Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Conservative]

No, gerrymandering is why Conservatives control those. That's the only reason.

Absolutely because people are robots and when lines are changed the people are programmed to vote for whoever their programmers create. Did Democrats ever Gerrymander? Any idea how many years the Democrats controlled the Congress before the Republicans took over? Was there any Gerrymandering during those years of Democratic control? Do you ever admit you are wrong?

 

[Incisor]

Of course you don't as we always have that money tree in D.C. to pick dollars from and we certainly don't have to pay interest to bond holders of our debt including the 40% of debt that goes to foreign countries

40% of our debt does not go to foreign countries.

 

[Incisor]

LOL, oh, my, where do you think the debt comes from? Obviously you don't have a clue. Did you bother to even read the title of the links?

Yeesh...yes, debt comes from deficits, but surpluses aren't always used to pay down debt. Like how Texas had a "surplus" but put it in the "rainy day fund" even though they had debt of $341B.

 

[Incisor]

Absolutely because people are robots and when lines are changed the people are programmed to vote for whoever their programmers create.

Do you know what gerrymandering is?

Did Democrats ever Gerrymander?

That's your defense? You know, CA addressed gerrymandering in 2010 and put it to the voters. They decided that CA's Congressional Districts be drawn by a non-partisan board, independent of the State Legislature. I don't see how "well, they did it before" is a legitimate defense of the practice today.

 

[Conservative]

40% of our debt does not go to foreign countries.

Just another subject you know nothing about

 

[Conservative]

Yeesh...yes, debt comes from deficits, but surpluses aren't always used to pay down debt. Like how Texas had a "surplus" but put it in the "rainy day fund" even though they had debt of $341B.

What did Clinton do with those surpluses you claim he created?

 

[Conservative]

Do you know what gerrymandering is?




That's your defense? You know, CA addressed gerrymandering in 2010 and put it to the voters. They decided that CA's Congressional Districts be drawn by a non-partisan board, independent of the State Legislature. I don't see how "well, they did it before" is a legitimate defense of the practice today.

Do you ever answer a direct question. When backed into a corner you divert. Did the Democrats ever redraw district lines when in power?

 

[Moderate Right]

I would like nothing more than to be wrong about Trump. I have Hope. But when he stocks his team with the same people who have been slithering around Washington the last 35 years, it should give you a clue as to how bad his Presidency is going to be.

Can't possibly be worse than the last 8 years.

 

[Incisor]

Can't possibly be worse than the last 8 years.

The last 8 years had the same growth rate (1.76%) as the 8 years prior. Only difference is that the last 8 years saw net private sector job growth of 12,000,000+ while the 8 years prior saw net private sector job loss of 460,000. Oh, and the economy didn't collapse and plunge us into the worst recession in 80 years.

 

[Conservative]

The last 8 years had the same growth rate (1.76%) as the 8 years prior. Only difference is that the last 8 years saw net private sector job growth of 12,000,000+ while the 8 years prior saw net private sector job loss of 460,000. Oh, and the economy didn't collapse and plunge us into the worst recession in 80 years.

I find it really interesting how the electorate got it wrong and you were so right. How do you explain these incredible results that you post and the loss of the WH and Congress? Please name for me the economic policies of Obama that generated the private sector job creation you claim he generated even though BLS doesn't show those numbers. I guess making numbers up goes along with someone who cannot admit when wrong but is a true ideologue for some reason. Guess the general public is just plain stupid and you are so smart because they didn't see what you seem to believe happened.

 

[Incisor]

What did Clinton do with those surpluses you claim he created?

Some of it he used to pay down the Public Debt via Politifact:

Now let's look at Clinton's tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton's stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough.

So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that "we paid down the debt for four years," though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion -- which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997.

 

[Incisor]

Do you ever answer a direct question. When backed into a corner you divert. Did the Democrats ever redraw district lines when in power?

I do, you're the one who doesn't. Gerrymandering is when state reps carve out districts that give them an advantage with the voters. So it's not like someone switched from Team Blue to Team Red. It's that the Red Team carved the Blue voters in half to give themselves a better shot at winning both districts.

And just because Democrats did something years ago does not make it OK for Conservatives to do so today. That's a childish argument.

 

[Conservative]

Some of it he used to pay down the Public Debt via Politifact:

Public debt is PART OF THE NATIONAL DEBT WHICH YOU STILL DON'T Understand. Answer the question do you like having your SS and Medicare contributions going to pay for the daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt? By the way you continue to ignore the links i gave you. are you still calling Treasury Conservative partisan sites?

 

[Conservative]

I do, you're the one who doesn't. Gerrymandering is when state reps carve out districts that give them an advantage with the voters. So it's not like someone switched from Team Blue to Team Red. It's that the Red Team carved the Blue voters in half to give themselves a better shot at winning both districts.

And just because Democrats did something years ago does not make it OK for Conservatives to do so today. That's a childish argument.

