• 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!

The level of hate that the right has for Obama, Is amazing.[W:409]

Re: The level of hate that the right has for Obama, Is amazing.

Conservative said:
Interesting how you ignore the addition of the state and local budgets in your calculations as well as the basics of the Constitution which liberals like you have changed to suit your own agenda. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? What was the debt that JFK created with that budget? What is the debt today

You love adjusting numbers for inflation totally ignoring that the people during that period of time lived under that cost of living and survived without a budget that over 60% social and entitlement spending. Comparatively you are out of touch with reality.

Amazing how inflation is always decades ago in today's dollars but today's numbers are never affected by inflation. That is the liberal way to promote their agenda which always spends in the name of compassion yet amazingly creating dependence. Apparently you never learned personal responsibility and totally ignore today's society that is more dependent on the federal taxpayers than ever before. Guess that is what you want but the question is why?

You claimed you were a JFK liberal but the reality is, you aren't even close. JFK was one of three Presidents that lowered FIT taxes so apparently cherry picking is what you do best. JFK understood our economy, you don't have a clue. People keeping more of what they earn means less need for those federal bureaucrats that you want to fund. We don't need a 4 trillion dollar Federal govt. today except in the minds of people like you who will always throw money at the problems while never changing human behavior.
Click to expand...
I am only going to address the portion above in bold, because the rest is just you venting about liberals and more ad hominem attacks.

I didn't included state and local governments for a very good and simple reason: because you specifically said, "JFK had a 250 billion dollar budget." Presidents only get to work with the federal budget. State and local budgets are not under the control of presidents. If you want to do an analysis of the 1960 federal, state and local budgets and compare them to the current federal, state and local budgets, be my guest -- I have better things to do this Sunday than your homework. Don't forget to adjust for inflation, as any serious economic analysis would do.
 
MTAtech said:
I didn't answer the question because I have no idea what you are writing about with respect to "the Obama Administration changing the accounting methods for calculating the uninsured."

To answer the question about 330 million people with 9% uninsured, I am not really going to spend much time with this but it's probably in the definition of what we consider the "population." The census measures all people in the country -- and that includes unauthorized immigrants. However, the ACA specifically excludes unauthorized immigrants from participation. More of this can be found on the CBO estimates for the ACA. In 2013, CBO estimated that the insured share of the nonelderly population -- including all residents, was 80% and would be 90% by 2023. Excluding unauthorized immigrants it would be 81% and 92%, respectively.
Click to expand...

Then you really ought to find out how Obama changed the accounting method for the uninsured and love how you always use CBO ignoring that they make PREDICTIONS and when it comes to human behavior their results are terrible. I guess choice only matters to the left when it comes to abortion, certainly not choosing not to have healthcare. You don't seem to understand that subsidies for healthcare don't come from the money tree but the federal taxpayers which takes money out of the states that could have been used for that healthcare. CBO accuracy is never discussed here, wonder why?
 
Conservative said:
Then you really ought to find out how Obama changed the accounting method for the uninsured and love how you always use CBO ignoring that they make PREDICTIONS and when it comes to human behavior their results are terrible. I guess choice only matters to the left when it comes to abortion, certainly not choosing not to have healthcare. You don't seem to understand that subsidies for healthcare don't come from the money tree but the federal taxpayers which takes money out of the states that could have been used for that healthcare. CBO accuracy is never discussed here, wonder why?
Click to expand...

You have not shown your accuracy is better than that of the CBO. Do you understand the principle of inflation?
 
Re: The level of hate that the right has for Obama, Is amazing.

MTAtech said:
I am only going to address the portion above in bold, because the rest is just you venting about liberals and more ad hominem attacks.

I didn't included state and local governments for a very good and simple reason: because you specifically said, "JFK had a 250 billion dollar budget." Presidents only get to work with the federal budget. State and local budgets are not under the control of presidents. If you want to do an analysis of the 1960 federal, state and local budgets and compare them to the current federal, state and local budgets, be my guest -- I have better things to do this Sunday than your homework. Don't forget to adjust for inflation, as any serious economic analysis would do.
Click to expand...

JFK had a 250 billion budget and know what was missing from that budget? figure it out and find out who created the unified budget which makes things worse.

You are right state and local budgets aren't the responsibility of the President so why are you ignoring those budgets and their content? You continue to fight for a bigger Federal govt. showing just how little you know about state and local budgets as well as where actual healthcare costs go. Maybe you ought to spend more time doing some homework.
 
JamesBY said:
You have not shown your accuracy is better than that of the CBO. Do you understand the principle of inflation?
Click to expand...

Sure do, I also know that today's numbers are affected by inflation as well and are higher than they would have been during any period of time in the past making the results more diluted and destroys your argument
 
JamesBY said:
You have not shown your accuracy is better than that of the CBO. Do you understand the principle of inflation?
Click to expand...

here is what you want to ignore, the last Reagan Budget was approximately 1 trillion dollars and adjusted for inflation that would be 1.9 trillion dollars but today's Federal budget is 4 trillion dollars, notice any disconnect here?

$1,000 in 1989 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
 
Conservative said:
here is what you want to ignore, the last Reagan Budget was approximately 1 trillion dollars and adjusted for inflation that would be 1.9 trillion dollars but today's Federal budget is 4 trillion dollars, notice any disconnect here?

$1,000 in 1989 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
Click to expand...

Nope, the 1990 federal budget was $1.89T and had a deficit of 3.7% of GDP. The 2016 federal budget was $3.54T and had a deficit of 3.3% of GDP. The basic problem is not how much the federal government spends the problem is how much more it spends than it collects in taxation.

As to your point about inflation - yes, federal spending has grown a bit beyond CPI inflation.

The "purchasing power" of $1.89 from 1990 is $3.47 in 2016.
Click to expand...

$1.89 in 1990 → 2016 | Inflation Calculator
 
Conservative said:
Sure do, I also know that today's numbers are affected by inflation as well and are higher than they would have been during any period of time in the past making the results more diluted and destroys your argument
Click to expand...
That made no sense. You don't grasp that the CBO understands the numbers and you don't.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, the 1990 federal budget was $1.89T and had a deficit of 3.7% of GDP. The 2016 federal budget was $3.54T and had a deficit of 3.3% of GDP. The basic problem is not how much the federal government spends the problem is how much more it spends than it collects in taxation.

As to your point about inflation - yes, federal spending has grown a bit beyond CPI inflation.



$1.89 in 1990 → 2016 | Inflation Calculator
Click to expand...

There is no question that the problem is spending as more and more social spending has been taken over by the Federal Govt. and the federal bureaucrats use that money to buy votes never actually solving the problem. My point remains we have 50 state budgets with duplicate expenses at the Federal level and it is time to return all social programs EXCEPT SS AND MEDICARE to the states. Neither were on Budget during the JFK years but was put on budget by LBJ to pay for the Vietnam War and we now have an unfunded liability in both SS and Medicar
 
JamesBY said:
That made no sense. You don't grasp that the CBO understands the numbers and you don't.
Click to expand...

CBO may understand the numbers but never take into account nor do they understand human behavior which is why they were so far off on many of their projections including the affects of tax cuts. They simply look at math, less taxes means less revenue when the reality is less taxes means more spendable income and thus more economic activity
 
JamesBY said:
Read post 633, please.
Click to expand...
You can see that even when he totally gets its wrong on simple points like what the budget was in FY1990, he refuses to acknowledge it....and instead deflects to "states rights" and JFK.

It is pointless to engage him in debate.
 
Conservative said:
There is no question that the problem is spending as more and more social spending has been taken over by the Federal Govt. and the federal bureaucrats use that money to buy votes never actually solving the problem. My point remains we have 50 state budgets with duplicate expenses at the Federal level and it is time to return all social programs EXCEPT SS AND MEDICARE to the states. Neither were on Budget during the JFK years but was put on budget by LBJ to pay for the Vietnam War and we now have an unfunded liability in both SS and Medicar
Click to expand...

The problem is deficit spending - states and districts, via their congress critters, use the federal spending (not supported by federal taxation) to prevent having to raise state/local taxes. Whether the state or federal government does this (and yes states have billions in unfunded liabilities too) is a small issue the big issue is promising more than they will dare ask for in direct taxation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is deficit spending - states and districts, via their congress critters, use the federal spending (not supported by federal taxation) to prevent having to raise state/local taxes. Whether the state or federal government does this (and yes states have billions in unfunded liabilities too) is a small issue the big issue is promising more than they will dare ask for in direct taxation.
Click to expand...

