• 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!

Republicans Lose Ground vs. Obama in the Shutdown Blame Game


Only 30% of Bush voters were voting against Kerry rather than for Bush CNN.com Election 2004

In retrospect, of course, they were all voting against Kerry, not for Bush. I bet if you look through the archives, you'll find rightwiners complaining that Democrats are all negative and are only voting against Bush because they can't find a candidate they like.


So basically Bush isn't responsible for anything that happened while he was President?
 

Reagan is a picture perfect representation of today's conservative. Low taxes, low taxes, low taxes and there is one more thing. Oh yeah. Low taxes. Obama doesn't support low taxes. Let's see if he beats President Reagan's 286% increase of the national debt. I bet he won't even come close.

vasuderatorrent
 
Last edited:
National debt 9/30/1980 $907,701,000,000.00
National debt 9/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16 That is a 286% increase in the national debt.

National debt 9/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
National Debt 9/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 That is a 39.6% increase in the national debt.

National Debt 9/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
National Debt 9/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49 That is a 76.6% increase in the national debt.

National Debt 9/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
National Debt 9/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89 That is a 60.2% increase in the national debt.

Obama still has 3 years to go. Can he beat Ronald Reagan's record of increasing the debt by 286%? On a side note: Was Reagan the most conservative president of all time?

vasuderatorrent

source http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
 

That's what you got out of that statement of mine? Interesting and wrong. Bush is responsible for the numbers generated from the moment he took office until January 21, 2009. I would like to know however when the current economy becomes Obama's responsibility? You want to try and explain the economic condition that led to the 2006 Democrat take over of Congress? Do you think the Democrats had any responsibility for the results from 2007-2009? Is it possible that the Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job when they took over in 2007? Just asking
 

What, NO CBO NUMBERS? Congratulations, great job, finally someone who understands that the Treasury numbers are what is important. Now I hope someone can explain to me why an increase in the debt 6.4 trillion, by the way fiscal year 2013 ended last month, is better than the 1.7 trillion debt Reagan generated?
 

I'm sure somebody could do it. It would take a little bit of figuring. You would have to measure a 1980 dollar against a 2013 dollar. It would be a pretty simple calculation but it would have to be repeated many times. It might be more work than someone would be willing to put into just to make a point to people in a forum. After the work was all completed nobody would change their mind except the person doing the calculation.

vasuderatorrent
 

you seam to forget the upcoming 2014 elections are not a national election the are elections in districts and states it doesn't make a dam what the whole of the country thinks it is what the voters in those districts and states think
if you break it down the republicans need 6 seats to take over the senate you have 7 seats available in states that Romney won
 

They were unstable. They were built by fraud . . . by giant ponzi schemes made legal by deregulation. I can prove that they were unstable by the fact that the whole economy collapsed as a result. They were stellar. They were the lipstick on the pig.
 

yes, your opinion noted, interesting how the economic numbers between 2001-2007 in all areas don't support your position but then again the economic numbers today don't support your position either.
 

Believe it or not I have done it and it doesn't look good for Obama even doing that
 
A 1988 dollar is equivalent to $1.98 in 2013.

That means Reagan's increase in debt would be equivalent to $3,335,000,000,000. You are right. Reagan did a swell job standing behind his conservative principles after all. I stand corrected.

vasuderatorrent
 

This may make your brain hurt so I'll go slow. I'm not even sure why I'm doing this because you are unlikey to actually read it.

CBO's job is to look at the current law and project what the law will cost. So, in 2009 the CBO sat down and said. We expect that result of the policies in place now will generate a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit. That is the very definition of inhereted. Not that facts matter to you.

I still don't get it. I'd be pretty ashamed if I was caught saying that Bush's recession was Clintons fault but Obama's first deficit was 100% his. Do you even care about being right? I guess that's the difference between us. I strive to be pragmatic, intellecutally honest, and follow the truth wherever it may lead. You spout whatever some tea party talk show host told you to spout.

Froth away, just don't share your koolaide...
 
I wondered how the generic congressional vote has been effected by the shutdown, so I checked RCP which has an average of 4 polls concerning which party you want to control congress. Here is what I found.
Before the shut down 42.5 democrat 39.5 republican democrats plus 3
After the shutdown, today, the generic congressional poll stood at 46.8 democrat, 41.3 republican democrats plus 5.5

My question is if the Republicans took such a beating, how did their number improve by 1.8 points? Sure the Democrats number improved by 4.3 points, but the republican number didn't drop which amazes me. Especially since all the talking heads, media, ect. keep talking about the GOP being blown away.

Why? Could it be that the American People actually like for their representatives in Washington to dig in their heels and fight for their ideals? I'm baffled.
 

That's an odd conclusion

Those representatives gave in and compromised, their #'s go up, and you see that as a sign that people wanted them to dig in their heels and keep fighting?

Did I read that right?
 
sangha said:
That's an odd conclusion

Those representatives gave in and compromised, their #'s go up, and you see that as a sign that people wanted them to dig in their heels and keep fighting?

Did I read that right?
Click to expand...

My first impulse is to say no, but I am not sure. I just don't understand their number going up even if the Dem number went up 3 times more. I remember someone telling me when I question the wiseness of the shutdown, he said 47% of the people voted for Romney and they, the GOP is just doing what their constutients want them to do. I don't know. Their number rising baffles me and I was looking for an explanation. Usually numbers coincide with simular subjects with other polls, these don't and it being an average of 4 polls, I think they the average is fairly acurate. But the Republicans or the people who affiliate with that party dropped, more people blame the republicans for the shut down, but they rose in these polls abet the Dems rose much more.

I don't know, what is your take? Perhaps it is just one of these things that can't be explained and I am reading too much into it.
 

I think it's the latter. You're reading too much into it

Most people don't really think things through the way we do. They're just relieved that the "crisis" has ended, and their relief shows up as slightly improved approval of their respective representatives

At least, that's my take :shrug:
 

That is possible. I thank you.
 

I know you are being facetious but considering the circumstances and the events of the day, he did indeed do a great job especially his first term. His second, not so much but because of the conditions he inherited it was his leadership that generated the 7% GDP Growth, millions of jobs created, and the peace dividend that was left for future Presidents, a dividend that was squandered. I grew up during that period of time and know what the misery index was then, the moral in the country, and the challenges that we all faced. Thanks to Reagan he fulfilled his conservative principles by promoting the greatness of America and while doing so destroyed the Soviet Union. Sorry you don't see it that way
 

I have no problem with that however what you want to ignore is the CBO's own report on the 2009 projections stated that the bank bailouts were considered and that means the 700 billion dollar TARP program. Now what you and others want to ignore is that Bush spent 350 billion of it before he left office, Obama spent another 130 or so billion. In 2009 almost 300 billion was repaid that somehow forgot to get back into the Treasury. Now that is a fact so don't you think that 300 billion should be deducted from what you want to blame Bush for? how about the 200 billion Stimulus spending? How about the 200 billion in Afghanistan and Iraq supplmentals prepared by Obama. Why would you charge Bush for that Obama spending? Further how do you blame Bush for a budget that wasn't passed or signed until the Democrats did it in March 2009? Now exactly who isn't paying any attention to facts?


Interesting that the 2001 deficit was all Bush's. That is the way leadership works especially when you take office, implement your shovel ready jobs program that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% which would have generated enough revenue to fund his spending but that didn't happen. You see, Obama's stimulus was signed in early February. Bush didn't get an economic plan in place until July. It was the Clinton recession unless you can show what economic policies Bush had in place the day he took office to create that recession. Shovel ready jobs should have created more taxpayers thus more revenue, shouldn't they?

Froth away, just don't share your koolaide...
Click to expand...

Sorry but dealing with people like you requires something a lot stronger than Kool-ade
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This sounds very familiar.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

Such is leadership, I ran a 200 million dollar a year business taking over from another person. I inherited everything that he did including his numbers. It was my responsibility to accept those numbers and make the better. Every leader inherits something from his/her predecessor and what they do with it determines success or failure. I would have loved to inherit the numbers Bush left but I would have made the better not worse like Obama did but I guess that is the difference between a leader and someone like Obama who has zero leadership skills.
 

The Founding Fathers distrusted anyone who spoke in their own favor.
 

 
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…