• 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.

theplaydrive said:
Both Democrats and Republicans "love" America. They disagree on the solutions to its problems.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why the Democrats would want higher debt when it's obviously ruining the country?

They can debate all issues any nation might but irrepayable debt destroys everything and there is then no hope for Democrats, Republicans, or America itself.
 
Grant said:
What I don't understand is why the Democrats would want higher debt when it's obviously ruining the country?

They can debate all issues any nation might but irrepayable debt destroys everything and there is then no hope for Democrats, Republicans, or America itself.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Democrats want a higher debt...
 
theplaydrive said:
Both Democrats and Republicans "love" America. They disagree on the solutions to its problems.
Click to expand...

I agree, but will take it one step further. I have no doubt that both groups love the country enough to take an interest, however, they can't even agree on what the problems are.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It doesn't? Then how do you explain the results of this Rasmussen poll from just last month ...

Some people say the nation’s current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush Administration. Others say the problems are being caused more by the policies President Obama has put in place since taking office. Which point of view comes closest to your own?

  • the recession which began under the administration of George W. Bush: 47%

  • the policies of President Obama: 40%

  • not sure: 11%

1000 LV, March 18-19, 2011, MoE: +/- 3​
Click to expand...


Very selective in what you choose to take from this poll, and it is merely more evidence of your hard ideological stance.

For instance from the poll report you gave me...

While most mainstream voters trust their own judgment more than Obama, they are more narrowly divided on who’s to blame for the poor economic conditions.
Click to expand...

See, that tells me that your narrative of the recession being Bush's fault may have had traction, the very same people don't trust Obama to fix it.

Further in the internals....

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans and 61% of unaffiliated voters trust themselves more than Obama to handle the economy, a view shared by just 36% of Democrats.
Click to expand...

Unaffiliated voters is a subjective group that in recent times has been infiltrated by a large number of liberals hiding from the policies they disagree with in 'the One's' administration.

in the links offered with the poll you just posted here, is this interesting poll as a basis.

67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees - Rasmussen Reports™

In short, you are disingenuously using only the highlights of the poll that match your own view, and ignoring the larger question here, which is that the country in large part thinks Obama is failing.

j-mac
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't think the Democrats want a higher debt...
Click to expand...

That seemed to be the case, however, and the Republicans wanted cuts.

How do you feel about a balanced budget amendment in order that governments can't get themselves in this situation again?
 
Grant said:
What I don't understand is why the Democrats would want higher debt when it's obviously ruining the country?

They can debate all issues any nation might but irreparable debt destroys everything and there is then no hope for Democrats, Republicans, or America itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does and it doesn't seem to matter that those who pay the most consistently are constantly being stretched to the limits.
 
Candice Lynn said:
Yes, it does and it doesn't seem to matter that those who pay the most consistently are constantly being stretched to the limits.
Click to expand...

All the Democracies are being threatened by serious debt problems, Candice Lynn, so it's not just the United States. But of coutrse the US is the rngine that drives the world economy, as has been said often enough, so when it sputters, the others feel the consequences.

I had always thought the Americans weree a more prudent nation than most others and recognized the dangers of unsustainable debt, but that doesn't seem to be the case recently. Public opinion polls in the US or Europe really don't matter where debt is concerned. They can vote for the government to give them more money but sooner or later the cupboard will be bare.
 
Grant said:
That seemed to be the case, however, and the Republicans wanted cuts.

How do you feel about a balanced budget amendment in order that governments can't get themselves in this situation again?
Click to expand...

The Democrats believed the Republicans made unnecessary cuts. The cuts that were made, nonetheless, were pretty substantial.

I don't support the amendment because I think it's irresponsible particularly in a time of war and with such a poor economy. To demand a balanced budget now or in the near future doesn't make any sense. Moreover, running a deficit is at times necessary and gov. leaders need to be free to do this. I might support it when we have a balanced budget or a surplus already - but such a proposal now seems nonsensical.
 
Grant said:
All the Democracies are being threatened by serious debt problems, Candice Lynn, so it's not just the United States. But of coutrse the US is the rngine that drives the world economy, as has been said often enough, so when it sputters, the others feel the consequences.

I had always thought the Americans weree a more prudent nation than most others and recognized the dangers of unsustainable debt, but that doesn't seem to be the case recently. Public opinion polls in the US or Europe really don't matter where debt is concerned. They can vote for the government to give them more money but sooner or later the cupboard will be bare.
Click to expand...

I'm almost 57 and they stopped being prudent in the 60, got worse in the 70 and it's been spend, spend, spend from there. Both sides are complacent and need to get a grip. I love America, just hate what is going on. You ought to read posts that happen on the White House section of FaceBook.... Man are there some screwed up people.
 
theplaydrive said:
The Democrats believed the Republicans made unnecessary cuts. The cuts that were made, nonetheless, were pretty substantial.
Click to expand...

They certainly didn't appear to be as "substantial" as the situation calls for.
I don't support the amendment because I think it's irresponsible particularly in a time of war and with such a poor economy.
Click to expand...

Then the economy will continue to decline and the money will go elsewhere. That's happening now in fact. People will naturally put their money where they feel it will be safe, and the present administration does not give investors much confidence in their ability to handle an economy in any non-ideological and serious way.
To demand a balanced budget now or in the near future doesn't make any sense. Moreover, running a deficit is at times necessary and gov. leaders need to be free to do this. I might support it when we have a balanced budget or a surplus already - but such a proposal now seems nonsensical.
Click to expand...

It seems this is the philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tend to trust politicians and big government while Republicans don't. This is not to say that Republicans don't support government programs that will line their pockets, because they certainly do if they can get away with it. But speaking in general terms, that seems to be the case.
 
Candice Lynn said:
I'm almost 57 and they stopped being prudent in the 60, got worse in the 70 and it's been spend, spend, spend from there. Both sides are complacent and need to get a grip. I love America, just hate what is going on. You ought to read posts that happen on the White House section of FaceBook.... Man are there some screwed up people.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this - overspending on both sides. I think, however, a lot of this would be solved by a complete revision of spending practices in every part of the government. They really need to go into every department, cut all of the excess and restructure spending/funding. This should be done at least every 20 years in my opinion.
 
Grant said:
They certainly didn't appear to be as "substantial" as the situation calls for.

Then the economy will continue to decline and the money will go elsewhere. That's happening now in fact. People will naturally put their money where they feel it will be safe, and the present administration does not give investors much confidence in their ability to handle an economy in any non-ideological and serious way.

It seems this is the philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tend to trust politicians and big government while Republicans don't. This is not to say that Republicans don't support government programs that will line their pockets, because they certainly do if they can get away with it. But speaking in general terms, that seems to be the case.
Click to expand...

Eh...I actually don't trust government or the private sector. I think both become dangerous when left unchecked which is why I support a balance. As far as the amendment, it would likely max it impossible to cut taxes, something Republicans usually support. At the same time, it would likely make small economic downturns into much larger ones. Because deficit spending always rises in economic downturns and if spending were not permitted, then we would simply make the problem worse.
 
theplaydrive said:
I actually agree with this - overspending on both sides. I think, however, a lot of this would be solved by a complete revision of spending practices in every part of the government. They really need to go into every department, cut all of the excess and restructure spending/funding. This should be done at least every 20 years in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree, but then they'd (the powers that be) would have to agree on that. And you know how that's working out! lol
 
theplaydrive said:
The Democrats believed the Republicans made unnecessary cuts. The cuts that were made, nonetheless, were pretty substantial.

I don't support the amendment because I think it's irresponsible particularly in a time of war and with such a poor economy. To demand a balanced budget now or in the near future doesn't make any sense. Moreover, running a deficit is at times necessary and gov. leaders need to be free to do this. I might support it when we have a balanced budget or a surplus already - but such a proposal now seems nonsensical.
Click to expand...

With all due respect the above makes no sense, even it is the consistent talking point of this administration. So we should first give you points for good memorization. If your key concern is that we are in a time of war, act like a real liberal and demand we get out of unneeded wars, stop being a sock puppet.

Next if you really want this war, here is a solution, FUND IT! Better yet go sign up and fight it in and demand to go into the most intense fighting so someone else's son or daughter can get out of the fighting.

There is never a convienient time for this generation to stop stealing from the future. Must be fun to run up the bill and then pass it along. Pretty painless.
I would ask you who labels yourself a liberal just what you think that means. My sense is the "liberal" of today is materially different than the liberal of the 60s and 70s.

What this administration and the one it preceded it have done regarding running up the debt tab is amoral in my view. Nothing short of theft. The sad part is that the biggest losers as we inflate our way out of the debt problem will be the poor. But those are not the "liberals" that finance Obama's campaign.

The only thing Obama and Geithner have going for them is that their constituency for the most part knows zilch about economics or how inflation will destroy the poor in an environment where prices rise but wages do not.

Liberals of the 60s would be in the streets demanding and end to this destruction of the standard of living for the poor.
 
Candice Lynn said:
I'm almost 57 and they stopped being prudent in the 60, got worse in the 70 and it's been spend, spend, spend from there. Both sides are complacent and need to get a grip. I love America, just hate what is going on. You ought to read posts that happen on the White House section of FaceBook.... Man are there some screwed up people.
Click to expand...

That was the case with almost all the democracies, Candice Lynn, and the disease is still alive today. You'll see riots heightening in Western Europe because the economy couldn't possibly keep up with the promises politicians made and the same thing will eventually happen over here as well. And the public, softened by many years of government largess, has become used to all the spending and can't seem to get away from them. Programs which would have been thought ridiculous at one time have now become "essential".

There seems to be a real conflict in the public's mind between trusting politicians who will promise them more programs and distrusting politicians who will promise them less. Many seem to believe they can get something for nothing, that it is a recent "right", and that others should pay for it. We can see the consequences of that thinking already.
 
theplaydrive said:
Eh...I actually don't trust government or the private sector.
Click to expand...

The difference, and it is huge, is that the public sector can be controlled while it is far more difficult to control governments. Let them get out of hand, as is the case in most democracies which have big governments, and the results are quite predictable. I see no areas of the private sector which puts the country at risk unless they get involved with the government. Which specific private sector companies do you feel can't be trusted?

I think both become dangerous when left unchecked which is why I support a balance. As far as the amendment, it would likely max it impossible to cut taxes, something Republicans usually support. At the same time, it would likely make small economic downturns into much larger ones. Because deficit spending always rises in economic downturns and if spending were not permitted, then we would simply make the problem worse.
Click to expand...

There are already a great many laws controlling the private sector and all have to eventually have support of the public to continue doing business. The caveat is that they are at arms length from any government.

The Keynesian economic philosophy towards public spending has been debunked so often that we need not go over it here. In theory, like many economic theories, it works best on paper but politicians needing to satisfy an electorate demanding more public programs and spending will eventually ignore these theories, or install only part of them. In the end we can only spend what we have, and no more.
 
Grant said:
That was the case with almost all the democracies, Candice Lynn, and the disease is still alive today. You'll see riots heightening in Western Europe because the economy couldn't possibly keep up with the promises politicians made and the same thing will eventually happen over here as well. And the public, softened by many years of government largess, has become used to all the spending and can't seem to get away from them. Programs which would have been thought ridiculous at one time have now become "essential".

There seems to be a real conflict in the public's mind between trusting politicians who will promise them more programs and distrusting politicians who will promise them less. Many seem to believe they can get something for nothing, that it is a recent "right", and that others should pay for it. We can see the consequences of that thinking already.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. It's going to hurt at first, but we'd get use to it. Our family lives within a budget (we get paid monthly) and you've got to be wise or have zip at the end of the month. This was almost 20 years ago and now... it's nothing.
 
