Obama Extravagances And What They Mean

[mudwhistle]

You must be a lib.

When you do it it's an honest mistake, a typo...just being sloppy.

With me it's a totally intentional fuckup.

In other words....a lie.

I never said you were lying.

In fact, I did say something along the lines of "Having a hard time admitting you're wrong?", which implies that I believe you were not lying, but in fact had made a mistake.

The difference is, when called on my mistake, I owned up to it, and corrected it. Whereas you still can't seem to admit that you were in fact wrong.

The point is still valid even though there is some question about the numbers I presented.

I was only repeating what another story said after all.....and let's face it...that's what you're doing isn't it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You must be a lib.

When you do it it's an honest mistake, a typo...just being sloppy.

With me it's a totally intentional fuckup.

In other words....a lie.

I never said you were lying.

In fact, I did say something along the lines of "Having a hard time admitting you're wrong?", which implies that I believe you were not lying, but in fact had made a mistake.

The difference is, when called on my mistake, I owned up to it, and corrected it. Whereas you still can't seem to admit that you were in fact wrong.

The point is still valid even though there is some question about the numbers I presented.

I was only repeating what another story said after all.....and let's face it...that's what you're doing isn't it?

Yup. Except I did more research then you did.

And no, your point is not valid. Not at all. 83 dollars per person is not that bad, compared to nearly 4000 dollars per person.

 

[mudwhistle]

I never said you were lying.

In fact, I did say something along the lines of "Having a hard time admitting you're wrong?", which implies that I believe you were not lying, but in fact had made a mistake.

The difference is, when called on my mistake, I owned up to it, and corrected it. Whereas you still can't seem to admit that you were in fact wrong.

The point is still valid even though there is some question about the numbers I presented.

I was only repeating what another story said after all.....and let's face it...that's what you're doing isn't it?

Yup. Except I did more research then you did.

And no, your point is not valid. Not at all. 83 dollars per person is not that bad, compared to nearly 4000 dollars per person.

Well maybe Bush ain't the cheapskate that Obama is...[just kidding]. They may have planned on more showing up.

Obama won't spend all that much on everyone else. I thought this thread was about what he and Michelle like to spend on themselves anyway.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The point is still valid even though there is some question about the numbers I presented.

I was only repeating what another story said after all.....and let's face it...that's what you're doing isn't it?

Yup. Except I did more research then you did.

And no, your point is not valid. Not at all. 83 dollars per person is not that bad, compared to nearly 4000 dollars per person.

Well maybe Bush ain't the cheapskate that Obama is...[just kidding]. They may have planned on more showing up.

Obama won't spend all that much on everyone else. I thought this thread was about what he and Michelle like to spend on themselves anyway.

This thread is an attack on the so-called "extravagances" of the Obama's, which have all been shot down as the thread has progressed.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yup. Except I did more research then you did.

And no, your point is not valid. Not at all. 83 dollars per person is not that bad, compared to nearly 4000 dollars per person.

Well maybe Bush ain't the cheapskate that Obama is...[just kidding]. They may have planned on more showing up.

Obama won't spend all that much on everyone else. I thought this thread was about what he and Michelle like to spend on themselves anyway.

This thread is an attack on the so-called "extravagances" of the Obama's, which have all been shot down as the thread has progressed.

Sorry....but no.

You're reaching now.

You can explain away everything but the fact still remains...Obama has cost us much more then Bush....and both you and I have proved it. It doesn't matter how you want to rationalize it. My point is still made.

One single point proves it....Laura Bush had a staff that took care of everything for $1.08 million/yr while Michelle costs the taxpayer $1.75/yr million to do the same thing. That appears not to include Makeup, Hair, and Wardrobe...thanks to somebody who was trying to prove me wrong but unfortunately ended up illuminating even more expenses.

 

[mudwhistle]

The thing is you overreach because you assume that if one digit is wrong then the whole argument is wrong. And if the expenses Obama incured are still higher then Bush it doesn't matter what you might think.

After all, we aren't talking hundreds of dollars but millions.

But don't get me started on how much the skinny prick is putting us into debt.

That's another aspect that proves he doesn't give a flying fuck about the taxpayer.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'd love to be the "Pesident After Obama."


My Empire would be Glorious: Desperate US citizens will support my military take over of D.C., the disbanding of Congress, and the Importation of Hawt Gawth Chicks to Serve me in My Palace.

gotta love those goth chicks....

 

[Maple]

mudwhistle..

Still waiting on those links supporting any of your wild statements

You still have not provided any proof that President Obama is spending more than his predecessors. Other than your wild misrepresentations you still haven"t backed anything up

CalliGurl ran out on you but you are still here spouting your propaganda

This is the spending that's bothering me.

FOXNews.com - Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents



President Obama is shown here at the White House Nov. 24. (AP Photo)
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

Click here to read FOXBusiness.com's Elizabeth MacDonald describe what the interest on the debt can buy.

That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.

Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.

The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam's tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Obama's first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton's eight years in office -- Clinton's spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008

 

[jeffrockit]

Look at the original post. That was not about original thought. He was throwing out numbers like crazy. There was no opinion involved. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Is there something wrong with YOUR brain function.

This thread is getting stupid. Not one of you has a single objecticve thought about the president. Like I said, he is not doing anything different than any other president. Did you people expect him to run this country with no money?? Or never go out for the evening?? Just because you don't like him??

Previous Presidents weren't dealing with a country on the edge of bankrupcy. This is the attitude that got us in this position. The liberal reasoning of 'they did it, so we can do it'. If you remember back to the campaign - Obama said his Administration was gonna be different. In what way is spending us into oblivion different? Why are liberals so fucking stupid?

Edge of bankruptcy?? Are you nuts?

The US is the wealthiest nation on earth by a wide margin. We are no where close to bankruptcy. You really need to do better homework than listening to Glenn Beck

Yeah that's why they had to raise the debt ceiling because we have so much money.

 

[Rinata]

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst...

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

 

[jeffrockit]

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst...

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

Examples of the "racist" comments please. If you want that word to have any meaning and not just be a favorite of Al Sharpton, providing examples rather that making wild comments may help your cred.

That word has been so overused that it carries no meaning in the context of anything much less a political message board.

 

[Rinata]

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst...

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

Examples of the "racist" comments please. If you want that word to have any meaning and not just be a favorite of Al Sharpton, providing examples rather that making wild comments may help your cred.

That word has been so overused that it carries no meaning in the context of anything much less a political message board.

No problem. Go back and see posts numbered 65, 79, and 81.

 

[jeffrockit]

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

Examples of the "racist" comments please. If you want that word to have any meaning and not just be a favorite of Al Sharpton, providing examples rather that making wild comments may help your cred.

That word has been so overused that it carries no meaning in the context of anything much less a political message board.

No problem. Go back and see posts numbered 65, 79, and 81.

You are correct with a few however when most post go against Obama's bad policies, they have no correlation to race. The left have used and abused the racial component as a way to try and shut down debate. Because of this, I stand by my opinion that the term racist has lost most if not all of it's weight when this happens.

 

[Rinata]

Examples of the "racist" comments please. If you want that word to have any meaning and not just be a favorite of Al Sharpton, providing examples rather that making wild comments may help your cred.

That word has been so overused that it carries no meaning in the context of anything much less a political message board.

No problem. Go back and see posts numbered 65, 79, and 81.

You are correct with a few however when most post go against Obama's bad policies, they have no correlation to race. The left have used and abused the racial component as a way to try and shut down debate. Because of this, I stand by my opinion that the term racist has lost most if not all of it's weight when this happens.

I think the 3 examples I gave you are pretty scary. And the fact that you think they don't carry much weight is even more scary.

In any case, thanks for your input.

 

[mudwhistle]

mudwhistle..

Still waiting on those links supporting any of your wild statements

You still have not provided any proof that President Obama is spending more than his predecessors. Other than your wild misrepresentations you still haven"t backed anything up

CalliGurl ran out on you but you are still here spouting your propaganda

This is the spending that's bothering me.

FOXNews.com - Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents



President Obama is shown here at the White House Nov. 24. (AP Photo)
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

Click here to read FOXBusiness.com's Elizabeth MacDonald describe what the interest on the debt can buy.

That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.

Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.

The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam's tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Obama's first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton's eight years in office -- Clinton's spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008

This is the kind of thing I wanted to get started on this thread anyway. What is Obama spending in every area..not just on himself.

Sometimes when you start a thread it can become something productive when people who are in the know start to contribute.

He's shut his books...he said he would be open and try and work with everyone....but instead he is secretive and thuggish. He hasn't been able to show that he can be non-partisan and it's gotten to the point that even other Democrats can't trust him.

 

[mudwhistle]

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst...

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

It seems that the large majority of the critics didn't even mention his race.

I'm afraid when you make a statement like this you're attempting to retreat into a safe place you can deal with instead of dealing with what the facts really are....and that is what I'm attempting to do here.

 

[mudwhistle]

One big question that goes unanswered is where has the money gone. What was it used for.

TARP was used to strong-arm banks and a couple of auto companies. [GM and Chrysler] It was used to put a ceiling of $500k on CEOs and senior employees....not bail out banks so they can lend more money. They aren't lending and Obama pulled them in last week to threaten them into lending more....but his policies have made it hard for them to remain solvent. Lending is a risk in normal times but because the President wants to call bankers "Fat Cats" all this does is give borrowers the idea that it's OK not to pay those fat cats back. So he's recklessly setting up another banking collapse by flapping his gums.

The Stimulus Bill was used to threaten state governments into going along with Obama policies and according to statistics more money went to Democrat districts then Republican districts by almost 2 to 1. Is this an attempt to shore up Democrats in the 2010 election?

Now we have the health care bill that the Democrats have set their hopes on since before 2001. They've allowed Medicare and Social Security reform to slide in hopes that they could pass this monstrosity. All it appears to do initially is make not having health insurance illegal.

Nobody knows what's really going on. Nobody knows where the money actually went. What happened to the TARP money, the Stimulus money, and how are they gonna pay for health care? And none of this takes into account Cap & Trade which Obama is using the EPA to go around Congress to force down our throats.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now I would love to talk about all of the parties Obama has been throwing.

Looks like at least a couple every week.

It would be nice to be able to find out how many he's had since he took over.

This fits right in with the original intent of this thread.

 

[Rinata]

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst...

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

It seems that the large majority of the critics didn't even mention his race.

I'm afraid when you make a statement like this you're attempting to retreat into a safe place you can deal with instead of dealing with what the facts really are....and that is what I'm attempting to do here.

They don't have to mention his race. Have you ever heard of passive aggressive???

Sorry, but your second paragraph makes no sense to me. But don't worry about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

They are not critics on this thread. What I have seen in here tonight and several of the comments I have read are flat out racist. These people have no constructive criticisms to offer. They cannot accept a black president and that's what's happening here.

It seems that the large majority of the critics didn't even mention his race.

I'm afraid when you make a statement like this you're attempting to retreat into a safe place you can deal with instead of dealing with what the facts really are....and that is what I'm attempting to do here.

They don't have to mention his race. Have you ever heard of passive aggressive???

Sorry, but your second paragraph makes no sense to me. But don't worry about it.

I've also heard of 'Deep-seated Paranoia'.