Forbes: Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower

[Occamstazer]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-


President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

4 billion a day of borrowing just to keep the lights on,wake -up retards !

The OP provides a link with fact based data.
You provide an opinion piece with a dead link.

FAIL

 

[TheOldSchool]

So all you pubs are just going to completely ignore the article and write whatever you want?

 

[Billy000]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt as of now = $16.5 Trillion
4 years ago = $9.4 Trillion
8 years ago = $7.1


Proved it wrong.

....this article validates the distortion that that is completely Obama's fault. How convenient you leave out Bush's contribution. The debt that is accumulated during an administration is only in part due to presidential policy.

 

[blackhawk]

What gets left out here is a lot of the Obama spending get back ended especially the cost of Obamacare a lot of which does not kick in till this year and next year.

 

[TheOldSchool]

They're so used to absorbing rhetoric they don't know how to handle actual facts.

 

[TheOldSchool]

What gets left out here is a lot of the Obama spending get back ended especially the cost of Obamacare a lot of which does not kick in till this year and next year.

We've yet to see how that will turn out though.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

This is a PERFECT example of the "leftist math". These percentages are for the yearly federal budget GROWTH, not the federal budget DEFICIT or the NATIONAL DEBT.

Percentages don't mean CRAP when you use them to show a "decrease" or "increase" over a short period of time (year-to-year, or month-to-month). Think about the auto makers as an example of how they manipulate their sales figures, by claiming sales increases over the previous year (and not disclosing that their sales were in the toilet the previous five years).

Percentages in this case mean NOTHING. What matters is the actual budget growth during a time when federal income is way down, thus causing the government to have to borrow money, thus increasing our national debt.

What REALLY matters is the massive increase in the NATIONAL DEBT.

This piddly little Obama propaganda piece, which comes from a leftist who appears every Saturday morning on FOX NEWS, by the way, is laughable.

How about looking at the BUDGET deficits, year-to-year, for Bush's eight years and Obama's four years?
Get back to us with those numbers.

Any takers?

 

[Nova78]

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the Your link doesn't work. Not only that, what you wrote here is completely useless.[/QUOTE]

Try this one ......

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes -

 

[Billy000]

This is a PERFECT example of the "leftist math". These percentages are for the yearly federal budget GROWTH, not the federal budget DEFICIT or the NATIONAL DEBT.

Percentages don't mean CRAP when you use them to show a "decrease" or "increase" over a short period of time (year-to-year, or month-to-month). Think about the auto makers as an example of how they manipulate their sales figures, by claiming sales increases over the previous year (and not disclosing that their sales were in the toilet the previous five years).

Percentages in this case mean NOTHING. What matters is the actual budget growth during a time when federal income is way down, thus causing the government to have to borrow money, thus increasing our national debt.

What REALLY matters is the massive increase in the NATIONAL DEBT.

This piddly little Obama propaganda piece, which comes from a leftist who appears every Saturday morning on FOX NEWS, by the way, is laughable.

How about looking at the BUDGET deficits, year-to-year, for Bush's eight years and Obama's four years?
Get back to us with those numbers.

Any takers?

Leftis math. Christ. This came from MarketWatch. If you don't trust MarketWatch then you are kidding yourself.

Again, the massive national debt increase is very little Obama's fault. No one is disputing the 16 trillion. It needs to be broken down however.

 

[Nova78]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-


President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

4 billion a day of borrowing just to keep the lights on,wake -up retards !

The OP provides a link with fact based data.
You provide an opinion piece with a dead link.

FAIL

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes -

I await your speedy reply

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt as of now = $16.5 Trillion
4 years ago = $9.4 Trillion
8 years ago = $7.1


Proved it wrong.

....this article validates the distortion that that is completely Obama's fault. How convenient you leave out Bush's contribution. The debt that is accumulated during an administration is only in part due to presidential policy.

So when Bush inherited his own debt and still didn't explode it, is explained by; It's NEVER OBAMAS FAULT, HE'S NEVER EVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

Is that it?


You people are ignorant beyond reason. It's simply impossible to have an adult conversation with people that actually think it's always the gop.

When a (D) has the WH, the the (R) in the Senate, when the (R) has the WH it's his fault and nothing to do with the (D) in the Senate.

Have any of you children ever noticed how easily you are led about?

and remember;

Four legs good, Two legs better!

 

[blackhawk]

What gets left out here is a lot of the Obama spending get back ended especially the cost of Obamacare a lot of which does not kick in till this year and next year.

We've yet to see how that will turn out though.

Given the fact that Obama has pushed both tax increases and more spending in both his inaugural address and state of the union speech you can see where it's going if he can get it through Congress. You might also want to ponder how much spending would Obama have done in his first term if the Democrats had not lost the House in 2010 I suspect the stretching of the dollar cited by the op link has less to do with fiscal restraint on the Presidents part as it does opposition from the Republican controlled House.

 

[Occamstazer]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt as of now = $16.5 Trillion
4 years ago = $9.4 Trillion
8 years ago = $7.1


Proved it wrong.

The OP is discussing Obama's spending, which affects the deficit rather than the debt. The debt can rise all on its own due to interest without any additional spending. I'm going to assume you knew this and simply forgot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

Debt the day Bush took office, $5.7 trillion. The day he left, $10.6 trillion.
The last day of Obama's first term, $16.4 trillion.
Looks like Bush added $4.9 trillion in 8 years compared to $5.8 trillion Obama added in 4.
Obama is many things, but a small government spender isn't one of them.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

The debt that accumulates during a president's administration is only in part because of presidential policy. You should know better.

He would have cut spending if only .................

Please fill in that blank.

 

[Billy000]

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the Your link doesn't work. Not only that, what you wrote here is completely useless.

Try this one ......

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes -[/QUOTE]

It's a decent attempt by you, but this article does not provide any outside data. This leaves room for distortion.

 

[Billy000]

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt as of now = $16.5 Trillion
4 years ago = $9.4 Trillion
8 years ago = $7.1


Proved it wrong.

....this article validates the distortion that that is completely Obama's fault. How convenient you leave out Bush's contribution. The debt that is accumulated during an administration is only in part due to presidential policy.

So when Bush inherited his own debt and still didn't explode it, is explained by; It's NEVER OBAMAS FAULT, HE'S NEVER EVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

Is that it?


You people are ignorant beyond reason. It's simply impossible to have an adult conversation with people that actually think it's always the gop.

When a (D) has the WH, the the (R) in the Senate, when the (R) has the WH it's his fault and nothing to do with the (D) in the Senate.

Have any of you children ever noticed how easily you are led about?

and remember;

Four legs good, Two legs better!

Like I said, if you can't come up with numbers, don't bother.

 

[Occamstazer]

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt as of now = $16.5 Trillion
4 years ago = $9.4 Trillion
8 years ago = $7.1


Proved it wrong.

....this article validates the distortion that that is completely Obama's fault. How convenient you leave out Bush's contribution. The debt that is accumulated during an administration is only in part due to presidential policy.

So when Bush inherited his own debt and still didn't explode it, is explained by; It's NEVER OBAMAS FAULT, HE'S NEVER EVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

Is that it?


You people are ignorant beyond reason. It's simply impossible to have an adult conversation with people that actually think it's always the gop.

When a (D) has the WH, the the (R) in the Senate, when the (R) has the WH it's his fault and nothing to do with the (D) in the Senate.

Have any of you children ever noticed how easily you are led about?

and remember;

Four legs good, Two legs better!

I think it's criminal that Bush inherited a budget surplus and still increased the debt to the extent he did. What do racists call it? N*gger rich.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I'm really tired of this same crap talking point being regurgitated over and over again.

Obama has increased spending less than any other president since Eisenhower. INCREASE SPENDING LESS. He has not spent less, he is in fact spending more than Bush. But he increased on top of what Bush did by a lower amount than Bush increased on top of what Clinton did. Does this make sense yet?

Even the chart in your link makes sure to state "Annualized Growth of Federal Spending".

 

[Billy000]

I'm really tired of this same crap talking point being regurgitated over and over again.

Obama has increased spending less than any other president since Eisenhower. INCREASE SPENDING LESS. He has not spent less, he is in fact spending more than Bush. But he increased on top of what Bush did by a lower amount than Bush increased on top of what Clinton did. Does this make sense yet?

Even the chart in your link makes sure to state "Annualized Growth of Federal Spending".

Okay obviously spending has not stopped. But he is spending LESS than any president since Eisenhower!

 

[TheOldSchool]

No real argument against this yet