Candice Lynn said:
Yes, we do. It's going to hurt at first, but we'd get use to it. Our family lives within a budget (we get paid monthly) and you've got to be wise or have zip at the end of the month. This was almost 20 years ago and now... it's nothing.
Click to expand...

At one time a working class man could support a wife and children but with the growth of government those days are now gone. All that money that could have gone to the family is going to mattress inspectors, radio stations, or hobby farms run by the wealthy. It has been as destructive to our cultures as any virus, and there will probably be a collapse before it ever improves. Or perhaps that was the golden age of democracy. Who really knows at this point?
 
j-mac said:
Very selective in what you choose to take from this poll, and it is merely more evidence of your hard ideological stance.

For instance from the poll report you gave me...



See, that tells me that your narrative of the recession being Bush's fault may have had traction, the very same people don't trust Obama to fix it.

Further in the internals....



Unaffiliated voters is a subjective group that in recent times has been infiltrated by a large number of liberals hiding from the policies they disagree with in 'the One's' administration.

in the links offered with the poll you just posted here, is this interesting poll as a basis.

67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees - Rasmussen Reports™

In short, you are disingenuously using only the highlights of the poll that match your own view, and ignoring the larger question here, which is that the country in large part thinks Obama is failing.

j-mac
Click to expand...
None of that discounts that more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama. Not too mention, despite your attempts to distort the results of that poll, it was a poll of "likely voters" and it was put out by Rasmussen, whose polls tend to lean towards Republicans more than most other polls.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
At one time a working class man could support a wife and children but with the growth of government those days are now gone. All that money that could have gone to the family is going to mattress inspectors, radio stations, or hobby farms run by the wealthy. It has been as destructive to our cultures as any virus, and there will probably be a collapse before it ever improves. Or perhaps that was the golden age of democracy. Who really knows at this point?
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that without the guidance and the consistency of "home" the patients are now running the asylum? Well dear ones, I'm going to the walking park, so that I can get use to using less gas and stay alive longer with out doctors.

Hugs, ;)
C
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
With all due respect the above makes no sense, even it is the consistent talking point of this administration. So we should first give you points for good memorization. If your key concern is that we are in a time of war, act like a real liberal and demand we get out of unneeded wars, stop being a sock puppet.
Click to expand...
LOL at you telling me how to be a liberal. Also, LOL at you accusing me of using liberal talking points and then telling me that I'm not stereotypically liberal enough. Really? Also, my key concern is not that we're in a war - my key concern is that our economy is crap and a balanced budget amendment doesn't make any sense considering this.

Next if you really want this war, here is a solution, FUND IT! Better yet go sign up and fight it in and demand to go into the most intense fighting so someone else's son or daughter can get out of the fighting.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about wanting a war; I said something about paying for war. And in case you didn't notice, regardless of if you want the war - we're still going to pay for it.

There is never a convienient time for this generation to stop stealing from the future. Must be fun to run up the bill and then pass it along. Pretty painless.
I would ask you who labels yourself a liberal just what you think that means. My sense is the "liberal" of today is materially different than the liberal of the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...
I don't know who you're referring to. It's obviously not me.

What this administration and the one it preceded it have done regarding running up the debt tab is amoral in my view. Nothing short of theft. The sad part is that the biggest losers as we inflate our way out of the debt problem will be the poor. But those are not the "liberals" that finance Obama's campaign.
Click to expand...
Running up the debt was inevitable. The extent to which we did run up the debt is questionable.

The only thing Obama and Geithner have going for them is that their constituency for the most part knows zilch about economics or how inflation will destroy the poor in an environment where prices rise but wages do not.

Liberals of the 60s would be in the streets demanding and end to this destruction of the standard of living for the poor.
Click to expand...
Most citizens, liberal and conservative, know zilch about economics. Most people just have a general idea of all policy issues. I agree that neither party does anything particularly beneficial for the poor, but that's not a new thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom