Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

[Symmetry]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

I think we'll be waiting a while.

[Night Strike]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

[Woodruff]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

So basically your entire argument is simply "he was last, so I'm going to place this label on him that doesn't make any sense from a logical perspective but the math makes me look good"?

[Night Strike]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

So basically your entire argument is simply "he was last, so I'm going to place this label on him that doesn't make any sense from a logical perspective but the math makes me look good"?

The title of this thread is "Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower". That is a false statement. That is all I've stated.

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

You forgot to click "next page" again, because that's where I responded to you and Saxi. Politicofact.com disagrees with you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

[Night Strike]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

You forgot to click "next page" again, because that's where I responded to you and Saxi. Politicofact.com disagrees with you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

No, I looked at the next page. And just because the spending by the government is not going up as fast as it was under other presidents doesn't mean that the actual dollars being spent aren't rocketing upwards. When the government is spending $4 trillion a year, a 2% increase in spending is the same number of dollars as a 4% increase from $2 trillion. Let's start cutting the number of REAL dollars spent by the government instead of celebrating that the government is not growing as quickly based on percentages.

[BigBallinStalin]

Without Republican intervention, would Obama have been able to spend more?

In other words, assume that the Republicans could not block any spending proposals by the Democrats--or force them to compromise.

[BigBallinStalin]

And, does the article include deficit spending as "spending"?

And how does it factor in borrowing? For example, if the government borrows $800 billion (by sell T-bills), then how does this affect the current spending? Because the debt must be repaid, so... 10 years from now, the debt incurred by Obama would have to be repaid... but would the "spending" include repayment of past debts? If so, then wouldn't this article be misconstruing the truth?

[Woodruff]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

So basically your entire argument is simply "he was last, so I'm going to place this label on him that doesn't make any sense from a logical perspective but the math makes me look good"?

The title of this thread is "Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower". That is a false statement. That is all I've stated.

Ok, sure...so the thread was titled in an idiotic way. That doesn't make your statements any less biased nor dishonest. You could easily have said "Ok, he's spending the most money because of inflation and the debt skyrocketing, but his actual increases have been smaller than most". That would have been the honest route to take.

[aad0906]

Compared to just over $10 trillion from 1791-2008.

Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That $10 trillion from 1791-2008 can be broken down as: compared to $5.7 trillion from 1791-2000 and $4.3 trillion from 2001-2008. Yep, between 2001 and 2008 there was a president who almost spent as much as all other presidents before him combined. What, you might wonder, was all of that spent on that could simply be cut off just like that in 2009? Was it 2 wars that started during those years or was some of it even due to [gasp] bailouts initiated by said president?

[notyou2]

Compared to just over $10 trillion from 1791-2008.

Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That $10 trillion from 1791-2008 can be broken down as: compared to $5.7 trillion from 1791-2000 and $4.3 trillion from 2001-2008. Yep, between 2001 and 2008 there was a president who almost spent as much as all other presidents before him combined. What, you might wonder, was all of that spent on that could simply be cut off just like that in 2009? Was it 2 wars that started during those years or was some of it even due to [gasp] bailouts initiated by said president?

This seems perfectly logical to me, but NS apparently has limited comprehension factors, so I doubt he will absorb this.

[BigBallinStalin]

And, does the article include deficit spending as "spending"?

And how does it factor in borrowing? For example, if the government borrows $800 billion (by sell T-bills), then how does this affect the current spending? Because the debt must be repaid, so... 10 years from now, the debt incurred by Obama would have to be repaid... but would the "spending" include repayment of past debts? If so, then wouldn't this article be misconstruing the truth?

The article doesn't. Obama simply borrows more (which is then spent, or spent later)--while the costs of repaying the debt apparently aren't included in the article's analysis. Borrowing is a great tactic because the government doesn't have to raise taxes in the short-term. It'll rely on the Federal Reserve to buy up T-Bills and spit out newly created credit into the accounts of major banks. Almost all US presidents and Congresses have done this. The value of your US dollars is continually depreciated every time the government engages in deficit spending.

Here's the history of US deficits and debt according to USgovernmentspending.com:






_______________________________________

Longer view on debt:





"Spending," as the article calls it, is only one side of the problem. Deficit spending and continued borrowing and depreciating of your currency is the major problem for almost all Americans (and holders of US dollars)---unless of course you make enough on interest which will offset the rate of inflation (most Americans don't have this going for them)--because the Federal Reserve controls the interest rate, which it's been maintaining at less than 1% or 1.5%.

[patrickaa317]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

[Night Strike]

Compared to just over $10 trillion from 1791-2008.

Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That $10 trillion from 1791-2008 can be broken down as: compared to $5.7 trillion from 1791-2000 and $4.3 trillion from 2001-2008. Yep, between 2001 and 2008 there was a president who almost spent as much as all other presidents before him combined. What, you might wonder, was all of that spent on that could simply be cut off just like that in 2009? Was it 2 wars that started during those years or was some of it even due to [gasp] bailouts initiated by said president?

This seems perfectly logical to me, but NS apparently has limited comprehension factors, so I doubt he will absorb this.

I have never once denied that Bush spent too much as well. I just know that Obama has spent a lot more and piled up the debt even faster.

[Maugena]

I used the incorrect term. Sue me.

I'm not American kiddo, I'll just deride you relentlessly til you figure out what irony means.

This just made my night.

[patrickaa317]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?

[BigBallinStalin]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?

Some of that is confirmed here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176603&start=15#p3856294

But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.

[thegreekdog]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?

Some of that is confirmed here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176603&start=15#p3856294

But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.

I'm also sort of taking a wait and see approach. I'm going to wait and see what happens in 2014 and beyond assuming the president is reelected and assuming the CBO is wrong about their budget projections with respect to the Affordable Care Act. I've seen private accounting firms do their own projections and it's not good.

[Night Strike]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?

Some of that is confirmed here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176603&start=15#p3856294

But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.

I'm also sort of taking a wait and see approach. I'm going to wait and see what happens in 2014 and beyond assuming the president is reelected and assuming the CBO is wrong about their budget projections with respect to the Affordable Care Act. I've seen private accounting firms do their own projections and it's not good.

Wouldn't you rather vote for people who will repeal it now (while it's still theoretically possible) instead of waiting to see if the shit hits the fan?

[thegreekdog]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?

Some of that is confirmed here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176603&start=15#p3856294

But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.

I'm also sort of taking a wait and see approach. I'm going to wait and see what happens in 2014 and beyond assuming the president is reelected and assuming the CBO is wrong about their budget projections with respect to the Affordable Care Act. I've seen private accounting firms do their own projections and it's not good.

Wouldn't you rather vote for people who will repeal it now (while it's still theoretically possible) instead of waiting to see if the shit hits the fan?

Yes, but I don't think Romney will win.

[TDK]

Nice headline, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama turned over the Treasury to Wall St. when I elected him to do otherwise.

[Woodruff]

Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.

The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.

No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?

I didn't see anything to disagree with there.

[PLAYER57832]

How many times on this forum must we disprove the exact same statement?

OK, try this on for size. What was the highest income tax rate under Reagan?
under Clinton?

[PLAYER57832]

Without Republican intervention, would Obama have been able to spend more?

In other words, assume that the Republicans could not block any spending proposals by the Democrats--or force them to compromise.

Actually, a lot of the compromises have wound up costing us a lot more.. such as going for this false "fix" of the health insurance system, instead of a more true socialized system of direct payment.


Also, Democrats initially fought for more control of the banks, etc. There are other examples, but those are pretty big ones.

The "compromise" pushed for the Republicans are to punish the populace and reward their wealthy cronies. Of course, Democrats reward the wealthy, too.. but they do slightly less harm to the populace as a whole.