Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeh, that's fine. But it's an issue in itself. Why my pointing out that Obama was much worse where it counts--the standing debt of the nation--should cause such a 'push back' I cannot imagine.The problem: that increase in the federal deficit during the strong economy during 2019, when it should have been falling in size.
See post just above.
Yeh, that's fine. But it's an issue in itself. Why my pointing out that Obama was much worse where it counts--the standing debt of the nation--should cause such a 'push back' I cannot imagine.
Yes, but the increase which occurred on his watch, remember, was greater than all the previous administrations combined, and that is not something that can be just brushed aside in any discussion of this topic.You say Obama was worse. Ok.
Ok, since you hold Obama responsible for the gigantic deficits of 2009-2011 -- the Great Recession deficits... which recession Obama did not begin, did not originate.
Partially responsible, perhaps. The Democratic governors, Pelosi, et al who worked so hard to destroy the economy in the name of addressing the virus must share in that.Then, using your standard, Trump is responsible for this gigantic deficit of 2020.
You are saying Trump is "partially responsible, perhaps" ?Yes, but the increase which occurred on his watch, remember, was greater than all the previous administrations combined, and that is not something that can be just brushed aside in any discussion of this topic.
In addition, it is fair to say that if he inherited a problem, it is also fair and relevant to point out that in eight years he did not solve it. He, in fact, took as many steps back (Cash for Clunkers, "shovel-ready" projects that did not exist, etc.) as steps he took toward solving the problem.
Partially responsible, perhaps. The Democratic governors, Pelosi, et al who worked so hard to destroy the economy in the name of addressing the virus must share in that.
Obama still does hold the record
That's a reasonable argument IMO. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. He would probably say he preferred to do elsewise except that Pelosi and Schumer made it impossible to enact essential legislation without also buying some of their spendthrift spending programs written into the same legislation. And the virus was a unique challenge to financial stability.You are saying Trump is "partially responsible, perhaps" ?
Not really. Keep in mind that I was presenting such information largely in response to the attack upon Trump who, if viewed on anything like a level playing field, was not nearly as fiscally reckless as Obama had been.But it sounds like you hold Obama entirely responsible for the 2010-2011 deficits, by your wording:
What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.So, is Obama responsible for the 2009-2011 deficit, or only "partially responsible, perhaps"?
That's a reasonable argument IMO. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. He would probably say he preferred to do elsewise except that Pelosi and Schumer made it impossible to enact essential legislation without also buying some of their spendthrift spending programs written into the same legislation. And the virus was a unique challenge to financial stability.
But, yes, the claim that he didn't hold the line well enough is worth entertaining.
Not really. Keep in mind that I was presenting such information largely in response to the attack upon Trump who, if viewed on anything like a level playing field, was not nearly as fiscally reckless as Obama had been.
What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.
No hard feelings, but basic honesty requires that someone call you on that fib. every time you repeat it. I see no need to repost the basic data which proves your statement wrong--you will just ignore it again. Carry on.What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.
That's a reasonable argument IMO. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. He would probably say he preferred to do elsewise except that Pelosi and Schumer made it impossible to enact essential legislation without also buying some of their spendthrift spending programs written into the same legislation. And the virus was a unique challenge to financial stability.
But, yes, the claim that he didn't hold the line well enough is worth entertaining.
Not really. Keep in mind that I was presenting such information largely in response to the attack upon Trump who, if viewed on anything like a level playing field, was not nearly as fiscally reckless as Obama had been.
What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.
Good grief. How many times do I have to go over this? I've already taken several different approaches when explaining it, all in hopes that one of them will click with you.Can I ask you something?
You are giving me a kind of impression (seeming appearance) that you think Obama was partly or even mostly responsible for the huge economic recession of 2008-2010.
Once. One time will do. I've not ever asked you that question, nor seen you answer it.How many times do I have to go over this?
Reportedly, McConnell is angry for several reasons, one being that he thinks the reputation of the Party is being damaged by Trump. But if he thinks that facilitating a Soviet-style Purge trial of the President in his last week in office will lead to a resurgence of popularity for the GOP, he's much dimmer than I had thought before all of this hit the fan.I think McConnell is done with Trump. He is reportedly not taking Trump's calls.
We'll see what happens should the House sends the article of impeachment over to the Senate....
Reportedly, McConnell is angry for several reasons, one being that he thinks the reputation of the Party is being damaged by Trump. But if he thinks that facilitating a Soviet-style Purge trial of the President in his last week in office will lead to a resurgence of popularity for the GOP, he's much dimmer than I had thought before all of this hit the fan.
As Senator Tim Scott is reported to have observed, the haters will instead be energized if they prevail with this gimmick.
That will no doubt lead to further assaults by them on American institutions, including fair elections, which the GOP must have in order to have any future.
Reportedly, McConnell is angry for several reasons, one being that he thinks the reputation of the Party is being damaged by Trump. But if he thinks that facilitating a Soviet-style Purge trial of the President in his last week in office will lead to a resurgence of popularity for the GOP, he's much dimmer than I had thought before all of this hit the fan.
As Senator Tim Scott is reported to have observed, the haters will instead be energized if they prevail with this gimmick.
That will no doubt lead to further assaults by them on American institutions, including fair elections, which the GOP must have in order to have any future.
You have have a point there. The Purge trials in the Soviet Union included at least a pretense of holding a trial before sentencing. There's nothing like that happening in the case of the Trump impeachment planning.A what? Where is this coming from?
There's nothing like that happening in the case of the Trump impeachment planning.
You have have a point there. The Purge trials in the Soviet Union included at least a pretense of holding a trial before sentencing. There's nothing like that happening in the case of the Trump impeachment planning.
A decision on the part of the Senate to name some day "Congrats to Alabama's National Football Championship Day" would most likely require more time and testimony than bumping off the duly elected President of the United States will take, if things go as planned.
I'm sure that they will claim to have had something that could pass for one, but that doesn't make it so. Corners are being cut with proper procedure almost daily in Washington these days, and the time available for a real trial is extremely limited as you probably know. Even liberal analysts are saying that. But we'll see.As I recall from civic's class, the Senate shall hold the trial. Your analogy is a bit premature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?