Obama's Legacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct.

Who cares about inflation! Debt is debt for anyone and we are deeper in debt than anytime in history.

:dizzy: seriously, really? When you try to prove numbers by presidential spending, and you want to make Obama look like he's spending more, you have to take into account for inflation.

Example, if Obama spent $5 billion on food stamps, then compared back in Reagan's time he may have given $2 billion on food stamps, each of Reagan's food stamp could worth more back then than Obama's food stamps today. It does make a difference.

You might need to take a class or something to get an idea of this basic concept. Because what you're assuming the wrong idea from the information if you want to blame someone.

Maybe I shouldn't try to reason with ya.. :hmm:
 
Kind of like getting more credit cards and use them to help pay off other previous credit cards debts? And repeat that indefinitely?

Rather an insane thing to do.

Looks like the Bushes and Regan had that technique down to a tee. Check the adjusted figures that are far more accurate than the ones in the OP.:giggle:
 
Yep, and in this case, he didn't even get the information from where he claimed. He got it from a newspaper.:P

Once again you are totally wrong. If you read the newspaper you will see "source", so I did get it right.

You also fail to read the OP totally thru, as I did mention that it was three years into Obama's accumulation and for the rest of the year he will be accumulating more.

Learn to read.
 
:dizzy: seriously, really? When you try to prove numbers by presidential spending, and you want to make Obama look like he's spending more, you have to take into account for inflation.

Example, if Obama spent $5 billion on food stamps, then compared back in Reagan's time he may have given $2 billion on food stamps, each of Reagan's food stamp could worth more back then than Obama's food stamps today. It does make a difference.

You might need to take a class or something to get an idea of this basic concept. Because what you're assuming the wrong idea from the information if you want to blame someone.

Maybe I shouldn't try to reason with ya.. :hmm:

See, that is what is so scary about this stuff. These die hard conservatives form their opinion on inaccuracies and myths. And when they are provided accurate information, they cover their eyes and say "I can't see you, you liberal liar you!"
 
I always knew we could accurately blame Bush. :giggle:
 
Once again you are totally wrong. If you read the newspaper you will see "source", so I did get it right.

You also fail to read the OP totally thru, as I did mention that it was three years into Obama's accumulation and for the rest of the year he will be accumulating more.

Learn to read.

Wrong. You posted the newspaper's source. Your souce was the newspaper. You can't plagairize somone else's source.:cool2:

No wonder you didn't know it was a library. Learn to read and to be honest.
 
Looks like the Bushes and Regan had that technique down to a tee. Check the adjusted figures that are far more accurate than the ones in the OP.:giggle:

I dunno why people think Republicans are more creditable when it come to budget management and fiscal management than Democrats.
 
I dunno why people think Republicans are more creditable when it come to budget management and fiscal management than Democrats.

If providing their souces and posting accuracies is any indication....just saying.:giggle:
 
Wrong. You posted the newspaper's source. Your souce was the newspaper. You can't plagairize somone else's source.:cool2:

No wonder you didn't know it was a library. Learn to read and to be honest.

See rule #11a, made and posted by Alex, Until Alex says I did wrong, you are wetting yourself. You want to make the rules for AD but Alex is in control not you.
 
Wrong. You posted the newspaper's source. Your souce was the newspaper. You can't plagairize somone else's source.:cool2:

No wonder you didn't know it was a library. Learn to read and to be honest.

See rule #11a, made and posted by Alex, Until Alex says I did wrong, you are wetting yourself. You want to make the rules for AD but Alex is in control not you.
 
If you owe $100.000 dollars today and last year you owed $75,000 dollars, then indian had nothing to do with it. You need to quit spending until you get your debt under control. But try telling Obama that!

Try telling the Bushes and Regan that. They have him beat by a significant amount.

What indian are you talking about?
 
See rule #11a, made and posted by Alex, Until Alex says I did wrong, you are wetting yourself. You want to make the rules for AD but Alex is in control not you.

Yep, I am wetting my pants laughing at your ignorance.:laugh2: You copied it out of a newspaper.
 
If you owe $100.000 dollars today and last year you owed $75,000 dollars, then indian had nothing to do with it. You need to quit spending until you get your debt under control. But try telling Obama that!

If he does nothing, it still increases daily due to interest. Whoever gets elected in 2012 is going to add to this figure. Not many Presidents that will cut spending and increase revenue through higher taxes. It would be political suicide. But that is the only way we are getting out.

Don't try to tell me we can get out of debt without cutting spending drastically.

Don't try to tell me we can get out of debt without increasing tax rates significantly.

We are deeply in debt. It is not a small amount. Here is a nice graphic. Enjoy.

rab7k3.jpg


Source: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/interest-spending-600.jpg
 
Who are the hearting? You are the one that used Jr.

Thank you, I fix my spelling. As for Jr., maybe you don't know ASL but maybe also you are one of those people who go to a deaf social and try to "correct" everyone.
 
Thank you, I fix my spelling. As for Jr., maybe you don't know ASL but maybe also you are one of those people who go to a deaf social and try to "correct" everyone.

I daresay I am probably more fluent in ASL than you are. I would venture a guess that you can't form a cohesive thought in either language. We have certainly seen no demonstration of it here.
 
And I followed rule 11a. I daresay you are beating a dead horse.

No you didn't. LOL. You copied something out of a newspaper, and then tried to make it look like you have been doing research.:laugh2: "Fess up; you busted.
 
See rule #11a, made and posted by Alex, Until Alex says I did wrong, you are wetting yourself. You want to make the rules for AD but Alex is in control not you.

rolling7 - you are supposed to quote YOUR source, in other words, where YOU found the data that you posted. Are you saying you went to FRASER's website and collected the data from there but chose not to post any links to any articles containing the data you posted and that it was pure luck and freakish coincidence that someone else found the exact same data from a newspaper article that matched what you found at FRASER's website?

Why so coy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top