Bluegrassrivals

Who knew? :biggrin:

Quote:It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

[Image: MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg]

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.



So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...ack-obama/

This is a classic example of lying with statistics, RV. You don't care much about your personal credibility, do you? nicker:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:This is a classic example of lying with statistics, RV. You don't care much about your personal credibility, do you? nicker:

Isn't that what you do, almost without fail. Because you claim the stats wrong, doesn't make it so. But, I just posted the article. Dispute what the CBO states, since you like to use their reports.

TheRealVille Wrote:Isn't that what you do, almost without fail. Because you claim the stats wrong, doesn't make it so. But, I just posted the article. Dispute what the CBO states, since you like to use their reports.

Obama immediately boosted spending upon taking office and this author, as well as other Obama propagandists such as yourself, want to saddle Bush with all of the spending that was done in the 2008 Fiscal Year on Bush, including hundreds of billions of dollars that were not in the Bush budget. Having laid that phony foundation, the author then calculates the annual increase in spending over 2008, which included half of the 2009 spending not included in Bush's budget. It is dishonest and you undoubtedly know that it is.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Obama immediately boosted spending upon taking office and this author, as well as other Obama propagandists such as yourself, want to saddle Bush with all of the spending that was done in the 2008 Fiscal Year on Bush, including hundreds of billions of dollars that were not in the Bush budget. Having laid that phony foundation, the author then calculates the annual increase in spending over 2008, which included half of the 2009 spending not included in Bush's budget. It is dishonest and you undoubtedly know that it is.

Bush's budget ran until October 2009. As you would say, Bush was the administrator in 2008, just like Obama was in his years.

No, TheRealVille, I wouldn't believe it nor would anyone else with a scintilla of intelligence.

TheRealVille Wrote:Bush's budget ran until October 2009. As you would say, Bush was the administrator in 2008, just like Obama was in his years.

Bush cannot be held responsible for spending above the budget that he submitted that Obama and his Democratic Congress approved. I know that you are smart enough to know that this is a very dishonest thread. BTW, you misspelled your ruler's name. nicker:

5 trillion more in debt and he spent less?

TheRealVille Wrote:Isn't that what you do, almost without fail. Because you claim the stats wrong, doesn't make it so. But, I just posted the article. Dispute what the CBO states, since you like to use their reports.

Obama spent nearly a trillion on just one of his first schemes which was his stimulus. Harry and Nancy got that bill rammed through the house and filibuster proof senate. Everybody knows that. Bush had nothing to do with it.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Bush cannot be held responsible for spending above the budget that he submitted that Obama and his Democratic Congress approved. I know that you are smart enough to know that this is a very dishonest thread. BTW, you misspelled your ruler's name. nicker:

If it is mis-spelled, it was the author that mi-spelled it. I just copied his heading. Where is it mis-spelled?

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...no-or-not/
Here's an interesting read

TheRealVille Wrote:If it is mis-spelled, it was the author that mi-spelled it. I just copied his heading. Where is it mis-spelled?

Would You Believe It's Barac - The title was probably truncated because it was so long. BTW, you misspelled "misspell" three times in your response. The word does not have a hyphen and it is also missing an "s" in the second use. You are normally such a good speller, I think the realization that the OP article is such a gross distortion of Obama's miserable spending record must have you a bit rattled.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Would You Believe It's Barac - The title was probably truncated because it was so long. BTW, you misspelled "misspell" three times in your response. The word does not have a hyphen and it is also missing an "s" in the second use. You are normally such a good speller, I think the realization that the OP article is such a gross distortion of Obama's miserable spending record must have you a bit rattled.

Are we back in school?

TheRealVille Wrote:Are we back in school?

Some of us could use a refresher course in basic economics and statistics. I don't normally correct people's spelling but you did misspell "misspell" three times. Your spelling is definitely well above average, it's your logic that often earns a failing grade.

BTW, has anybody else noticed that all of the clones are absent from the forum today? That does suggest that most of them have a common parent, doesn't it?

Come on Hoot they're(or was that their or there) out working the crowds this labor day for their buddy Barac or was that Barack?

TheRealVille Wrote:If it is mis-spelled, it was the author that mi-spelled it. I just copied his heading. Where is it mis-spelled?

That isn't the only mistake in that article. Was it authored by Chris Matthews?

Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:That isn't the only mistake in that article. Was it authored by Chris Matthews?

The author is Rick Ungar, who is a regular on the Fox News Channel's Forbes on Fox show. Ungar is one of the many left wingers who regularly make fools of themselves on FNC, but who supposedly do not exist according to liberal Democrats like RV. Letting Ungar write a column on the Forbes web site must be Steve Forbes' idea of a joke. Maybe he managed to marry into the Forbes family. nicker:

hoot, this forum is for current events and polotics not an english class, adress the topic and move on...

4_real Wrote:hoot, this forum is for current events and polotics not an english class, adress the topic and move on...

Stop intentionally making your posts hard to read by misspelling several words per sentence and I will overlook the occasional honest typo. Or are you really as uneducated as your posts make you appear?

i dont claim to be educated..since when did having an education make an oppinion count for more?

i have been trying to tell these guys that it is as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem that's when in 2001 and 2003 congress passed bush2 tax cuts they made them temp bush2 and reagan grew the gov more than any president in modern time if was not for bush2 and congress bailing out the banks and unemployement checks and food stamps and welfare 2008 would probaly be worse than the depression in the 30's and 40's it took us 9 yearts to get out of that mess

4_real Wrote:i dont claim to be educated..since when did having an education make an oppinion count for more?

It always has been that way. Whether it is formal education or wisdom gained at the school of hard knocks, an educated opinion is always better received than an uninformed one. How you present your arguments, whether in writing or through speech goes a long way in determining how well your audience will receive your opinion. When you intentionally deceive your audience by intentionally making your posts difficult to comprehend, you show disrespect to everybody who reads them and discourage people from engaging with you. Why not just stick with one identity and give a better effort of composing your posts under your original screen name? You could do no worse than you are doing with this ruse.

^ im not trying to get english college professors to understand my opinion..im sure im making my posts clear enuf for ppl to understand..even you..

Hoot Gibson Wrote:It always has been that way. Whether it is formal education or wisdom gained at the school of hard knocks, an educated opinion is always better received than an uninformed one. How you present your arguments, whether in writing or through speech goes a long way in determining how well your audience will receive your opinion. When you intentionally deceive your audience by intentionally making your posts difficult to comprehend, you show disrespect to everybody who reads them and discourage people from engaging with you. Why not just stick with one identity and give a better effort of composing your posts under your original screen name? You could do no worse than you are doing with this ruse.

Yeah, but it makes it seem like there are more of them. It's really hilarious when the clone 'likes' his master's post. nicker:

4_real Wrote:^ im not trying to get english college professors to understand my opinion..im sure im making my posts clear enuf for ppl to understand..even you..

All you are doing is displaying your ignorance. If you had any self respect, you would be using a spelling checker and posting under a single name.

Would a mod please run my id, and show these clowns that I only am posting under the TRV name?

4_real Wrote:^ um not trying to get Englisher college professors to understand my opinion..um sure um making my posts clear Enid for pol to understand..even you..

poor grammar and multiple misspelling only cause your opinion to be viewed as irrelevant and easily dismissed. A small bit of advice - add google tool bar with spell checker. Maybe posters will take your opinion seriously instead of dismissing them

TheRealVille Wrote:Would a mod please run my id, and show these clowns that I only am posting under the TRV name?

:eyeroll::what:thought someone was gone for the weekend. Just lurking below the surface I guess:pondering: