Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[mudwhistle]

The point is ... another moronic Conservative claimed there was no such report showing that projected surplus.

"First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that." ~ LTCArmyRet​

He then later intimated that was a "fact."

So I posted the link the "government report" which was accurately cited by the "MSM" article I had linked earlier.

The surplus you ref ended last year. 2012.

Plus, these are projections from information the Whitehouse supplied. They could be tainted by an over abundance of wishful thinking if not outright lies.

In reality, the report specified the projections were estimates based on the growing annual surpluses, which they projected would continue to grow. At any rate, what does that have to do with armyret asking me to provide a link to a report that I had already linked twice, including once in the post where he asked me to post the link?

You asked why I posted that link. It's because he denied that report even existed. Now it's more about his senility as he is repeatedly exhibiting dementia.

Besides the fact that it's total fantasy, what are you trying to prove?

 

[The Rabbi]

The surplus you ref ended last year. 2012.

Plus, these are projections from information the Whitehouse supplied. They could be tainted by an over abundance of wishful thinking if not outright lies.

In reality, the report specified the projections were estimates based on the growing annual surpluses, which they projected would continue to grow. At any rate, what does that have to do with armyret asking me to provide a link to a report that I had already linked twice, including once in the post where he asked me to post the link?

You asked why I posted that link. It's because he denied that report even existed. Now it's more about his senility as he is repeatedly exhibiting dementia.

Besides the fact that it's total fantasy, what are you trying to prove?

That the CBO at one time made an estimate that turned out to be wrong. Or something like that. I doubt even he knows by this point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, so all the 1 Trillion + deficits don't count because Obama was President....


This is getting ******* retarded.

Again, the FED-R 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the ******* plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because Obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks Obama, and the left...

"Growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took TARP and a stimulus, pretends it's all Bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... lol, oooooook.

funny little chart ya have there

nice slight of hand in the "09" year

--LOL

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law

What do you love so much about Reagan and W sending the debt through the roof?

I love the fact that it garnered ten times the costs.



1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How ya' feel now, booyyyyyyeeeeee??

 

[Faun]

OK, so you reject the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v Maryland. Another typically ignorant statement.
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/enumerated-powers/

Don't be ridiculous. There have been conflicting decisions over the years on this subject. I agree with United States v. Butler

Which says no such thing. But thanks for trying.

Imbecile...

From the United States v. Butler ...

The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]

United States v. Butler​

 

[Faun]

In reality, the report specified the projections were estimates based on the growing annual surpluses, which they projected would continue to grow. At any rate, what does that have to do with armyret asking me to provide a link to a report that I had already linked twice, including once in the post where he asked me to post the link?

You asked why I posted that link. It's because he denied that report even existed. Now it's more about his senility as he is repeatedly exhibiting dementia.

Besides the fact that it's total fantasy, what are you trying to prove?

That the CBO at one time made an estimate that turned out to be wrong. Or something like that. I doubt even he knows by this point.

Once again, you are wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't be ridiculous. There have been conflicting decisions over the years on this subject. I agree with United States v. Butler

Which says no such thing. But thanks for trying.

Imbecile...

From the United States v. Butler ...

The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]

United States v. Butler​

Moron. It does not obviate the delegated powers argument. Nor does it give carte blanche (look it up) to Congress to do whatever it wants.
You see to be getting your ass kicked with every post here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Besides the fact that it's total fantasy, what are you trying to prove?

That the CBO at one time made an estimate that turned out to be wrong. Or something like that. I doubt even he knows by this point.

Once again, you are wrong.

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

 

[Faun]

faun = baahhaa oduma sheep

Oooo, now that really hurts coming from someone demonstrating consistently that they are senile.

 

[Faun]

That the CBO at one time made an estimate that turned out to be wrong. Or something like that. I doubt even he knows by this point.

Once again, you are wrong.

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

 

[Kosh]

Umm, the report on the budget in 2016 came out earlier this year.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

You do know this year is 2013, right?

Interesting since no fiscal year budget has been passed by Congress and signed by the president how do they know what the cost of Obamcare is going to be?

Even the Obama administration (you know the most transparent administration in history) is doing their best to hide many numbers.

Since Obama is telling the CBO what the government is spending how can they accurately formulate what spending will be in the future by being told what to print via a dictator?

a) that's why it's an estimate.

b) Obama is a U.S. president, not a dictator.

Says the far left Obama worshiper

 

[Kosh]

Once again, you are wrong.

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

The difference between now and then is the dictator Obama is telling what numbers to print vs there being an open debated fiscal year budget to pull those projections from.

 

[The Rabbi]

Once again, you are wrong.

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

Wow. OK. You sure showed us.
But it is not a projection that the debt was $10T when Obama took office and is $17T today. It is reality. That makes Obama the biggest spender on the planet.

 

[Faun]

Which says no such thing. But thanks for trying.

Imbecile...

From the United States v. Butler ...

The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]

United States v. Butler​

Moron. It does not obviate the delegated powers argument.

The hell it doesn't. Look, I understand that you, being a Conservative, possess neither common sense nor logic & reasoning abilities ... but I'll explain to you anyway ...

First and foremost, they ruled the power to tax and spend is NOT confined to the other enumerated powers

The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power ...​

It can't get any plainer than that. Unless you're a brain dead Conservative, that is. Furthermore, they continued in their decision that it's limited in scope to be used to provide for the general welfare.

...but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]​

So exactly how rightarded are you to deny that doesn't abolish your "delegated powers argument," unless you consider the general welfare clause an independent power from the other enumerated powers??

Nor does it give carte blanche (look it up) to Congress to do whatever it wants.

I didn't say it did. Which is why I also quoted:

...but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]​

Yes, there are limitations to what Congress can spend on -- but it is not confined to all of the enumerated powers except the general welfare clause. And the general welfare clause is not confined by the other enumerated powers.

The general welfare clause is just another enumerated power, along with all the rest. And of course, while the Constitution doesn't declare the general welfare clause confined to the other enumerations, it does state at the end of that section:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.​

... which includes ALL of the aforementioned enumerated powers, including the general welfare clause.

I hope you're taking notes.

You see to be getting your ass kicked with every post here.

Suuure, uh-huh.

You know, saying is not the same as doing, right?

 

[Faun]

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

Wow. OK. You sure showed us.
But it is not a projection that the debt was $10T when Obama took office and is $17T today. It is reality. That makes Obama the biggest spender on the planet.

So what? Wasn't Bush when he was president? Wasn't Clinton when he was president? Wasn't Bush Sr. when he was president?

You don't seem to understand that spending increases with every president. The difference is that while spending has increased under every president, spending increased by the smallest margin under Obama vs the last 4 presidents before him.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Once again, you are wrong.

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

******* liar, I never denied it existed, you were referencing a NYT article and I laughed at your use of a Liberal slanted news source, not actual government documents. I asked you if you had any real proof, not a ******* article. You just keep pretending that it was something that was squandered away as if it ever really existed.

You are the one that won't even acknowledge the existence of a gov report that projected a 21 Trillion dollar debt by 2016. You ignore it and point to another one that shows only a projected 18t debt. You don't know which one will come to fruition, do you? No. You just pick and choose whatever reports shines the best light on your boy oduma, don't you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Besides the fact that it's total fantasy, what are you trying to prove?

That the CBO at one time made an estimate that turned out to be wrong. Or something like that. I doubt even he knows by this point.

Once again, you are wrong.

He must be, just becuz you say so.....

 

[Faun]

I doubt it.
Remind us what you were trying to prove.

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

******* liar, I never denied it existed...

The hell you didn't ...

"First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that." ~ LTCArmyRet​

... you were referencing a NYT article and I laughed at your use of a Liberal slanted news source, not actual government documents. I asked you if you had any real proof, not a ******* article. You just keep pretending that it was something that was squandered away as if it ever really existed.

You are the one that won't even acknowledge the existence of a gov report that projected a 21 Trillion dollar debt by 2016. You ignore it and point to another one that shows only a projected 18t debt. You don't know which one will come to fruition, do you? No. You just pick and choose whatever reports shines the best light on your boy oduma, don't you.

You're still lying. I never denied the existence of a projected $21t debt by 2016. I said that estimate was updated to now reflect an $18t debt.

You're in complete lie mode now. Going from one to the next.

 

[ron4342]

The difference between now and then is the dictator Obama is telling what numbers to print vs there being an open debated fiscal year budget to pull those projections from.

If Obama WERE a dictator the republicans in congress would have been arrested and either imprisoned or executed. Further proof that Obama is NOT a dictator is the fact that if he were you would be too scared to post ill of him. If Obama were a dictator you, and others like you, would have been hauled away by now.
Now, the point of the above is that if you make statements that are lies (... the dictator Obama is telling ....") here, why should we trust anything you post?

 

[Faun]

That the CBO at one time made an estimate that turned out to be wrong. Or something like that. I doubt even he knows by this point.

Once again, you are wrong.

He must be, just becuz you say so.....

I didn't just say, I demonstrated.

 

[The Rabbi]

Once again, you are wrong.

He must be, just becuz you say so.....

I didn't just say, I demonstrated.

You demonstrated the most nugatory gotcha point you could, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is that Obama has spent more money than anyone else on the planet. And that is not a CBO projection. That is fact.