Add an Argument
When were jobs and wealth ever created through government spending?
Exactly. But the answer is, that your premise has been BELIEVED to be the method to create jobs and wealth, and has been used often by a lot presidents, starting with FDR. Bush ended up in that camp. Obama is very big believer in it. Problem is, it is bunk. And doesn't work, and never has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
I am not against criticism in general. I agree that legitimate criticism is necessary to ensure quality in politics. This debate is about decrying non-legitimate criticism (which includes nitpicking such as making a big deal out of small social gaffes and includes exagerrated criticisms such as Obama will triple the national debt in 10 years).
You fail to understand that this debate is not about whether the government should increase the role in the economy or not. This is a debate on whether the truth should have a double standard to it. I believe it shouldn't. Many, but not all, Obama critics do.
You fail to understand that this debate is not about whether the government should increase the role in the economy or not. This is a debate on whether the truth should have a double standard to it. I believe it shouldn't. Many, but not all, Obama critics do.
cloudburst2000
Feb 05, 2010
Bush was the collassal failure. I'm not saying that Obama hasn't made mistakes since he took office, but he also took office at the WORST time in the American economy since the Great Depression. He didn't cause those problems. They were caused by an out-of-control banking industry, a very very expensive war (actually more than one war), no real handle on government contracts, etc. It seems to me that people just expected Obama to come in and clear the problem up in no time. These problems will take years to remedy. IMHO, Bush and his policies are mostly to blame for where this country currently is. Obama is not the messiah, he's just a man. He can't wave a magical wand and heal our society with a quick 'abracadabra'. It will take time and yes, probably some money. Has Obama made some mistakes, yes. Is he to blame for the current state of the economy...no. That said, Obama does deserve some criticism. Everybody does. That's how they know the views. ideas, worries, etc of the public. Criticism is good. Shows them what they need to work on. There will always be some criticism that is just ludicrous, but most criticism is probably helpful in the long run.
processing
Feb 07, 2010
Do you have any original thoughts at all? Everything you say is spouted on right wing radio all day. Try to work an original thought if you are able.
"Bush broke the record with a $400 billion deficit, but he is putting those numbers to shame." -King
This is exactly the sort of liars figuring that, to my reading, the OP was intending to criticize. Bush ran deficits well over $400 billion for every year of his administration save the first. It was only the BUDGET deficit that was below $400 billion. As you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Recent_additions_to_the_public_debt_of_the_United_States), there is a big difference between a "budget deficit" and deficit spending. By not including the costs of two wars in the official budget, Bush turned this from a relatively minor distinction to a whopping grander of a lie. Obama has incorporated the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the actual budget, thus massively increasing the "budget deficit" but in a way that, in and of itself, has absolutely no effect on the matter of deficit spending. King, here, on the one hand, makes reference to Bush's budget deficit, without holding Bush to account for massive off-the-budget deficit spending, but because Obama decided to fund the two wars he inherited (that Bush swore he would not foist onto his successors, then did anyway) in a more upfront fashion, King now gets to compare apples to oranges and pretend like Obama is responsible for a massive run-up in government debt. Furthermore, when one starts to ignore these attempts at obfuscation, one can begin to see the real issue at the heart of the run-up in government debt, which is the incredible drop in revenue. Remember those huge Bush tax cuts? We were told that the drop in revenue in the short term would be made up easily by economic growth. Yet here we are, after two major top-heavy tax cuts aimed at putting more money in the pockets of the entrepreneur class, but tax revenues are plummeting and the economy is in the tank. How bizarre!
"Duh. And Obama is guilty of the same, just 3 times as much. Bush sr and Clinton practically invented it. Stole money from the SS fund, to offset spending to pad the budget deficit. Yes Bush sucked. So you don't have to write a book about him sucking. My point is, argue all you want, but Obama and his congress are putting the spending of a few years ago to shame. " - King
Don't say duh. You were just caught red-handed distorting the truth. You hold Obama to account for deficit spending, while only holding Bush to account for budget deficits. Like I said in my post, George W. Bush is the one that turned this from a minor distinction to a gigantic proportion of the overall deficit spending. The $400 billion figure you cite is nothing more than a figment of some accountant's imagination - it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of government spending more than it earns. It's just a cheap trick to make the Republican administration and the Republican Congress appear to be far more fiscally responsible than they actually were. I invite you to rebut this assertion, King: The only reason for citing that figure is to mislead people who do not understand the basics of how government spending works. Provide an alternative explanation for why you would compare Bush's budget deficit with Obama's overall deficits. I take it from your "Duh" that you understand that these two things ARE different, right?
In any case, I maintain that this was precisely the intent of the OP in starting this thread, to highlight dishonest tactics just like what you did here. Regardless of one's political or economical ideology, dishonesty is dishonesty. Period. In further evidence of your intent to deceive, I note that you did NOT specify that the $400 billion dollar figure was a budget deficit, even though you now claim familiarity with the important distinction that exists there. The decision to cite that figure at all is, to my eye, completely inexcusable in the first place. To do so with full knowledge of what you are doing is nothing less than willful deception. And to ice the cake by neglecting to even offer the correct identifier for the figure is just pathetic. If that's what you're reduced to in this argument, then maybe you should go back to sticking razor blades in candy bars. At least then, the brown stuff all over your hands will be chocolate.
"Where are your magic numbers? You listed none. You have zero numbers to report. Instead of insults, you should give data a shot." - King
King,
What you'll want to do is go up to my first post. Then, take your mouse (that's the thing that fits in your hand) (your other hand) and click and drag, starting at the part that begins "http://" and continue across to the end of that line. You should notice that the colors have inverted. Now, hit Ctrl+c. Move the cursor up to your address bar and hit Ctrl+v, then hit enter. This will be the only step of this process that involves magic, as you will be magically whisked away to a webpage that contains not magic numbers, but real numbers.
As far as the insults, it's just sort of a habit of mine. You see, unlike most debaters, I prefer not to corner my adversaries. I provided you the opportunity to respond to legitimate concerns, but also, if you so desired, I provided you the opportunity to eschew an on-topic conversation that you can't hope to win in favor of something completely different. I find that people with valid counterarguments ignore my attempts to draw them into a poo-flinging contest, as the best way to shut up an obnoxious detractor is to pwn them with argument. If you could have done that, you would have. But you didn't. You chose the path of the coward. You self-identified your defeat in this debate. If you had a leg to stand on, you'd have fired back with your best counter. It's only when you don't have anything left to say that you resort to complaining about the way you're being treated. Ironically, your complaints are what confirm that you do indeed deserve the insults, as you have made it perfectly clear you have no defense to offer for the deceptive tactics you employed in this debate.
Better luck next time, King.
lockepeter
Feb 08, 2010
America is officially a no-racism country. Or at least, we're as un-racist as we're ever gonna get. Obama was elected by white people. There aren't enough african americans in america to elect him, so it was white people. End of story, unless you wanna say that Obama cheated in the election.
TheHSProdigy
Apr 02, 2010
I'm not a big fan of Obama at all, but there should NEVER EVER be a double standard for the truth. Reality is objective and should not be distorted by partisan bias. Often I see many members of both major political parties, Democrat and Republican, exagerrating the flaws of the other party, criticizing them for things they normally wouldn't criticize themselves for, and minimizing their own. This has happened during the Bush Administration when the Democrats have taken power in the same way it is happening now during the Obama Administration when the Republican are rising in opposition.
First of all, it is the minor criticism which is a problem. Criticizing Obama for small things such as making the gaffe of forgetting to salute to the flag is an example. The trite argument that Obama is a terrorist, and he has no birth certificate, and that he is a radical muslim really needs to be put to rest. His small connection with Ayers who threatened to burn down buildings as a Vietnam protest FORTY YEARS AGO (WHEN HE WAS ONLY 20) has somehow made Obama a terrorist.
Second, even worse, is the major criticisms which are too true to be true. Republicans make him out to be a fiscal disaster, but is he really. Yes, this year has record level deficits, but that is only because Obama inherited a huge debt and because of natural causes out of his control. The main 3 factors of the deficit are mandatory spending (social security, medicare/medicaid, which Obama has nothing to do with and most Republican support), national defense (which is necessary and most Republicans support), and recession spending (including lost revenue, tax cuts, states relief) even though Obama didn't cause the recession. The Republicans are squabbling over the deficits, but they only want to cut a small amount of discretionary spending while leaving everything else in tact. That is essentially worrying about the small change while we are losing the big dollars.
If political parties want to campaign against each other honestly, that is acceptable. But they should not under ANY circumstance stretch the truth or hold a double standard on it just to get votes.
First of all, it is the minor criticism which is a problem. Criticizing Obama for small things such as making the gaffe of forgetting to salute to the flag is an example. The trite argument that Obama is a terrorist, and he has no birth certificate, and that he is a radical muslim really needs to be put to rest. His small connection with Ayers who threatened to burn down buildings as a Vietnam protest FORTY YEARS AGO (WHEN HE WAS ONLY 20) has somehow made Obama a terrorist.
Second, even worse, is the major criticisms which are too true to be true. Republicans make him out to be a fiscal disaster, but is he really. Yes, this year has record level deficits, but that is only because Obama inherited a huge debt and because of natural causes out of his control. The main 3 factors of the deficit are mandatory spending (social security, medicare/medicaid, which Obama has nothing to do with and most Republican support), national defense (which is necessary and most Republicans support), and recession spending (including lost revenue, tax cuts, states relief) even though Obama didn't cause the recession. The Republicans are squabbling over the deficits, but they only want to cut a small amount of discretionary spending while leaving everything else in tact. That is essentially worrying about the small change while we are losing the big dollars.
If political parties want to campaign against each other honestly, that is acceptable. But they should not under ANY circumstance stretch the truth or hold a double standard on it just to get votes.
When were jobs and wealth ever created through government spending?
Exactly. But the answer is, that your premise has been BELIEVED to be the method to create jobs and wealth, and has been used often by a lot presidents, starting with FDR. Bush ended up in that camp. Obama is very big believer in it. Problem is, it is bunk. And doesn't work, and never has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
vancam I am not against criticism in general. I agree that legitimate criticism is necessary to ensure quality in politics. This debate is about decrying non-legitimate criticism (which includes nitpicking such as making a big deal out of small social gaffes and includes exagerrated criticisms such as Obama will triple the national debt in 10 years).
You fail to understand that this debate is not about whether the government should increase the role in the economy or not. This is a debate on whether the truth should have a double standard to it. I believe it shouldn't. Many, but not all, Obama critics do.
You fail to understand that this debate is not about whether the government should increase the role in the economy or not. This is a debate on whether the truth should have a double standard to it. I believe it shouldn't. Many, but not all, Obama critics do.
cloudburst2000
Feb 05, 2010
Bush was the collassal failure. I'm not saying that Obama hasn't made mistakes since he took office, but he also took office at the WORST time in the American economy since the Great Depression. He didn't cause those problems. They were caused by an out-of-control banking industry, a very very expensive war (actually more than one war), no real handle on government contracts, etc. It seems to me that people just expected Obama to come in and clear the problem up in no time. These problems will take years to remedy. IMHO, Bush and his policies are mostly to blame for where this country currently is. Obama is not the messiah, he's just a man. He can't wave a magical wand and heal our society with a quick 'abracadabra'. It will take time and yes, probably some money. Has Obama made some mistakes, yes. Is he to blame for the current state of the economy...no. That said, Obama does deserve some criticism. Everybody does. That's how they know the views. ideas, worries, etc of the public. Criticism is good. Shows them what they need to work on. There will always be some criticism that is just ludicrous, but most criticism is probably helpful in the long run.
processing
Feb 07, 2010
larryt700 Do you have any original thoughts at all? Everything you say is spouted on right wing radio all day. Try to work an original thought if you are able.
"Bush broke the record with a $400 billion deficit, but he is putting those numbers to shame." -King
This is exactly the sort of liars figuring that, to my reading, the OP was intending to criticize. Bush ran deficits well over $400 billion for every year of his administration save the first. It was only the BUDGET deficit that was below $400 billion. As you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Recent_additions_to_the_public_debt_of_the_United_States), there is a big difference between a "budget deficit" and deficit spending. By not including the costs of two wars in the official budget, Bush turned this from a relatively minor distinction to a whopping grander of a lie. Obama has incorporated the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the actual budget, thus massively increasing the "budget deficit" but in a way that, in and of itself, has absolutely no effect on the matter of deficit spending. King, here, on the one hand, makes reference to Bush's budget deficit, without holding Bush to account for massive off-the-budget deficit spending, but because Obama decided to fund the two wars he inherited (that Bush swore he would not foist onto his successors, then did anyway) in a more upfront fashion, King now gets to compare apples to oranges and pretend like Obama is responsible for a massive run-up in government debt. Furthermore, when one starts to ignore these attempts at obfuscation, one can begin to see the real issue at the heart of the run-up in government debt, which is the incredible drop in revenue. Remember those huge Bush tax cuts? We were told that the drop in revenue in the short term would be made up easily by economic growth. Yet here we are, after two major top-heavy tax cuts aimed at putting more money in the pockets of the entrepreneur class, but tax revenues are plummeting and the economy is in the tank. How bizarre!
"Duh. And Obama is guilty of the same, just 3 times as much. Bush sr and Clinton practically invented it. Stole money from the SS fund, to offset spending to pad the budget deficit. Yes Bush sucked. So you don't have to write a book about him sucking. My point is, argue all you want, but Obama and his congress are putting the spending of a few years ago to shame. " - King
Don't say duh. You were just caught red-handed distorting the truth. You hold Obama to account for deficit spending, while only holding Bush to account for budget deficits. Like I said in my post, George W. Bush is the one that turned this from a minor distinction to a gigantic proportion of the overall deficit spending. The $400 billion figure you cite is nothing more than a figment of some accountant's imagination - it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of government spending more than it earns. It's just a cheap trick to make the Republican administration and the Republican Congress appear to be far more fiscally responsible than they actually were. I invite you to rebut this assertion, King: The only reason for citing that figure is to mislead people who do not understand the basics of how government spending works. Provide an alternative explanation for why you would compare Bush's budget deficit with Obama's overall deficits. I take it from your "Duh" that you understand that these two things ARE different, right?
In any case, I maintain that this was precisely the intent of the OP in starting this thread, to highlight dishonest tactics just like what you did here. Regardless of one's political or economical ideology, dishonesty is dishonesty. Period. In further evidence of your intent to deceive, I note that you did NOT specify that the $400 billion dollar figure was a budget deficit, even though you now claim familiarity with the important distinction that exists there. The decision to cite that figure at all is, to my eye, completely inexcusable in the first place. To do so with full knowledge of what you are doing is nothing less than willful deception. And to ice the cake by neglecting to even offer the correct identifier for the figure is just pathetic. If that's what you're reduced to in this argument, then maybe you should go back to sticking razor blades in candy bars. At least then, the brown stuff all over your hands will be chocolate.
"Where are your magic numbers? You listed none. You have zero numbers to report. Instead of insults, you should give data a shot." - King
King,
What you'll want to do is go up to my first post. Then, take your mouse (that's the thing that fits in your hand) (your other hand) and click and drag, starting at the part that begins "http://" and continue across to the end of that line. You should notice that the colors have inverted. Now, hit Ctrl+c. Move the cursor up to your address bar and hit Ctrl+v, then hit enter. This will be the only step of this process that involves magic, as you will be magically whisked away to a webpage that contains not magic numbers, but real numbers.
As far as the insults, it's just sort of a habit of mine. You see, unlike most debaters, I prefer not to corner my adversaries. I provided you the opportunity to respond to legitimate concerns, but also, if you so desired, I provided you the opportunity to eschew an on-topic conversation that you can't hope to win in favor of something completely different. I find that people with valid counterarguments ignore my attempts to draw them into a poo-flinging contest, as the best way to shut up an obnoxious detractor is to pwn them with argument. If you could have done that, you would have. But you didn't. You chose the path of the coward. You self-identified your defeat in this debate. If you had a leg to stand on, you'd have fired back with your best counter. It's only when you don't have anything left to say that you resort to complaining about the way you're being treated. Ironically, your complaints are what confirm that you do indeed deserve the insults, as you have made it perfectly clear you have no defense to offer for the deceptive tactics you employed in this debate.
Better luck next time, King.
lockepeter
Feb 08, 2010
America is officially a no-racism country. Or at least, we're as un-racist as we're ever gonna get. Obama was elected by white people. There aren't enough african americans in america to elect him, so it was white people. End of story, unless you wanna say that Obama cheated in the election.
TheHSProdigy
Apr 02, 2010
I debate all the time, and I NEVER hear actual reasons
Add an Argument
frankiej4189
Feb 04, 2010
frankiej4189
Feb 04, 2010
And had Obama Care succeeded, how much (including his Stimulus Package) did Obama plan on spending over the next few years while the nation was trillions of dollars in debt.
Showing up on the Late Show and giving the Queen an iPod are pointless, and pathetic attempts to criticize the President. His policy decisions, however, are all fair game and rightfully so.
Racism???? OMG here you go again! OBAMA is a failure as a president! He has done absolutely nothing but used 'EARMARKS' to pad the coffers of those who got him elected. He will go down in history as the worst president in modern history. See what CHANGE has gotten you? No wonder the republicans simply snicker and laugh without having to say a word because his foreign policy sucks, he bows to the Chinese and gives the queen an IPOD? He is a blithering idiot who is merely liked simply because he is the first minority president. That's about all that's going for him!
I don't know of any critics of obama, who didn't have some of the same criticisms of bush. Most people criticize on ideals. The debate title should be more descriptive. It seems to group all critics of obama together. Critics themselves are sort of ridiculous. It's the job to find fault.
Duh. And Obama is guilty of the same, just 3 times as much. Bush sr and Clinton practically invented it. Stole money from the SS fund, to offset spending to pad the budget deficit. Yes Bush sucked. So you don't have to write a book about him sucking. My point is, argue all you want, but Obama and his congress are putting the spending of a few years ago to shame.
Pretend Obama runs up debt? Get out of your dream world. Face the facts, even the Huff post can, you should too.
So republicans make up numbers and democrats use real ones? You can't be that naive right? Seriously. Red handed? Huh. What are you talking about. Where are your magic numbers? You listed none. You have zero numbers to report. Instead of insults, you should give data a shot.
lockepeter
Feb 09, 2010
frankiej4189
Feb 04, 2010
"Obama Critics Are Ridiculous".
FALSE.
Obama Critics are Racist.
FALSE.
Obama Critics are Racist.
frankiej4189
Feb 04, 2010
And had Obama Care succeeded, how much (including his Stimulus Package) did Obama plan on spending over the next few years while the nation was trillions of dollars in debt.
Showing up on the Late Show and giving the Queen an iPod are pointless, and pathetic attempts to criticize the President. His policy decisions, however, are all fair game and rightfully so.
I'm a big Obama fan. I include him in my list of personal heroes (Magnum PI, Will Smith, Banksy etc being some others), but, I believe that people should always be (constructively) critical to ensure quality, especially in politics.
Obama critics are Realistic. Bush was a failure, Obama is a collossal failure. Whether you are Dem or Rep, big government is spending beyond control and the current admin throwing more money into gov't is fueling the fire. When were jobs and wealth ever created through government spending? Keep your hands out of my pockets.
Depends on what you are criticizing. On some accounts, yes. Like what he says about Vegas, who cares. Or the remarks about calling that police officer stupid, who cares. They really mean nothing.
But it is very FAIR and appropriate to criticize a $4 Trilion dollar budget that will create a $1.6 Trillion deficit for the year, adding to the already ridiculous $12 Trillion debt we have. Last year was the greatest deficit we have ever incurred, and this year is even greater. Bush broke the record with a $400 billion deficit, but he is putting those numbers to shame. To shame. We already pay 25% of our fiscal budget to the interest on our debt, which has doubled in 10 years. This number will be at 50% within 5 years. We won't be able to pay for anything other than our debt. But of course that won't happen, and it's a deadly cycle we are in. deadly. Watch IOUSA for more information on this area. The other criticism is of progressive economics in general, in that john maynard keynes was COMPLETELY wrong. His economics have never worked, since the great depression. Even worse, what we have moved into now isn't capitalism or socialism, but a military industrial complex. It is not Obama's fault, but I can sure criticize him for being a pawn of big banking. That also happens to be why we didn't pull out of Iraq, like promised. And we won't pull out of afghanistan. Our economy needs war to survive. No matter what party promises it (if it starts with a D or an R) we will wage more and more war. I can criticize him for that too. He promised all troops would be withdrawn by 2009. It's 2010, and we're still there, and no plans for a withdrawal.
Racism???? OMG here you go again! OBAMA is a failure as a president! He has done absolutely nothing but used 'EARMARKS' to pad the coffers of those who got him elected. He will go down in history as the worst president in modern history. See what CHANGE has gotten you? No wonder the republicans simply snicker and laugh without having to say a word because his foreign policy sucks, he bows to the Chinese and gives the queen an IPOD? He is a blithering idiot who is merely liked simply because he is the first minority president. That's about all that's going for him!
I don't know of any critics of obama, who didn't have some of the same criticisms of bush. Most people criticize on ideals. The debate title should be more descriptive. It seems to group all critics of obama together. Critics themselves are sort of ridiculous. It's the job to find fault.
Duh. And Obama is guilty of the same, just 3 times as much. Bush sr and Clinton practically invented it. Stole money from the SS fund, to offset spending to pad the budget deficit. Yes Bush sucked. So you don't have to write a book about him sucking. My point is, argue all you want, but Obama and his congress are putting the spending of a few years ago to shame.
Pretend Obama runs up debt? Get out of your dream world. Face the facts, even the Huff post can, you should too.
So republicans make up numbers and democrats use real ones? You can't be that naive right? Seriously. Red handed? Huh. What are you talking about. Where are your magic numbers? You listed none. You have zero numbers to report. Instead of insults, you should give data a shot.
lockepeter
Feb 09, 2010
Obama critics are no less legitimate than the critics of any other president. Obama isn't perfect, but neither was any other president.