View New Posts
123
  • Thread Tools
  1. #1
    MartinBlank
    Going to be a good weekend
    MartinBlank's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-20-08
    Posts: 8,384

    Forbes: "Obama smallest gov't spender since Eisenhower"

    Forbes is hardly a liberal rag either.

    Have at it. I offer no comment one way or another. It is interesting.

    Funny, since Reagan in 82----The 2 democrats, Clinton and Obama have the lowest annualized federal spending.

    The Republicans sure like to spend our money.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/


    Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

    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 –


    Last edited by MartinBlank; 07-17-12 at 07:02 PM.

  2. #2
    King Mayan
    STFU AND SQUAT PUTO
    King Mayan's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-22-10
    Posts: 17,714
    Betpoints: 732

    Martin stop bullshiting..

    I heard limbaugh say that Obama has spent more than all presidents combined.. Limbaugh doesn't lie pal..

  3. #3
    MartinBlank
    Going to be a good weekend
    MartinBlank's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-20-08
    Posts: 8,384

    Quote Originally Posted by King Mayan View Post
    Martin stop bullshiting..

    I heard limbaugh say that Obama has spent more than all presidents combined.. Limbaugh doesn't lie pal..
    King---it's all the Oxy's Limbaugh is snorting that has him confused. Give him a small break.
    Points Awarded:

    King Mayan gave MartinBlank 1 SBR Point(s) for this post.


  4. #4
    acl123
    syndicate
    acl123's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-17-11
    Posts: 5,898

    so is the 1.4 including the stimulus?

  5. #5
    iifold
    Update your status
    iifold's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 04-25-10
    Posts: 10,904
    Betpoints: 14

    It's not how much you spend, it's what you spend it on...
    400pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY2nd Place 9/15/2014

    40pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY12th Place 9/18/2014

    600pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY1st Place 9/9/2014


  6. #6
    jarvol
    jarvol's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-13-10
    Posts: 6,020
    Betpoints: 2023

    That is fuzzy math Martin. Sad to see you buy into that nonsense. The technical growth rate of government is irrelevant. Annual national debt and deficit is all that matters.
    Factcheck.org:

    Anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office, and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years.

    That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

    Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: SBR Lou

  7. #7
    GUMMO77
    Žele
    GUMMO77's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 08-23-10
    Posts: 5,108
    Betpoints: 956

    190%? Jezus
    400pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY2nd Place 9/18/2014

    600pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY1st Place 9/5/2014

    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 09/11/2014

    $30
    Charity
    donation 11/11/2013

    150pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY7th Place 9/17/2014

    250pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY4th Place 9/16/2014

    World
    Poker
    Cup 1st place


  8. #8
    MartinBlank
    Going to be a good weekend
    MartinBlank's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-20-08
    Posts: 8,384

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    That is fuzzy math Martin. Sad to see you buy into that nonsense. The technical growth rate of government is irrelevant. Annual national debt and deficit is all that matters.
    Factcheck.org:

    Anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office, and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years.

    That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

    Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.

    Jar...good points.

    But let me ask you this.

    At the time, Reagan ran up ridiculous deficits, why didn't they matter in 1985? But they suddenly matter for Obama?

  9. #9
    The Kraken
    Retirement Nation
    The Kraken's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-24-11
    Posts: 9,014
    Betpoints: 30

    Martin please delete any non-bias, non-right wing Propaganda, completely rational graphs, editorials, blogs or links.

    Thanks pal
    SBR Team
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: stealthyburrito

  10. #10
    jarvol
    jarvol's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-13-10
    Posts: 6,020
    Betpoints: 2023

    Well I was in 1st grade when Reagan got elected so not really sure. To me it is and was unacceptable. Reagan got a pass because under his watch people prospered and people are inherently selfish short term thinkers. Unemployment came down, gas prices came down, interest rates came down, technology advanced, his foreign policy seemed to work after decades of rubbish, and people seemed to feel proud and confident again, etc.

    In my opinion there hasn't been a good president in over a century. Woodrow Wilson started the demise of America and its founding principles and it continues to snowball at an alarming rate. Until Americans demand accountability and begin to realize that the 2 party political system is an abject failure then things will not change for the better.

  11. #11
    MartinBlank
    Going to be a good weekend
    MartinBlank's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-20-08
    Posts: 8,384

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    Well I was in 1st grade when Reagan got elected so not really sure. To me it is and was unacceptable. Reagan got a pass because under his watch people prospered and people are inherently selfish short term thinkers. Unemployment came down, gas prices came down, interest rates came down, technology advanced, his foreign policy seemed to work after decades of rubbish, and people seemed to feel proud and confident again, etc.

    In my opinion there hasn't been a good president in over a century. Woodrow Wilson started the demise of America and its founding principles and it continues to snowball at an alarming rate. Until Americans demand accountability and begin to realize that the 2 party political system is an abject failure then things will not change for the better.
    Then we agree.

    Earlier today I actually posted that I can't believe in a country of 300 million plus Americans----the best we can come up with is Obama and Romney.

    The reason I posted this thread about annualized federal spending is to underscore the silly nature of these political debates.

    Using your response to me, it is clear Obama is spending, but the GOP fans are ignoring GWB's spending, which was greater than Obama's.

    More----the Hannity's, Limbaugh's, Malkin's, George Will's of the world are going crazy over deficits----all the while ignoring or forgetting the fact that Reagan was running up record deficits during his time as well-----and to them, Reagan is a god.

  12. #12
    jarvol
    jarvol's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-13-10
    Posts: 6,020
    Betpoints: 2023

    The GOP and their talking heads are completely delusional frauds and hypocrites when they start talking about fiscal responsibility. Paul Ryan is the only GOP member in DC in years to offer up anything remotely fiscally conservative and responsible and the GOP establishment ran as far away from it as they could. Game, set, match.

  13. #13
    Inkwell77
    Inkwell77's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-03-11
    Posts: 3,120
    Betpoints: 949

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    The GOP and their talking heads are completely delusional frauds and hypocrites when they start talking about fiscal responsibility.
    Spot on. I really am amazed at how many millions of people listen to these jokers.

  14. #14
    statnerds
    Blame Whitey
    statnerds's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-23-09
    Posts: 3,744
    Betpoints: 5397

    so bush is responsible for the bloated budget in 09 passed by a democratic house and senate, the same that failed to pass a budget when barry got into office?

    my bad, i failed to realize that the president wrote and passed the budget by himself with no assistance from Congress. thank you for the insight martin. funny it is based on the final year of bush instead of the first or last 4 year term.

    it is almost as if the data was cherry picked to frame barry in the most flattering light possible.

    man, you libs are going to go off the deep end when romney blows out barry in November...all you dumb crackers that voted for barry the first time are going to be considered racist scum...enjoy.

    SBR
    Resort
    Winner 1,077pts


  15. #15
    ProfitBettingSov
    ProfitBettingSov's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-04-12
    Posts: 619
    Betpoints: 162

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    That is fuzzy math Martin. Sad to see you buy into that nonsense. The technical growth rate of government is irrelevant. Annual national debt and deficit is all that matters.
    Factcheck.org:

    Anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office, and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years.

    That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

    Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.
    That bar-graph is skewed. Obama has only 45% yet his bar is almost neck to neck with Bush's, instead of Clinton's.

  16. #16
    Inkwell77
    Inkwell77's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-03-11
    Posts: 3,120
    Betpoints: 949

    Quote Originally Posted by statnerds View Post
    so bush is responsible for the bloated budget in 09 passed by a democratic house and senate, the same that failed to pass a budget when barry got into office?

    my bad, i failed to realize that the president wrote and passed the budget by himself with no assistance from Congress. thank you for the insight martin. funny it is based on the final year of bush instead of the first or last 4 year term.

    it is almost as if the data was cherry picked to frame barry in the most flattering light possible.

    man, you libs are going to go off the deep end when romney blows out barry in November...all you dumb crackers that voted for barry the first time are going to be considered racist scum...enjoy.
    Ok well then explain 02-05? Who was in congress at that time?
    How again are present day democrats are any worse than present day republicans in terms of fiscal spending?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinBlank View Post



  17. #17
    rsnnh12
    rsnnh12's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-26-10
    Posts: 3,484
    Betpoints: 324

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinBlank View Post
    Jar...good points.

    But let me ask you this.

    At the time, Reagan ran up ridiculous deficits, why didn't they matter in 1985? But they suddenly matter for Obama?
    Two words... Cold War.

    Most of Reagan's increased spending was because of military spending. Non-defense spending stabilized under Reagan (per Milton Friedman). The military had been gutted prior to his administration, so to combat the major threat the USSR posed, military spending had to increase

  18. #18
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 1,480
    Betpoints: 222

    Most of the debt ran up under Reagan was just interest on the debt. He inherited about a 1 trillion debt from Jimmy Carter. Volker had interest rates at over 10% for most of Reagan's first term, and that alone added over $500 billion in his first term.

  19. #19
    Emily_Haines
    East Waterloo, IA
    Emily_Haines's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-14-09
    Posts: 8,715
    Betpoints: 682

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    That is fuzzy math Martin. Sad to see you buy into that nonsense. The technical growth rate of government is irrelevant. Annual national debt and deficit is all that matters.
    Factcheck.org:

    Anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office, and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years.

    That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

    Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.

    but Cheney said deficits don't matter

  20. #20
    MatI
    MatI's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-17-11
    Posts: 5,176
    Betpoints: 3129

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinBlank View Post
    Jar...good points.

    But let me ask you this.

    At the time, Reagan ran up ridiculous deficits, why didn't they matter in 1985? But they suddenly matter for Obama?
    yes, but Reagan wasn't born in Kenya.

    duh.

  21. #21
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    The GOP and their talking heads are completely delusional frauds and hypocrites when they start talking about fiscal responsibility. Paul Ryan is the only GOP member in DC in years to offer up anything remotely fiscally conservative and responsible and the GOP establishment ran as far away from it as they could. Game, set, match.
    You mean Paul Ryan, the chair of the House Budget Committee, the guy who writes the budget that GOP attempts to pass but goes no where? That thing is far from fiscally conservative, unless by fiscally conservative you mean a non-balanced budget that only even comes close to balance(and by close I mean within 300 billion of balanced) if you assume 50% growth in receipts in 2017 compared to 2012(and this doesn't include the revenue lost from taxing the wealthy at a lower rate, so for instance if someone made 100k before, and were taxed at 30% for 30k, now they make 100k but are taxed at 20% they only pay 20k, in order to get 50% growth that person would need to not make 150k to get 50% growth in tax revenue they would need to make 225k or over double what they did before, you also make up some of this by taxing the poor more, but you'd still need a ton of growth)

    The Ryan's budget calls for zero net negative spending over the next 4 years. That is to say federal government spending in 2017 under his plan is no less than it is in 2012. It calls for an increase in federal defense/military spending. The way that it purports to even come close balancing the budget is through massive tax rate cuts that it says will cause enough growth to offset the loss in revenue from having lower rates.

    http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfile...perity2013.pdf

    Page 88, look at the budget projections, somehow we will spend more each year but our revenue will skyrocket. Must be a wonderful world to live in where you think cutting taxing on the rich(while it will promote growth) and raising taxes on the poor will lead to a 50% growth in tax receipts 4 years from now.

    Or is your argument instead that Paul Ryan's previous budget plans are somehow much different than this year's incarnation?
    Last edited by Shaudius; 07-17-12 at 09:00 PM.

  22. #22
    Emily_Haines
    East Waterloo, IA
    Emily_Haines's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-14-09
    Posts: 8,715
    Betpoints: 682

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    You mean Paul Ryan, the chair of the House Budget Committee, the guy who writes the budget that GOP attempts to pass but goes no where? That thing is far from fiscally conservative, unless by fiscally conservative you mean a non-balanced budget that only even comes close to balance if you assume 50% growth in receipts in 2017 compared to 2012(and this doesn't include the revenue lost from taxing the wealthy at a lower rate, so for instance if someone made 100k before, and were taxed at 30% for 30k, now they make 100k but are taxed at 20% they only pay 20k, in order to get 50% growth that person would need to not make 150k to get 50% growth in tax revenue they would need to make 225k or over double what they did before, you also make up some of this by taxing the poor more, but you'd still need a ton of growth)

    The Ryan's budget calls for zero net negative spending over the next 4 years. That is to say federal government spending in 2017 under his plan is no less than it is in 2012. It calls for an increase in federal defense/military spending. The way that it purports to even come close balancing the budget is through massive tax rate cuts that it says will cause enough growth to offset the loss in revenue from having lower rates.

    http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfile...perity2013.pdf

    Page 88, look at the budget projections, somehow we will spend more each year but our revenue will skyrocket. Must be a wonderful world to live in where you think cutting taxing on the rich(while it will promote growth) and raising taxes on the poor will lead to a 50% growth in tax receipts 4 years from now.
    Ryan is you typical GOP piece of trash. He thinks everyone but the military and police should be the ones to take cut to their benefits. Then to top it all off he has an outright hatred for the poor wanting to cut aid to every program. Also for a clown that runs his whole platform on being physically conservative, why has he done everything he possibly can do to make sure the mandatory cuts to defense spending are not enacted?

  23. #23
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 6,146
    Betpoints: 168

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    The GOP and their talking heads are completely delusional frauds and hypocrites when they start talking about fiscal responsibility. Paul Ryan is the only GOP member in DC in years to offer up anything remotely fiscally conservative and responsible and the GOP establishment ran as far away from it as they could. Game, set, match.
    i hate to break it to you but the Ryan plan is an absolute fraud. it raised the deficit een more. When u ask him what cuts are u gonna make he say's we are gonna close loopholes. When u press this prick he has no answers. His budget blows.

  24. #24
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 6,146
    Betpoints: 168

    i guess i should read the whole thread before i respond

  25. #25
    icancount2one
    Let's go NickFolian Dynamite!
    icancount2one's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-05-10
    Posts: 1,507
    Betpoints: 571

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Most of the debt ran up under Reagan was just interest on the debt. He inherited about a 1 trillion debt from Jimmy Carter. Volker had interest rates at over 10% for most of Reagan's first term, and that alone added over $500 billion in his first term.
    Many neglect to mention that stagflation was the direct result of Nixon's open trade with China, seeing it's worst impacts in the Ford administration. I think Carter and Reagan tie in doing **** all to fix it, though Reagan's evisceration of the unions could be considered a contributing factor in the late 80s, early 90s recession. Republicans held office for all but 4 years of the lagging post-industrial, pre-tech economy, and yet somehow people manage to find a way to pin it all on good guy Jimmy.

    How much you can credit Clinton-Gore with the tech boom, I don't know, but you can certainly lay the de-industrialization of America directly at the feet or Nixon and Reagan.

    Also, if you are willing to put the Reagan-Bush recessions on Carter, despite having 12 years combined, can you cut Obama some slack for the current state of economic affairs?

  26. #26
    icancount2one
    Let's go NickFolian Dynamite!
    icancount2one's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-05-10
    Posts: 1,507
    Betpoints: 571

    To sum up the thread:

    The only thing worse than a "tax-and-spend" Democrat is a "Don't-tax-but-keep-spending-anyway" Republican.
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: ChalkyDog

  27. #27
    ttrace35
    ttrace35's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-30-10
    Posts: 10,279
    Betpoints: 150

    You can go on microsoft excel and make a bar graph say whatever the fukk you want it to.

  28. #28
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 11,952
    Betpoints: 852

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Most of the debt ran up under Reagan was just interest on the debt. He inherited about a 1 trillion debt from Jimmy Carter. Volker had interest rates at over 10% for most of Reagan's first term, and that alone added over $500 billion in his first term.
    Hmm. I wonder if that's what happened to Obama...

  29. #29
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 11,952
    Betpoints: 852

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    That is fuzzy math Martin. Sad to see you buy into that nonsense. The technical growth rate of government is irrelevant. Annual national debt and deficit is all that matters.
    Factcheck.org:

    Anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office, and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years.

    That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

    Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.
    LOL @ this post.

    First, please learn the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt.

    Second, nice graph. Why doesn't it show bars graphed by PERCENTAGE INCREASE rather than TOTAL? I'll give you one guess.

    Reagan - 190%
    GHWB - 52%
    GWB - 86%

    Clinton - 37%
    Obama - 45%

    LMAO.

  30. #30
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 11,952
    Betpoints: 852

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvol View Post
    The GOP and their talking heads are completely delusional frauds and hypocrites when they start talking about fiscal responsibility. Paul Ryan is the only GOP member in DC in years to offer up anything remotely fiscally conservative and responsible and the GOP establishment ran as far away from it as they could. Game, set, match.
    Hmm. Wasn't sure where you were going with that graph...

    I hate both parties, but I hate the Republicans more. They posture for many issues that I agree with but never carry them out. The hypocrisies in both parties are there for a reason - to divide the American populace and create infighting while the wool is pulled over their eyes. Seems to be pretty successful.

  31. #31
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 1,480
    Betpoints: 222

    Quote Originally Posted by icancount2one View Post
    Many neglect to mention that stagflation was the direct result of Nixon's open trade with China, seeing it's worst impacts in the Ford administration. I think Carter and Reagan tie in doing **** all to fix it, though Reagan's evisceration of the unions could be considered a contributing factor in the late 80s, early 90s recession. Republicans held office for all but 4 years of the lagging post-industrial, pre-tech economy, and yet somehow people manage to find a way to pin it all on good guy Jimmy.

    How much you can credit Clinton-Gore with the tech boom, I don't know, but you can certainly lay the de-industrialization of America directly at the feet or Nixon and Reagan.

    Also, if you are willing to put the Reagan-Bush recessions on Carter, despite having 12 years combined, can you cut Obama some slack for the current state of economic affairs?
    Stagflation had nothing to do with open trade, and a lot more to do with Arthur Burns' easy money policies. The 90-91 Recession had nothing to do with union busting, it is just a normal part of the business cycle. We've never had more than 10 years in this country without a recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    Hmm. I wonder if that's what happened to Obama...
    No, interest rates have been record low under Obama. If he had interest rates like Reagan did, we would have around 4 trillion more on the debt.

  32. #32
    indio
    .
    indio's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-03-11
    Posts: 384
    Betpoints: 1609

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinBlank View Post
    Forbes is hardly a liberal rag either.

    Have at it. I offer no comment one way or another. It is interesting.

    Funny, since Reagan in 82----The 2 democrats, Clinton and Obama have the lowest annualized federal spending.

    The Republicans sure like to spend our money.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/


    Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

    Its 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


    And yet, here is the same Forbes magazine calling Obama the biggest spender in world history

    www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0716/capital-flows-financial-budget-obama-biggest-spender-history.htlm


    Trying to portray Obama, (who is trying to turn this country into a socialist federally run economy) as thrifty is ridiculous. You show a graph without any context, which is typical. The Bush gang was a disaster with almost everything they did, including runaway spending, and Obama is doing the same thing, and guess what? if Romney wins, he'll do the same thing to. Why? BECAUSE THESE PRESIDENTS AND VIABLE CANDIDATES ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME PEOPLE.

    We have people on this thread debating which party spent more in power, but no one seems to mention that EVERY administration spent more than the previous one. Just because it might increase at a slower percentage is meaningless, THEY ARE ALWAYS INCREASES. Why? Because the interest on fiat money and the devaluation of the dollar happens so rapidly now, that every 4 years sees an increase in federal spending.

    Clinton spent too. Don't buy in to the farce that he and Gingrich balanced the budget, because they used a simple accounting trick of using Social Security funds as assets against debts (which is not how it's supposed to be done). Bush Sr spent a lot., and certainly Reagan did too.

    If you want to see a chart that actually means something, look at the value of a dollar in ten year increments from 1830 to 1900 (exempt 1862-1866 when Lincoln introduced US Notes to fund the war). Check on how stable it was. Then look at the value of the dollar in ten year increments from 1915 to today (Federal Reserve and Income taxes created in 1913). Americans have been robbed by a private gang of banksters, power brokers, and financiers who are essentially loan sharks who look for any type of product they can finance that the public will go along with ( wars, energy, welfare and entitlements, social security, medicare,) and they make money by creating it out of thin air, lending it to the US Govt. charging interest on it,getting it back with interest, paying it back to the treasury, who then hands it out to defense contractors, mortgage companies, government agencies and payroll, unemployment, benefits, etc..) and what do all these people who get government checks do with the money? They deposit in the banks who created it in the first place, and they lend it out in car loans, crdt crds, etc... Ask yourself, in a free society, isn't odd that almost everything you buy is bought on credit, that things not credit related such as job applications or rental applications want to check your credit? Why is it that Homeland Securities terrorist watch list includes people paying for things in cash as suspicious activity?

    Jefferson warned us of the danger of ever letting the regulation of money get into private hands. Rothschild famously said "give me control of a nations money, and i care not who makes its laws". Andrew Jackson fought and succeeded in stopping a central bank from being created, and said it was the most important battle he ever won. We avoided it for 70 years until the late 1890's brought a gang together who was able to pull it off with the help of Aldrich and Wilson, and Baruch, and Col. House, and Schiff, and Rockefeller, and Warburg, and Morgan, and Rothschild, and a whole slew of devious rats. And their offspring and circle have been running things to some degree ever since.

  33. #33
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 11,952
    Betpoints: 852

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    No, interest rates have been record low under Obama. If he had interest rates like Reagan did, we would have around 4 trillion more on the debt.
    That wasn't what I was getting at...

    Whether interest rates are low or not, there is still a massive amount of interest accumulating on the debt that GWB ran up.

  34. #34
    ChalkyDog
    Buy the ticket, take the ride.
    ChalkyDog's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 10-02-11
    Posts: 9,429
    Betpoints: 1820

    Quote Originally Posted by icancount2one View Post
    To sum up the thread:

    The only thing worse than a "tax-and-spend" Democrat is a "Don't-tax-but-keep-spending-anyway" Republican.
    Very well said.

    Tax the American people, and pay for things instead of just adding the cost to the debt, or don't tax the people and add money to the debt.

    Repubs want a free lunch as much as, and in some cases more than, any democrat.

  35. #35
    PAULYPOKER
    Nobody here gonna be splitting the atom
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 25,530

    Yea! deem not change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty............................

123 Last
Top