FORBES Magazine: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Obama

[Castor Muscular]

The report has long been repudiated.

Yes.  It was a really stupid claim.  Obama took what was supposed to be a one-time emergency rescue payment, duplicated it with yet another bailout, and then made it part of the baseline of his budget.  So he kept spending $1 trillion more than normal year after year.  By comparing it to what was supposed to be a one-time fix, he made it look like he did not increase spending.  In reality, he increased the baseline budget by roughly $1 trillion, which is by far the biggest spending increase, ever. 

Nobody believed the report, anyway.  You can't be a small spender and still rack up a record $6 trillion in debt over 4 years. 

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=clueless and divided]
The report has long been repudiated.
[/quote]
No it hasn't.

I know "redgreen" doesn't care but its easy to see through the fuzzy logic used.

You couldn't find your way out of a paper bag with a pair of scissors, child.

First, Obama's numbers are based on reject the entire first year of his Presidency.

No, they don't "reject" it. The fact is that the spending during the 1st year was determined by Bush, not Obama. Merely because you're too stupid to realize that the federal fiscal calendar doesn't coincide with the electoral calendar - don't assume everyone else is that stupid.

THEN they have the gall of taking the totally BUDGET OF THE YEAR THEY HAVE ALREADY REJECTED and base spending on those #'s.

Wrong again.

The year that you claim was "rejected" wasn't rejected at all. It was simply moved into the Bush column, which is where it belongs since it was the last federal budget that Bush signed before leaving office.

Which of course, is the reason why it's perfectly appropriate to measure against it, because the budget wasn't rejected, merely properly allocated to the correct President.

Duh.


[quoet]Get it. The load the #'s. The article was rejected quickly after it was written.[/quote]
No it wasn't.

Even the Obama campaign has chosen to abandon the argument.

Wrong again.

The article is not a "FORBES" article. Its from a "contributor".[p/quote]

More nonsense.  FORBES routinely takes articles from "contributors". So does every other major news service. Once they decide to fly the article underneath their logo and banner, however, they assume some of the responsibility for its accuracy, and they do fact-check it.

YOu're ignorant. You're clueless and uninformed. Just don't assume the rest of us are as educationally crippled as you are.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=Castor Clown]
Yes.  It was a really stupid claim.  Obama took what was supposed to be a one-time emergency rescue payment, duplicated it with yet another bailout, and then made it part of the baseline of his budget. [/quote]

Incorrect.

Nobody believed the report, anyway.  You can't be a small spender and still rack up a record $6 trillion in debt over 4 years.

Bush racked up more than that.