Thread: Reagan - 103% Spending Increase. Bush - 71% Spending Increase. Obama - 22% Increase

Originally Posted by saintmichaeldefendthem

You're just posting flat out lies that do not reflect the real numbers. Did SnP downgrade us because we become more responsible spenders? Did the debt double because Obama was spending less. Somebody who can look at a blue sky and call it red is capable of anything. Your claims are not just wrong. They're a shameful reversal of the truth.

Lol, these aren't the real numbers?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FGEXPND.txt

2000-01-01 1827.7
2000-04-01 1872.2
2000-07-01 1882.9
2000-10-01 1905.0
2001-01-01 1942.5
2001-04-01 1968.0
2001-07-01 1999.3
2001-10-01 2009.3
2002-01-01 2065.4
2002-04-01 2108.1
2002-07-01 2118.8
2002-10-01 2156.2
2003-01-01 2186.9
2003-04-01 2277.8
2003-07-01 2278.8
2003-10-01 2302.4
2004-01-01 2353.6
2004-04-01 2373.4
2004-07-01 2405.8
2004-10-01 2440.8
2005-01-01 2519.6
2005-04-01 2545.4
2005-07-01 2592.8
2005-10-01 2634.6
2006-01-01 2681.1
2006-04-01 2731.2
2006-07-01 2762.9
2006-10-01 2738.1
2007-01-01 2844.4
2007-04-01 2896.0
2007-07-01 2916.6
2007-10-01 2942.8
2008-01-01 3028.9
2008-04-01 3174.2
2008-07-01 3140.4
2008-10-01 3119.4
2009-01-01 3219.8
2009-04-01 3516.9
2009-07-01 3527.0
2009-10-01 3537.9
2010-01-01 3636.6
2010-04-01 3685.8
2010-07-01 3733.1
2010-10-01 3757.8
2011-01-01 3729.0
2011-04-01 3826.4

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Almost 2/3rds of his stimulus was tax rebates. Very conservative of him. So you saying conservative ideologies are failures?

Tax credits are not tax cuts. They're tax incentives.

Should he have went the Reagan approach and had massive amount of direct Government spending?

Reagan spent to win the Cold War. Obama spent to prop up a phony economy. And it still needs propping up.

You can't skate out of this one, it is clear as day that there is a massive amount of hypocrisy going on with the right. And there is a massive amount of lies being told about how much Obama is spending.

The national debt increased to 2 trillion under Obama. This was all in his first year. It keep Bush his first term to do that.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

What hypocrisy? Bringing in some phony numbers. You should know better.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

You can't compare President's in absolute terms... that is not how economics works. That's like saying the $1 billion increase in spending in 1905 was much less than Reagan's $246 billion. Nice try, but another failed attempt at hiding your hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, why didn't you include Bush's numbers for the same time period?? Did they not fit your case?

Originally Posted by DDave

Speaking of hypocrisy, why didn't you include Bush's numbers for the same time period?? Did they not fit your case?

I didn't do the same time frame. Just showing a perspective of how much the Republican's spent as President's. Why are you trying every thing you can to dodge the simple fact that Republican's are big time spenders?

Originally Posted by akphidelt

You can try to slant it any way you want... but the numbers do not lie. Obama has increased spending by 22% since January 1, 2009. Even before he stepped foot in office.

So, although your graphs are cute and colorful, they still do not touch on the point that relatively Obama is less a spender than Reagan or Bush.

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

Obama didn't have a Cold War to fight. Obama didn't have Korea era tanks and APC's to have to upgrade to meet the new generation of soviet weaponry!!

Obama didn't have communist revolutions breaking out all over the world.

You are just looking as if things were all just great and hunky dory and there weren't things like a 50 year long international crisis called THE COLD WAR.

When are you people gong to finally admit that? When are you people going to stop pretending like HISTORY DIDN'T HAPPEN??

When are people going to stop pretending the Soviets weren't our enemies and we were in a struggle for our own survival! I (*)(*)(*)(*)ING REMEMBER, I WAS THERE. WE WERE AT (*)(*)(*)(*)ING WAR.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

Obama didn't have a Cold War to fight. Obama didn't have Korea era tanks and APC's to have to upgrade to meet the new generation of soviet weaponry!!

Obama didn't have communist revolutions breaking out all over the world.

You are just looking as if things were all just great and hunky dory and there weren't things like a 50 year long international crisis called THE COLD WAR.

When are you people gong to finally admit that? When are you people going to stop pretending like HISTORY DIDN'T HAPPEN??

When are people going to stop pretending the Soviets weren't our enemies and we were in a struggle for our own survival!

Lol, Obama was handed the most expensive war in American history before he even stepped foot in office. What are you smoking?

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Why are you trying every thing you can to dodge the simple fact that Republican's are big time spenders?

I'm not trying to dodge that fact. I am just pointing out that you are cherry picking numbers and calculation methodologies that support your assertion rather than doing an honest comparison of what you are trying to claim.

Still waiting for the numbers for Bush's first 2 years and 8 months. But then I'm guessing that since it won't fit your objective, you will refuse to provide them and continue with the name calling.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Once again, just keep being a hypocrite. I'm not talking about deficits. I'm talking about Government spending. You guys will try to skate all around the issue like Olympic figure skaters. But you can't hide from the obvious fact that you guys are liars.

Well then you have no argument because Government expenditures don't tell the whole story of the national debt.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Lol, Obama was handed the most expensive war in American history before he even stepped foot in office. What are you smoking?

Why didn't he end them and close Gitmo like he said he was going to?

Why did he choose to extend the Bush tax cuts if they were so bad for the economy?

Originally Posted by DDave

I'm not trying to dodge that fact. I am just pointing out that you are cherry picking numbers and calculation methodologies that support your assertion rather than doing an honest comparison of what you are trying to claim.

Still waiting for the numbers for Bush's first 2 years and 8 months. But then I'm guessing that since it won't fit your objective, you will refuse to provide them and continue with the name calling.

Fine Bush was at 18% after 2 years 8 months.

Bush 18%
Reagan 44%
Obama 22%

Still, how does that play in to the fact that Obama is claimed to be the biggest and craziest spender in American history. Those are all lies. Very little of Obama's spending has even come from Obama himself, they were all leftovers from Bush. Before Obama even stepped foot in office he had a $1.3 trillion deficit on his hands.