Slowest spending (growth) in decades

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


The chart says it all.

Source
 
Werbung:
MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


The chart says it all.

Source

It only works in such a fasion if you revise the CBO baseline (which CBO did) to be what we were spending under all of these so called "one time" stimulus programs -- and then take the expansion from there.

If you take the expansion from the baseline before it was revised the figures are much different.

It would be like this:

Man 1 spends $10,000 a year -- that is his baseline -- however he makes a "one time" expense of an additional $10,000 in a certain year. He then proceeds to spend $22,000 the next year.

If you revise the calculations to set his baseline at $20,000 a year -- you can legitimately say he only raised spending by $10%. However, the reality is he raised spending 110% (because the baseline should still be $10,000, since the extra $10,000 was supposedly a one time expense), and switched the baseline to make it appear as if his spending was slowed.
 
As BigRob stated, it's all about where you set the baseline in arriving at those figures. The propaganda you presented is supposed to make it look like Obama isn't the wild-eyed deficit spending machine that he really is:

usgs_line.php


Since Obama took office, the National Debt has gone up 5 trillion dollars - In just 3.5 years - So point all you like to the "Slowest Spending Growth in decades", it doesn't change the fact that President Putts started with a gargantuan deficit, has run one every year since, and added over 5 trillion to the national debt.
 
What a bizarre chart. Obama has added almost 6 trillion dollars to the deficit in 4 years, so you know that first chart is just an illusion. But everthing about Obama has been an illusion.

Where's the chart that shows our growth over the last 30 years?
 
MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


The chart says it all.

Source

Maybe our most honored moderator could explain why he posted a misleading chart and claimed it says it all.

THC whats up with that? Do you really believe BO is not the biggest spender in the history of the WORLD?

Did you get DUPED again?
 
I don't know just how to take the above news. Of course, the conventional wisdom is that he is the biggest spender in the history of mankind, but is that really true? Yes, the debt has grown to scary levels, no question. How much of that is due to reckless spending, and how much to the deepest recession since the great depression?

The above chart didn't come from some liberal blog, BTW, but from the Wall Street Journal.

Another excerpt:


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
 
Yes Obama is a bigger spender but Republicans wont let him spend. Democrats are tax and spend politicans and the Tea Party folks are tired of politics as usual. Obama promised change in America all we saw for the past four years is politics as usual from the Democrats. And the Tea Party HAD ENOUGH! Thats why they kicked the Democrats asses out 2 years ago and maybe this year the Tea Party can finish the job. Can you imagine America without Democrats? :)
 
I don't know just how to take the above news. Of course, the conventional wisdom is that he is the biggest spender in the history of mankind, but is that really true? Yes, the debt has grown to scary levels, no question. How much of that is due to reckless spending, and how much to the deepest recession since the great depression?

The above chart didn't come from some liberal blog, BTW, but from the Wall Street Journal.

Another excerpt:

Well at least you are honest enough to admit you get duped.

BO's spending is not debatable.

I know you think EVERYTHING has two sides or there is a grey area with every issue. Not this one my dear bong lover. It is a FACT BO has spent more and incurred more debt than any other president and likely in the history of the world.

Secondly, to believe that massive deficit spending is a solution to a deep recession, proves once again you do not understand economics or you have been duped again by BO and his media. Had BO cut spending, cut the size of government, cut regulations, etc the economy would be booming now just as Reagan and Coolidge proved. FDR and Hoover did as BO is doing and we had a 12 year Great Depression.

You and BO have failed to learn from history...except that BO is doing all this on purpose, knowing full well it will destroy our economy. What's your excuse?
 
Well at least you are honest enough to admit you get duped.

BO's spending is not debatable.

I know you think EVERYTHING has two sides or there is a grey area with every issue. Not this one my dear bong lover. It is a FACT BO has spent more and incurred more debt than any other president and likely in the history of the world.

Secondly, to believe that massive deficit spending is a solution to a deep recession, proves once again you do not understand economics or you have been duped again by BO and his media. Had BO cut spending, cut the size of government, cut regulations, etc the economy would be booming now just as Reagan and Coolidge proved. FDR and Hoover did as BO is doing and we had a 12 year Great Depression.

You and BO have failed to learn from history...except that BO is doing all this on purpose, knowing full well it will destroy our economy. What's your excuse?
Reagan cut the spending, cut the size of government?
Now, who's been duped?
 
Reagan cut the spending, cut the size of government?
Now, who's been duped?

yeah, curious excuse (but they SAID...) but at the end of the day he signed off on this stuff. luckily he did invigorate the economy but perhaps had be been a little less bi-partisan he might have left us notably better off in the longer haul.
 
yeah, curious excuse (but they SAID...) but at the end of the day he signed off on this stuff. luckily he did invigorate the economy but perhaps had be been a little less bi-partisan he might have left us notably better off in the longer haul.
maybe, but rabid partisanship and the lack of willingness to compromise aren't serving us very well just now.
 
Reagan cut the spending, cut the size of government?
Now, who's been duped?

Did your good buddy Pockets give you that response? I only ask because that is a strawman tactic...and we both know Pockets is a strawman expert.

Have I posted in this thread or any other that Reagan cut spending and the size of government?

Why can't you just admit that you got duped again?
 
Werbung:
Did your good buddy Pockets give you that response? I only ask because that is a strawman tactic...and we both know Pockets is a strawman expert.

Have I posted in this thread or any other that Reagan cut spending and the size of government?

Why can't you just admit that you got duped again?

Had BO cut spending, cut the size of government, cut regulations, etc the economy would be booming now just as Reagan and Coolidge proved.

If they didn't cut the size of government, cut regulations, and cut spending, how did they prove anything?

I'm not old enough to remember Coolidge, but I do remember Reagan. I even voted for him in '80. I didn't in '84, when government size and expense kept going up despite all of the rhetoric.
 
Back
Top