So got it, Democrats who controlled the House for decades did gerrymander and that is ok with you? You simply cannot buy the reality that you lost the battle of ideas and that it isn't gerrymandering that cost the Democrats because people aren't robots. You may be but most aren't. Biden explained it to you but you will never get it. The Democrats lost touch with the American workers

Keep making things up and ignoring what actually is happening

 

[Incisor]

I find it really interesting how the electorate got it wrong and you were so right.

The electorate did get it right...it was a technicality that gave Trump the White House and gerrymandering which gave the GOP Congress. Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. Democrats got more votes in the aggregate in both the House and Senate than Conservatives. I think you know that too, but are just playing at being obtuse for the sake of....your ego? I don't even know anymore...

Please name for me the economic policies of Obama that generated the private sector job creation you claim he generated

The Stimulus and Obamacare for starters.

BLS doesn't show those numbers

Whaaaa? BLS shows 111,474,000 private sector jobs in January 2011 and 122,883,000 private sector jobs in November 2016.

122,883,000 - 111,474,000 = 11,409,000 net jobs Jan 2009 - Nov 2016. Add in December and January hirings, and you'll get about 12,000,000.

Guess the general public is just plain stupid and you are so smart because they didn't see what you seem to believe happened.

Largely, the Public is pretty stupid. Buying into the myth that cutting taxes for the top will somehow mean more prosperity for everyone else is the proof.

 

[Incisor]

Public debt is PART OF THE NATIONAL DEBT WHICH YOU STILL DON'T Understand.

You asked what he did with the surpluses, and I told you. If you want to jump from non-sequitur to non-sequitur, that's your deal.

Answer the question do you like having your SS and Medicare contributions going to pay for the daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt?

I don't care. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is having to pay for tax cuts for the 1% under the promise they will trickle down to the rest of us when they won't.

 

[Conservative]

The electorate did get it right...it was a technicality that gave Trump the White House and gerrymandering which gave the GOP Congress. Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. Democrats got more votes in the aggregate in both the House and Senate than Conservatives. I think you know that too, but are just playing at being obtuse for the sake of....your ego? I don't even know anymore...




The Stimulus and Obamacare for starters.




Whaaaa? BLS shows 111,474,000 private sector jobs in January 2011 and 122,883,000 private sector jobs in November 2016.

122,883,000 - 111,474,000 = 11,409,000 net jobs Jan 2009 - Nov 2016. Add in December and January hirings, and you'll get about 12,000,000.




Largely, the Public is pretty stupid. Buying into the myth that cutting taxes for the top will somehow mean more prosperity for everyone else is the proof.

Well, you are indeed a legend in your own mind, I bow to your superior intelligence and know that President elect Hillary, and the Democrat controlled Congress will carry on the Obama legacy and continue to promote the private sector just like Obama did although I cannot find that legislation that created those so called jobs. By the way, Obama took office in January 2009, what was the private sector total in January 2009 and why did you pick 2011? When was the stimulus passed for shovel ready jobs and what exactly is a shovel ready job? Did it take 2 years for those shovels to start arriving??

 

[Conservative]

You asked what he did with the surpluses, and I told you. If you want to jump from non-sequitur to non-sequitur, that's your deal.




I don't care. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is having to pay for tax cuts for the 1% under the promise they will trickle down to the rest of us when they won't.

So you pay for someone else to keep more of their own money? interesting education you had. Please show me the accounting class that teaches that people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to anyone? Can you explain how tax revenue went from 2.2 trillion to 2.7 trillion with those Bush tax cuts?

 

[Moderate Right]

The last 8 years had the same growth rate (1.76%) as the 8 years prior. Only difference is that the last 8 years saw net private sector job growth of 12,000,000+ while the 8 years prior saw net private sector job loss of 460,000. Oh, and the economy didn't collapse and plunge us into the worst recession in 80 years.

Recessions come and go and there is very little anyone can do to stop them.

 

[Critter7r]

Really, the bottom dropped out just after Bush handed the economy over to Obama? When did the recession begin and end?? So Obama spent 8 years digging out from the Bush mess? When does the economy become Obama's responsibility? You have a very selective memory and a partisan one at that. Isn't it interesting how the country responded to the Obama record and policies this last election?

It's Wiki, but ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_the_United_States

"The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%, making the Great Recession the worst since the Great Depression. Unemployment rose from 4.7% in November 2007 to peak at 10% in October 2009 ... By August 2015, the unemployment rate was 5.1%, below the historical average of 5.6% but still just above the 5% when the recession started in December 2007, with roughly 12,639,000 jobs added since the Great Recession's payroll trough in February 2010"

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but he was handed a nearly impossible task and he and his administration did a decent job bringing the country back to a reasonable, sustainable growth path.

 

[Conservative]

It's Wiki, but ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_the_United_States

"The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%, making the Great Recession the worst since the Great Depression. Unemployment rose from 4.7% in November 2007 to peak at 10% in October 2009 ... By August 2015, the unemployment rate was 5.1%, below the historical average of 5.6% but still just above the 5% when the recession started in December 2007, with roughly 12,639,000 jobs added since the Great Recession's payroll trough in February 2010"

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but he was handed a nearly impossible task and he and his administration did a decent job bringing the country back to a reasonable, sustainable growth path.

That is exactly what you want to believe just like you want to believe the Obama stimulus didn't happen. You said the bottom dropped out when the economy was handed over to Obama, the economy started dropping after the Democrats took office and was coming OUT of recession when Obama took office. Far too many buy the media spin and look at the reality of what has happened since Obama took office. When he took office BLS shows 142 MILLION working Americans and today that is 152 million of which 6 million are part time for economic reasons. When the recession began there were 146 million working Americans so you do the math, where are the 12.6 million jobs added?

I am not a huge fan of Obama either but i also understand how to do research and how not to buy the media spin or to put that spin into context. It was hardly impossible as Reagan took a worse recession that affected more Americans than Obama and turned it around creating almost 17 million jobs, not 6

 

[Critter7r]

I find it really interesting how the electorate got it wrong and you were so right. How do you explain these incredible results that you post and the loss of the WH and Congress? Please name for me the economic policies of Obama that generated the private sector job creation you claim he generated even though BLS doesn't show those numbers. I guess making numbers up goes along with someone who cannot admit when wrong but is a true ideologue for some reason. Guess the general public is just plain stupid and you are so smart because they didn't see what you seem to believe happened.

Argumentum ad populum ...

"Everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" is a fine piece of music, but a horrible argument for choosing a president.

 

[pinqy]

When he took office BLS shows 142 MILLION working Americans and today that is 152 million of which 6 million are part time for economic reasons.

January 2009, there were 142 million working, 12 million unemployed, 8 million part time for economic reasons, and 734,000 discouraged.
Employment hit bottom in December 2009 at 138 million working.
Unemployment peaked in April 2010 at 15..3 million
Part time for economic reasons peaked in September 2010 at 9.2 million
and discouraged peaked in December 2010 at 1.3 million.

Currently (December 2016) we're at 152 million employed, 7.4 million unemployed, 5.7 million part time for economic reasons, and 591,000 discouraged.

It is not "spin" to measure based off of when the data series changed direction. One could just as correctly say that you are spinning the data by choosing to use Obama's inauguration as the start date in order to make things look worse than they really are.



When the recession began there were 146 million working Americans so you do the math, where are the 12.6 million jobs added?

I am not a huge fan of Obama either but i also understand how to do research and how not to buy the media spin or to put that spin into context. It was hardly impossible as Reagan took a worse recession that affected more Americans than Obama and turned it around creating almost 17 million jobs, not 6[/QUOTE]

 

[Conservative]

Argumentum ad populum ...

"Everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" is a fine piece of music, but a horrible argument for choosing a president.

What is horrible is how uneducated the electorate is especially the left that ignores actual data and buys the leftwing spin. What purpose was the stimulus? Now we can continue this argument until hell freezes over and nothing is going to change yours or my mind. what really matters are the election results which show the true successes or failures of the Obama Administration. His legacy is represented in the actual results generated over the past 8 years not the leftwing interpretation or defense

Obama’s legacy is a devastated Democratic Party | New York Post

 

[Conservative]

January 2009, there were 142 million working, 12 million unemployed, 8 million part time for economic reasons, and 734,000 discouraged.
Employment hit bottom in December 2009 at 138 million working.
Unemployment peaked in April 2010 at 15..3 million
Part time for economic reasons peaked in September 2010 at 9.2 million
and discouraged peaked in December 2010 at 1.3 million.

Currently (December 2016) we're at 152 million employed, 7.4 million unemployed, 5.7 million part time for economic reasons, and 591,000 discouraged.

It is not "spin" to measure based off of when the data series changed direction. One could just as correctly say that you are spinning the data by choosing to use Obama's inauguration as the start date in order to make things look worse than they really are.



When the recession began there were 146 million working Americans so you do the math, where are the 12.6 million jobs added?

I am not a huge fan of Obama either but i also understand how to do research and how not to buy the media spin or to put that spin into context. It was hardly impossible as Reagan took a worse recession that affected more Americans than Obama and turned it around creating almost 17 million jobs, not 6

[/QUOTE]

I chose the inauguration date because of the stimulus for shovel ready jobs that never materialized and yet billions and billions where spent. If you truly want to do research then research why Obama's record as claimed by the left and many here was rejected in the November elections? you see, the American people in state, local and national elections did not feel the successes of this so called booming Obama economy.

it was the private sector in spite of Obama that turned employment around so to give him credit as President for private sector job growth is nothing more than leftwing spin especially since the left can point to no legislation that Obama implemented to generate those jobs. The private sector in order to survive Obama made the changes necessary to stay in business. Part time for economic reasons helped in that area