• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Poll: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis

What's somewhat interesting is that no one has pointed out the Independent's weighing in --- they don't like the Republicans handling of the debt ceiling but they also don't like the Democrats or Obama's handling either. So (par for the course) Petey has only posted what he wants to hear and nothing that he doesn't want to others to hear.



Here's the link to the actual CBS Poll PDF: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_debt_071811.pdf
Independents who disapprove of Obama's handling of the debt ceiling? 52%, Approve 32%

Independent who disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling debt ceiling? 66%, Approve 23%
 
pbrauer said:
When have the Democrats ever refused to raised the debt ceiling?
Click to expand...

Every Senate Democrat Voted Against a Debt Ceiling Hike in 2006

as for the poll, it's interesting, and it tells me that the Media have successfully translated the President's position into the popular notion of "balanced". Mind you, as his approval has been dropping through all this, apparently they seem to be saying A Pox On All Your Houses. As another poster noted earlier - that's bad for incumbents, which in this case means the President. Given that we've also seen 55% of voters poll against raising taxes in the debt ceiling hike; I'm betting the average joe out there is still very low-information on this, and can be easily pushed one way or the other by the phrasing of the question.

we will see how they handle the Republicans passing debt-ceiling raising legislation this week, paired to cuts.
 
Last edited:
President Obama has offered $3 and has asked the GOP for $1. The GOP wants it all, to them it's their way or the highway.
 
in make-believe cuts, yes. not keeping Afghanistan at surge levels for 10 years is not a "cut", however much the President may want that to count for him. However, that's neither here nor there. the deal is a dollar of cuts for a dollar of debt ceiling being raised - not for taxation.
 
Those in a make believe think that Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq haven't caused the debt problems we have today. Look at the spending for the Defense Dept. in 2001, then look what it is today. Yet, those make believers want everyone to believe the problem is what they call entitlements.
 

amazing how you don't actually respond to what's written, but think that you have posted a point. we aren't saying it's wrong of him to cut Defense. we are saying it's wrong of him to want to claim credit for cutting spending we were never going to engage in.
 
pbrauer said:
President Obama has offered $3 and has asked the GOP for $1. The GOP wants it all, to them it's their way or the highway.
Click to expand...

Nope, Pete, hes offering 10% of $3. Thats what you are offering when you are talking about phased cuts over 10 years. Meanwhile hes asking for the $1 to spend right now.
 

That's not what he's saying. Let me give an analogy....

You're talking about the budget right now in the summer with your family. Your finances are hard pressed. You're trying to find ways to save money but at the same time you want to still go out drinking with the guys. So you go to your wife and tell her "Hun, i figured out how to save enough money to let me still go out and drink with my guys. You know that pool we have going with the filter running at all times that runs up our electric bill. Well, I'll save us money by turning it off come the fall and winter. That way we won't be paying for the electricity. We'll save so much money on our bills doing that I'll be able to still go drinking with the guys!"

In that scenario, you're trying to take something that is already logically going to occur (You're not likely to be running the pool filter all thoruhg fall and winter) and attempting to suggest that said action would be a new way of "saving money" when in reality its money that would not have been spent anyways.

What cpwill is trying to say is that saying we'll save X amount of dollars by ending the Surge in Afghanistan is a rather hollow number of add to the "savings" because, unless every President for the next 10+ years was going to keep the surge levels going in Afghanistan, that "savings" was inevitable anyways because it'd eventually end.

If the drawing down of the surge is honeslty one of the ways he's suggesting a "Spending cut" then all Obama is doing is claiming credit for turning the pool filter off in the winter.
 
When reading polls you have to consider the source. Lib media takes polls with leading questions,skewed sampling and the power of the press to mold opinions of general public. In short polling has become a tool to shape public opinion not sample it.
 
theplaydrive said:
Hostage? He offered something Democrats don't offer - cuts to Medicare and other social programs. It's time for the Republicans to compromise.
Click to expand...

Am hearing this claim a lot. Can you cite (or point to) some details of exactly what Obama has proposed in the way of cuts to "Medicare and other social programs"?
 
From what I understand, his main reform to Medicare in exchange for "tax hikes to the wealthy" is to means test medicare so that the wealthy get less.

From what I understand, his main reform to Social Security in exchange for "Tax hikes to teh weawlthy" is to raise the upper limit on SS withholdings so that the wealthy pay more.