Seems to be the problem with your politicians today, but the difference is state politicians are term limited out whereas federal politicians aren't. You are right though no politician today has the guts to make the tough choices as all they are doing is running for their next job instead of doing their current job. Buying votes doesn't change human behavior it does however promote dependence and assure that we will always have career politicians.
 
Conservative said:
Seems to be the problem with your politicians today, but the difference is state politicians are term limited out whereas federal politicians aren't. You are right though no politician today has the guts to make the tough choices as all they are doing is running for their next job instead of doing their current job. Buying votes doesn't change human behavior it does however promote dependence and assure that we will always have career politicians.
Click to expand...

Term limits simply guarantee "lame duck" leaders/representatives that are very (only?) interested in securing after office employment for themselves by handing out tax payer funded perks to those that promise to hire them. The "fix" of term limits may actually make the problem that it sought to solve (crony capitalism and wasteful public spending?) even worse.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Term limits simply guarantee "lame duck" leaders/representatives that are very (only?) interested in securing after office employment for themselves by handing out tax payer funded perks to those that promise to hire them. The "fix" of term limits may actually make the problem that it sought to solve (crony capitalism and wasteful public spending?) even worse.
Click to expand...

I love the state of TX that has a part time legislature that meets every two years. That is the vision our Founders created not career politicians. Make laws and go home and live under them.
 
Conservative said:
I love the state of TX that has a part time legislature that meets every two years. That is the vision our Founders created not career politicians. Make laws and go home and live under them.
Click to expand...

That does, no doubt, limit some of the insanity in Austin.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That does, no doubt, limit some of the insanity in Austin.
Click to expand...

LOL, that may have something to do with the part time legislature as they want to spend as little time as possible in that liberal bastion in the Red state of TX.
 
JamesBY said:
Read post 633, please.
Click to expand...

You seem to have never mastered the concept of apologizing when wrong. What is it about the liberal ideology that doesn't allow people to admit what the actual results show? Why is it the Federal Government's and not the states' responsibility to help you with your own personal responsibility issues? The left has brainwashed you into believing that is a federal taxpayer's responsibility to assist you when all the expenses for those personal responsibility issues are handled by the state taxpayers if the individual defaults
 
Conservative said:
CBO may understand the numbers but never take into account nor do they understand human behavior which is why they were so far off on many of their projections including the affects of tax cuts. They simply look at math, less taxes means less revenue when the reality is less taxes means more spendable income and thus more economic activity
Click to expand...
You do not understand the numbers or human behavior about this issue.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to have never mastered the concept of apologizing when wrong. What is it about the liberal ideology that doesn't allow people to admit what the actual results show? Why is it the Federal Government's and not the states' responsibility to help you with your own personal responsibility issues? The left has brainwashed you into believing that is a federal taxpayer's responsibility to assist you when all the expenses for those personal responsibility issues are handled by the state taxpayers if the individual defaults
Click to expand...
I am not wrong. You are. Read #633. Ad homming shows the weakness of your position. Default? It is not my responsibility to help you understand if you won't try.
 
JamesBY said:
I am not wrong. You are. Read #633. Ad homming shows the weakness of your position. Default? It is not my responsibility to help you understand if you won't try.
Click to expand...

And it isn't my responsibility to explain to you the role of the Federal Govt. or even the Constitution. There is no justification for a 4 trillion dollar federal govt. doing duplicate work for the states. Sorry, but the reality is you are the one wrong and cannot admit it. I have read 633 and responded, you didn't like the response and cannot admit you are wrong, 1 trillion dollars in 1989 would be 1.9 trillion today and not 4 trillion and there is no justification for a federal govt. overreach on social issues that are state and local responsibilities.
 
JamesBY said:
You do not understand the numbers or human behavior about this issue.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and an example is you take the CBO report that 24 million will lose their insurance but ignoring that that is out of context and not correct at all, it is all about choice and human behavior
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom