Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Billy000]

I have no idea.
Tell me what the chart proves. This should be good since you are unable to read a graph an draw appropriate inferences.

Uh it means tax cuts are harmful to the economy. They do NOTHING but increase the need for spending.

That has got to be the new dumbest statement I've seen on these boards. I have to ask, how in the hell does a tax cut increase a NEED for spending? I can't wait to hear this explanation.

It's amazing how dense you cons are when it comes to basic economics. Revenue pays for government expenses. When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's amazing how dense you cons are when it comes to basic economics. Revenue pays for government expenses. When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

Lack of money makes you spend more ?

 

[Billy000]

It's amazing how dense you cons are when it comes to basic economics. Revenue pays for government expenses. When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

Lack of money makes you spend more ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's amazing how dense you cons are when it comes to basic economics. Revenue pays for government expenses. When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

Lack of money makes you spend more ?

Revenue down = more spending.

Please elaborate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh it means tax cuts are harmful to the economy. They do NOTHING but increase the need for spending.

That has got to be the new dumbest statement I've seen on these boards. I have to ask, how in the hell does a tax cut increase a NEED for spending? I can't wait to hear this explanation.

It's amazing how dense you cons are when it comes to basic economics. Revenue pays for government expenses. When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

When I'm low on revenue, I reduce my spending.

 

[Billy000]

Lack of money makes you spend more ?

Revenue down = more spending.

Please elaborate.

Revenue pays the gov's bills. When revenue is down, the government has to BORROW more money, hence our debt.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Revenue down = more spending.

Please elaborate.

Revenue pays the gov's bills. When revenue is down, the government has to BORROW more money, hence our debt.

They don't HAVE to borrow money = point and problem.

Working, self-accountable Americans cut their spending when personal revenue is down.

They seek that same responsibility in their government.

 

[The Rabbi]

there are some really gullible people out there. Obama has out spent just about every president in our history and its been a proven fact. Yet the liberals still want to believe what the con artist liberals are feeding to them. Plus the fact that Obama has sent millions for foreign countries to aid them. 1.2 million to the Muslim brotherhood. There is a list a mile long on what crap Obama has blown our money on. Let alone what all his vactions and family are costing us. We the struggling americans are paying billions for these politicians and that is a known fact unless you have your head in the sand.

Can't read a chart? This is not some liberal chart...(hint: when the 'Spending' line goes away from your tiny head and towards your smelly feet; spending has DECLINED.

When the 'Revenue' line goes away from your tiny head and towards your smelly feet; revenue has DECLINED.

Would you mind fleshing that out? What exactly does this chart demonstrate?

 

[The Rabbi]

Revenue down = more spending.

Please elaborate.

Revenue pays the gov's bills. When revenue is down, the government has to BORROW more money, hence our debt.

Borrowing money is not spending.
You must be the densest poster on here. I have seldom seen anyone as ill informed and inarticulate as you are. To you revenue, taxes, spending, borrowing are all sort of the same thing.

 

[ecinicola]

whoops

oh, so all the 1 trillion + deficits don't count because obama was president....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the fed-r 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... Unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks obama, and the left...

"growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took tarp and a stimulus, pretends it's all bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... Lol, oooooook.

funny little chart ya have there

nice slight of hand in the "09" year

--lol

obama signs stimulus into law

and if you believe that dumb poll on spending, then my name is snow white. Thats so obviously wrong.

 

[birddog]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Um federal spending has not been 7 trillion. That isn't how it works.

Obama has made stupid expenditures, and he has suppressed the whole economy. Without growth in the economy, the debt grew exponentially.

 

[RKMBrown]

oh, so all the 1 trillion + deficits don't count because obama was president....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the fed-r 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... Unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks obama, and the left...

"growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took tarp and a stimulus, pretends it's all bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... Lol, oooooook.

funny little chart ya have there

nice slight of hand in the "09" year

--lol

obama signs stimulus into law

and if you believe that dumb poll on spending, then my name is snow white. Thats so obviously wrong.

You've got to understand, it's all Bush's fault. Obama said so, and he never lies.

 

[TooTall]

Revenue down = more spending.

Please elaborate.

Revenue pays the gov's bills. When revenue is down, the government has to BORROW more money, hence our debt.

HAS TO! Why not reduce the spending so they don't have to borrow more money?

 

[RKMBrown]

Revenue down = more spending.

Please elaborate.

Revenue pays the gov's bills. When revenue is down, the government has to BORROW more money, hence our debt.

HAS TO! Why not reduce the spending so they don't have to borrow more money?

Because we have to spend our way out of this spending problem?

 

[Oldstyle]

Uh it means tax cuts are harmful to the economy. They do NOTHING but increase the need for spending.

That has got to be the new dumbest statement I've seen on these boards. I have to ask, how in the hell does a tax cut increase a NEED for spending? I can't wait to hear this explanation.

It's amazing how dense you cons are when it comes to basic economics. Revenue pays for government expenses. When we are low on revenue, spending increases.

LOL...did you even TAKE economics, Billy? I did and I can tell you that what you're saying above is nonsense. Show me an economic formula that predicts spending increases when revenues decrease.

 

[Papageorgio]

Of the $17 trillion national debt, the last three republican presidents added $11 trillion of it. AND AND AND, Shrub and the cons destroyed the U.S. economy, AND AND AND the global economy. AND left Obama with a $1.2 trillion annual deficit.

And all the cons can do is spew bullshit for twenty seven pages.

in a leftard math 11 trillion for three is more per president than 7 trillion ( and counting) for one

I find it odd they can't figure it out.

Dividing seems to be their strong suit.

 

[MarcATL]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

 

[MarcATL]

there are some really gullible people out there. Obama has out spent just about every president in our history and its been a proven fact. Yet the liberals still want to believe what the con artist liberals are feeding to them. Plus the fact that Obama has sent millions for foreign countries to aid them. 1.2 million to the Muslim brotherhood. There is a list a mile long on what crap Obama has blown our money on. Let alone what all his vactions and family are costing us. We the struggling americans are paying billions for these politicians and that is a known fact unless you have your head in the sand.

So why can't you produce a link listing a single, solitary thing that Obama purchased with all that spending?

You rancid, Neo-CON bastard, produce something or shut up!

 

[plant]

there are some really gullible people out there. Obama has out spent just about every president in our history and its been a proven fact. Yet the liberals still want to believe what the con artist liberals are feeding to them. Plus the fact that Obama has sent millions for foreign countries to aid them. 1.2 million to the Muslim brotherhood. There is a list a mile long on what crap Obama has blown our money on. Let alone what all his vactions and family are costing us. We the struggling americans are paying billions for these politicians and that is a known fact unless you have your head in the sand.

So why can't you produce a link listing a single, solitary thing that Obama purchased with all that spending?

You rancid, Neo-CON bastard, produce something or shut up!

Exactly

 

[The Rabbi]

there are some really gullible people out there. Obama has out spent just about every president in our history and its been a proven fact. Yet the liberals still want to believe what the con artist liberals are feeding to them. Plus the fact that Obama has sent millions for foreign countries to aid them. 1.2 million to the Muslim brotherhood. There is a list a mile long on what crap Obama has blown our money on. Let alone what all his vactions and family are costing us. We the struggling americans are paying billions for these politicians and that is a known fact unless you have your head in the sand.

So why can't you produce a link listing a single, solitary thing that Obama purchased with all that spending?

You rancid, Neo-CON bastard, produce something or shut up!

Righthere: