• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years [W:166/819]

I will ask you again...let's see if you can get it together enough to answer? I am guessing you cannot.

1) Are you saying that I was lying when I said there was two reasons?

2) And what 'side of the aisle' am I from?

1) my response was crystal clear. Feel free to re-read it several times though if that will help you.

2) the side of dumbasses.

By the way, let's take a look at your initial post on this again ...


"Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's. They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well." ~ DA60


Not only were you under the delusion that Mussolini and Hitler were elected, but that they were elected "over and over!" Seems we now agree at least that Mussolini was never elected ...

... but exactly how many times do you think Hitler was elected??


:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Ind, I hope you have learned something from this thread.
Dont feed the trolls. They would rather argue about Mussolini and Hitler all day long than acknowledge how much Obama has spent in his time in office.

How about some on topic debate for ****s and grins?
 
1) my response was crystal clear. Feel free to re-read it several times though if that will help you.

2) the side of dumbasses.

I am not answering any of your questions until you answer all of my previous ones sincerely.

If you cannot do that - then I see no reason to answer any of your questions sincerely.

So once again, 1) Are you saying that I was lying when I said there was two reasons?

What was your answer?

Yes or no?


2) And what 'side of the aisle' am I from?

So your sincere answer is 'the side of dumbasses?

Is that a sincere answer?

If it is - then I will need far more information from you on what that is referring to.

And if it is not - is that your final answer to this question?

Yes or no?



Plus - here are other questions from this thread that you have yet to answer (to my knowledge). So please answer all the highlighted questions:


So, you say the cause of the recession was Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy?

You do realize that the Fed increased the monetary supply by 62% during the mid-late 20's?



They did not cause it by tightening the policy. They caused it by over-inflating the economy by 'printing' too much money in the 20's and when they stopped when they saw the economy was overheating (and they could not keeping printing at that pace forever), it collapsed as it had gotten dependent on that new money pouring into it from the Fed.
You Keynesians just don't seem to get it - if you make money too plentiful, people will get greedy and want more and more...and they will take greater and greater risks to get it because it was so easy to get in the first place.
That is what (more or less) caused the Crash and that is (more or less) what caused the housing boom/bust.
And both can be traced to governments either printing too much money or making credit too cheap.


Explain this to me Bernanke - why did Britain recover much faster then America did (and their unemplyment rate was as bad as America's in the early 30's) even though they ran a fraction of the deficits that Hoover/FDR did?

And I don't want another baseless theory. I want to see a theory with a link to unbiased factual evidence of that theory...otherwise, please don't waste my time.



BTW, the reason is obvious. Government stimulus stunts growth. Sure, it gives it a quick fix at the beginning - like a junkie when he first gets high. But once the initial high passes, the economy stagnates as it becomes dependent on government stimulus just to get by. That is why the Great Depression and it's aftermath dragged on for a decade.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening now. The DOW goes up, not on good fundamentals. It goes up when the market thinks the government/Fed is going to print more money.


And btw - if FDR prolonging the Great Depression is unprovable...then where is your proof that he did NOT prolong the Great Depression?
And if you cannot prove it - then what is your factual basis for calling it 'nonsense'?


Have a nice day.



They are from the following post

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-66.html#post1060580889
 
Last edited:
I am not answering any of your questions until you answer all of my previous ones sincerely.

If you cannot do that - then I see no reason to answer any of your questions sincerely.

So once again, 1) Are you saying that I was lying when I said there was two reasons?

What was your answer?

Yes or no?


2) And what 'side of the aisle' am I from?

So your sincere answer is 'the side of dumbasses?

Is that a sincere answer?

If it is - then I will need far more information from you on what that is referring to.

And if it is not - is that your final answer to this question?

Yes or no?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-81.html#post1060587618
 

So you still have not answered my questions.

Noted.


Plus - here are other questions from this thread that you have yet to answer (to my knowledge). So please answer all the highlighted questions:


So, you say the cause of the recession was Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy?

You do realize that the Fed increased the monetary supply by 62% during the mid-late 20's?


They did not cause it by tightening the policy. They caused it by over-inflating the economy by 'printing' too much money in the 20's and when they stopped when they saw the economy was overheating (and they could not keeping printing at that pace forever), it collapsed as it had gotten dependent on that new money pouring into it from the Fed.
You Keynesians just don't seem to get it - if you make money too plentiful, people will get greedy and want more and more...and they will take greater and greater risks to get it because it was so easy to get in the first place.
That is what (more or less) caused the Crash and that is (more or less) what caused the housing boom/bust.
And both can be traced to governments either printing too much money or making credit too cheap.


Explain this to me - why did Britain recover much faster then America did (and their unemplyment rate was as bad as America's in the early 30's) even though they ran a fraction of the deficits that Hoover/FDR did?

And I don't want another baseless theory. I want to see a theory with a link to unbiased factual evidence of that theory.



BTW, the reason is obvious. Government stimulus stunts growth. Sure, it gives it a quick fix at the beginning - like a junkie when he first gets high. But once the initial high passes, the economy stagnates as it becomes dependent on government stimulus just to get by. That is why the Great Depression and it's aftermath dragged on for a decade.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening now. The DOW goes up, not on good fundamentals. It goes up when the market thinks the government/Fed is going to print more money.


And btw - if FDR prolonging the Great Depression is unprovable...then where is your proof that he did NOT prolong the Great Depression?
And if you cannot prove it - then what is your factual basis for calling it 'nonsense'?


Have a nice day.



They are from the following post

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-66.html#post1060580889
 
Last edited:
So you still have not answered my questions.

Noted.


Plus - here are other questions from this thread that you have yet to answer (to my knowledge). So please answer all the highlighted questions:


So, you say the cause of the recession was Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy?

You do realize that the Fed increased the monetary supply by 62% during the mid-late 20's?


They did not cause it by tightening the policy. They caused it by over-inflating the economy by 'printing' too much money in the 20's and when they stopped when they saw the economy was overheating (and they could not keeping printing at that pace forever), it collapsed as it had gotten dependent on that new money pouring into it from the Fed.
You Keynesians just don't seem to get it - if you make money too plentiful, people will get greedy and want more and more...and they will take greater and greater risks to get it because it was so easy to get in the first place.
That is what (more or less) caused the Crash and that is (more or less) what caused the housing boom/bust.
And both can be traced to governments either printing too much money or making credit too cheap.


Explain this to me - why did Britain recover much faster then America did (and their unemplyment rate was as bad as America's in the early 30's) even though they ran a fraction of the deficits that Hoover/FDR did?

And I don't want another baseless theory. I want to see a theory with a link to unbiased factual evidence of that theory.



BTW, the reason is obvious. Government stimulus stunts growth. Sure, it gives it a quick fix at the beginning - like a junkie when he first gets high. But once the initial high passes, the economy stagnates as it becomes dependent on government stimulus just to get by. That is why the Great Depression and it's aftermath dragged on for a decade.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening now. The DOW goes up, not on good fundamentals. It goes up when the market thinks the government/Fed is going to print more money.


And btw - if FDR prolonging the Great Depression is unprovable...then where is your proof that he did NOT prolong the Great Depression?
And if you cannot prove it - then what is your factual basis for calling it 'nonsense'?


Have a nice day.



They are from the following post

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-66.html#post1060580889

Yes, I answered here ... http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-81.html#post1060587618

You are just pleading ignorance now as a lame exuse to avoid answering my question ... how many times do you think Hitler was elected?

But that's ok, you don't have to answer ... your post which prompted my question ...


"Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's. They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well." ~ DA60


.... answers for you -- "more than once."

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Yes, I answered here ... http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-81.html#post1060587618

You are just pleading ignorance now as a lame exuse to avoid answering my question


So of the five questions I have asked - you have answered none of them sincerely - and only one of them at all (with what I assume was a joke).

Just let me know when you can get it together enough to answer my questions....some of them you have already taken days to answer.

And as soon as you do - I will be happy to answer your question, if you still want me to. Or another one if that floats your boat.


Have a nice day.



Note to board - it appears that Sheik Yerbuti asks lots of questions...but refuses to answers even the simplest ones in return.

Just something you might want to keep in mind the next time you begin to debate him.
 
Last edited:
So of the five questions I have asked - you have answered none of them sincerely - and only one of them at all (with what I assume was a joke).

Just let me know when you can get it together enough to answer my questions....some of them you have already taken days to answer.

And as soon as you do - I will be happy to answer your question, if you still want me to. Or another one if that floats your boat.


Have a nice day.



Note to board - it appears that Sheik Yerbuti asks lots of questions...but refuses to answers even the simplest ones in return.

Just something you might want to keep in mind the next time you begin to debate him.

Yup... you'll find that technique A LOT around here... posing aesthetically condescending questions... when instead they actually are just trying to make a point...

It's a mistaken use of the socratic method... Yet, again, when you answer the question, unless you answered exactly the way they wanted you to, they insist you are wrong, no matter how many facts you present, or how sound your reasoning is... they will just repost the same arguments over and over again... Whereas with the Socratic method, the questions are proposed to help you get a better understanding by challenging your own reasoning (something I think these posters have yet to do... since when you quote their crap )back to them they try to run so far from it, or move onto some other unrelated topic with a quickness... )

Then when you pose legitimate questions back... they ignore them, and continue on proposing questions or advancing opinions as facts, despite the planet sized holes you drove through them already...
 
And as soon as you do - I will be happy to answer your question, if you still want me to. Or another one if that floats your boat.
I see you remain under the delusion that your post doesn't already answer my question ...

"Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's. They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well." ~ DA60
 
Yup... you'll find that technique A LOT around here... posing aesthetically condescending questions... when instead they actually are just trying to make a point...

It's a mistaken use of the socratic method... Yet, again, when you answer the question, unless you answered exactly the way they wanted you to, they insist you are wrong, no matter how many facts you present, or how sound your reasoning is... they will just repost the same arguments over and over again... Whereas with the Socratic method, the questions are proposed to help you get a better understanding by challenging your own reasoning (something I think these posters have yet to do... since when you quote their crap )back to them they try to run so far from it, or move onto some other unrelated topic with a quickness... )

Then when you pose legitimate questions back... they ignore them, and continue on proposing questions or advancing opinions as facts, despite the planet sized holes you drove through them already...

Thanks...you seem to have this place down pat.
 
I see you remain under the delusion that your post doesn't already answer my question ...

"Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's. They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well." ~ DA60

Well folks - that is three times I have asked Sheik Yerbuti to answer the same questions and two times for some other ones and STILL he refuses.


But, I will answer his...even though I asked all of mine before he asked me his.

I originally thought Hitler was elected twice - though I knew that they were initially coaltion governments.

I thought that qualified as 'elected'. Though technically, it does not.

My mistake...though I assumed that becoming head of state even within a coalition government would be good enough for more people to call 'elected' when the person in question's party received more votes then any other.
But obviously not here....lol.
So be it.

However, the initial premise of my original point stands; as much as some wish to try in bury it in anal retentive technicalities in an attempt to deflect or - as Dr. Johnny Fever (as Phillip) once put so well - 'Just to be a pain'.
Again, so be it.

The people of Germany in the 1930's on at least one(and possibly three - I am not sure) occasions, voted more for the Nazi party (which Hitler always led until his death in 1945) then for any other party.
Meaning more Germans wanted Adolf Hitler - possibly the worst human of note in history - to lead their country more then any other German.


Now that I have answered his question, anyone want to bet me if he will answer mine?

I am guessing the odds are not good.
 
Last edited:
However, the initial premise of my original point stands; as much as some wish to try in bury it in anal retentive technicalities in an attempt to deflect or - as Dr. Johnny Fever (as Phillip) once put so well - 'Just to be a pain'.
Again, so be it.

Exactly... The point was valid, but the minutiae was vaguely stated... and they got offended because it wasnt specific enough, and instigated a 15 page over the minute details, while completely ignoring the fact that the point is still legitimate...

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Countless other despots in Africa, Silvio Berlusconi etc. all won elections by their people, despite being some of the most murderous corrupt and oppressive leaders of all time... Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah have won elections...

Yet, they propose that FDR was without fail the best president, because he won elections...

But, SSSHHH don't tell them that... or they'll argue that "Shh..." isn't spelled "SSSHHH"
 
Exactly... The point was valid, but the minutiae was vaguely stated... and they got offended because it wasnt specific enough, and instigated a 15 page over the minute details, while completely ignoring the fact that the point is still legitimate...

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Countless other despots in Africa, Silvio Berlusconi etc. all won elections by their people, despite being some of the most murderous corrupt and oppressive leaders of all time... Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah have won elections...

Yet, they propose that FDR was without fail the best president, because he won elections...

But, SSSHHH don't tell them that... or they'll argue that "Shh..." isn't spelled "SSSHHH"
Lol...(the Shhh part)...how true.

I agree with every thing here...btw, man do you write well...

I have been away from chat forums for awhile...I forgot how petty/desperate people jump on ANYTHING to deflect/subdue.

I shall have to remember exactitude.


Thanks for your posts...they are a big help.
 
what we see here is the Libs like Catawba and Sheik DERAILING the thread so a Mod will close it and their stupidity, errors and ignorance can be flushed away ... I see this all the time.. very sad.. why did Catawba bring up Hitler? and who cares?.... its not releverent to the subject.. notice the mods not doing anything.. I do..I have gotten scolded for far less and have been on subject.. I dont see how Hitler is relevent here.. but I do see a plan by the libs to troll the thread closed..

Im begging my smart Conservative and Independent friends to not take this bait..and to go back to winning this arguement like they were doing...

Libs..so transparent and desperate..
 
Last edited:
Exactly... The point was valid, but the minutiae was vaguely stated... and they got offended because it wasnt specific enough, and instigated a 15 page over the minute details, while completely ignoring the fact that the point is still legitimate...

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Countless other despots in Africa, Silvio Berlusconi etc. all won elections by their people, despite being some of the most murderous corrupt and oppressive leaders of all time... Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah have won elections...

Yet, they propose that FDR was without fail the best president, because he won elections...

But, SSSHHH don't tell them that... or they'll argue that "Shh..." isn't spelled "SSSHHH"

And imagine, you could have avoided the whole thing if you had just admitted you were wrong, which you obviously were.
 
what we see here is the Libs like Catawba and Sheik DERAILING the thread so a Mod will close it and their stupidity, errors and ignorance can be flushed away ... I see this all the time.. very sad.. why did Catawba bring up Hitler? and who cares?.... its not releverent to the subject.. notice the mods not doing anything.. I do..I have gotten scolded for far less and have been on subject.. I dont see how Hitler is relevent here.. but I do see a plan by the libs to troll the thread closed..

Im begging my smart Conservative and Independent friends to not take this bait..and to go back to winning this arguement like they were doing...

Libs..so transparent and desperate..
Actually, it was I who initially brought up Hitler to show that major countries can make mistakes in who they choose to run their country...like when FDR was elected four times.

But it was indeed Keynesians/Liberals who took that minor point and tried to (probably) derail the thread...and I took the bait.

I think you are right about your theory as to why they did it...because it was anal retentitive in the extremis.

The next time they try that, I will try and not allow them to bait me again.
 
Actually, it was I who initially brought up Hitler to show that major countries can make mistakes in who they choose to run their country...like when FDR was elected four times.

But it was indeed Keynesians/Liberals who took that minor point and tried to (probably) derail the thread...and I took the bait.

I think you are right about your theory as to why they did it...because it was anal retentitive in the extremis.

The next time they try that, I will try and not allow them to bait me again.

You are a good dude DA.... No problem my friend..I just know the game here, and wanted to share that with you...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread temporarily closed while under mod review.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread re-opened. Several posters have now been thread banned and received infractions for failing to follow the in-thread warning previously placed in this thread. Those who choose to participate in this thread will stick to the topic and will not attack others or they too will receive the same consequences.
 
This ranks among the most unhinged posts made in these fora. Who knows how you figure the president who was elected the most times as the worst ever, but suffice it to say, you have no credibility remaining as that opinion of yours reveals you're not playing with a full deck.
I sincerely hope you can understand why it's impossible to take your opinion seriously. :2wave:
And yet the one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama is the most anti-American president in my life time. Even Jimmuh Carter seems better now that we have seen Barrack.
FDR was bad because he pushed us onto this path toward statism in a profound way. The one term Marxist is a tyrant who is attempting to finish the job FDR started.
 
1) The US government is spending 166% of the revenue it receives.

2) Before Obama’s stimulus became law, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP. Legislation such as The Obama stimulus and Obamacare ($1.76 trillion to implement) propelled real debt, 62 percent of GDP by 2010. Debt reached 100 percent of GDP in August, 2011, the highest percentage since World War II.

3) In fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, military and discretionary spending totaled $1.35 trillion.

4) Authorized budgetary expenditures for 2010 equaled an estimated $3.552 trillion. (Democrats controlled Congress)

5) Authorized expenditures for 2011 equaled an estimated $3.729 trillion. (Democrats controlled Congress)

6) The debt to income ratio of the United States Of America, primarily based upon disposable revenue, is roughly 10:1 or exceeds 1000% percent.

Obama, Congress warned: National debt growing faster

Budget Office reported Wednesday that the nation probably will owe outside creditors more than the size of the entire economy in 10 years.

The forecast -- a public debt equal to 101% of the economy in 2021, and rising to 187% by 2035 unless dramatic changes are made -- should be a warning to President Obama, Congress and Vice President Biden's band of bipartisan negotiators meeting daily to devise just a short-term fix.

By comparison, last year's long-term budget outlook from CBO forecast a public debt equal to 87% of the economy by 2020. The difference -- 14% -- would be about $2 trillion based on today's economy, even more as it grows.

Obama, Congress warned: National debt growing faster
 
Back
Top Bottom