U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2013, 01:53 AM
 
510 posts, read 371,007 times
Reputation: 440

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surftown831 View Post
"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? So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?"

Read the article and check out the chart. It shows Obama and Clinton spent less than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., and Reagan. Republican solution to all problems is to spend more of our money.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Psst... Congress controls the purse strings.

Unlike Reagan etc Both Clinton and Obama had Republican Congresses...

Remember when those stingy, spiteful, evil Congressional republicans prevented Obama from spending 3 times as much on "stimulus".

Yea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2013, 02:12 AM
 
Location: USA
4,849 posts, read 4,381,644 times
Reputation: 2888
Really, you're dumb as a f*****g rock if you think a Republican president is going to reign in spending. Maybe someday there'll be a viable conservative libertarian-style candidate, but the only options to make it out of the primaries since the 80s have been big-government big-business pseudo-conservatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 02:17 AM
 
27,893 posts, read 35,117,212 times
Reputation: 4046
Um... 9 years after the recession is over Obama's own OMB still estimates $475 billion deficit for 2018. Nine years later... Maybe you ought to think about that in the context of Bush's previous record of $458 billion and maybe those making claims like this will step back into the real world and back to reality where their propaganda is so easily debunked and so easily found.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 02:22 AM
 
27,893 posts, read 35,117,212 times
Reputation: 4046
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
Really, you're dumb as a f*****g rock if you think a Republican president is going to reign in spending. Maybe someday there'll be a viable conservative libertarian-style candidate, but the only options to make it out of the primaries since the 80s have been big-government big-business pseudo-conservatives.
You can grow the economy in three ways. Lowering taxes, warring around the planet and/or the Federal Reserve "injecting" money in to the system. Stopping warring, raising taxes and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates does the exact opposite. You can draw your own conclusions and make your own predictions about what the next president will be doing and the next one after that and so on...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:53 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,062 posts, read 2,974,147 times
Reputation: 2299
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Hahaha, this whole thread started because Forbes said Obama was the smallest government spender..
"A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity."

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/...oundation/#1_1


The owners of Forbes do (not) make more money when they say "Obama was the smallest government spender", that is not a conflict of interest.

But when Forbes says "tax cuts for the rich are a positive thing" this is a conflict of interest. Those tax cuts give the owners of Forbes money, that is a conflict of interest.

Last edited by chad3; 07-12-2013 at 05:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top