Obama spending binge never happened

[Salt Jones]

Idiot is being POLITE.

Really?

*I* prefer FUCKING RACIST piece of human DEBRIS.

Yeah...that means YOU Salt-Peter.

Is that another of your lies?

 

[The T]

Really?

*I* prefer FUCKING RACIST piece of human DEBRIS.

Yeah...that means YOU Salt-Peter.

Is that another of your lies?

YOU are well-documented you racist piece of debris.

Anytime...ANYWHERE.

 

[Salt Jones]

*I* prefer FUCKING RACIST piece of human DEBRIS.

Yeah...that means YOU Salt-Peter.

Is that another of your lies?

YOU are well-documented you racist piece of debris.

Anytime...ANYWHERE.

Here....Now, weakling.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry liar, but on page 2:

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch



Obama's stimulus spending is attributed to him, in 2009 and not Bush.

Oh, really? You saw the over $800 billion stimulus mentioned and attributed to Bush in that article, did you? WHERE? Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to believe that Rex Nutjob is attributing ALL of Obama's spending to Obama because he - very grudgingly - admits that he has to attribute $140 billion to Obama, no matter how much he'd LIKE to blame it on Bush? Even YOU are not that damned stupid, and God knows it's a near miss, so all that leaves is that you're a lying sack of shit.

So one more time: Your article is a pile of ignorant, lying pig swill, your OP is a pile of ignorant, lying pig swill, YOU are a pile of ignorant, lying pig swill, and your President is going down in November, because his only hope for supporters is among morons like you, and unfortunately, the very stupidity that makes you his eager ass-kissers also makes you incapable of effectively lying him out of HIS responsibility for HIS spending binge.

Please, PLEASE keep enthusiastically trumpeting your pathetic lies about how "Obama is fiscally conservative; no, REALLY", because I want to watch your pathetic world crumble around you as you realize how helpless and useless you are to save your Messiah. I figure the wave of drawer-shitting fools like you running to the psychiatrists and suicide hotlines after Obama loses should give the economy a real shot in the arm.

You lost, dumbass. You've failed your master. Wallow in your meaninglessness.

Hey moron, you are aware that most of the $800 million in stimulus was used for tax breaks, not spending. Wow, you're an idiot.

No, liar, I'm not aware of it, and neither are you, since it's not true, any more than anything else that has emanated from your dribbling piehole this entire thread.

But hey, nice try at diverting from the POINT, which is that your hero DID, in fact, have the spending binge everyone knows he did, no matter HOW much you try to pretend it away and blame it on others. In the context of this particular conversation, I don't actually give a tin shit WHAT he spent it on. What I care about in this conversation is that HE SPENT IT. You know he spent it, I know he spent it, everyone knows he spent it, and you and your other pathetic little pisspot Obama minions will never, EVER be able to lie his way out of the fact that HE SPENT IT.

Thank you. That is all. You may now return to your regularly-scheduled despair over impending election defeat. Enjoy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tick thinks he's the smartest one in the room...

Dick wouldn't be the smartest one in the room in an empty room.

He's the idiot in a rounded room looking for the dollar in the corner.

If there are any dust bunnies in that room, he's going to be WAY down on the IQ list.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You seem to be projecting your fears. Are you that scared that Romney will lose the presidential election?

Oh, idiot, puhleeze.

Idiot is being POLITE.

Yes, well, I do that occasionally.

 

[The T]

Oh, idiot, puhleeze.

Idiot is being POLITE.

Yes, well, I do that occasionally.

 

[francoHFW]

40% of Obama's stimulus WAS tax cuts. 90% of extra spending was to avert ANOTHER true Pub World Depression. Thanks, corrupt a-holes and stupid dupes. Also thanks for doing everything you can to ruin the recovery. And NOW, Pubs want to screw us all AGAIN! MORONS.

 

[Conservative]

40% of Obama's stimulus WAS tax cuts. 90% of extra spending was to avert ANOTHER true Pub World Depression. Thanks, corrupt a-holes and stupid dupes. Also thanks for doing everything you can to ruin the recovery. And NOW, Pubs want to screw us all AGAIN! MORONS.

is 40% 'MOST'? no. Even a brain dead Dimocrat dup like you should know basic math. Go find a 3rd grader... they'll explain it to you.

 

[Conservative]

Hey moron, you are aware that most of the $800 million in stimulus was used for tax breaks, not spending. Wow, you're an idiot.

The Obama administration disagrees with your assessment of the Stimulus Spending... Dickless Fuck

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
Tax Breaks $297.8 billion
Contracts, grants, loans $233.4 billion
Entitlements $225.6 billion

Now, Let's do the math for Dickless, since he can't even count to 21 naked (no dick, remember?)

233.4 plus 225.6 equals 459 billion

Now, try to keep up, Dickless...

TAX BREAKS were $297.8 billion... Th REST totaled $459 billion.

Now, I know how difficult basic math is for you, so I'll just tell you...

$459 billion

IS MORE THAN

$297.8 billion

SO... and this is the tricky part... the TAX BREAKS in the Stimulus was NOT 'most' of the Stimulus spending.

The combination of Contracts, Grants, Loans & Entitlements was MOST of the Stimulus spending.

Now.. call your saviors administration liars. I dare you.

Fucking moron.

____________________________________________________________

This complete PWNAGE of Dickless Fuck, courtesy of CONSERVATIVE.

bump for the Dickless Wonder. Wouldn't want him to have to search for his PWNAGE

 

[francoHFW]

As usual, you miss the point- Thanks for the depression, and you're welcome for cleaning up your mess. ASSHOLES.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Hey moron, you are aware that most of the $800 million in stimulus was used for tax breaks, not spending. Wow, you're an idiot.

The Obama administration disagrees with your assessment of the Stimulus Spending... Dickless Fuck

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
Tax Breaks $297.8 billion
Contracts, grants, loans $233.4 billion
Entitlements $225.6 billion

Now, Let's do the math for Dickless, since he can't even count to 21 naked (no dick, remember?)

233.4 plus 225.6 equals 459 billion

Now, try to keep up, Dickless...

TAX BREAKS were $297.8 billion... Th REST totaled $459 billion.

Now, I know how difficult basic math is for you, so I'll just tell you...

$459 billion

IS MORE THAN

$297.8 billion

SO... and this is the tricky part... the TAX BREAKS in the Stimulus was NOT 'most' of the Stimulus spending.

The combination of Contracts, Grants, Loans & Entitlements was MOST of the Stimulus spending.

Now.. call your saviors administration liars. I dare you.

Fucking moron.

____________________________________________________________

This complete PWNAGE of Dickless Fuck, courtesy of CONSERVATIVE.

I concede that point. But the funding of the stimulus was still multiyear, supporting the facts laid out in the OP's analysis. It also doesn't break out how much of the bill was loans. Did you tell Cecilie she's a liar with her number? Of course not, you're a partisan hack who follows Reagan's 11th commandment.

You're still a fucking cyberstalking moron.

 

[Conservative]

Hey moron, you are aware that most of the $800 million in stimulus was used for tax breaks, not spending. Wow, you're an idiot.

The Obama administration disagrees with your assessment of the Stimulus Spending... Dickless Fuck

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
Tax Breaks $297.8 billion
Contracts, grants, loans $233.4 billion
Entitlements $225.6 billion

Now, Let's do the math for Dickless, since he can't even count to 21 naked (no dick, remember?)

233.4 plus 225.6 equals 459 billion

Now, try to keep up, Dickless...

TAX BREAKS were $297.8 billion... Th REST totaled $459 billion.

Now, I know how difficult basic math is for you, so I'll just tell you...

$459 billion

IS MORE THAN

$297.8 billion

SO... and this is the tricky part... the TAX BREAKS in the Stimulus was NOT 'most' of the Stimulus spending.

The combination of Contracts, Grants, Loans & Entitlements was MOST of the Stimulus spending.

Now.. call your saviors administration liars. I dare you.

Fucking moron.

____________________________________________________________

This complete PWNAGE of Dickless Fuck, courtesy of CONSERVATIVE.

I concede that point. But the funding of the stimulus was still multiyear, supporting the facts laid out in the OP's analysis. It also doesn't break out how much of the bill was loans. Did you tell Cecilie she's a liar with her number? Of course not, you're a partisan hack who follows Reagan's 11th commandment.

You're still a fucking cyberstalking moron.

A... there may be hope for your lying ass yet. Probably not, but that was a start.
B... which number, I'll go look at the post.

EDIT: I wen back about half way through the thread, and her numbers appear accurate. Please specify the post in question, and show me sources that refute her numbers.

 

[francoHFW]

As usual, you miss the point- Thanks for the depression, and you're welcome for cleaning up your mess. ASSHOLES.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The Obama administration disagrees with your assessment of the Stimulus Spending... Dickless Fuck

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
Tax Breaks $297.8 billion
Contracts, grants, loans $233.4 billion
Entitlements $225.6 billion

Now, Let's do the math for Dickless, since he can't even count to 21 naked (no dick, remember?)

233.4 plus 225.6 equals 459 billion

Now, try to keep up, Dickless...

TAX BREAKS were $297.8 billion... Th REST totaled $459 billion.

Now, I know how difficult basic math is for you, so I'll just tell you...

$459 billion

IS MORE THAN

$297.8 billion

SO... and this is the tricky part... the TAX BREAKS in the Stimulus was NOT 'most' of the Stimulus spending.

The combination of Contracts, Grants, Loans & Entitlements was MOST of the Stimulus spending.

Now.. call your saviors administration liars. I dare you.

Fucking moron.

____________________________________________________________

This complete PWNAGE of Dickless Fuck, courtesy of CONSERVATIVE.

I concede that point. But the funding of the stimulus was still multiyear, supporting the facts laid out in the OP's analysis. It also doesn't break out how much of the bill was loans. Did you tell Cecilie she's a liar with her number? Of course not, you're a partisan hack who follows Reagan's 11th commandment.

You're still a fucking cyberstalking moron.

A... there may be hope for your lying ass yet. Probably not, but that was a start.
B... which number, I'll go look at the post.

EDIT: I wen back about half way through the thread, and her numbers appear accurate. Please specify the post in question, and show me sources that refute her numbers.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5341398-post524.html

 

[Stephanie]

It's so bad even ABC couldn't carry the bull for him

SNIP:
FACT CHECK: Obama off on Thrifty Spending Claim

By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press

WASHINGTON May 26, 2012 (AP)

The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.

"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

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. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.




Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study claims that spending is grown only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its rosy claim?

First, there's the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama's spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama "cut" spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama's record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration's reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

read it all here.
FACT CHECK: Obama off on Thrifty Spending Claim - ABC News

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I concede that point. But the funding of the stimulus was still multiyear, supporting the facts laid out in the OP's analysis. It also doesn't break out how much of the bill was loans. Did you tell Cecilie she's a liar with her number? Of course not, you're a partisan hack who follows Reagan's 11th commandment.

You're still a fucking cyberstalking moron.

A... there may be hope for your lying ass yet. Probably not, but that was a start.
B... which number, I'll go look at the post.

EDIT: I wen back about half way through the thread, and her numbers appear accurate. Please specify the post in question, and show me sources that refute her numbers.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5341398-post524.html

Repeating the same lie doesn't change the fact that it's still a lie. Dick Tuck was dick Fucked way too hard last night.

 

[Meister]

It's so bad even ABC couldn't carry the bull for him

SNIP:
FACT CHECK: Obama off on Thrifty Spending Claim

By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press

WASHINGTON May 26, 2012 (AP)

The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.

"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

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. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.




Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study claims that spending is grown only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its rosy claim?

First, there's the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama's spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama "cut" spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama's record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration's reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

read it all here.
FACT CHECK: Obama off on Thrifty Spending Claim - ABC News

Good to know that AP's Andrew Taylor saw through the (fluid) truth.
Like I said earlier, once the truth is being moved, it's not the truth any longer.
Good find, Stephanie.

 

[Wiseacre]

Frankly, I think this spin effort by Obama and the Dems is not going to work well with the independents who will decide the election this fall. Nobody's buying it, and it makes them look bad. First off, you look hypocritical as hell when you pass a very large spending bill with no support from the repubs, and then try to deny ownership. Seems to me they'd be better off saying we tried to help people during tough times and stave off a major depression. We hoped it would do more to create jobs, but underestimated the severity of the situation. I think the public would react a lot more favorably to that, as opposed to the politically motivated BS they're pushing now. At least the Dems would look a lot more honest about it than they do now.

 

[mudwhistle]

I concede that point. But the funding of the stimulus was still multiyear, supporting the facts laid out in the OP's analysis. It also doesn't break out how much of the bill was loans. Did you tell Cecilie she's a liar with her number? Of course not, you're a partisan hack who follows Reagan's 11th commandment.

You're still a fucking cyberstalking moron.

Obama established a higher baseline with the Stimulus and he's hiding behind it, juggling the numbers so it doesn't appear like he's increasing spending any faster. Baseline (budgeting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The funding of the Stimulus started after Bush. No Republican had anything to do with it. The Stimulus ran out quickly and then Obama asked for another $140 billion stimulus.

The genesis of baseline budget projections can be found in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. That act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare projections of federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year based on a continuation of the existing level of governmental services. It also required the newly established Congressional Budget Office to prepare five-year projections of budget authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit. OMB published its initial current-services budget projections in November 1974, and CBO's five-year projections first appeared in January 1976. Today's baseline budget projections are very much like those prepared more than two decades ago, although they now span 10 years instead of five.

The Budget Act was silent on whether to adjust estimates of discretionary appropriations for anticipated changes in inflation. Until 1980, OMB's projections excluded inflation adjustments for discretionary programs. CBO's projections, however, assumed that appropriations would keep pace with inflation, although CBO has also published projections without these so-called discretionary inflation adjustments.

Obama has stopped from going over the debt limit sooner than projected by using Quantitative Easing of the debt. Monetizing the debt by printing money. We're on our 3rd QE so far.......and last week Obama quietly asked for another Stimulus, then the talk has already started about raising the debt even more.

QE1, QE2, and QE3

The expression "QE2" became a "ubiquitous nickname" in 2010, usually used to refer to a second round of quantitative easing by central banks.[56] In retrospect, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 may be called "QE1". Similarly, "QE3" refers to proposals for an additional round of quantitative easing following QE2.[57]

Effectiveness

According to the IMF, the quantitative easing policies undertaken by the central banks of the major developed countries since the beginning of the late-2000s financial crisis have contributed to the reduction in systemic risks following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The IMF states that the policies also contributed to the improvements in market confidence and the bottoming out of the recession in the G-7 economies in the second half of 2009.[58]

Economist Martin Feldstein argues that QE2 led to a rise in the stock-market in the second half of 2010, which in turn contributed to increasing consumption and the strong performance of the US economy in late-2010.[59]

In November 2010, a group of conservative Republican economists and political activists released an open letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke questioning the efficacy of the Fed's QE program. The Fed responded that their actions reflected the economic environment of high unemployment and low inflation.[60]


Risks

Quantitative easing may cause higher inflation than desired if the amount of easing required is overestimated, and too much money is created.[16] On the other hand, it can fail if banks remain reluctant to lend money to small business and households in order to spur demand. Quantitative easing can effectively ease the process of deleveraging as it lowers yields. But in the context of a global economy, lower interest rates may contribute to asset bubbles in other economies.

Obama has been able to keep from worsening the economy by printing more money, but then again he has increased inflation which doesn't get wide media coverage because food and energy nolonger are included in figuring inflation....which is total insanity. What other factors effect the value of your incomes more than groceries, gas, and energy? This is what drives the economy yet it's conveniently excluded.

Obama was trying to be slick when he took office. He signed a discretionary spending bill or Stimulus during fiscal year 09' hoping to get away with establishing a higher baseline of spending and thus attempted to transfer blame onto Bush. Bush didn't even sign the 09' budget because it contained massive earmarks, and even Obama wouldn't sign it heh....heh.......because he knew they could blame him for it. So this chode Knut ignores all of this and sent out this bogus report and you're running with it (as predicted).

The Devil is in the details and you're not interested in the details. This is why these hosers put out these hoaxes is because Obama Fluffers are out there swallowing it and it takes weeks, months, or even years to prove it was a total fabrication.



Links
Baseline (budgeting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baseline spending jumps by $4.4 trillion | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government