Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As much as you like to say that you don't like rats ass, you're being questioned on it given the evidence of what you've been putting out in the open, and out of your rear: Hence the question: Why you believe democrats didn't support Obama's proposal?
What part of my argument challenging your ability to comprehend arguments and numbers did you understand? The least you should be able to do is to not assume a presentation of revenue or spending as a percentage of GDP as a solution. Learn to use numbers the way they are intended. Learn to speak for self.
By 7th grade, you know better.
Because EVERYONE OF THEM VOTED NO.. I dont know where the hell you live, but people dont vote NO for something they support.
Change your name!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What is this thread about?
Its clearly not about why Democrats didnt support a budget proposal Obama sent them, but hey, I'll ask you another question I know you wont answer.
If the Democrats did support the massive spending increases Obama proposed, then hell the hell can then now say they slowed government growth in spending? You are now arguing against the premice of the thread by saying Democrats wanted to support the Obama massive budgets.. histerial..
Trust me, these two aren't really idiots to be unaware of that. It is sheer hatred that drives them into such argument. It is also why they won't answer a simple question based on the premise they presented and keep babbling about. That pretty much summarizes the opposition.
I assumed you were smart enough to figure out that you dont vote for something you support.
Frankly, I don't have the time, right now, to go back over the numbers.
I can tell you the numbers, they took all federal spending for 2009 up to october 1st and claimed Bush spent it, including most of the stimulus bill signed into law with the exception of $140B.
Completely asinine to do such a thing but liberals fall for it over, and over, and over.
Democrats trying to re-write history again I see..
Lets try another chart.. Federal spending as a % of GDP
Hey OP, tell me how Obama spent in order to save the economy on one thread, and on another you claim he didn't spend.
Barrack Hussein Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law on March 12, 2009 and long after "W" left DC.
"Bush never saw a FY 2009 budget. The Democratic Congress waited until Obama had been sworn in to pass a budget, and he signed the FY 2009 budget on March 12 of that year. Bush had nothing to do with it. The stimulus funds were added on top of the regular appropriations for FY 2009; Bush had nothing to do with that, either."
Barrack Hussein Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law on March 12, 2009 and long after "W" left DC.
"Bush never saw a FY 2009 budget. The Democratic Congress waited until Obama had been sworn in to pass a budget, and he signed the FY 2009 budget on March 12 of that year. Bush had nothing to do with it. The stimulus funds were added on top of the regular appropriations for FY 2009; Bush had nothing to do with that, either."
Yep, and these left wingers give almost all of the stimulus bill cost, and assign it to Bush.. All but $140B.. Every single piece of Obama spending from 2009, up to the first of October.. they attribute to Bush spending..
And liberals wonder why they get laughed at constantly. They cant even post factual figures without outright lying about them, and then others come along and try to claim they are correct..
Yep, and these left wingers give almost all of the stimulus bill cost, and assign it to Bush.. All but $140B.. Every single piece of Obama spending from 2009, up to the first of October.. they attribute to Bush spending..
And liberals wonder why they get laughed at constantly. They cant even post factual figures without outright lying about them, and then others come along and try to claim they are correct..
Agreed. This whole "Obama has flattened federal spending" is an insane election tactic designed to "convince" the American public that Obama is not a wild spender. It is truely shocking that the libs can attempt to propagate a lie to this degree. However, one should probably not be shocked at this is an old Stalinist technique of re-creating history for political expedience.
Obama is in deep political trouble and will lose the election in a landslide. The desperation of the libs is increasing on a daily basis. The only way the dems could win the election would be to dump Obama and run Hillary. At least she would have a relatively "clean slate". However, Obama's record is so terrible that one simply cannot defend any of it without creating fanciful distortions of fact.
Percentage change in spending, or rate of spending? PLEASE!
Why are you using percentages? Why not use actual dollar figures?
If the federal government spent $5 in 2008, and then spent $10 in 2009, Then spending doubled. If Obama comes in and raises spending from $10 to $18, then it only grew 80%, but he still raised spending more than the last guy.
Our federal spending isn't denominated in percentages, it's in dollars.
Why are you using percentages? Why not use actual dollar figures?
Even the percentages arent even close. The budget has grown from about $3.1T, to $3.8T since Obama was elected, which is about 7% a year, but they claim 1.4%.. The only way they can get it to 1.4%, is to say Bush is responsible for not only all of the 2009 spending, up to October, but also all of the Obama stimulus bill, with the exception of $140B of it. Then they of course wine that the GOP is stopping additional spending, but then they take responsibility for being fiscially responsible. Utter bs.
The fundamental flaw in that assessment is that the deficit spending increased about 3X his first year which they are assigning to Bush, fair enough. The flaw is that huge deficit spending continues, as a percentage it hasn't grown much but that doesn't change the fact it's 3X the deficits Bush had...
It's like saying a gallon of milk went from $1 to $3 in 09 and then celebrating the fact it's still $3.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another huge lie!
