Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since

obama economy spending

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#16    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:15 AM

View Postranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Must be hard for you not using any public roads, not having an education, not having access to ambulances, or security for when you retire.  Well, at least you're not a freeloader!
Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?

Anyway. the thread premise is true, although there are caveats.  Republicans have blocked all new spending and tax increases are off the table.  If Obama had full reigns, who knows what spending would have been like.  It would be misleading to say Obama is solely responsible for it.  By looking at the OP's chart, it looks like Republicans are only against spending when it's someone else doing the spending :P

I find it strange that you claim Obama is trying to fix things when you then go on to bring up the fact that the only reason he hasn't spent more is because congress has denied him.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 23 July 2012 - 09:18 AM.


#17    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:25 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 22 July 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Posted Image

View Postquestionmark, on 22 July 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Posted Image

The stimulas, bail-outs, and unconstitutional wars 0bama fully supported. What money did Bush spend that 0bama didnt aprove of?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#18    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:35 AM

Why would you assign 2009 budget spending to Bush when Obama signed off on 9 of the appropriations (the vast majority of the spending) . As Jim Michaels would have said, “here’s a dime. It’s what the story is worth.”

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#19    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,613 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 23 July 2012 - 01:23 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I find it strange that you claim Obama is trying to fix things when you then go on to bring up the fact that the only reason he hasn't spent more is because congress has denied him.

Where you have to say that it is quite difficult to top spending at this point, not even the reality removed Hill-Washingtonians would dare to try to pass a budget where more than 1/3 is financed by debt.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#20    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:09 PM

View Postranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Must be hard for you not using any public roads, not having an education, not having access to ambulances, or security for when you retire.  Well, at least you're not a freeloader!
Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?

Anyway. the thread premise is true, although there are caveats.  Republicans have blocked all new spending and tax increases are off the table.  If Obama had full reigns, who knows what spending would have been like.  It would be misleading to say Obama is solely responsible for it.  By looking at the OP's chart, it looks like Republicans are only against spending when it's someone else doing the spending :P

This whole roads thing is killing me. The federal government didn't build any roads. They took our money and hired people to build some of the roads we use. Most roads are build by State and/or local government.

Education is a state responsibility. We had, IMHO, a much better education system before the Feds got involoved.

Ambulances? I have never even seen a federal ambulance.

This is just silly. We, the people, paid for all the things you mentioned. We would still have them. To think otherwise is simply inane.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#21    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

MarketWatch is a subsidiary of Dow Jones, a property of News Corporation. MarketWatch is part of Dow Jones' Consumer Media Group, along with The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, the WSJ.com and affiliated internet properties. Through the Rupert Murdoch-controlled News Corp. ownership, MarketWatch is also affiliated with, among many other global media properties, the New York Post, The Times of London, Fox News Channel and multiple other 20th Century Fox spinoffs, and HarperCollins publishers.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/MarketWatch

This isn't a 'lib' study. If anything, this documentation of the facts and figures could be said to come from the right wing. This is based on facts. Fact: Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. End of story.

I hate Obama, but I also hate the lies that are spewed regarding his presidency.

What matters is who wrote it, not the publication where it's printed.  If Rush Limbaugh writes a piece for USA Today (as he's done in the past) does that make USA Today a "right-wing rag"?

Here is the author and his profile:

Rick Ungar

I write on politics with a 'specialty' in health care policy. My interest in the field began with an experience fifteen years ago in a hospital in Los Angeles that has led me to my current life where I consult a number of government officials and health care advocacy groups. In addition to my contributions to Forbes, I write a political column at The Washington Monthly. On Saturdays, you can find me on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows.

So just another lib spouting lib talking points.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#22    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:36 PM

View Postranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:


Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?


And he's done a **** job trying to do that.  Which is exactly why he doesn't deserve another 4 years in office.  He even said it himself.

Poor poor Obama - he's only the most powerful man in the world and he had a majority in Congress for only 2 years.  He just couldn't get anything done because of those waskely Republicans.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#23    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:37 PM

View PostBama13, on 23 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

This whole roads thing is killing me. The federal government didn't build any roads. They took our money and hired people to build some of the roads we use. Most roads are build by State and/or local government.

Education is a state responsibility. We had, IMHO, a much better education system before the Feds got involoved.

Ambulances? I have never even seen a federal ambulance.

This is just silly. We, the people, paid for all the things you mentioned. We would still have them. To think otherwise is simply inane.

Well, to be fair, about 49% of us paid for them.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#24    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:34 PM

The transportation system is funded by fuel tax primarily.  The education system here in Iowa is from property tax.  We also have a city and state sales tax.
So I am going to have to dispute your 49% claim.


#25    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:29 PM

View PostRafterman, on 23 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

What matters is who wrote it, not the publication where it's printed.  If Rush Limbaugh writes a piece for USA Today (as he's done in the past) does that make USA Today a "right-wing rag"?

Here is the author and his profile:

Rick Ungar

I write on politics with a 'specialty' in health care policy. My interest in the field began with an experience fifteen years ago in a hospital in Los Angeles that has led me to my current life where I consult a number of government officials and health care advocacy groups. In addition to my contributions to Forbes, I write a political column at The Washington Monthly. On Saturdays, you can find me on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows.

So just another lib spouting lib talking points.

Are you suggesting that the author fabricated the numbers, statistics and facts?


#26    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,613 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:31 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that the author fabricated the numbers, statistics and facts?

I would say that after Dubya's spending spree it was pretty difficult to manage a 4% increase. And that is what the author has forgotten to mention.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#27    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:17 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I find it strange that you claim Obama is trying to fix things when you then go on to bring up the fact that the only reason he hasn't spent more is because congress has denied him.
Obama is trying to fix things.  We don't know what spending would be like if Republicans weren't running interference.  How are those things related?  Are you saying spending = not fixing things?  I'd say that's a hard point to defend.


#28    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:33 AM

View PostBama13, on 23 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

This whole roads thing is killing me. The federal government didn't build any roads. They took our money and hired people to build some of the roads we use. Most roads are build by State and/or local government.

Education is a state responsibility. We had, IMHO, a much better education system before the Feds got involoved.

Ambulances? I have never even seen a federal ambulance.

This is just silly. We, the people, paid for all the things you mentioned. We would still have them. To think otherwise is simply inane.
You have to understand that the anarchist point of view doesn't suit everyone.  You may be self-sufficient and live in an area with little federal involvement, but we have 300M people to take into consideration.  Not just you.  The feds have been building roads and granting money for highways since 1905.  Federal grants to address local problems are used in a wide variety of ways.  Depends on where you live.


#29    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:39 AM

View PostGromdor, on 23 July 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

The transportation system is funded by fuel tax primarily.  The education system here in Iowa is from property tax.  We also have a city and state sales tax.
So I am going to have to dispute your 49% claim.
Every state takes federal government road construction money.  For starters, Iowa got more money than it put in to the Federal Aid Highway Fund ($1.13 for every dollar Iowa put in).  Roads for national parks/forests are constructed by the feds (maybe your state doesn't have any).  Federal grants for local government needs are also handed out on a per-need basis (maybe your state hasn't needed any).


#30    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:14 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 22 July 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I've looked at this before and it is completely true. There has been little increase in spending since 2008.

But what is also true is that 2008 was a horrendous tragedy of a Budget.

It is like splurging in May and spending an extra 500 dollars more then you earned, and then continuing that into June, July and August, and claiming you're being financially responsible because you have not increased your splurging. When what you should have done is go back to spending what you earn.

This is not an achievement it is a travesty. And putting it out as Good News is simple propaganda.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker





Also tagged with obama, economy, spending

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users