• 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!

A Democrat who cares about Debt or a Nazi who cares about Jews, who is the biggest fraud?

vegas giants said:
You must hate trump.


He spends like a drunken sailor
Click to expand...

As a former sailor, I take great exception to the above remark. The drunken sailor does not go on a bender with money borrowed from his descendants.
 
bluesmoke said:
The biggest fraud is your deceptive display of figures. Let me help you with the facts.

First of all, you need to use real debt figures. Meaning, adjusted for inflation. Or, using a same-year value (1984 is often used). That’s how you get what’s called a fair comparison. The figures I’m using are adjusted for inflation. Oh, yeah, and fiscal year, not calendar year. Another thing is to compare by percentage, not dollar amount. Regardless of inflation, our economy grows such that we deal with more dollars than before. So, its best to compare by percentage differences.

Going back to Reagan, the following are the average annual debt variance by president. The average is simply dividing the total debt variance % by the number of years in office. Trump is not included as only two FY is not a fair comparison.

Reagan: 13.7%; Bush1 8.1%; Clinton 0.9%; Bush2 8.7%; Obama 6.1%;

Historical United States National Debt Balances, 1791-2019

What is very important to add is that Obama inherited the Great Recession that required a stimulus plan that added $827B to the national debt by 2014. The Obama economic plan brought us back to pre-recession economic condition with all economic indicators on the rise. Trump to that rising economy over and then gave away over $2T to the rich and large corps for nothing in return.

To say that Republicans run-up less debt than the Dems is a false statement.
Click to expand...
Regarding the part in bold, above: Obama also inherited an economy where revenues fell by half a trillion a year due to that Great Recession. The stimulus wasn't all that expensive, representing ~$750 billion spread over two years. Where we get into problems is conditions that last a long time. The stimulus was temporary.

I object to the OP statement that Democrats caused the debt problem. Even a cavalier review of history tells us that's nonsense. Reagan presided over a debt that grew by one-third. Clinton, presided over four years of surpluses, due to prudent fiscal management, which included tax increases (that the GOP said would cause a recession.) Bush cut taxes again, and the deficits ballooned. The only thing saving Bush from massive deficits was the housing bubble -- until it burst. Obama inherited massive deficits but managed to cut them by 75%.

I also object to the OP claiming that liberals didn't care about deficits when Obama was president. That's true. Why? Because deficits aren't something to be worried about when unemployment is 10%. It's better to have massive deficits to create a Keynesian stimulus to bring the unemployed back to work so they can pay taxes and contribute to deficit reduction.
 
Riverside said:
As a former sailor, I take great exception to the above remark. The drunken sailor does not go on a bender with money borrowed from his descendants.
Click to expand...

I too am a former sailor. Trump spends like a bubblehead after six months under water
 
Bill James said:
LMAO watching liberal math... it's funny.

Ya see.. hear's the plan...we make insurance companies pay out more...and then they lower rates by $2500 dollars.

What could go wrong?

Of course, if you can't see the flaw in that plan, I guess there is nothing you can't swindled into believing.

Ya see..hear's the thing...a couple a days ago, if I owed 1 dollar then I borrowed another dollar...bringin the total owed to 2 dollars.

That a 100% increase in the debt.

But today the debt is $100,000 dollars if I borrow $99,000 dollars that's only a 99% increase in the debt.

So in Obamamath $99,000 is less than $1 dollar, and you keep your doctor and healthcare plan while your rate goes down by $2500 dollars. That's why you "compare by percentage, not dollar amount

Yeah...ok good luck with that. It is literally hilarious to watch the depths some people will go to so they can hide from reality.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are attempting to argue. Your own thread is about debt. Now, you seemed to have morphed into a tirade about Obamacare. The train that Obamacare doesn't work in practice has long left the station. It proved, with constant attacks and sabotage by Republicans, that it is a viable solution to improve health care coverage for millions of Americans.

On both debt and Obamacare, I see you are pretending to have a serious conversation, but you are not. Just as you misrepresented the deficit numbers you also are misrepresenting Obamacare.

Any serious discussion of numbers from various years must be adjusted for inflation. Revenue numbers also need to be adjusted for population growth, two factors that increase revenue regardless of government policy.
 
Tbird19482 said:
If they did that then they couldn't spend more then they take in and couldn't give their big money friends another tax cut.
as I have said before we need a balanced budget amendment and in order to pay off the debt put on a 1% sales tax ( no exemptions or deductions on FIT so everybody pays it, everybody got a benefit from the debt so everybody should help pay it off ) and have it where when the debt is paid off the sales tax would expire.
have the balanced budget law so it has some real teeth to it and they could not spend more then they take in with the only exceptions of a major war or a great recession/ depression
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

While I agree that Republicans are hypocrites about debt, a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. The worst part of it is that it ties the government's hands dealing with economic downturns. Economist Paul Krugman gives a good education about government debt here: Opinion | Dwindling Deficit Disorder - The New York Times
Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II — in fact, our debt doubled in the 30 years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
Regarding the part in bold, above: Obama also inherited an economy where revenues fell by half a trillion a year due to that Great Recession. The stimulus wasn't all that expensive, representing ~$750 billion spread over two years. Where we get into problems is conditions that last a long time. The stimulus was temporary.

I object to the OP statement that Democrats caused the debt problem. Even a cavalier review of history tells us that's nonsense. Reagan presided over a debt that grew by one-third. Clinton, presided over four years of surpluses, due to prudent fiscal management, which included tax increases (that the GOP said would cause a recession.) Bush cut taxes again, and the deficits ballooned. The only thing saving Bush from massive deficits was the housing bubble -- until it burst. Obama inherited massive deficits but managed to cut them by 75%.

I also object to the OP claiming that liberals didn't care about deficits when Obama was president. That's true. Why? Because deficits aren't something to be worried about when unemployment is 10%. It's better to have massive deficits to create a Keynesian stimulus to bring the unemployed back to work so they can pay taxes and contribute to deficit reduction.
Click to expand...



Yeah. I kept my reply to only that area of the OP most pertinent, being just debt, focusing on the first section of the OP, and did not expand to other areas you brought up, which is also true.

The second section talked about how it was the Reps that made Clinton’s low debt happen by their being greatly responsible for legislation that helped the two surplus years come about. That is true. However, those were the only two years in the entire period of time under review the Reps ever did such a thing, including when they had influential control of Congress and the Whitehouse, and they did so in concert with the Dems, not just because of the Reps. Rep Joe Scarborough, a member of the House at the time, said so himself.

The third section is answered by the fact of the debt itself being in direct contradiction to the efforts pretended by the OP by the Reps. However grand an effort you want to characterize the Reps at controlling the debt, the outcome was just the opposite.

“Where we get into problems is conditions that last a long time.”

Yeah. Like all the money Bush2 gave away to the rich and large corps and going forward from now all the money Trump gave away to the same over-wealthy bunch.

The debt under Reagan did not increase “by one-third” under Reagan as you say. It more than doubled from FY ending 1981 $2.7T to FY ending 1989 $5.8T or 214.8%.

Actually, the Dems and Obama did care about “deficits”. The largest deficit year was 2009 and went down every year thereafter except for an increase in 2016, from when its been going back up. More debt contribution to add to what I posted before is that the Federal Reserve opened up its pocket book to financial institution to bail them out of bad loans to the tune of about $7.8 trillion. We had to borrow a lot from China to make that happen, mostly during Obama’s early years.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yeah. I kept my reply to only that area of the OP most pertinent, being just debt, focusing on the first section of the OP, and did not expand to other areas you brought up, which is also true.

The second section talked about how it was the Reps that made Clinton’s low debt happen by their being greatly responsible for legislation that helped the two surplus years come about. That is true. However, those were the only two years in the entire period of time under review the Reps ever did such a thing, including when they had influential control of Congress and the Whitehouse, and they did so in concert with the Dems, not just because of the Reps. Rep Joe Scarborough, a member of the House at the time, said so himself.

The third section is answered by the fact of the debt itself being in direct contradiction to the efforts pretended by the OP by the Reps. However grand an effort you want to characterize the Reps at controlling the debt, the outcome was just the opposite.

“Where we get into problems is conditions that last a long time.”

Yeah. Like all the money Bush2 gave away to the rich and large corps and going forward from now all the money Trump gave away to the same over-wealthy bunch.

The debt under Reagan did not increase “by one-third” under Reagan as you say. It more than doubled from FY ending 1981 $2.7T to FY ending 1989 $5.8T or 214.8%.

Actually, the Dems and Obama did care about “deficits”. The largest deficit year was 2009 and went down every year thereafter except for an increase in 2016, from when its been going back up. More debt contribution to add to what I posted before is that the Federal Reserve opened up its pocket book to financial institution to bail them out of bad loans to the tune of about $7.8 trillion. We had to borrow a lot from China to make that happen, mostly during Obama’s early years.
Click to expand...

Yes, the GOP revises history for their purposes. Example: 'It was the Republicans that brought down the debt during Clinton, he had nothing to do with it.'

This is what Newt Gingrich, who was the GOP Speaker of the House, said at the time: ‘The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.’ -- Newt Gingrich, in 1993
 
Bill James said:
There is a Republican President and once again, we can expect the internet to attract a certain type of troll.

The Democrat who has suddenly discovered the massive debt that Democrats have created.
Click to expand...

Under Trump.....

the largest US federal debt in history
the largest US federal deficit in history
the largest US trade deficit in history
the largest US wealth inequality in history
 
THe OP and other right wingers are the biggest fraud.

Deficits increase under republicans. They cut taxes for the rich, don't cut spending or start wars, debt goes throught he roof. Reagan and Bush 2 of the top 5 all time presidents of raising the deficit. Obama is up there, but he was facing an economic disaster and spent to stave off a depression ,which worked. FDR was up there, once again, to help get out of a depression. Obama's deficit was lower by the end of his term as president. Clinton reduced the deficit as well

Now you have republicans and trump that gave billions of tax breaks to the rich who don't need it and have increased the deficit in an economic boom, and did not cut any spending. So as usual, the right lying and making themselves look like fools.

So as usual, facts don't support the complete fiction right wingers love to believe.
\
bongsaway said:
It's a forty percent increase because of the trump and his republican friends tax cuts. We're only halfway through 2019 so it's kinda' hard to blame the dems.
Click to expand...

But that is all these sick people know how to do. Every problem in the world is caused by liberals to these sick people
 
Rogue Valley said:
Under Trump.....

the largest US federal debt in history
the largest US federal deficit in history
the largest US trade deficit in history
the largest US wealth inequality in history
Click to expand...
Trump always brags about the biggest. These are just more examples.
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, the GOP revises history for their purposes. Example: 'It was the Republicans that brought down the debt during Clinton, he had nothing to do with it.'

This is what Newt Gingrich, who was the GOP Speaker of the House, said at the time: ‘The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.’ -- Newt Gingrich, in 1993
Click to expand...



Yup. The "tax increase" was more getting the tax levels back to as before. So, the rich and large corps got all they got and we never got anything back. Remember, Rep leadership also said, when Clinton agreed to limiting "welfare for the poor", to address "welfare for corps". They never did and instead have given more, more, more.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Sad that you have to run screaming from the fact that twump is spending money like the drunken whore he's always been.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is what he is spending it on. War and tax cuts for himself. Imagine if we had spent that deficit on something that actually was good for us long term. Like say new water, power and electrical systems. Or education. Or debt relief for students. Or upgrading our infrastructure that is ancient and crumbling.
 
MTAtech said:
While I agree that Republicans are hypocrites about debt, a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. The worst part of it is that it ties the government's hands dealing with economic downturns. Economist Paul Krugman gives a good education about government debt here: Opinion | Dwindling Deficit Disorder - The New York Times
Click to expand...
Yes it would tie their hands and they could not spend more then they take in
IF you had read what I proposed you would have seen that I had exceptions in there for economic downturns ( another great recession or depression ) and for war, only in those cases would we be able to increase the debt
I also suggested a 1% sales tax everybody would pay and NO entity would be able to deduct it from FIT
and it would be ONLY for paying off the debt and would expire when the debt was paid off and could not be used for anything else
It could be re activated IF we had a war or another great recession only after we were back on our feet and on good economic standings.
this way the debt is being paid off by everybody seeing everybody got the benefit of running it up over the years
I hope that helped you to understand what I was saying
Have a nice day
 
MTAtech said:
Regarding the part in bold, above: Obama also inherited an economy where revenues fell by half a trillion a year due to that Great Recession. The stimulus wasn't all that expensive, representing ~$750 billion spread over two years. Where we get into problems is conditions that last a long time. The stimulus was temporary.

I object to the OP statement that Democrats caused the debt problem. Even a cavalier review of history tells us that's nonsense. Reagan presided over a debt that grew by one-third. Clinton, presided over four years of surpluses, due to prudent fiscal management, which included tax increases (that the GOP said would cause a recession.) Bush cut taxes again, and the deficits ballooned. The only thing saving Bush from massive deficits was the housing bubble -- until it burst. Obama inherited massive deficits but managed to cut them by 75%.

I also object to the OP claiming that liberals didn't care about deficits when Obama was president. That's true. Why? Because deficits aren't something to be worried about when unemployment is 10%. It's better to have massive deficits to create a Keynesian stimulus to bring the unemployed back to work so they can pay taxes and contribute to deficit reduction.
Click to expand...
Reagan ran the debt up 186% ( almost tripled it ) Bush II ran it up 101% the ONLY two Presidents to run the debt up more then all their Predecessors combined and the only two to have doubled the debt.
When Reagan took over the debt was below 1 Trillion dollars and when he left it was 2,857 Trillion
US Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent
Bush II took over it was 5.8 Trillion and added 5.849 Trillion to it leaving Obama a debt of 11.657 Trillion.
so it is simple math to prove that the Republicans just keep repeating the same old lie about Obama
HE did not double the debt IF he did then Trump would have taken over a debt of over 23 Trillion but it was ( 19.947 on the day Trump took office ) and 20.244 Trillion on Oct 1 , 2017 when he took over the budget and the debt
Have a nice day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom