(05-23-2012 08:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Ah, another lib who doesn't think SPENDING contributes to debt.

And why are you ignoring the fact that the chart is a bold face lie?

A little quote from the article...

Quote:Part of the reason for the slow growth is that Obama — unlike his Republican and Democratic predecessors — signed a law in February 2010 necessitating that new spending laws are paid for. In addition, Obama last year signed into law over $2 trillion in debt-reduction over the next decade.

Yep, you got it. President Obama wants to mindlessly drive up our debt while making no efforts to control it...

The responses in this thread, for lack of a better word, amuse me to no avail.

(05-23-2012 07:20 PM)blah Wrote:  I feel dumber for reading this post.

Welcome to rwt's world.

Quote:It's not the percentage, it's the amount.

Now you're a "stalker"

(05-23-2012 09:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That's better, you at least putting spending back in there.

But it's all about spending.

Because what you make has nothing to do with it. Let's have an experiment. Quit your job tomorrow and I'll complain that you are spending too much.

It makes not a bit of difference what I earn. I can earn 0, 1000 or a million dollars. It's how much I SPEND beyond what I make that's debt.

(05-24-2012 07:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It makes not a bit of difference what I earn. I can earn 0, 1000 or a million dollars. It's how much I SPEND beyond what I make that's debt.

Oh really??? So what you are saying is that when the money stops coming in, then simultaneously the bills stop coming as well? Well, that's news to me.

(05-24-2012 09:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It makes not a bit of difference what I earn. I can earn 0, 1000 or a million dollars. It's how much I SPEND beyond what I make that's debt.

Oh really??? So what you are saying is that when the money stops coming in, then simultaneously the bills stop coming as well? Well, that's news to me.

Wow.

NOTE ON THIS CHART, OBAMA IS NOT CREDITED WITH THE STIMULUS HE DEMANDED!!!!

FIGURES DON'T LIE, LIARS FIGURE.

The chart only attribites 140 billion of the 825 billion dollar stimulus, that Obama lobbied for and signed into law, to him.

Tell me Tom, how do you attribute the majority of the stimulus spending to Bush when he never signed the damn thing? How do you attribute the 200 billion Obama spent from TARP to Bush? That chart does.

This chart is a bigger farce than that tool that said Elizabeth Warren really was part Indian because she thought she was. Literally blowing up to monumental proporations the idea of I think therefore I am.

It's amazing to me that these liberals who are so positive of Obama's reelection being a certainty continue to outright lie to try and boost his chances.

(05-24-2012 12:43 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  The chart only attribites 140 billion of the 825 billion dollar stimulus, that Obama lobbied for and signed into law, to him.

Tell me Tom, how do you attribute the majority of the stimulus spending to Bush when he never signed the damn thing? How do you attribute the 200 billion Obama spent from TARP to Bush? That chart does.

This chart is a bigger farce than that tool that said Elizabeth Warren really was part Indian because she thought she was. Literally blowing up to monumental proporations the idea of I think therefore I am.

Oh it gets better than that... Obama adds nearly a trillion to 2008 spending in the form of the stimulus... Bush gets the 'credit' and then the 2009 baseline *includes the stimulus* so his 2010 % increase was not over George Bushes last budget it was Bushes Budget (which was already a crime against the American peoples) plus Obamas stimulus spending (and any other spending like the 400+ billion omnibus bill Obama signed into law)...

So Obama took George Bushes last budget and then added a Trillion and *then* increased even that the following year!

Limbaugh tore this to shreds this morning.

USA Today: Real Deficit was $5 Trillion last year.

Notice who's stopped participating in this thread?

Facts to liberals are like sunlight to a vampire.

Conservative rag the Washington Post gives the study 3 Pinocchios

And, for those that still want to believe this crap of a study, see the below that dumbs it down for most everyone except Robert.

For the most part, people just want government to behave like a household is supposed to behave. Don't budget more than you earn, and keep your debts manageable and expenditures sensible. Don't max out credit cards, don't be too frivolous, don't buy your children every candybar and toy they want just to keep 'em fat and happy. We all understand that "managing" a country's finance is ridiculously more complex than managing a household's, but the basic laws of fiscal responsibility are cut from the same cloth. And so it becomes irksome when the likes of Paul Krugman are so blasé about a debt so deep that you can pour all the "1 percenters'" wealth into it and still not come close to balancing it.

Gov't and household are not comparable.

(05-26-2012 12:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Gov't and household are not comparable.

True, but they do have this in common: You can't spend more than you make forever.

(05-26-2012 12:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Gov't and household are not comparable.

What, the term "budget" is different to each of them?

(05-26-2012 12:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Gov't and household are not comparable.

Correct. I can't steal from others with impunity.

(05-26-2012 11:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Gov't and household are not comparable.

Correct. I can't steal from others with impunity.

tell that to my ex wife WAKKA-WAKKA