So his "reform" he is offering as a "compromise" to get tax cuts on the wealthy are actions which negatively impact the wealthy.
 

no, he didn't. he had aides leak hints and suggestions and float balloons. The President (as far as I am aware at least) has never made a specific proposal to reform Social Security so as to reduce expenditures.
 

it occurs to me though; by this logic, Republicans have already agreed to major tax increases - as they have not insisted on going to the Ryan Plan rates, we can give them credit for "raising" taxes to the current rates.


so, Republicans have given the President his tax hikes, he has given Republicans their spending cuts, and all is well! right?


oh wait. no. dangit, i forgot. the country still get's F*****D
 
cpwill said:
no, he didn't. he had aides leak hints and suggestions and float balloons. The President (as far as I am aware at least) has never made a specific proposal to reform Social Security so as to reduce expenditures.
Click to expand...
And if there isn't a denial by Dems and Reps, then I'm going to go ahead and say it's true. This is exactly how information of every negotiation first gets out to the public.
 
Keep taxes at the current rate is not raising taxes - nice try though. I always love a little :spin:
 
They should just draft a bill which raises the debt ceiling and nothing else. No tax increases, no spending cuts, just raise the roof.
 
theplaydrive said:
Keep taxes at the current rate is not raising taxes - nice try though. I always love a little :spin:
Click to expand...

He was intentionally spinning to show the stupidity in claiming you're "cutting" spending by saying you'll stop something that was going to stop anyways.

He was stating that if you're excepting that logic, than the Republicans could claim to have agreed to cut taxes by choosing not to push something that would've lowered taxes but likely wouldn't have passed anyways.

Cpwill's logic was a little bad because they're not exactly direct analogs, but the point he was making was that it WAS Spin. He wasn't trying to slip spin by to be sneaky, he was highlighting the idiocy of claiming "savings" for coming up with the idea of turning the pool filter off in winter.
 

Nice try, however you will notice that the military budget has doubled since President Bush was elected. Also, President Bush never put the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan into his budgets opting to ask Congress to authorize supplemental payments. So in effect Bush was never held accountable for these costs - his deficits always looked better than they should have been. President Obama has fulfilled a campaign by putting these costs into his budget. So President Obama is saying he wants to be held responsible for the costs.

The rising debt is largely due to lost revenue because of lost jobs and low tax rates.
 
Alright, I misunderstood him/clearly lacked reading comprehension. Sorry cpwill.
 
pbrauer said:
The rising debt is largely due to lost revenue because of lost jobs and low tax rates.
Click to expand...

You make the point loud and clear.... the issue at hand is there are those people who continue to deny spending is at the root of the problem. Like yourself, they decide to grab onto political talking points and deny facts that show that the U.S. does NOT have a tax problem we have a spending problem - we have a debt problem and so far the answer has been from the Federal Reserve: "Print more money". The continued denial of the spending issue by the hard left progressives is nothing more than a denial of reality. Way to go expressing that point Petey. Excellent job.
 

Yeah, that's sort of the problem I find frustrating. In the linked WaPo article there is one line about one spending cut that Obama "might" be proposing. Am seeing a large amount of grandstanding about these big concessions being offered up by the WH and the Democrats. But just ain't seeing anything that even begins to support those claims.....
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Nice try, however you will notice that the military budget has doubled since President Bush was elected.
Click to expand...

Your point? That was bad. It should go down. What does that have to do with Obama claiming to be "saving" money by ending something that would end anyways?


Again, bad Bush. What does this have to do with my statement that Obama is attempting to claim credit for "saving" money by stopping something that would've been stopped anyways.

I know this may shock a liberal who subscribe to their ideology like a zealot fervently praying to their religion but just saying "BUSH DID SOMETHING BAD" is not some kind of universal wild card. Its not some kind of joker that you get to play to make a bunch of worthless cards become a royal flush. Shouting "BUSH BUSH BUSH" isn't an answer, its not debate, its just ideological rambling that appeals to no one but the most devout of followers.

NOTHING in your post now, or prevoiusly, addressed the notion of claiming "savings" by stopping something that was going to be stopped anyways. All it was is one long diatribe about Bush being bad.
 
If neither Democrats or Republicans denied the reports, I'm going to go ahead and say it's valid. We all know that this is how things get to the public first, so I don't why people are pretending that this is just some unfounded rumor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…