Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:43 am**

According to Forbes that it. Which is very conservative.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:12 pm**

One of the main points of American conservatism as a philosophy in practice nowadays is absolute criticism of Obama, so Forbes must no longer be conservative. Shirley?

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:17 pm**

How many times on this forum must we disprove the exact same statement?

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:18 pm**

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:19 pm**

Night Strike wrote:How many times on this forum must we disprove the exact same statement?

Only once, but keep trying.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:22 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:28 pm**

People need to learn about statistics.

Then they need to realize that everything which happens under a president's term is not due solely to the president.

I thought people were smarter than this. Maybe not?

It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:30 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:People need to learn about statistics.

Then they need to realize that everything which happens under a president's term is not due solely to the president.

I thought people were smarter than this. Maybe not?

It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

Hush now, anyway you frame it, NS says Obama is the worst. He'll get upset if you bring statistical analysis in. It's a matter of faith for him.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:32 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

How about $5 trillion added to the federal deficit in less than 4 years?

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:40 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

How about $5 trillion added to the federal deficit in less than 4 years?

Compared to? And with regard to BBS question, as what "(Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.)"?

And a source maybe?

'Cause I can play your game plenty well if it's no source just throw out figures time.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:41 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:People need to learn about statistics.

Then they need to realize that everything which happens under a president's term is not due solely to the president.

I thought people were smarter than this. Maybe not?

It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

Hush now, anyway you frame it, NS says Obama is the worst. He'll get upset if you bring statistical analysis in. It's a matter of faith for him.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:48 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

How about $5 trillion added to the federal deficit in less than 4 years?

Compared to? And with regard to BBS question, as what "(Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.)"?

And a source maybe?

'Cause I can play your game plenty well if it's no source just throw out figures time.

Compared to just over $10 trillion from 1791-2008.

Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:53 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It would be fun to see different variables measured. Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.

How about $5 trillion added to the federal deficit in less than 4 years?

Compared to? And with regard to BBS question, as what "(Federal spending as a % of US GDP, Federal spending in dollars per year (adjust for inflation), maybe put it in US$ and PPP, etc.)"?

And a source maybe?

'Cause I can play your game plenty well if it's no source just throw out figures time.

Compared to just over $10 trillion from 1791-2008.

Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

So you've been confusing debt and deficit this whole time, essentially. Dude, what the hell. No wonder people bail out on you early.

Look up debt, then look up deficit.

No wonder you came across so confused.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:01 pm**

I used the incorrect term. :roll:

Sue me.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:08 pm**

Night Strike wrote:I used the incorrect term. Sue me.

I'm not American kiddo, I'll just deride you relentlessly til you figure out what irony means.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:17 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:26 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

I think we'll be waiting a while.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:31 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:39 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

So basically your entire argument is simply "he was last, so I'm going to place this label on him that doesn't make any sense from a logical perspective but the math makes me look good"?

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:41 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

So basically your entire argument is simply "he was last, so I'm going to place this label on him that doesn't make any sense from a logical perspective but the math makes me look good"?

The title of this thread is "Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower". That is a false statement. That is all I've stated.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:46 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

You forgot to click "next page" again, because that's where I responded to you and Saxi. Politicofact.com disagrees with you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:58 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

You forgot to click "next page" again, because that's where I responded to you and Saxi. Politicofact.com disagrees with you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/
So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

No, I looked at the next page. And just because the spending by the government is not going up as fast as it was under other presidents doesn't mean that the actual dollars being spent aren't rocketing upwards. When the government is spending $4 trillion a year, a 2% increase in spending is the same number of dollars as a 4% increase from $2 trillion. Let's start cutting the number of REAL dollars spent by the government instead of celebrating that the government is not growing as quickly based on percentages.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:09 pm**

Without Republican intervention, would Obama have been able to spend more?

In other words, assume that the Republicans could not block any spending proposals by the Democrats--or force them to compromise.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:11 pm**

And, does the article include deficit spending as "spending"?

And how does it factor in borrowing? For example, if the government borrows $800 billion (by sell T-bills), then how does this affect the current spending? Because the debt must be repaid, so... 10 years from now, the debt incurred by Obama would have to be repaid... but would the "spending" include repayment of past debts? If so, then wouldn't this article be misconstruing the truth?

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:15 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=4065

Actually you and Saxi tried to prove it false, and then disappeared when I responded.

Yep, still debunked.

Now click to the next page.

Yep, still debunked.

All that chart claims is that Obama increased spending by less than other presidents, but that still doesn't make him the smallest spender. In real dollars, Obama is STILL spending more money than any other president before him, just like Bush spent more money than any other president before him. You would have to have an actual DECREASE in spending by a president to say the president actually spent a smaller amount. It's simple math here people.

So basically your entire argument is simply "he was last, so I'm going to place this label on him that doesn't make any sense from a logical perspective but the math makes me look good"?

The title of this thread is "Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower". That is a false statement. That is all I've stated.

Ok, sure...so the thread was titled in an idiotic way. That doesn't make your statements any less biased nor dishonest. You could easily have said "Ok, he's spending the most money because of inflation and the debt skyrocketing, but his actual increases have been smaller than most". That would have been the honest route to take.

Conquer Club

Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower

Re: Obama smallest spender since Eisenhower