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

[ConservaDerrps]

...lowest since Eienhower.

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

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

you mean that think tank sarted by weyrich?






goo goo mutherfucker

 

[tjvh]

Do we have to go through this BS again? The answer lies in the *.

 

[Peach]

...lowest since Eienhower.

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

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

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?

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

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/

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Do we have to go through this BS again? The answer lies in the *.

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.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

...lowest since Eienhower.

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

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

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?

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.

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.

 

[tjvh]

It's easy to get charts...

 

[Erand7899]

...lowest since Eienhower.

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

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

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?

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

 

[ConservaDerrps]

...lowest since Eienhower.

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

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

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?

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

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.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

It's easy to get charts...

I provide a link with data and analysis from Forbes. You provide a chart from a Right Wing biased site with articles about "the gospel of Barack Obama."

Yeah. Your chart smells like shit.