Liberal Rag Forbes Magazine Says Obama's Government Spending...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ConservaDerrps, Jul 15, 2012.

  1. ConservaDerrps
    Offline

    ConservaDerrps BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,525
    Thanks Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    No-Neg-Rep Town, USA
    Ratings:
    +298
    ...lowest since Eienhower.

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

    [​IMG]

    The article's a couple months old, so I apologize if this has been talked about a lot already. But I'd be really interested to see how Conservatives spin this here on this board. It seems like every time a link to factual data analysis is posted that doesn't paint Obama as a tax 'n' spend Lib it's a freakout, the data is called "lies" and we see the same old shit trotted out as to why Obama is a secret socialist and is killing our economy.

    So what say you, board Conservatives, why is this story wrong, exactly?
     
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    you mean that think tank sarted by weyrich?






    goo goo mutherfucker
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014
  3. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +916
    Do we have to go through this BS again? The answer lies in the *.
     
  4. Peach
    Offline

    Peach Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,709
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,966
    I posted this a few days ago, a few Obama deranged went crazy. The first word used was the tiresome "debunked". The Washington Post found areas to critique, thus the facts are hotly disputed. I'll remember the deep respect NObama crowd has for the Post in the future.
     
  5. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

    The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
     
  6. ConservaDerrps
    Offline

    ConservaDerrps BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,525
    Thanks Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    No-Neg-Rep Town, USA
    Ratings:
    +298
    You mean the asterisk that assigns the 2009 stimulus to Obama? How exactly does that make it bullshit. That means they took the stimulus spending and put it on Obama, giving him more government spending.

    How exactly does that invalidate this? Seriously, I wasn't on the board when this article was published. And it seems to me that you could make an argument to put the stimulus spending on Bush's tab completely fairly and then the numbers would swing even more heavily towards showing Obama is the lowest government spending President.
     
  7. ConservaDerrps
    Offline

    ConservaDerrps BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,525
    Thanks Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    No-Neg-Rep Town, USA
    Ratings:
    +298
    Do we really think Forbes of all publications would cook the numbers in FAVOR of Obama? Really? Why is it that Conservatives ALWAYS doubt the voracity of facts if it shows their message isn't exactly correct? Do we really believe Forbes would fake the numbers? That seems really stupid.
     
  8. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +916
    It's easy to get charts...[​IMG]
     
  9. Erand7899
    Offline

    Erand7899 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,393
    Thanks Received:
    488
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +576
    The story is wrong because it is based on false facts and deceptive analysis. It ignores 2009, the first year of Obama's tenure, and the actions of the Democrat congress that was in power at the time. It was Obama who signed those huge spending increases that were passed by a Democrat congress. Bills that Bush had threatened to veto.

    That spending, passed by a Democrat congress and signed into law by Obama raised the spending for 2009 a whopping 17.9 percent from previous budgets. Add to that the "repay my campaign contributors" stimulus bill and a $400 Billion budget supplement, and you have the core of Obama's raid on the US treasury.

    President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes
     
  10. ConservaDerrps
    Offline

    ConservaDerrps BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,525
    Thanks Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    No-Neg-Rep Town, USA
    Ratings:
    +298
    The author of that article is a Right Wing hack. He ignores some very key points, that the commenters on his piece are very astutely pointing out. The 2009 budget should have NO impact on Obama's record since that would be left over from Bush 2's final year. Next, the fact remains, and I never see any Conservative whether on this board, or be it Grover Fucking Norquist address the fact that Bush kept two MASSIVELY EXPENSIVE WARS off the budget rolls for years. That is dishonesty, and you all cannot even cop to it.

    Also, there's no such thing as "False Facts." I think what you meant to say is "facts that don't make my side look good." The bottom line is that the Right Wing's attacks on Obama as the most prolific spender in history are bullshit, and don't hold up under honest analysis.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

forbes article on obama smaller government

,

forbes article praises obama is wrong

,
forbes magazine conservative or liberal
,

Forbes magazine is very liberal

,
how liberal is forbes
,

is forbes a liberal magazine

,

is forbes a liberal magizine

,
is forbes magazine liberal
,
liberal media rag - forbes magazine
,

liberal media rag forbes

,
liberal media rag forbes magazine
,

refute forbes article that obama is smallest government spender