Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2012   #21
mr. compassionate's Avatar
conifer, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 937
If you actually read it it says that usually an incoming president isn't responsbile for that years(2009) spending but in this case obamas was responsible for over half the years huge increase from prior year 2008. He used an emergency spending measure to do this.

Then the article which started this thread used that year 2009 as a base line. So of course he hasn't increased spending much in relation to the monstrous increase he was responsible for that year.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchhill
mr. compassionate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012   #22
Roy's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 682
If you actually read what you wrote, you'll see it's complete and utter bullshit.
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
fact check finds this article mostly untrue
FactCheck said nothing of the sort. FactCheck didn't mention that article and made no truthiness ratings of anything whatsoever, rendering your statement totally false.

They did use different methodology assigning 2009 emergency funding after the bottom fell out of the economy to Obama. They also admit their number may be high:
By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.

It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee has put the figure at $140 billion.
Fair enough, let's take a peek at what that looks like, using FC's "maximum" value shall we?
They moved that little blue tip on the 2009 bar into Obama's column. Hardly a "monstrous increase" when put in perspective at a time of crisis when the economy was teetering on the brink of collapse!

In any case, the rate of spending increase remains obviously and dramatically higher throughout Bush's tenure than it has been so far under Obama.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied...learn to swim!
Roy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012   #23
hojo's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1989
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,234
Originally Posted by MT4Runner View Post
Tax cuts are not an absence of income.
The deficit "because of the tax cuts" is due to excess spending.

If taxes are lowered, spending should decrease commensurately.

Blaming the tax cuts for the President and Congress continuing to overspend? That boggles my mind.
You're right. Why didn't Bush couple full spending cuts with the tax cuts? As you say, he "should have." Why didn't Bush cancel the tax cuts when war costs started rising? The first Republican president did. And, because what ever spending cuts there were didn't offset the tax breaks, when revenue plummeted because of the teachers and firefighters and planed parenthood and their nefarious ways (the war effort had nothing to do with that), that deficit drove the debt up. Obama's not perfect but he's certainly far from the problem. It started WAY back, just after Andrew Jackson was president. We are far far far too short sighted to even begin to "blame" our national problems on one or even two presidents.
On the river, I can abandon who I am and what I've done. However brief it lasts, while on the river I am nothing important and everything insignificant. I am flotsam, and happy to be so.
hojo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012   #24
MT4Runner's Avatar
Kalispell, Montana
Paddling Since: 1997
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,436
Originally Posted by hojo View Post
And, because what ever spending cuts there were didn't offset the tax breaks, when revenue plummeted because of the teachers and firefighters and planed parenthood and their nefarious ways (the war effort had nothing to do with that), that deficit drove the debt up.
No, no, no, it's due to the Electricians and Community Organizers!!!

MT4Runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012   #25
FrankC's Avatar
Golden, CO
Paddling Since: 1856
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 339
if we had just kept the Clinton era tax structure we would be looking pretty good right now. Instead Bush "starved the beast" with his tax cuts and loopholes, crashed the economy by deregulating and ignoring the mess on Wall Street and started a trillion dollar war in Iraq that wasn't paid for but borrowed from China. Anybody who somehow blames Obama for the cluster fuck we have now is simply a brain washed ignoramus.
FrankC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012   #26
-, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1994
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 101
Simply put, Obamas debt looks higher because he actually includes the cost of the wars in it rather than not counting them like the Repubs did.
heytat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012   #27
-, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1994
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 101
[QUOTE=mr. compassionate;285113]
Originally Posted by MT4Runner View Post
Slowest growth in spending.
That doesn't mean that Obama and Congress did a single thing to stem or reverse the Bush-era growth.

Say I'm Bush and you're Obama.
I spent $10k on our credit card in 2002,
$10,730 in 2003,
$11,500 in 2004,
$12,400 in 2005,
13,300 in 2005,
14,300 in 2006,
15,500 in 2007,
16,700 in 2008, and
18,100 in 2009.

You put $18,600 on our card in 2010,
18,600 in 2011,
18,900 in 2012, and will spend
$19,100 in 2013, and you're a hero because your annualized increase in spending was less than mine?

The reality is that we have a $197,500 credit card bill to pay off with no ability to pay it, and we're both idiots.

Pretty misleading it would be more like someone with a credit card who spent 10 trillion over 200 years in 2008 above and beyond what they paid back and then went:

2009 11 trillion
2010 12.5 trillion
2011 14 trillion
2012 15.50 trillion

this doesn't count much more spending under obummer care in years 2014 and on. It's amazing what some of you will bite if you read it on the internet!

So why should I believe your numbers?
heytat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012   #28
welch, Oklahoma
Paddling Since: 1976
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 207
Iam totally confused ---I just want to paddle !!!

ranchman44 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Letter to Obama-could not have said it better myself mr. compassionate The Eddy 9 09-20-2010 04:16 PM
obama the antichrist mania The Eddy 34 10-17-2009 03:10 AM
Obama day 1 LSB The Eddy 52 02-03-2009 09:12 AM
Obama the socialist? benrodda The Eddy 88 10-30-2008 01:59 PM

» Classified Ads
Aire Super Puma 13' with...

posted by hiplainsdrifter

The "Super-Ducky" is for sale. 1996 Super Puma. 13'...

Pyranha Burn 3 XL

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


ShredReady full face...

posted by go-with-the-Flo

Size large/XL. White. Light use, no big hits or scratches....

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.