Obama spending binge never happened

[The Infidel]

You're a fucking liar. It seems that your the scumbag who loves THE BIG LIE. Show me a single post that has me denying the holocaust, you pathetic little cocksucker, or just admit that your a lying piece of shit.

there ya go. You claimed somethign was a lie... KWC asked 'like the Holocaust?'.. YOU said YES.

You called the holocaust a lie, Butt-plug.

That's not a denial of the event, you pathetic little slug. Yes, the right wing lies are like the Nazis using little lies or small truths to create the Big Lie, that led to the enabling of Holocaust. THAT IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORICAL TRUTH THAT THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED AND APPROXIMATELY SIX MILLION JEWS WERE SLAUGHTERED by those right wingers.

You really are a pathetic little liar, with zero reading comprehension. To the contrary of your cowardly lie, I said exactly the opposite of your claim. If anyone has failed to understand history, it's little brownshirts like yourself.

Fuck you... They were socialists you punk!

Read up of the name NAZI, you idiot troll.

 

[Conservative]

You're a pathetic little coward. I DO NOT DENY THE HOLOCAUST. You took words out the logical context to tell your Nazi lie, not me.

So, now, because I outed you as a Holocaust Denier, Somehow 'I' am a Nazi?

Did you forget to take your Thorazine this morning, Dickless?

You really love being a liar, don't you. You outed nothing but your own pea brain and dishonesty. You're a little coward.

If I was a coward, why am I outing you as a Denier, Denier? And for outing you, 'I' am somehow now a Nazi?

 

[Conservative]

there ya go. You claimed somethign was a lie... KWC asked 'like the Holocaust?'.. YOU said YES.

You called the holocaust a lie, Butt-plug.

That's not a denial of the event, you pathetic little slug. Yes, the right wing lies are like the Nazis using little lies or small truths to create the Big Lie, that led to the enabling of Holocaust. THAT IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORICAL TRUTH THAT THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED AND APPROXIMATELY SIX MILLION JEWS WERE SLAUGHTERED by those right wingers.

You really are a pathetic little liar, with zero reading comprehension. To the contrary of your cowardly lie, I said exactly the opposite of your claim. If anyone has failed to understand history, it's little brownshirts like yourself.

Fuck you... They were socialists you punk!

Read up of the name NAZI, you idiot troll.

According to Dickless, the Holocaust Denier, all the evils of the world are caused by the right.

 

[mudwhistle]

you hang onto that chart...the majority of the people aren't buying it (over 50% disapprove of Obama)..so it doesn't really matter...tsk tsk

Dick Tuck and friends must think we're too stupid to spot a scam when we see it.

The Stimulus has been reassigned to Bush in this graph.

Problem with that is Bush had nothing to do with the Stimulus Bill. It was passed after he left office. Not one Republican voted for it ether. The Stimulus was Discressionary spending so it had to be assigned to whomever signed it into law (Obama). Entitlements are manditory, but even those grew alarmingly under Obama. Plus, half of the TARP funds were handed over to Obama to spend. About $300 billion dollars that was assigned to Bush which he never actually spent.

Your whole premise falls apart when you consider the fact that Congress hasn't passed a Budget and signed it into law since before Bush left office, so we really don't know what has been spent nor exactly where. This is merely another attempt to lie about an issue and cast blame on someone else.

The cost of the 2009 Stimulus was included in the analysis. Had you bothered to actually read it, you'd know that to be the case.

I think the problem with the right is they've never accepted that the drop of revenue, do to Bush's economic failure, vanishes in your minds. I guess it hurts your talking points to be honest.

Your problem is you jumped on this without double-checking.

There is an astrick at the bottom of the graph indicating the 2009 Stimulus. An astrick means something DT. Look where it ended up.....assigned to Bush II....not where it belongs, with Obama. The graph is invalid.

 

[Conservative]

Obama beats Bush: On deficit spending | New Hampshire OPINION01

National Review's Jim Gerraghty recalled that speech last week as the debt accumulated under President Obama reached $4.8 trillion. During President Bush's entire eight years in office, the national debt rose by $4.9 trillion, Gerraghty pointed out. This week, President Obama should surpass in a little more than three years the amount of new debt George W. Bush accumulated in eight.

Obama's supposed deficit reduction of $4 trillion is a smokescreen produced by tricky accounting. In reality, he increases the federal debt at a faster rate than any President in history.

 

[The Infidel]

Dick Tuck and friends must think we're too stupid to spot a scam when we see it.

The Stimulus has been reassigned to Bush in this graph.

Problem with that is Bush had nothing to do with the Stimulus Bill. It was passed after he left office. Not one Republican voted for it ether. The Stimulus was Discressionary spending so it had to be assigned to whomever signed it into law (Obama). Entitlements are manditory, but even those grew alarmingly under Obama. Plus, half of the TARP funds were handed over to Obama to spend. About $300 billion dollars that was assigned to Bush which he never actually spent.

Your whole premise falls apart when you consider the fact that Congress hasn't passed a Budget and signed it into law since before Bush left office, so we really don't know what has been spent nor exactly where. This is merely another attempt to lie about an issue and cast blame on someone else.

The cost of the 2009 Stimulus was included in the analysis. Had you bothered to actually read it, you'd know that to be the case.

I think the problem with the right is they've never accepted that the drop of revenue, do to Bush's economic failure, vanishes in your minds. I guess it hurts your talking points to be honest.

Your problem is you jumped on this without double-checking.

There is an astrick at the bottom of the graph indicating the 2009 Stimulus. An astrick means something DT. Look where it ended up.....assigned to Bush II....not where it belongs, with Obama. The graph is invalid.

Ive tried showing this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ding-binge-never-happened-20.html#post5332899

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:

Claim Obama Slowed Spending Shows Democrats' Dishonesty
By ANN COULTERANN COULTER12655 Beatrice Street
Los Angeles
CA
90066
USA
Posted 05/23/2012 06:30 PM ET

It's been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: "Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years."

There's even a chart! I'll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on ... This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It's "science"! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed "the big myth" about Obama's spending: "This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly." And the truth was, the "growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents."

Note that Schultz also said that the "part of the chart representing President Obama's term includes a stimulus package, too."

As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz's guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: "And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president."

Everybody's keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: "Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama."

In response, three writers from "The Daily Show" said, "We'll never top that line," and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation's premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future."

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That's not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't spend much either.)

Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending.

And he's testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama "is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill."

read it all here.
Claim That Obama Slowed Federal Spending Is Just Another Big Democratic Lie - Investors.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What we are seeing is the beginning of the rewrite of American economical history right before our very eyes. Just like they did with FDR.
Liberals are stupid to think those with their political eyes open don't see what's happening.

 

[Stephanie]

What we are seeing is the beginning of the rewrite of American economical history right before our very eyes. Just like they did with FDR.
Liberals are stupid to think those with their political eyes open don't see what's happening.

Hopefully what the people have seen from this administration, more eyes are being opened..which I believe it already has been with the results of the 2010 elections..We'll see for sure this November..

 

[Dick Tuck]

damn !! even Obama admitts he's spent the shit out our money !!! you libbs are stupid if you think we believe this shit !! save your lies for your own base !!

The numbers in the article were fact checked, and proven to be correct.

PolitiFact | Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

Oh bullshit they were.......

Try this out for size:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946.

Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

Mark Levin

This in no way disputes the facts presented. The pathetic little trick that Levin uses is to ignore how revenues collapsed due to Bush's failed economic policies. Levin also repeats the lie that Obama is getting the hit for his Stimulus bill, but the article does incllude it:

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

Should Obama take the hit for Tarp 2? Nope, that was passed and signed for under Bush. Do the wingnuts include the funds that are actually being repaid, or the increase in our stock equity of the companies we bailed out? Nope.

Another lie is Levin's graphic. He uses average spending growth as a percent of GDP. He ignores the fact that the GDP decline in '08 through the first quarter '09 was the worst drop since the post WWII recession. It's very intellectually dishonest.

Here's a more accurate graphic that shows how Bush left things and what Obama did to improve them:

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What we are seeing is the beginning of the rewrite of American economical history right before our very eyes. Just like they did with FDR.
Liberals are stupid to think those with their political eyes open don't see what's happening.

Hopefully what the people have seen from this administration, more eyes are being opened..which I believe it already has been with the results of the 2010 elections..We'll see for sure this November..

Let's hope so.

 

[mudwhistle]

Simply put,......this is yet another scam intended to trick those who see nothing wrong in anything Obama does, or those who still to this day can't tell you who Nancy Pelosi is or even name the Vice President. It's another "Availability-Cascade" intended to turn a lie into common-knowledge.

The only thing keeping Obama's poll numbers anywhere near respectable is the misinformed masses that are so turned off to politics they refuse to pay attention, instead choosing to watch "Swamp People", "Dancing With The Stars", and "Antics Roadshow".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The numbers in the article were fact checked, and proven to be correct.

PolitiFact | Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

Oh bullshit they were.......

Try this out for size:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946.

Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

Mark Levin

This in no way disputes the facts presented. The pathetic little trick that Levin uses is to ignore how revenues collapsed due to Bush's failed economic policies. Levin also repeats the lie that Obama is getting the hit for his Stimulus bill, but the article does incllude it:

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

Should Obama take the hit for Tarp 2? Nope, that was passed and signed for under Bush. Do the wingnuts include the funds that are actually being repaid, or the increase in our stock equity of the companies we bailed out? Nope.

Another lie is Levin's graphic. He uses average spending growth as a percent of GDP. He ignores the fact that the GDP decline in '08 through the first quarter '09 was the worst drop since the post WWII recession. It's very intellectually dishonest.

Here's a more accurate graphic that shows how Bush left things and what Obama did to improve them:

Nothing else needs to be said but all bullshit.

 

[The Infidel]

Here's a more accurate graphic that shows how Bush left things and what Obama did to improve them:

Obama has done NOTHING to improve things!!! You are a hack of the highest order Dick.

 

[Dick Tuck]

By ANN COULTERANN COULTER

Another factless hershey squirt spewed from the ass of Ann Coulter. Why am I not surprised you'd use her as a factual source?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dick Fuck do you really think that most members here were born when Bush was electe? Dude stop trying to rewrite America's economical history.

 

[Stephanie]

By ANN COULTERANN COULTER

Another factless hershey squirt spewed from the ass of Ann Coulter. Why am I not surprised you'd use her as a factual source?

hey you little dork, it was an opinion piece...now go out and play in the streets..

 

[Dick Tuck]

Here's a more accurate graphic that shows how Bush left things and what Obama did to improve them:

Obama has done NOTHING to improve things!!! You are a hack of the highest order Dick.

From the second he got his Stimulus bill signed, things started to improve. By March, '09, the GDP started out of recession and first time jobless claims began to drop. As of today, our automobile industry is healthy, with tens of thousands of good paying jobs saved. Unemployment is trending down. Small businesses are coming back.

You're a bullshit artist of the highest order.

 

[mudwhistle]

The numbers in the article were fact checked, and proven to be correct.

PolitiFact | Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

Oh bullshit they were.......

Try this out for size:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946.

Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

Mark Levin

This in no way disputes the facts presented. The pathetic little trick that Levin uses is to ignore how revenues collapsed due to Bush's failed economic policies. Levin also repeats the lie that Obama is getting the hit for his Stimulus bill, but the article does incllude it:

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

Should Obama take the hit for Tarp 2? Nope, that was passed and signed for under Bush. Do the wingnuts include the funds that are actually being repaid, or the increase in our stock equity of the companies we bailed out? Nope.

Another lie is Levin's graphic. He uses average spending growth as a percent of GDP. He ignores the fact that the GDP decline in '08 through the first quarter '09 was the worst drop since the post WWII recession. It's very intellectually dishonest.

Here's a more accurate graphic that shows how Bush left things and what Obama did to improve them:

Obama used TARP money to buy GM and Chrysler. Bush didn't. Obama was paid back a lot of the TARP funds but spent it again. Bush didn't.

Try reading your own graphs. Who took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Obama.

 

[Dick Tuck]

By ANN COULTERANN COULTER

Another factless hershey squirt spewed from the ass of Ann Coulter. Why am I not surprised you'd use her as a factual source?

hey you little dork, it was an opinion piece...now go out and play in the streets..

From Ann Coulter. BFD. It was a hershey squirt piece, but that's where you like to be told what to think.