obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

[007]

obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History​

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes

 

[Nova78]

He will destroy this Country if he gets 4 more years of his relentless terror, what is real sad is that idiots follow this moron to there peril and others, and in the back of peoples minds they know this shit cannot continue,reckless spending,endless wars,uncontrolled illegals and womb to the tomb handouts must end.....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I love that Obama is so stupid and such a huge liar that we have to debate whether he is so stupid that he doesn't understand how much money he's spent or if he's telling that huge of a whopper.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Another failed Republican sucking on sour grapes. you have to question anyone that references Fox as their source.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Another failed Republican sucking on sour grapes. you have to question anyone that references Fox as their source.

I don't question the people that are so deluded that they have to play the Fox card rather than deal with the subject at hand. I just know they're hacks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Another failed Republican sucking on sour grapes. you have to question anyone that references Fox as their source.

I don't question the people that are so deluded that they have to play the Fox card rather than deal with the subject at hand. I just know they're hacks.

The Liberals hate Fox because there is so much debate. They love MSNBC because it has no debate.

Also, they hate Fox, who should get a Nobel Prize, for having the only pure Libertarian show on TV. The liberals hate the idea of showcasing our Founder's principles when they are so into opposing soviet principles.

 

[starcraftzzz]

govt spending under obama has increased at its slowest pace sincethe 1930s

 

[starcraftzzz]

Another failed Republican sucking on sour grapes. you have to question anyone that references Fox as their source.

I don't question the people that are so deluded that they have to play the Fox card rather than deal with the subject at hand. I just know they're hacks.

The Liberals hate Fox because there is so much debate. They love MSNBC because it has no debate.

Also, they hate Fox, who should get a Nobel Prize, for having the only pure Libertarian show on TV. The liberals hate the idea of showcasing our Founder's principles when they are so into opposing soviet principles.

we hate fox news because we hate ignorance and stupidity

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay anyhow. We don't give a shit who hates Fox or who loves it. The topic is Obama being a big spender. How about you defend that libs; or can you?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Okay anyhow. We don't give a shit who hates Fox or who loves it. The topic is Obama being a big spender. How about you defend that libs; or can you?

why would we defend somethin that is not true? we arent retarded like u

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay anyhow. We don't give a shit who hates Fox or who loves it. The topic is Obama being a big spender. How about you defend that libs; or can you?

why would we defend somethin that is not true? we arent retarded like u

Okay. Now, if there are any relatively sane liberals that want to defend Obama's spending that'd be cool.

 

[007]

Okay anyhow. We don't give a shit who hates Fox or who loves it. The topic is Obama being a big spender. How about you defend that libs; or can you?

why would we defend somethin that is not true? we arent retarded like u

Okay. Now, if there are any relatively sane liberals that want to defend Obama's spending that'd be cool.

Yup... these couple sad little bubble heads in here simply talking shit are part and parcel to the typical obama supporter. Ignorant to the core with less intelligence God gave a brick.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Okay anyhow. We don't give a shit who hates Fox or who loves it. The topic is Obama being a big spender. How about you defend that libs; or can you?

why would we defend somethin that is not true? we arent retarded like u

Okay. Now, if there are any relatively sane liberals that want to defend Obama's spending that'd be cool.

barack-obama-has-lowest-govt-spending
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
hows it feel to be insane u at loser

 

[007]

why would we defend somethin that is not true? we arent retarded like u

Okay. Now, if there are any relatively sane liberals that want to defend Obama's spending that'd be cool.

barack-obama-has-lowest-govt-spending
PolitiFact | Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president
hows it feel to be insane u at loser

Pure garbage. Politifact is owned and operated with Soros money. It's nothing more than an obama lie factory.

Some more truth for you suck on, idiot... that rise is ALL OBAMA SPENDING, MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN GOVERNMENT...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

why would we defend somethin that is not true? we arent retarded like u

Okay. Now, if there are any relatively sane liberals that want to defend Obama's spending that'd be cool.

barack-obama-has-lowest-govt-spending
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
hows it feel to be insane u at loser

No thanks. I'm not interested in your propaganda. I know that Obama has spent tons of money and mortgaged our children's future and f'd up the economy. What I want to hear from libs is rationale. I won't regard lies.

 

[itfitzme]

Is that in real dollars per capita? If not, it's meaningless.

Prices increase so comparing nominal dollars is meaningless.

Population also increases, so gov't spending will increase with population. I'm not sure it should necessarily increase proportionally, after all, so we really need that much more military, for instance? But, at least, lacking any more refined method, per capita has to do.

I would look at discretionary spending, not mandatory. Mandatory is by law and self funded.

Then, is the budget year being attributed correctly? The president's first term is under the previous administration budget. There was a good article, I posted in a thread, that did this right.

Frankly, I wouldn't include the bailout and recovery monies for both the end of Bush or the beginning of the Obama terms as they were extra-ordinary events. If we are going to compare to other presidents, it makes no sense to include them.

And there is the issue of the monies paid back that should be factored out.

Then there is the whole issue of increased unemployment, aid to the states, food stamps and other funds to keep people from starving.

Then there is the whole issue that, fundamentally it is Congress that spends, not executive branch. The executive branch enforces. Remember basic government?

The whole concept of trying to compare based on a single aggregate number is pretty stupid.

But, if we are really going to make such a childish comparison, these are the %chgs

Real dollar, per capita, by budget year

Budget Discretionary ......% Increase over previous year
George W. Bush-2002........11.0%
George W. Bush-2003........10.4%
George W. Bush-2004........9.6%
George W. Bush-2005........10.9%
George W. Bush-2006 ........9.1%
George W. Bush-2007.........0.6%
George W. Bush-2008........11.3%
George W. Bush-2009........24.4%
Barack Obama-2010...........-4.5%
Barack Obama-2011............2.7%

That 2009 includes the bailout, so like I said, it really is an extraordinary event. And i believe that 2010 includes some of the returned bailout monies.

2007 was an awesome year, as increases go.

All in all, since Kennedy, it has generally and always increased. And I have to wonder why it should need to. In terms of a percentage of the GDP, we get a different picture though, and that might give us a clue that there is more going on then just looking at the overall numbers tells us. The devil, they say, is in the details.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Is that in real dollars per capita? If not, it's meaningless.

Prices increase so comparing nominal dollars is meaningless.

Population also increases, so gov't spending will increase with population. I'm not sure it should necessarily increase proportionally, after all, so we really need that much more military, for instance? But, at least, lacking any more refined method, per capita has to do.

I would look at discretionary spending, not mandatory. Mandatory is by law and self funded.

Then, is the budget year being attributed correctly? The president's first term is under the previous administration budget. There was a good article, I posted in a thread, that did this right.

Frankly, I wouldn't include the bailout and recovery monies for both the end of Bush or the beginning of the Obama terms as they were extra-ordinary events. If we are going to compare to other presidents, it makes no sense to include them.

And there is the issue of the monies paid back that should be factored out.

Then there is the whole issue of increased unemployment, aid to the states, food stamps and other funds to keep people from starving.

Then there is the whole issue that, fundamentally it is Congress that spends, not executive branch. The executive branch enforces. Remember basic government?

The whole concept of trying to compare based on a single aggregate number is pretty stupid.

But, if we are really going to make such a childish comparison, these are the %chgs

Real dollar, per capita, by budget year

Budget Discretionary ......% Increase over previous year
George W. Bush-2002........11.0%
George W. Bush-2003........10.4%
George W. Bush-2004........9.6%
George W. Bush-2005........10.9%
George W. Bush-2006 ........9.1%
George W. Bush-2007.........0.6%
George W. Bush-2008........11.3%
George W. Bush-2009........24.4%
Barack Obama-2010...........-4.5%
Barack Obama-2011............2.7%

That 2009 includes the bailout, so like I said, it really is an extraordinary event. And i believe that 2010 includes some of the returned bailout monies.

2007 was an awesome year, as increases go.

All in all, since Kennedy, it has generally and always increased. And I have to wonder why it should need to. In terms of a percentage of the GDP, we get a different picture though, and that might give us a clue that there is more going on then just looking at the overall numbers tells us. The devil, they say, is in the details.

I don't buy for one second that 97.3 percent of the budget was set in stone. That's the biggest con the government and media have going right now.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't buy for one second that 97.3 percent of the budget was set in stone. That's the biggest con the government and media have going right now.

And really, out of all ten or more points that I made, that is the only point you can come up with? So I take it you agree with the other nine.

Considering your level of intelligence is so aptly displayed in your signature, with a picture of someone giving the finger, I don't find your sense of it all that persuasive.

You might do better if you showed that "97.3 percent of the budget" isn't set in stone.

 

[rdean]

obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History​

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes

Bigger than this? What did he spend the money on?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...d-pay-for-rebuilding-but-who-really-paid.html

 

[rdean]

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

The Real Job Creators: Consumers - Forbes

The link must be broken. But the above was on the "front page". Hilarious. Guess bribing billionaires with subsidies doesn't make jobs after all. Who Knew?