What's causing rising debt?

[Oneuli]

What makes you think you know anything about them?

I'll be happy to answer your question once you've answered mine, but I'm not interested in helping you dodge my question by moving on to something else.

I will, right after you read up on the massive costs to Government budgets of providing all the subsidies to Obamacare.

Do you imagine the existence of costs to government budgets somehow negates the fact that Obamacare hasn't been fully phased in (as you'd wrongly assumed)?

Once again you ASSume a lot in your claims. If you ASSumed less and could comprehend simple math, you wouldn't make such moronic ASSumptions all the time.

Math is my strong suit. If you imagine I've made some mathematical mistake, please point it out specifically, so we can see if that's correct.

[Mott the Hoople]

Woah!! I say this in all sincerity you ought to look into a job with the DNC. You are intelligent and you have partisan blood running through you. You do an excellent job of spinning everything into the Democrats favor. There are a lot of hacks on this board but you actually have skills in your partisanship.

Actually Wacko I have to be fair and make the observation that Oneuli has backed his/her (sorry) arguments with cited data and facts. Your illogical ad hom just indicates how badly you're losing this debate.

[Mott the Hoople]

No, it's not facts, it's the spin you put on them. I can be just as partisan as the next person so I'm not speaking as holier than thou but we spin the numbers to fit our narrative. That's how you're choosing everything to be rosy for Democrats and doom and gloom for Republicans.

Citation please.

[Oneuli]

Even better; why don't they eliminate it altogether and allow voluntary participation

That would be to return to the massive failure we had before SS, when retirement saving was entirely voluntary. That gave rise to widespread poverty among the elderly, which is why we abandoned that failed approach in the first place.

Typical liberal solution; just keep raising taxes regardless of the programs massive funding failures, red tape and massive regulations.

Be specific: why not just raise taxes in this case?

You do know the reason the middle class pay in the entire year right?

Yes. The law requires them to. Why not require the same of the wealthy?

When did the poor pay taxes?

At pretty much all points since taxes came into existence.

You call it a privilege to pay into Medicare?

You misunderstood. Try rereading.

Why not just call it a WEALTH tax and be honest?

A wealth tax is a tax on accumulated wealth. That's not what we're talking about here, obviously.

[Getin the ring]

Your question is nonsensical. It's like asking "explain to us how it is you were stepping on the brakes and yet the car ended up further down the road than it was." If you take control of a car at a time when it's barreling down the road at 100 mph, and you step on the brakes, reducing its speed rapidly, you're still going to end up further down the road than you were when you took control.

you're kidding right?

10 trillion more in debt than when he went into office, double all other presidents EVER, combined

and your above babble is supposed to explain that, "speeding car going downhill applying the brakes"

just go away please, it's your thread I just was hoping you might enlighten us

[Mott the Hoople]

Deficts and Debt was one of the primary issues for Republicans throughout the Obama years, least they said it was one of their major concerns. Keep in mind that Obama faced two wars, an unpaid prescription plan, and a historical recession with decreasing tax revenue coming in. In later years as the economy improved, Obama cut back on discretionary spending in attempts to reduce deficits

Trump gets elected and inherits an advancing economy and rather than continue as is with a substantial debt grants a major tax cut while increasing spending. Simply looking at what goes out and what comes in dictates blowing up an already major debt. Examining entitlements has to come next, which many thought was the goal of the tax cut

Trump's economic policy is nuts, short term gain aimed at getting elected in 2020, long term pain thereafter

Yea I'm starting to get alarmed. In Trumps first year my investments had an annuall ROI of 14%. I was like...GO TRUMP!! This year its currently at -3%. If averaged out over the last two years Trumps significantly below the historical average and currently headed in the wrong direction. Fuck man I lost 20 grand last week.

[Oneuli]

Like I said, Clinton had very different economic policies than Obama

Yes, and I laid out some of those, such as Clinton's more direct socialistic approach of using a New Deal-style Americorps program, versus Obama's market-friendly approach of relying on business partnerships, through corporate grants like ARRA. The Clinton era was also marked by considerably more government spending and employment growth than the Obama era.

Obama brought us the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression

Right-wingers just can't relinquish that incorrect talking point, no matter how many times their errors are pointed out. First it wasn't even the weakest recovery of the various recoveries from the Great Recession. It was one of the stronger ones. Much of the world double-dipped into a second recession, while we continued growing, and we reached pre-recession levels long before most other wealthy nations. Second, it's also not the weakest recent recovery among various US recoveries. For example, compare it to the first of the Reagan recoveries -- the one that lasted all of twelve months and got us nowhere even close to pre-recession economic numbers. Was that stronger than the Obama recovery, which left pretty much every positive economic indicator at a new all-time high?

Reagan got much greater growth and did it with a Fed that created a recession to tame inflation.

You are mis-remembering history. Reagan's first recovery (the one when the Fed was raising rates to fight inflation) was pathetic -- weak and over almost before it had begun. Reagan's second recovery --assisted by massive cuts in interest rates by the Fed-- was stronger. By comparison, the Obama recovery occurred despite the Fed never cutting rates on his watch, but rather actually raising them.

[Oneuli]

you're kidding right?

No. How about you? Were you kidding or had you honestly never thought about the difference between the rate at which debt is being added and the total accumulation of debt?

THINK!

[cawacko]

Yes, and I laid out some of those, such as Clinton's more direct socialistic approach of using a New Deal-style Americorps program, versus Obama's market-friendly approach of relying on business partnerships, through corporate grants like ARRA. The Clinton era was also marked by considerably more government spending and employment growth than the Obama era.



Right-wingers just can't relinquish that incorrect talking point, no matter how many times their errors are pointed out. First it wasn't even the weakest recovery of the various recoveries from the Great Recession. It was one of the stronger ones. Much of the world double-dipped into a second recession, while we continued growing, and we reached pre-recession levels long before most other wealthy nations. Second, it's also not the weakest recent recovery among various US recoveries. For example, compare it to the first of the Reagan recoveries -- the one that lasted all of twelve months and got us nowhere even close to pre-recession economic numbers. Was that stronger than the Obama recovery, which left pretty much every positive economic indicator at a new all-time high?



You are mis-remembering history. Reagan's first recovery (the one when the Fed was raising rates to fight inflation) was pathetic -- weak and over almost before it had begun. Reagan's second recovery --assisted by massive cuts in interest rates by the Fed-- was stronger. By comparison, the Obama recovery occurred despite the Fed never cutting rates on his watch, but rather actually raising them.

With all due respect we've know hit The Spin Zone which belies your argument that facts work in your favor. Based on GDP growth this was the worst recovering from a recession since the Great Depression. That is a fact. Obama is also the first President not to get a single year of annual 3% GDP growth. That is also a fact.

As far as Clinton and Obama there are far more important measures and attitudes they pushed than Americorps and ARRA if we're judging how friendly they were to markets.

Obama had three rounds of QE and zero percent rates throughout his term. You can't get more stimulus than that. Would you prefer the Fed to have gone into negative rates?

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Obama had three rounds of QE and zero percent rates throughout his term. You can't get more stimulus than that. Would you prefer the Fed to have gone into negative rates?

If McCain/Palin had won we would have had no stimulus, no recovery at all. Probably would have slid into depression.

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



If McCain/Palin had won we would have had no stimulus, no recovery at all. Probably would have slid into depression.

That doesn't address the Fed. Do you believe they should have gone into negative rates?

[Oneuli]

. Based on GDP growth this was the worst recovering from a recession since the Great Depression. That is a fact.

It's definitely not. Two questions:

(1) How much did GDP grow during the recovery that ended July 1981?
(2) How much has GDP grown during this recovery?

Obama is also the first President not to get a single year of annual 3% GDP growth.

Wow, William Henry Harrison must have broken the spacetime continuum to make that true.

As far as Clinton and Obama there are far more important measures and attitudes they pushed than Americorps and ARRA if we're judging how friendly they were to markets.

In what sense? Both Clinton and Obama were extremely market friendly. For example, think of the way that Obama beat up his own party-mates to get the public option and "Medicare for All" taken off the table, in favor of what was basically just a national roll-out of Romney's Republican, market-oriented solution to healthcare. Both were arguably more friendly to markets than Trump, for example, given his hostility to international markets.

Obama had three rounds of QE and zero percent rates throughout his term.

I'm sorry to be a stickler, but that's simply not a true statement:

You can't get more stimulus than that.

You can. The Fed could have intentionally brought about higher inflation, allowing for real negative interest rates. Instead, the Fed left inflation rates well below their own (overly conservative) target for almost entirety of Obama's presidency.

[Truth Detector]

I'll be happy to answer your question once you've answered mine, but I'm not interested in helping you dodge my question by moving on to something else.

But your okay with dodging questions or giving coherent factual answers. Got it.

Do you imagine the existence of costs to government budgets somehow negates the fact that Obamacare hasn't been fully phased in (as you'd wrongly assumed)?

Do you imagine that Obamacare isn't costing trillions?

Math is my strong suit.

Apparently it isn't.

If you imagine I've made some mathematical mistake, please point it out specifically, so we can see if that's correct.

If you imagine you got any of your math correct, you need to re-examine your math skills.

[Celticguy]

Hello cawacko,



If McCain/Palin had won we would have had no stimulus, no recovery at all. Probably would have slid into depression.

It was shown that doing nothing leads to average durations of recessions. Stimuli can make them longer ala FDR BO Japan.

[Truth Detector]

Actually Wacko I have to be fair and make the observation that Oneuli has backed his/her (sorry) arguments with cited data and facts. Your illogical ad hom just indicates how badly you're losing this debate.

Oneuli isn't using facts; they are pretending they know the facts.