• 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!

Surprise! Huge US Budget Surplus Shatters Record

So furloughs were unnecessary. Anyone else believe this surplus story?

Sure. The same clowns that run around falsely claiming Clinton delivered a "surplus".
 
Somehow I think Republicans worse fear is Obama leaving office with both a surplus/nearly balanced budget and a strong economy....

I don't think that.....

I believe! :2razz:
 
Sure. The same clowns that run around falsely claiming Clinton delivered a "surplus".

Surplus occurs when revenues > expenditures for some predefined period of time.
 
I disagree. Where are the gold bugs?



I would. While the "blue-chip" data releases are rather hum-ho, a deeper look shows an actual recovery. It just so happens that recoveries that follow financial crises are drawn out due to the deleveraging nature of the cycle. Deleveraging and liquidation does not happen all at once; and even if it did, its not something you want. Reason be, it leads to a market being dictated by emotion rather than fundamentals.



True, but take into consideration this unchartered territory. Market makers have never navigated 4 years of ZIRP. We should expect the Fed-fighting-speculators to take a bath every now and then.

I don't know or care where the gold bugs are. I don't follow gold and think that's something only extremists on both the left and right pay attention to.

Meanwhile, the bulls have done very well in this market. Are you trying to say that all the democrats are bulls and all the republicans are bears? You trying to say that the republicans are taking a bath in a bull market? So much for the theory that they're the evil rich manipulators of the economy at the expense of the poor common working man, LOL!
 
Come on man, this **** has been priced in for months.

Nonsense. The "budget surplus" is fuzzy math and investors aren't paying ANY attention to it because as an "economic indicator", it's less than useless. Better are jobs, GDP, interest, consumer confidence and other things that aren't subject to the "creative license" that politicians take with EVERYTHING with one example being "RECORD BUDGET SURPLUS!". It's bull****. I know it. The market knows it. The only people that seem to be thinking that we're just rolling in it now are the rubes who suck up the crap coming out of the democrat propaganda dispensers.
 
I don't know or care where the gold bugs are. I don't follow gold and think that's something only extremists on both the left and right pay attention to.

Your care or interest in the gold market is irrelevant. That the conservative/republican majority has been swept up in "the cause" is simply a matter of fact.

Meanwhile, the bulls have done very well in this market. Are you trying to say that all the democrats are bulls and all the republicans are bears?

I have been following the sentiment of this forum, regarding this issue, since the very beginning. For the past 4+ years i have observed:

  1. The majority of conservatives/Republicans are more anti-Obama than they are pro-U.S.
  2. Every instance of good economic/financial news is typically met with disbelief and down-right bearish rationalization.

The thread itself is a testament to it!.

You trying to say that the republicans are taking a bath in a bull market? So much for the theory that they're the evil rich manipulators of the economy at the expense of the poor common working man, LOL!

Straw men will not work.
 
Even calling the victims of racism racists ... Dam, you're a real piece of work ...

In the first place, Obama got 93% of the black vote ... it just looked like 98% to bigots ...
He also got 71% of the Latino vote and 73% of the Asian vote? Are Latinos and Asians racists too?
Gore got 92% of the black vote in 2000 ... 92% compared to Obama's 93% ... Huge difference, no? Were blacks racists in 2000or just if the candidate is black? How about the 88% Kerry got in 2004? Racists as well, or not if the candidate is white?

Romney got only 47% of the vote in 2012, but got nearly 60% of the white vote. Were the whites who voted for Romney racists, or are blacks (and maybe Latinos and asians) the only racists?

Get a grip on reality. Don't take it from me, take it from the Huffington Post. If a pinko can't trust them, who can they trust?

Mitt Romney Is Capturing Zero Percent Of The Black Vote, According To New Poll
 
Nonsense. The "budget surplus" is fuzzy math and investors aren't paying ANY attention to it because as an "economic indicator", it's less than useless.

...

Better are jobs, GDP, interest, consumer confidence and other things that aren't subject to the "creative license" that politicians take with EVERYTHING with one example being "RECORD BUDGET SURPLUS!". It's bull****. I know it. The market knows it. The only people that seem to be thinking that we're just rolling in it now are the rubes who suck up the crap coming out of the democrat propaganda dispensers.

Partisan politics bore the hell out of me.
 
Your care or interest in the gold market is irrelevant. That the conservative/republican majority has been swept up in "the cause" is simply a matter of fact.

Aside from "because I said so", what evidence do you have that "the conservative/republican majority" has been swept up in "the cause" - assuming "the cause" has something to do with the gold market. So whatcha got besides just saying stuff?

I have been following the sentiment of this forum, regarding this issue, since the very beginning. For the past 4+ years i have observed:

  1. The majority of conservatives/Republicans are more anti-Obama than there are pro-U.S.
  2. Every instance of good economic/financial news is typically met with disbelief and down-right bearish rationalization.

The thread itself is a testament to it!.
Straw men will not work.

Don't be silly. You're just sayin' stuff and that's all good, but emoting like this isn't indicative of an honest position on anything. Your #1 is too stupid to be worthy of a response. Your #2 is just your perception. While the pinkos on the left are trying to sell sunshine, rainbows and lollipops, the right has been a lot more realistic about it and from your perspective, I'm sure that's a great big downer. Let's face it, for all the smoke the left has been trying to blow up everyone's arse about how great things are, unemployment is still way over 7 percent and the Fed is still bailing out the "economic growth" by printing money and by all SENSIBLE and RATIONAL accounts, the US Economic growth is weaker than expected and hoped for. It's going the right direction, but it's anemic.

And this "budget surplus awesomeness" as an economic indicator is a big, fat ZERO.
 
Didn't like the numbers, did you? just walk away with your tail between your legs and come back another day ... meanwhile, take note that there are cons addressing the issue without the bigotry ... yes, it's possible ...

Just sayin.... democrats won't get damned near 100% of the black vote without a black candidate. History tells you that much. You might not like it since Hillary is about as lily-white as anyone can be, but that's reality, so you're going to have to figure out some way to make up for the votes you're going to lose as the black community won't be voting entirely based on race next time around.
 
?Pinkos? :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
...



Partisan politics bore the hell out of me.

Yeah, that's why you were making blanket statements about "republicans/conservatives". Because you're so "non-partisan". :lol:
 
?Pinkos? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Yep. :)

Frank-Burns-m-a-s-h-14058639-320-240.jpg
 
Just sayin.... democrats won't get damned near 100% of the black vote without a black candidate. History tells you that much. You might not like it since Hillary is about as lily-white as anyone can be, but that's reality, so you're going to have to figure out some way to make up for the votes you're going to lose as the black community won't be voting entirely based on race next time around.

Republicans will also lose whites that typically vote for Democrats but for some "reason" went against Obama.
 
Republicans will also lose whites that typically vote for Democrats but for some "reason" went against Obama.

Seriously? If the white community had voted over 98% for their own color like the AA community did, Obama would have gone down in history as the worst landslide loss in presidential election history. So I don't think there's much to worry about there.
 
If this "RECORD BUDGET SURPLUS" was real news and real evidence of some wonderful economic boom, the markets would have bounced hundreds of points this morning. Instead it's bouncing around between -10 and +20 points all morning. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and means absolutely zip to anyone except partisan democrats who are running around spreading this embarrassingly transparent "talking point".

Why would the markets bounce hundreds of points? What benefit does 3M gain from the government spending less than it takes in?
 
Just sayin.... democrats won't get damned near 100% of the black vote without a black candidate. History tells you that much. You might not like it since Hillary is about as lily-white as anyone can be, but that's reality, so you're going to have to figure out some way to make up for the votes you're going to lose as the black community won't be voting entirely based on race next time around.

Obama got 93% of the vote ... Gore got 92% ... Gore was white in 2000 ... Kerry got 88% ... He was white in 2004 ...

and, yeah, the GOP will do much better with black voters next time -- they're endearing themselves to blacks with their voter suppression laws, as they are endearing themselves to women with their vaggie patrols in one state after another ... good luck with that ... :peace
 
Why would the markets bounce hundreds of points? What benefit does 3M gain from the government spending less than it takes in?

Nothing, but this was being passed off as "evidence the economy is stronger than we thought". If it was, then the market would bounce.
 
Aside from "because I said so", what evidence do you have that "the conservative/republican majority" has been swept up in "the cause" - assuming "the cause" has something to do with the gold market. So whatcha got besides just saying stuff?

We could reference the abundance of advertising on talk radio.

Or we could use something you prefer; a news article.

The Republican Party is so concerned about inflation that it’s considering a return to the gold standard. While there’s little evidence those fears are justified, they could shape a Romney administration’s approach to the Federal Reserve.

The platform the party adopted yesterday at its national convention in Tampa, Florida, calls for a commission to investigate a possible “metallic basis for U.S. currency.”

Don't be silly. You're just sayin' stuff and that's all good, but emoting like this isn't indicative of an honest position on anything.

Are you in any position to challenge my point of view?

Your #1 is too stupid to be worthy of a response. Your #2 is just your perception.

No ****! That was already disclosed when i wrote the two... POV's.

While the pinkos on the left are trying to sell sunshine, rainbows and lollipops, the right has been a lot more realistic about it and from your perspective, I'm sure that's a great big downer. Let's face it, for all the smoke the left has been trying to blow up everyone's arse about how great things are, unemployment is still way over 7 percent and the Fed is still bailing out the "economic growth" by printing money and by all SENSIBLE and RATIONAL accounts, the US Economic growth is weaker than expected and hoped for.

Good economic news is good economic news, unless of course you are against the administration that is in office at that time. Your unrealistic expectation of a stronger recovery, given the situation, is on par with the Obama teams's estimation of the severity of the great recession. Completely ignorant.
 
Seriously? If the white community had voted over 98% for their own color like the AA community did, Obama would have gone down in history as the worst landslide loss in presidential election history. So I don't think there's much to worry about there.

I gave you the correct figure - 93%, but you keep posting 98% ... Why is that? Gore got 92%. How do you explain that?
 
Obama got 93% of the vote ... Gore got 92% ... Gore was white in 2000 ... Kerry got 88% ... He was white in 2004 ...

and, yeah, the GOP will do much better with black voters next time -- they're endearing themselves to blacks with their voter suppression laws, as they are endearing themselves to women with their vaggie patrols in one state after another ... good luck with that ... :peace

Most figures are 98% plus. Even the Guardian had it at 95%. Breakdown of demographics reveals how black voters swept Obama into White House | Mail Online

All irrelevant except to the point that democrats are going to lose some presidential votes without a black candidate in 2016. Get used to it... if it's a choice between two crackers, it won't be that lopsided.
 
Why the **** are voting demographics being discussed in a thread about U.S. fiscal policy?
 
I gave you the correct figure - 93%, but you keep posting 98% ... Why is that? Gore got 92%. How do you explain that?

Because that's not the right number... also.... Voter analysis shows Obama would have lost in 2012 if black turnout had mirrored 2008 | Fox News

As I mentioned, not only will blacks not vote so overwhelmingly democrat without a black democrat candidate, but they won't get out to vote nearly so much with a choice between two white folks.
 
Back
Top Bottom