Some day.. you'll come to your senses, and realize I am right.

[Sam Fisher]

Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.

From NPR via the Weekly Standard:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That’s a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!

But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

If you want to argue that Bush looks bad, fine. Bush looks bad. But Obama looks positively vile.

By the way... Clinton's was 4 Billion a day, and Reagan's was 2.5 Billion a day.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress...s-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

 

[Straight Shooter]

Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.

From NPR via the Weekly Standard:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That’s a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!

But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

If you want to argue that Bush looks bad, fine. Bush looks bad. But Obama looks positively vile.

By the way... Clinton's was 4 Billion a day, and Reagan's was 2.5 Billion a day.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress...s-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

Contrary to what the GOP will say, spending has leveled off during Obama. Politifact has confirmed this as mostly true
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/

 

[Johan]

I'm outta here!

all good things come to an end...

 

[Mayhem]

Aaaand we're back. Not Sam but the whole, "let's forget that Obama took office during a financial crisis" game plan. The GOP has it down to a science.

When the Credit Crunch started, financial analysts were predicting that it was going to last 10 years and be as bad as the Great Depression. Neither prediction has come close to panning out, even though it's been a rough few years (for myself also).

Obama has done well. Maybe not as well as we would like, but as well as could be expected.

Romney gives me no reason but to believe he will drastically harm what prgress we have made. And he gives me no reason not to believe that he will wind up fiddling while Wall St. burns. In other words, the damage will come from self-serving financial manipulators rather than the President having a clear understanding of his own policies.

And Sam....don't pretend to know anything about the deficit or what any of these numbers mean.

 

[bobjustbob]

Sam, you're back! Holy shit! I haven't read anything in this post but welcome back. HEY FELLAS, SAM'S BACK.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

 

[C.K. Lawrence]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that article a year old.

 

[knowone]

This thread title reminds me of the Goldwater slogan "In your heart you know he's right"
and the response "In your guts you know he's nuts!"

 

[PirateKing]

Didn't you already post a thread exactly like this, fuckhead?

 

[DJCowboy]

Contrary to what the GOP will say, spending has leveled off during Obama. Politifact has confirmed this as mostly true
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/

View attachment 212956

^ This

 

[lurkingdirk]

Didn't you already post a thread exactly like this, fuckhead?

Stop with the name calling, twat-hole.

 

[PirateKing]

Stop with the name calling, twat-hole.

I understand, you strive to remain unbiased and reasonable regardless of the douchebag. I love and hate that about you, you dingle berry licking cockwad.


Sam is still a fuckhead btw, and there is no justice.

 

[lurkingdirk]

I understand, you strive to remain unbiased and reasonable regardless of the douchebag. I love and hate that about you, you dingle berry licking cockwad.


Sam is still a fuckhead btw, and there is no justice.

DBLC, for short, thanks.

 

[xfire]

Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.

From NPR via the Weekly Standard:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That’s a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!

But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

If you want to argue that Bush looks bad, fine. Bush looks bad. But Obama looks positively vile.

By the way... Clinton's was 4 Billion a day, and Reagan's was 2.5 Billion a day.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress...s-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

And yet, you still don't understand a damn thing you read. Fucking hell, I'm surprised you can even read at all, but hey, at least that gives pause for hope, too bad I'm a fucking pessimist.

What you posted totally concurs with http://www.reaganbushdebt.org and http://www.zfacts.com

Try to comprehend the root causes of the the debt to begin with. Deficit spending after World War II started with Reagan, continued with Bush, was curtailed the last couple of years of Clinton, and went balls-to-the-fucking-wall with George W. Bush. Those are facts, the lions share of "Obama debt" is directly attributable to the policies of Reagan/Bush/Bush. Some day you could take your head out of your ass, but again, I'm a pessimist and don't see that happening.

 

[Johan]

Contrary to what the GOP will say, spending has leveled off during Obama. Politifact has confirmed this as mostly true
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/
s
View attachment 212956

You would have noticed that 1) each time a Democrat comes to power, the growth goes slower 2) Thee slowest growth with a Republican président is still higher than the fastest growth with a Democrat.

 

[StanScratch]

W is the guy in the bar who buys a whole bunch of drinks that he says will be good for everyone, shares a little sip with everyone then leaves with the rest of the booze after paying a fraction of the bill. Congress is the bartender, who states that those guys W should not pay the tab, or else they will not share the rest of the booze, then states that everyone else in the bar will pay the tab. Obama is the guy who was standing behind W when he made the order. Sam is the guy bitching because Obama just stuck everyone with Bush's tab.

 

[Mayhem]

 

[bobjustbob]

Back in early high school I bought How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff and I still own this book. Ever since those covered wagon days I can never look at a chart or graph with any sense of believing it. For every chart you can make I can make 10. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. We can all see through them. Every time I see one pop up on the board it's wabbit season.

Bob

 

[Rey C.]

Back in early high school I bought How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff and I still own this book. Ever since those covered wagon days I can never look at a chart or graph with any sense of believing it. For every chart you can make I can make 10. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. We can all see through them. Every time I see one pop up on the board it's wabbit season.

Bob

While it's true that some statistics are invalid (because the data set used to construct them is not valid, or possibly the mathematical formulas are not correct), in my experience, it is more common that statistics are seen as "lies" because they are often used by those who don't understand the issue at hand (people like Sam), and they misrepresent the statistics to make some ideological point. Statistics are simply mathematical constructions. And one thing that I like about math is that it doesn't lie. But people? People lie all the time. And it seems, the more ignorant they are, the more they will lie.

I saw in our conversation about the auto bailouts that Fisher wasn't very well versed in math, business or bankruptcy law (among other things). So what he tends to do is find some morsel of data, that someone else has used to make a point that he happens to agree with. And then he makes a post, like in this OP, claiming that he is just chocked full of wisdom. It's doubtful that he has any more basic understanding of what he tends to post than the average child would. A well trained chimp can copy & paste... but he wouldn't be able to interpret or explain what he's posted either. Most (learned) people, when trying to make comparisons such as this, would use percentages or ratios, not raw numbers. This is why we typically see things like the defense budget, and other federal spending, represented as a percentage of GDP... not in $/day terms or whatever. By doing it that way, one can make more valid comparisons to other nations, and even other time periods, without the results seeming skewed.

It's done that way in business too. Although raw numbers are sometimes given too, which do you typically hear: "Apple's earnings grew by $5 million/day" or "Apple's earnings grew by 14% year over year"???

 

[bobjustbob]

Rey, you got it in your firsrt paragraph. Statistics don't lie, people do. Some statistics are made from polls. Ask 1000 people and here are the result so God spoken truth.

Just listen to this clip from the Stern show for the first 4 minutes. If anyone from the left or right can't laugh at this they are gagging on a dick.

Bob