Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[TemplarKormac]

OK. And? What's yr point?

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

God forbid you ever become wealthy, Billy. You seem to despise them so much.

 

[Billy000]

The statement is meaningless.
But even so, revenue as a percentage of gdp is higher now than it was 4 years ago.
So again you're wrong.

Um, no it is not meaningless.

And yeah, a little more revenue is coming through but, historically, it is still very low.

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

That's not what I said retard. Lower VALUE of revenue has greatly contributed to our debt.

 

[The T]

The statement is meaningless.
But even so, revenue as a percentage of gdp is higher now than it was 4 years ago.
So again you're wrong.

Um, no it is not meaningless.

And yeah, a little more revenue is coming through but, historically, it is still very low.

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

 

[Billy000]

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

God forbid you ever become wealthy, Billy. You seem to despise them so much.

I really don't. I am simply making the point that the cute for the wealthy were quite expensive.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Um, no it is not meaningless.

And yeah, a little more revenue is coming through but, historically, it is still very low.

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

That's not what I said retard. Lower VALUE of revenue has greatly contributed to our debt.

Sorry, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Value of revenue"?

 

[Billy000]

Um, no it is not meaningless.

And yeah, a little more revenue is coming through but, historically, it is still very low.

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

I never said spending wasn't an issue. The point of this thread was to show that spending under Obama did not GROW.

 

[The T]

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

That's not what I said retard. Lower VALUE of revenue has greatly contributed to our debt.

Sorry, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Value of revenue"?

Think he's admitting Obama and the FED are causing inflation/ devaluing the dollar by policy?

*NAH*

 

[Oldstyle]

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

What the Forbes article quite correctly points out is that simply because money isn't spent on A doesn't mean that it isn't subsequently spent on B. The money that people didn't spend on vacations to National Parks didn't vaporize in their wallets. Chances are that money was spent ELSEWHERE. The 24 billion dollar loss to the economy is what is "bullshit" because it's based on faulty assumptions.

As for Solyndra? The decision to reward Solyndra all of that tax payer money was bad management of our tax dollars by this Administration. PERIOD! They fucked up. PERIOD!

I'm still waiting for an actual figure. If your article can't come up with that, it failed the argument.

Why? Do you dispute that just because people couldn't spend their money at National Parks...that they COULD and most likely DID spend it elsewhere? How can you possibly count that as a loss to the economy? The Standard & Poor's report is worthless because it's based on assumptions that simple aren't true.

 

[The T]

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

I never said spending wasn't an issue. The point of this thread was to show that spending under Obama did not GROW.

Yes it DID.

 

[Oldstyle]

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.

I never said spending wasn't an issue. The point of this thread was to show that spending under Obama did not GROW.

So what you ARE admitting is that Barack Obama continued the unprecedented level of spending that Bush used in 2008 to keep the US economy from cratering...even though we were technically out of the recession back in the summer of 2009?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

God forbid you ever become wealthy, Billy. You seem to despise them so much.

I really don't. I am simply making the point that the cute for the wealthy were quite expensive.

Really? They why this obsession over the wealthy? Unless you've done so already, prove it. Entitlement programs on the other hand have been proven quite expensive. You add them all up and they outpace defense spending.

 

[Oldstyle]

So for four full years, Barack Obama has been spending at "emergency" levels...even though the emergency was technically over the first summer of his term?

 

[Billy000]

I never said spending wasn't an issue. The point of this thread was to show that spending under Obama did not GROW.

So what you ARE admitting is that Barack Obama continued the unprecedented level of spending that Bush used in 2008 to keep the US economy from cratering...even though we were technically out of the recession back in the summer of 2009?

Yes, spending levels under both Obama and Bush have been largely the same.

Christ pay attention.

 

[The T]

I never said spending wasn't an issue. The point of this thread was to show that spending under Obama did not GROW.

So what you ARE admitting is that Barack Obama continued the unprecedented level of spending that Bush used in 2008 to keep the US economy from cratering...even though we were technically out of the recession back in the summer of 2009?

But here we are still in it with cooked books to make Obama look good to get re-elected.

Some of these goofs just love being lied to and living/perpetuating the lies.

 

[The T]

I never said spending wasn't an issue. The point of this thread was to show that spending under Obama did not GROW.

So what you ARE admitting is that Barack Obama continued the unprecedented level of spending that Bush used in 2008 to keep the US economy from cratering...even though we were technically out of the recession back in the summer of 2009?

Yes, spending levels under both Obama and Bush have been largely the same.

Christ pay attention.

So YOU finally admit it. Hey? Look here WE are making progress with a progressive.

 

[Billy000]

So what you ARE admitting is that Barack Obama continued the unprecedented level of spending that Bush used in 2008 to keep the US economy from cratering...even though we were technically out of the recession back in the summer of 2009?

Yes, spending levels under both Obama and Bush have been largely the same.

Christ pay attention.

So YOU finally admit it. Hey? Look here WE are making progress with a progressive.

I never denied it in the first place you dumb shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I like how Billy just avoided me. Case in point.

 

[Billy000]

I like how Billy just avoided me. Case in point.

I avoided you because you have no idea what you are talking a out.

 

[P@triot]

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

As opposed to what Billy000 - the extensive research you personally funded, conducted, and published on your bullshit $24 billion figure?

Forbes is a highly respected organization. Meanwhile you're bullshit number came from the laughing stock of America - ThinkProgress.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I like how Billy just avoided me. Case in point.

I avoided you because you have no idea what you are talking a out.

HA!!

No, you avoided me because I slapped you with facts.