Obama spending vs. Republican spending

Doofus, the pres has subitted three budgets that not even one democrat woud vote for. The all went down 99 to 0. Originally Posted by rodog44

You are really going to Piss him off with the Truth....Fuckem

You can't confuse Doofe with facts. They simply don't register for him. It's an advanced case of Obamania.

Please note that in the other thread on the same topic, Doove claimed that in this thread he "debunked" what I said in post #14 with a post (#12) that he made prior to mine!

He never answered my last post. Since he was the thread-starter, no one is going to believe that he didn't read it.

Let the record show that Doove shrunk from the debate like a cowardly little weasel.

Please note that in the other thread on the same topic, Doove claimed that in this thread he "debunked" what I said in post #14 with a post (#12) that he made prior to mine! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

No, i mentioned that i debunked your post #10 with my post #12, and your post #14 was not worth responding to since it was little more than an incoherent non-sequitur. Or "nothing". I think we had this discussion already. You seem to have a thing for revisiting prior discussions long after they're forgotten.

Let the record show that Doove shrunk from the debate like a cowardly little weasel.

And let the record show that Doove pointed out that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

No, i mentioned that i debunked your post #10 with my post #12, and your post #14 was not worth responding to since it was little more than an incoherent non-sequitur. Or "nothing". Originally Posted by Doove

It would be quite entertaining to see Doove try to explain exactly what he thinks he "debunked" in post #12. His post rose to a level of incoherence matched by few non sequiturs. In fact, it's embarrassingly cringeworthy!


Let's take a look at what he said in that post:

Fair point. Then let's expand our horizon a little and look at the 2 Reagan terms and first Bush term, and then look at the 2 Bush terms and the first Obama term. 3 terms under Reagan/Bush? 19% increase. 3 Terms under Bush/Obama? 16.8% increase. So Obama is clearly not the only President who "started with a high base". Originally Posted by Doove

Wow! Incoherence on steroids.

Where did the 19% and 16.8% numbers come from? Doove simply added up the average annual increases for the two sets of consecutive 4-year periods in question. That gives you a number that doesn't have anything to do with anything, and shows that he has absolutely no clue about how sets of data points are compiled and analyzed. It's not even a representation of the total increase over the full time period, as anyone who has taken even the most elementary math courses obviously knows. What the hell has happened to the educational system in this country?

It's hilarious to see an obnoxious, ignorant fool who suffers from a severe case of innumeracy throw around numbers he doesn't understand in an effort to make a point concerning an issue that has him totally bamboozled.

Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing that Doove did not score 800 on the quant section of the GRE.

Where did the 19% and 16.8% numbers come from? Doove simply added up the average annual increases for the two sets of consecutive 4-year periods in question. That gives you a number that doesn't have anything to do with anything, Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

After reading it again, i see you are correct!

But my overall point, that Obama is not the only President who started with a high base, is still confirmed by even the correct reading of the data.

And nothing you've said has refuted that.

And beyond that, i've got $1000 that says you voted for Bush. Twice. Review those numbers, and if i win the bet, your gripes about the guy i voted for makes you a hypocrite. But then, that would be nothing new.

Douchee just got his ASS handed to him. LOL

Douchee just got his ASS handed to him. LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

And i'm sure i don't have to tell you what that feels like.

Parse it however you want; the fact is that in the last 30 years, the closest we've come to anything resembling fiscal sanity has been under Clinton and Obama. Originally Posted by Doove

While Slick Willie did leave office with a budget surplus much to my surprise he also was the driving force behind repeal of Glass-Steagall was he not? Then he had the unmitigated gall to claim that the resulting greed fest wasn't his fault. technically he was right IF you believe all he did was open the fence to the hen house so the foxes could eat the chickens. go figure. and this from a lying asshole who argued in true lawyer (disbarred) fashion what the defintion of the word is .. is. i argued tooth and nail against libs that YES IT DOES MATTER THAT THE SITTING PRESIDENT IS A LIAR about his bj from Monica. if you are the President your credibility does matter.

and if you think Obama the Illegal Socialist Manchurian Candidate Mulatto II knows dogshit about fiscal policy then you are a ... joker. he is the Webster's definition of a tax-and-spend liberal socialist.

And beyond that, i've got $1000 that says you voted for Bush. Twice. Originally Posted by Doove

Nope. Didn't even vote for him once, let alone twice.

After reading it again, i see you are correct!


But my overall point, that Obama is not the only President who started with a high base, is still confirmed by even the correct reading of the data.


And nothing you've said has refuted that. Originally Posted by Doove

Good grief! Do some people actually receive pleasure from reveling in their ignorance?

As I pointed out, and the linked articles pointed out, FY2009 included hundreds of billions of dollars of spending intended to get the economy through a crisis. There is no other pair of consecutive peacetime fiscal years for which the spending increase over the prior year even remotely approached that of 2008-2009. If you had made an effort to comprehend what I posted before, instead of stupidly calling it an "incoherent non sequitur", you would realize that.

Seriously, please make an effort to learn something about this issue before posting again.

Good grief! Do some people actually receive pleasure from reveling in their ignorance?

As I pointed out, and the linked articles pointed out, FY2009 included hundreds of billions of dollars of spending intended to get the economy through a crisis. There is no other pair of consecutive peacetime fiscal years for which the spending increase over the prior year even remotely approached that of 2008-2009. If you had made an effort to comprehend what I posted before, instead of stupidly calling it an "incoherent non sequitur", you would realize that.

Seriously, please make an effort to learn something about this issue before posting again. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Perhaps you should tell that to the author of the article.

"If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars)."

I get the high base thing. My point is that starting from a "high base" is not only a subjective defense, but it's not a new phenomena.

Perhaps given your brilliance on the matter, you can fill us in on what Obama's annualized spending growth would be if, all else being equal, there was no TARP to create that high base. I'm guessing it would still be under 4%. But then, i'm just stupid.

While Slick Willie did leave office with a budget surplus much to my surprise he also was the driving force behind repeal of Glass-Steagall was he not?



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

About that BS, are you for free markets are not?

That was the argument at the time.

That is the argument now.

Are you for tougher banking regulations?

Next that was not the only thing that led to this....Had AIG not been able yo insure this subprime crap, none of these loans would have been made.

Do you understand how important a point that is?

Glass-Steagall was like a bathtub and shower. Clinton let the investment bankers in with the banks to take baths ( and for the record it was mostly Alan Greenspan that pushed this deregulation thur).

About that BS, are you for free markets are not?

That was the argument at the time.

That is the argument now.

Are you for tougher banking regulations?

No, but i'm not for unregulated greedfests either.

Next that was not the only thing that led to this....Had AIG not been able yo insure this subprime crap, none of these loans would have been made.

what we really learned is that people with insufficient income couldn't really afford a house. Who knew?


Do you understand how important a point that is?

Glass-Steagall was like a bathtub and shower. Clinton let the investment bankers in with the banks to take baths ( and for the record it was mostly Alan Greenspan that pushed this deregulation thur).

i take a bath once a week in my cement pond, Jed. and my cement pond does have a drain.
by the way how can you say in the same paragraph that Clinton let the investment bankers in but it was Greenspan who pushed it through? make up your mind dude.

But the tub had an overflow on it. The overflow was supposed to get rid of applicants that really could not afford a mortgage. They had no business in the tub. AIG insuring shitty mortgages was like plugging up the overflow valve. Clinton had nothing to do with that, that happened in 2004 or there about.

Everybody in the investment industry was making money on this bogus BS. All done under Bush. Not that it was really his fault, who wants to pull the plug on a booming economy? So you fire your Treasury Secretary (Snow) and listen to Greenspan when he tell you these bright Wall Street guys have figured out a way to take out the risk of home mortgages.


Those guys should be in prison, yet we continue to give them free money with this QE crap!

QE aka Quantitative Easing is the Fed's way of playing interest rate games.

Originally Posted by WTF

and finally about Glass-Steagall i say this:

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

George Santayana

in a relatively new and therefore unregulated market, the greedfest leading up to the 1929 stock market crash prompted Glass-steagall. in less than 10 years post repeal history repeated itself. Go figure.

Regardless of who is responsible for the spending, it is still going up. Was $10 trillion at the end of Bush's term, and will be $15 trillion this year. Congress and the President have to quit spending.

Perhaps you should tell that to the author of the article. Originally Posted by Doove

No need for me to do that.

Others have publicly debunked Rex Nutting's disingenuous nonsense.

For example:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...ng-gets-b.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/th...spending-binge