250K, the increase on their tax burden at 39½ amounts to an increase of $8,750. I can't believe people net more than $250,000 a year will struggle to pay an extra $8,750. And lastly, how on Earth are we ever going to pay down the debt, no less balance the budget, if we don't raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? Cutting spending is an excellent idea, but cutting spending alone will not get the job done. One of my biggest beefs with Obama is that he extended the Bush tax cuts.
 
Just a question, is it appropriate for three moderators to bait another poster in this forum?

Firstly, the status of a poster is irrelevant. Members are asking you to source your numbers. You have REFUSED to do so. You want the question to no longer be asked? SOURCE YOUR NUMBERS.
 
Oh boy, you picked a very bad time to misrepresent numbers again. Sheik Yerbuti is here. You are in big trouble again. I'll give you a couple of aspirin after he is done with you. Call it compassionate Conservatism. :mrgreen:

LOL, yep, a true legend in his own mind, anything that doesn't fit into his agenda is a misrepresentation although not once has he admitted to making mistakes such as blaming Bush for the recession of 2001 after taking office less than 2 months prior to the recession ending. Then he claimed he answered the question as to what economic policy Bush had in place on January 22 to cause a recession that began in March 2001. Love the liberal compassion.
 
Which brings me back to my original question that STILL hasn't been answered. Who is ultimately responsible for US economic policy... Congress or the President.

And your post presents another issue. What US situations are the responsiblity of the current adminstration and which ones are the responsibility of a past administration... and how does one determine the difference? For example, since it happened under his watch, was the Great Depression the fault of Hoover?

I'm most upset with Conservative continuously attributing the entire 4 trillion added debt to Obama. Did he spend a lot? No doubt about it. But to what degree is he actually responsible for that sum? Most of the budget deficits have been caused because 1) ****ty economy = lesser tax revenue while paying out more in unemployment benefits and 2) automatic, built-in increases within the entitle programs that have nothing to do with Obama's economic polices. You can blame him for the stimulus, for healthcare, whatever, that's fine. But to attribute the entire $4 trillion dollars of added debt to Obama, and then say "hey look, he was sooo much worse than Bush!" is absolutely simple-minded.
 
Which brings me back to my original question that STILL hasn't been answered. Who is ultimately responsible for US economic policy... Congress or the President.

And your post presents another issue. What US situations are the responsiblity of the current adminstration and which ones are the responsibility of a past administration... and how does one determine the difference? For example, since it happened under his watch, was the Great Depression the fault of Hoover?

Well, I'm inclined to agree with Ezra Klein and The Economist in that the budget/deficit/economy can never solely be attributed to a single president. It's foolish to blame one person for years of build up.

We talk about the budget as the president's budget, and that makes sense, as the president is the one proposing it. But this is also the country's budget. It reflects not just what the president is proposing, but what's actually happening, and what's been happening. It reflects the creation of Medicare (Lyndon Johnson) and Medicare Part D (George W. Bush), Social Security (FDR) and lower marginal tax rates (Ronald Reagan). It reflects economic growth, which can't be traced to any one president, and financial crises, which are similarly diffuse.

Deficits past and future: A tale of two charts | The Economist
 
Firstly, the status of a poster is irrelevant. Members are asking you to source your numbers. You have REFUSED to do so. You want the question to no longer be asked? SOURCE YOUR NUMBERS.

As much as you have monitored me, repremanded me, given me infractions you obviously don't pay any attention when I do source my numbers. I have done it over and over again which obviously have been ignored. If you want the numbers go to bls.gov.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
that is stupid

rich people pay the highest rates on like income

rich people pay far more actual dollars to the government

rich people pay the highest income tax rates

why do dems demand that those who don't pay enough should not have tax hikes but those who pay too much and are hit with the death tax surcharge pay even more?

vote buying pure and simple

Hey, Theprof, sign in under your own screen name.
 
Then you won't have any problem proving where I took this off topic? A response to your BDS is a response generated by one of your posts.
That link was already provided to you by another poster.
 
if a rich dem says the rich should pay more taxes you now deny that is different than saying they want to pay more? they want the rich to pay more, they are rich ergo they want to pay more
If you understood the difference between "should" and "want" you probably would have understood the point being made.
 
I'm most upset with Conservative continuously attributing the entire 4 trillion added debt to Obama. Did he spend a lot? No doubt about it. But to what degree is he actually responsible for that sum? Most of the budget deficits have been caused because 1) ****ty economy = lesser tax revenue while paying out more in unemployment benefits and 2) automatic, built-in increases within the entitle programs that have nothing to do with Obama's economic polices. You can blame him for the stimulus, for healthcare, whatever, that's fine. But to attribute the entire $4 trillion dollars of added debt to Obama, and then say "hey look, he was sooo much worse than Bush!" is absolutely simple-minded.

No problem, get as upset as you want, obama economic policies have not generated the economic growth that would create the employment to grow govt. revenue enough to offset the trillions he is spending so yes, that is his fault, period. You don't like it, then don't vote for him in 2012.

2009 Obama spending 350 billion TARP, 800 billion stimulus, and war supplementals for the Afghanistan surge
2010 1.3 trillion debt with a budget of 3.5 trillion debt
2011 1.7 trillion debt on a budget of 3.7 trillion so you tell me where the spending cuts are in the Obama budgets.
 
Demonizing the greedy and demonizing the wealthy are two different things, so yeah

and grandfathering aig bonuses while instructing them to keep secrets from the sec are a third

and a fourth
 
That link was already provided to you by another poster.

Wrong, that link that was provided showed discusson about the Obama record which is justification for a failed candidacy. Obama has to run on his record and that record is a disaster thus his candidacy should fail.
 
As much as you have monitored me, repremanded me, given me infractions you obviously don't pay any attention when I do source my numbers. I have done it over and over again which obviously have been ignored. If you want the numbers go to bls.gov.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Firstly, you are lying about the comment, "as much as I have reprimanded you and given you infractions." Retract or I will demonstrate, publicly the percentage of your total infractions that I have given you. Go check.

Secondly, I am uninterested in you linking to a general page. Post the actual statistics that are being requested an a link to THAT page. You have been asked to source a number. It is not MY job to do your work for you. Source the number.
 
Ah, so you are saying that both have responsibility. I think I already asked you and you responded by saying that the President is the head of his party, but I'll ask again... are you saying that both Congress and the President have fairly equal responsibility in the economy?

the president proposes, congerss disposes

where ya been?
 
the president proposes, congerss disposes

where ya been?

So, are you saying that both Congress and the President have a fairly equal responsbility in the economy?
 
OK... who do YOU think controls the government? Congress or the President?

THAT again?

LOL!

well, you see, we have THREE branches of govt (unless you're chuck shumer)...
 
WE do have a record to compare, Obama's 15 million unemployed
But why do you think that's bad? As I showed you earlier, by the 2004 election, Bush also had unemployment increase by 2 million and yet you voted for him anyway. If that wasn't bad enough to dissuade you from voting to give Bush 4 more years, why is it so terrible now for Obama?
 
THAT again?

LOL!

well, you see, we have THREE branches of govt (unless you're chuck shumer)...

That's true... but that's not what we are discussing. Why is it that you are refusing to respond to my question?
 
Back
Top Bottom