Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Obama

ly2 from WF

ly2 from WF

Cloudflare.com CEO
Sep 15, 2009
7,186
256
0
ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็&#
www.thoughtmechanics.com
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

Mind-Blown1.jpg



IN B4 DRESDEN, HELLBLAZER, AND NI..I MEAN PEWEP.
 


Don't you fucking use that word god dammit. Don't you dare. Of course Obama is one of the best presidents the USA has ever had. Why do you think all the idiots are crying out against him?
 
I see Obama has picked up a lot about creative finance from Carlton Sheets. Fucking scumbag.
 
This is great news! Obama i vote for Dictator for LIFE ! All Hail Cesar !

They gona put ya'all back in Chains.
 
Idiots posted this on my Facebook feed. I use it as a test--if they can't see how obviously the numbers are being manipulated, I know they are mathematically illiterate and overall...idiots.
 
This is what I see in that headline...

Who Is The Smallest Thief Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
Click to expand...

When you word it differently, it doesn't really fucking matter. A thief is a thief.
 
You can always manipulate statistics to prove your point.

Did you know women only make 77c on the dollar that men make? or some stupid shit like that.

but we both know the real tea.
 
I don't understand how democrats think it makes sense to use 2008, an incredibly inflated budget due to a one time expense, as a baseline. It makes no sense to any rational person.

I always ask them: would you prefer a 100% raise or a 10% raise? They say 100%, and then I tell them that they get a 100% raise on $1 to $2 an hour, while they could have had a 10% raise on $10 to $11 an hour. They never seem to get how that applies to the budget though, and how easily percentages can be manipulated.
 
dreamache said:
This is what I see in that headline...



When you word it differently, it doesn't really fucking matter. A thief is a thief.
Click to expand...

How about "Which Nobel Peace Prize Winner Has Murdered The Least Amount Of People On Their "Kill List"?

I'd say the award goes to Obama. I get the feeling there aren't a lot Peace Prize winners who keep a list of people they plan on assassinating.
 
Crynos said:
I don't understand how democrats think it makes sense to use 2008, an incredibly inflated budget due to a one time expense,
Click to expand...

Then for comparison we would have to take all "one time expenses" out of all the budgets. This means not counting Obama's stimulus, cash for clunkers, and whatever else.
 
Moxie said:
Then for comparison we would have to take all "one time expenses" out of all the budgets. This means not counting Obama's stimulus, cash for clunkers, and whatever else.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not excusing Bush for that spending, but I'm saying it's an invalid baseline given all the lower years before it, and that it makes no sense to compare year-to-year percentage growth over raw numbers and overall trends. Are you saying it's valid to make the argument that Obama (well the government with Obama at the helm to be fair) is the lowest spender since Eisenhower?

If spending goes $40, $45, $48, $50, $55, $100 (Bush's last year), $105, $107, $108, who is the bigger spender? Obama has increased spending by a lower percentage, but he's still spending an incredible amount more than Bush and trying to say otherwise is just manipulating numbers to fit an agenda.
 
Crynos said:
If spending goes $40, $45, $48, $50, $55, $100 (Bush's last year),
Click to expand...

The bank bailout would account for about a 16% increase.

I'm saying that if we are trying to compare the "uninflated" version of each presidential budget that would exist under "normal" circumstances, then we also can't count things like Obama's stimulus or extension of unemployment benefits. If Hurricane Katrina cleanup added to one of Bush's budgets, then I guess we would have to remove that also. I didn't comment on what the results of comparing the "normal" budgets would be.
 
Moxie said:
The bank bailout would account for about a 16% increase.

I'm saying that if we are trying to compare the "uninflated" version of each presidential budget that would exist under "normal" circumstances, then we also can't count things like Obama's stimulus or extension of unemployment benefits. If Hurricane Katrina cleanup added to one of Bush's budgets, then I guess we would have to remove that also. I didn't comment on what the results of comparing the "normal" budgets would be.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we have to compare uninflated budgets. All I'm saying is that you can't pick just one budget that was higher than all the rest. So if people compared Obama's spending to the average of Bush's last 4 years or something, that would be more accurate to get a picture of how his spending stacks up to those before. Whether or not it's one-time spending still factors into how that President spends, it's just disingenuous to compare Obama's spending to the one highest year from the Bush presidency (even though Bush was also a horrible spender) and to also not look at the raw numbers and deficits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom