Hey! Big spender........

[Peach]

It isn't Obama, unless Forbes is Marxist, Socialist, Liberal, etc.

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

The two biggest spenders since Eisenhower are....REAGAN, BUSH II. I notice the board is less than cordial these days, I am an exception; I find neither Obama nor Romney 'evil', 'anti American, or '_________'. Any other moderates not filled with disgust at the mere mention of either man's name?

 

[Trajan]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker

 

[Leweman]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

welp ... that ends this thread.

 

[Peach]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

So Forbes is Marxist and the Washington Post now accepted by the far right? Odd..................

 

[Trajan]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

So Forbes is Marxist and the Washington Post now accepted by the far right? Odd..................

read the link and you can search rex nutting here at the forums to refight the battle if you wish.

 

[Charles_Main]

It isn't Obama, unless Forbes is Marxist, Socialist, Liberal, etc.

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

The two biggest spenders since Eisenhower are....REAGAN, BUSH II. I notice the board is less than cordial these days, I am an exception; I find neither Obama nor Romney 'evil', 'anti American, or '_________'. Any other moderates not filled with disgust at the mere mention of either man's name?

Well you certainly are not an Exception to the rule that most people in here are easily Fooled by Propaganda.

This so called story is not new, and was thoroughly Debunked. They simply Moved all the spending from 2009 to Bushes Column including the Stimulus Bill. They also Fail to Take into Account TARP funds that have been paid back.

Your right, Forbes is not a Liberally Biased source, but this Article is a Piece of Liberal Propaganda.

 

[Leweman]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

So Forbes is Marxist and the Washington Post now accepted by the far right? Odd..................

So the Washington Post is a rightwing think tank and Forbes now accepted by the far left? Even ................

 

[Peach]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

welp ... that ends this thread.

No the Post article did not "shred" the facts, in fact:

“The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison......"

The bailout is part of Bush II's 'legacy'(.) The Post attacked the analysis but nothing takes away from the Reagan/Bush II spending binges.

 

[Trajan]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

welp ... that ends this thread.

No the Post article did not "shred" the facts, in fact:

“The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison......"

The bailout is part of Bush II's 'legacy'(.) The Post attacked the analysis but nothing takes away from the Reagan/Bush II spending binges.

thank you miss uber selectivity.....

 

[Charles_Main]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

welp ... that ends this thread.

No the Post article did not "shred" the facts, in fact:

“The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison......"

The bailout is part of Bush II's 'legacy'(.) The Post attacked the analysis but nothing takes away from the Reagan/Bush II spending binges.

lol

You sound like a lunatic really. Talking about Regan and Bush spending, when this President has out spent Bush in half the time.

I mean seriously, right out of your mind.

 

[Peach]

welp ... that ends this thread.

No the Post article did not "shred" the facts, in fact:

“The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison......"

The bailout is part of Bush II's 'legacy'(.) The Post attacked the analysis but nothing takes away from the Reagan/Bush II spending binges.

lol

You sound like a lunatic really. Talking about Regan and Bush spending, when this President has out spent Bush in half the time.

I mean seriously, right out of your mind.

Facts one disagrees with are now termed "debunked", but they remain facts whether one likes them or not. Rather than reject reality, point to results; 8.2% unemployment comes to mind. Obama's frugality has NOT helped the US economy.

 

[hortysir]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

So Forbes is Marxist and the Washington Post now accepted by the far right? Odd..................

"Harvard" liar ignoring math?
Odd, indeed

 

[Lakhota]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The author, Glenn Kessler, is wrong to attribute the Bush 2009 budget to Obama. So, he is wrong from the start - but he also addresses that. He thinks he's right.

 

[Peach]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

So Forbes is Marxist and the Washington Post now accepted by the far right? Odd..................

"Harvard" liar ignoring math?
Odd, indeed

No, accepting reality; you would not be interested, obviously. Blind hatred is just THAT, blind. Obama has not tossed out trillions on wars of choice and ego, I do not believe Romney is likely to either, thus the US can look forward to more rational budgets in the near future.

 

[del]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

So Forbes is Marxist and the Washington Post now accepted by the far right? Odd..................

no, forbes is wrong and the wapo is correct.

numbers don't have an ideology

 

[Trajan]

No the Post article did not "shred" the facts, in fact:

“The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison......"

The bailout is part of Bush II's 'legacy'(.) The Post attacked the analysis but nothing takes away from the Reagan/Bush II spending binges.

lol

You sound like a lunatic really. Talking about Regan and Bush spending, when this President has out spent Bush in half the time.

I mean seriously, right out of your mind.

Facts one disagrees with are now termed "debunked", but they remain facts whether one likes them or not. Rather than reject reality, point to results; 8.2% unemployment comes to mind. Obama's frugality has NOT helped the US economy.

he explained and used the numbers in the article, rex decided to shovel spending that obama owned elsewhere etc etc ...among other things. you are basically arguing to start with, that bush owned the stimulus bill.....I mean seriously

 

[Trajan]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The author, Glenn Kessler, is wrong to attribute the Bush 2009 budget to Obama. So, he is wrong from the start - but he also addresses that. He thinks he's right.

uh huh, you do know how congress works? I am not sure, you do know what an appropriations bill is and how that works? I don't think so.

 

[hortysir]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The author, Glenn Kessler, is wrong to attribute the Bush 2009 budget to Obama. So, he is wrong from the start - but he also addresses that. He thinks he's right.

Missed this part, hunh?

The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

 

[Trajan]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The author, Glenn Kessler, is wrong to attribute the Bush 2009 budget to Obama. So, he is wrong from the start - but he also addresses that. He thinks he's right.

Missed this part, hunh?

The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

no no see it was a gop house and senate!!

whoops, no, it wasn't

 

[Peach]

this is from

5/24/2012

and has already been shredded....

here ya go;

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The author, Glenn Kessler, is wrong to attribute the Bush 2009 budget to Obama. So, he is wrong from the start - but he also addresses that. He thinks he's right.

Missed this part, hunh?

The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

January to October isn't four months. Try remedial math along with remedial reading. Bush owned 2009, Obama, will get the majority of the 'credit' for 2013.