|
| A bit of truthiness for you:
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an "inferno" of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children's future. But it didn't happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s. Over Obama's four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Read more at the link if you want to understand. |
Here is a link that might be useful: source
Follow-Up Postings:
|
| What!?.... A 0.4% INCREASE !?!?!?!? Why that Drunken Sailor! |
|
| The Filthy Socialist |
|
| Had he increased spending at the same rate as Reagan, and on the right projects, we might not have the lingering economic problems. Insufficient stimulus spending does no one any good, as the Europeans are now or soon will be finding out. |
|
| Thanks, esh. I've posted that info on some threads in the past (never its own thread). It got no attention at all. Those that will vote for Romney and continually say it's because someone has to get spending under control just won't believe it. No matter how many statistics you give them, Obama is responsible for the defecit because of his wild spending habits. Go figure. People believe what they want to believe. Interestingly, I was at my son's baseball game last night and one of the dads on the team started talking to me about politics. Very strange because I NEVER talk politics with people who I hardly know (except here, of course) and I certainly didn't start the conversation. But, he started telling me how he's voted Republican his entire life but he cannot stomach the republican party anymore and will be voting for Obama. Maybe he read the facts! |
|
- Posted by bird_lover6 (My Page) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 13:57
| The only way you can come up with that is if you assign the entire first year's budget of his administration to Bush, which is highly misleading. They both spent like drunken sailors. Being more in the middle, I can consider both candidates, but at the moment, I sure can't consider both parties, so by default, I'll be voting for Obama again. |
|
- Posted by lavenderlver none (My Page) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 14:21
| Thank you for posting this! |
|
- Posted by brushworks Zone5-Ohio (My Page) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 14:52
| It's always nice to review and get more information that pertains to the misleading OP here. Why didn't it happen? "By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate." The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. |
Here is a link that might be useful: More Information Please
|
| Yep, brush, you gotta click on the link to get more details. And I said that in the OP. |
|
- Posted by brushworks Zone5-Ohio (My Page) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 15:00
| Of course. Those omissions can easily mislead others down the wrong path. :) |
|
| The fact is - IN THE END - Obama's spending is low compared to other administrations. He may not be the one that wanted it that way, but in the end, that is the result. |
|
| Am I the only person noticing the stats on those tax and spend Democrats? In all Democratic administrations spending increased at a much lower rate? Why do Republicans vote Republican to cut spending. I can see if it is some other ideology at play but most people say it is spending????? |
|
- Posted by bill_vincent Central Maine (billvincent@hotmail.com) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 15:19
| I can see if it is some other ideology at play but most people say it is spending????? If I were going to vote based on the candidate not spending money unnecessarily, I wouldn't vote. Both parties are corporately owned. As for Obama not spending any money. I read it here, so it MUST be true. Of course, I've read just the opposite from BOTH sides for the last three years, so what now, chief? |
|
| Exactly Pat, each repub prez ups the spending and cuts taxes, and yet they expect to lower the Fed Debt?????????? Why repub voters keep falling for that krap is beyond sanity. The Ryan plan balances the budget by the year 2040 and they seem happy with that???? No outcry from the tea party??? |
|
| This chart needs to be made into a campaign ad for Obama. Maybe the illiterate who don't read papers will see it. I've seen this on MSNBC. Bet you will NEVER see it on Faux. |
|
| It's like the Faux "truth" that Obama goes around the world apologizing. It was refreshing to watch Colon Powell correct Hannity on that stupid lie. Apparently the repubs have nothing else to run on other than lies, their past record is too horrible to run on, thus the amnesia pandemic. And Romney as Prez? OMG, what a strange dude, too quirky, too lame, too much sketchaphrenia to inspire anything but....I'm out of words to describe the result.... |
|
| Of course, I've read just the opposite from BOTH sides for the last three years, so what now, chief? Well you have figure out which one is telling the truth. |
|
| Okay so the only reason Obama did not "binge" spend is because of the fiscally conservative republicans, soooooooo why did the fiscally conservative republican presidents spend so much more ?? I am so confused in cleveland :) |
|
- Posted by brushworks Zone5-Ohio (My Page) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 21:45
| That's what the man who created the chart said. |
|
- Posted by bill_vincent Central Maine (billvincent@hotmail.com) on Thu, May 24, 12 at 23:57
| Well you have figure out which one is telling the truth. That might be tough-- are the Republicans AND Democrats telling the truth, or is Obama's spin doctor? Not sure about this one. |
|
| Happpy that Boehner didn't get his pet project for redundant F35 jet engines (fiscal irresponsibility at it's finest from another fiscal phony) $6.5 billion in defense cuts for wasteful projects like that. The Pentagon didn't want them either. $61 Billion cut from defense spending depending on who you read. The folks over at Koch say he increased spending while racist Brent Bozell s CNS news says the defense cuts weakened the Nation which part of the right is lying one says he increased spending the other (he looks like a skinny ghetto crackhead) says he's weakened the nation with these cuts. The right morons can't both be right! In this cas Brent Bozell has more that proven he's a moron. "skinny ghetto crackhead" was stated on Fox by Bozell Dec 2011 |
|
| Here's that chart again and the corresponding deceptive chart (grin):
|
|
| Just because Obama's first term has saddled Americans with another $5 TRILLION in debt doesn't mean HE had anything to do with it! Silly Americans. |
|
- Posted by maddie_athome (My Page) on Fri, May 25, 12 at 9:24
| Of the countless lies told by the Republicans, the deficit-lie is one of their biggest if not the biggest. As a reminder, we had a thread on it August last year, debunking the out-of-control-spending lie. Not that it did stop the math challenged parrots--they keep repeating the lie. Bob Cesca brings the numbers: The Truth About The President And The Deficit The Truth About The President And The Deficit - Part 2
|
|
| Nik, what Obama expenditures saddled Americans with an additional $5 trillion in debt that was not already in the works based on Bush's 2009 budget and war spending? |
|
| "Just because Obama's first term has saddled Americans with another $5 TRILLION in debt doesn't mean HE had anything to do with it! Silly Americans. It took Clinton 2 terms to finally balance the Reagan/Bush era of massive spending and deficits.....but wait, he did have a bit saner repub congress to work with...yes I feel your presence Mrskjun ;o) |
|
| Explaining how a cut is an increase is a decrease might be an increase is about as honest/rigged as the 3 card Monty street dealers. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Hot Topics Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.