President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

[jimnyc]

I hope this isn't a repeat thread. Anyway, no matter how much liberals want to deny it, and change numbers around, Obama is spending like the world will end if he doesn't. Liberals literally freaked out at the amount that was spent during the 8 years GWB was in office. Obama has spent more than has been spent in the past 35 years put together!!! Where's the same outrage from the liberals?


President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.

A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.

Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I hope this isn't a repeat thread. Anyway, no matter how much liberals want to deny it, and change numbers around, Obama is spending like the world will end if he doesn't. Liberals literally freaked out at the amount that was spent during the 8 years GWB was in office. Obama has spent more than has been spent in the past 35 years put together!!! Where's the same outrage from the liberals?



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents

The entire point to all this insane spending is 1. To greatly weaken this nation and the dollar 2. To move large amounts of money to the proper places(anti-American entities) and last but not least to destroy our freedom loving culture !--Tyr

p.s. How about a small American flag icon available over with the smilies?

[jimnyc]

p.s. How about a small American flag icon available over with the smilies?

:salute: :flyflag:

We have these 2 currently installed. Send me a link to another if you like and I'll gladly install it to the board!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:salute: :flyflag:

We have these 2 currently installed. Send me a link to another if you like and I'll gladly install it to the board!!

Sorry, do not have a link. I was so used to the very small American flag at the other forum. It was about one fourth the size of the one you just displayed. And was a flag only without the smilie.:salute:--Tyr

This will do....

[jimnyc]

Sorry, do not have a link. I was so used to the very small American flag at the other forum. It was about one fourth the size of the one you just displayed. And was a flag only without the smilie.:salute:--Tyr

This will do....

On the right side of your screen, where the smilies are, make sure you click underneath them where it says "more". We have well over 100 smilies installed. But if you, or anyone else, posts or attaches another one here, I would gladly pop it into the board.

[fj1200]

The entire point to all this insane spending is...

It's really just blithering incompetence with a smattering of cronyism.

[Abbey Marie]

I hope this isn't a repeat thread. Anyway, no matter how much liberals want to deny it, and change numbers around, Obama is spending like the world will end if he doesn't. Liberals literally freaked out at the amount that was spent during the 8 years GWB was in office. Obama has spent more than has been spent in the past 35 years put together!!! Where's the same outrage from the liberals?



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents


Hard to imagine a liberal complaining about spending.

[ConHog]

It's really just blithering incompetence with a smattering of cronyism.

This is what I believe as well. I don't believe Obama is doing anything he thinks will harm this country. I just think he's ignorant to reality and honestly believes he knows what's best.

[DragonStryk72]

This is what I believe as well. I don't believe Obama is doing anything he thinks will harm this country. I just think he's ignorant to reality and honestly believes he knows what's best.

And oddly enough, that makes him more dangerous on the whole. It's that whole "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing.

[Gaffer]

This is what I believe as well. I don't believe Obama is doing anything he thinks will harm this country. I just think he's ignorant to reality and honestly believes he knows what's best.

I disagree, I think he's an evil man that knows exactly what he's doing and he is being helped by a lot of other evil men and women.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

On the right side of your screen, where the smilies are, make sure you click underneath them where it says "more". We have well over 100 smilies installed. But if you, or anyone else, posts or attaches another one here, I would gladly pop it into the board.

ok, got it.:flyflag:
I had to allow on my end for pop up blocker each time I click on more .
We cool, thanks. Tyr

[Nell's Room]

Exactly how much has Obama spent?

George Bush started two wars which are still active, so any money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq comes under his bill, not Obama's. I find it hard to believe that Obama has wasted more than Bush wasted on two stupid wars.

[DragonStryk72]

Exactly how much has Obama spent?

George Bush started two wars which are still active, so any money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq comes under his bill, not Obama's. I find it hard to believe that Obama has wasted more than Bush wasted on two stupid wars.

Yup, he pulled it. $5 Trillion dollars further into debt in under four years, and he wasn't even doing much during years 1 and 2. They actually have some charts of it on others thread, but I can't quite remember which.

[SassyLady]

Exactly how much has Obama spent?

George Bush started two wars which are still active, so any money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq comes under his bill, not Obama's. I find it hard to believe that Obama has wasted more than Bush wasted on two stupid wars.

Obama could have stopped the war spending by ending the wars as he promised. He didn't end them, therefore, any continuation of them is on Obama's bill, not Bush's.

[fj1200]

Exactly how much has Obama spent?

George Bush started two wars which are still active, so any money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq comes under his bill, not Obama's. I find it hard to believe that Obama has wasted more than Bush wasted on two stupid wars.

I think he pulled that one off in one stimulus bill.

[4horsemenrule]

and what do we have to show for all the oney Pres Obama has pissed thru?

(Besides a credit downgrade)

and what has Obama accomplished with all that spending?


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv060512dAPR20120605034514.jpg

[gabosaurus]

Always remember what Mark Twain pointed out about how there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Anyone can manipulate numbers to prove whatever point they wish to make. Of course, they fail to recognize the other side:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

[4horsemenrule]

Always remember what Mark Twain pointed out about how there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Anyone can manipulate numbers to prove whatever point they wish to make. Of course, they fail to recognize the other side:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Even the US Treasury reported Pres Obama has spent an average of about $9.5 BILLION per day

Which is much more then any other President

But what do facts mean to an Obama supporter?

[gabosaurus]

I prefer the "graveyard" that Obama has brought us over the "graveyard" that Dubya brought us. I am guessing that perhaps 4,000 families agree with me.

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/War+Dead+Remembered+Arlington+West+Memorial+jxPcrL 0vpaql.jpg

[4horsemenrule]

I prefer the "graveyard" that Obama has brought us over the "graveyard" that Dubya brought us. I am guessing that perhaps 4,000 families agree with me.

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/War+Dead+Remembered+Arlington+West+Memorial+jxPcrL 0vpaql.jpg

Some liberals are stuck on Bush since he left office

while others.......................



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/120605beelertoon_c20120605035854.jpg

[jimnyc]

Exactly how much has Obama spent?

George Bush started two wars which are still active, so any money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq comes under his bill, not Obama's. I find it hard to believe that Obama has wasted more than Bush wasted on two stupid wars.

He sure as hell did, and now maybe you'll understand why so many of us aren't fans of Obama. He EASILY spent more than GWB, wars included.

[4horsemenrule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/TGmmK3D89SI/AAAAAAAADcI/pSb1Rtz07z4/s1600/white-house-budget-projections-FY2009-11-Actual-2000-2009.PNG

[jimnyc]

Always remember what Mark Twain pointed out about how there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Anyone can manipulate numbers to prove whatever point they wish to make. Of course, they fail to recognize the other side:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Read even the link you posted - it's COMMENTARY. The information in my post was facts gathered by a non-partisan agency.

[jimnyc]

I prefer the "graveyard" that Obama has brought us over the "graveyard" that Dubya brought us. I am guessing that perhaps 4,000 families agree with me.

And yet not a peep around the board by you about the war in Afghanistan and the deaths, the deaths in Iraq after he promised to remove troops, and then Libya and other covert missions he has going around the ME. Why do those actions get a free pass while you harp on about Bush/war 4 years after he has left office?

[4horsemenrule]

Even CBS reported how much debt Pres Obama has added






CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/




http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/19/chart_620_deficit_120319.jpg

[jimnyc]

Even CBS reported how much debt Pres Obama has added

Every legit organization out there has shown the same stats and same debt. Only some liberals, and the white house of course, are trying to spin it another way.

[4horsemenrule]

Every legit organization out there has shown the same stats and same debt. Only some liberals, and the white house of course, are trying to spin it another way.

They are well known Jim

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1008/obama-zombies-obama-zombies-msm-political-poster-1282604398.jpg

[fj1200]

Always remember what Mark Twain pointed out about how there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Anyone can manipulate numbers to prove whatever point they wish to make. Of course, they fail to recognize the other side:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

IIRC, Nutting's piece has been completely debunked.

Yup, here it is:


CEI's Hans Bader Dissects Rex Nutting's Fatally-flawed Analysis of Obama Spending (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/05/29/ceis-hans-bader-dissects-rex-nuttings-fatally-flawed-analysis-obama-sp)


The original post:

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/25/no-obama-is-not-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower/

[logroller]

Fwiw, gabby did premise her source with a quote indicating it was next in order after lies and damned lies.

[fj1200]

Fwiw, gabby did premise her source with a quote indicating it was next in order after lies and damned lies.

But the quote wasn't, "lies, damned lies, and inaccurate analysis of established fact."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He sure as hell did, and now maybe you'll understand why so many of us aren't fans of Obama. He EASILY spent more than GWB, wars included.

And some of us understand that its by design not accident.Obama was chosen ,promoted then installed to for the very purpose of weakening further this nation. Isnt globalism a wonderful thing? We can not have a One World Government while USA is the dominant world power. In fact not as long as USA doesnt join. For America to ever give up its sovereignty it has to be broken. --Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

And some of us understand that its by design not accident.Obama was chosen ,promoted then installed to for the very purpose of weakening further this nation. Isnt globalism a wonderful thing? We can not have a One World Government while USA is the dominant world power. In fact not as long as USA doesnt join. For America to ever give up its sovereignty it has to be broken. --Tyr

The ICJ is also key...

[logroller]

But the quote wasn't, "lies, damned lies, and inaccurate analysis of established fact."

Meh, perhaps Twain wasn't loquacious enough in this instance. I always read his quote to infer the use of statistics tend towards the mudding of the facts.
Side note, 49.9% of people are below average.:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The ICJ is also key...

Indeed it is! Once we yield authority to the ICJ we will never get it back. Its instrumental in the attempt to eventually get us to renounce our sovereignty! As is the ongoing philosophy that treaties can legally usurp our Constitution..Such nonsense. Why would our founders install a destruct mechanism in the very document they framed to guide this nation? Absurd beyond belief yet many socalled enlightened officials in our government maintain that to be true! If forced I'll gladly shoulder a weapon to refute that nation destroying lie. For it to be valid clearly means treaties can legally destroy our nation with no Constitutional recourse at our disposal. Any rogue government could in effect by way of treaties renounce our sovereignty and destroy this nation. In fact unconstitutional treaties already exist..--Tyr

[OCA]

I hope this isn't a repeat thread. Anyway, no matter how much liberals want to deny it, and change numbers around, Obama is spending like the world will end if he doesn't. Liberals literally freaked out at the amount that was spent during the 8 years GWB was in office. Obama has spent more than has been spent in the past 35 years put together!!! Where's the same outrage from the liberals?



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents

Tell me, does it really matter? Was there any turning back from deficits in 2008?

Just enjoy the ride downhill.

[Nukeman]

Tell me, does it really matter? Was there any turning back from deficits in 2008?

Just enjoy the ride downhill.
So YOU are one of those IDIOTS that says since we were already in debt why not keep spending!! How fucking stupid can one person be!!!!!
:poke:

It can still be fixed but it will take drastic measures!! If you're unwilling to see that through you're as big of a wuss as I suspected!!

[OCA]

So YOU are one of those IDIOTS that says since we were already in debt why not keep spending!! How fucking stupid can one person be!!!!!
:poke:

It can still be fixed but it will take drastic measures!! If you're unwilling to see that through you're as big of a wuss as I suspected!!

No, it can't be fixed.

[Nukeman]

No, it can't be fixed.
Yes it can, You and others that say it can't just aren't willing to do what needs to be done!! I call you and others like you a bunch of cowards and chikenshits!!!!

[OCA]

Yes it can, You and others that say it can't just aren't willing to do what needs to be done!! I call you and others like you a bunch of cowards and chikenshits!!!!

Ever heard of "austerity measures"? You willing to undertake those?

Plus we are headed for double dip recession, won't matter anyway, that will be the silver bullet.

[OCA]

Anyway Nuke, what needs to be done?

[jimnyc]

Tell me, does it really matter? Was there any turning back from deficits in 2008?

Just enjoy the ride downhill.

He spent as much as other presidents have spent in over 1/4 a century!! Suppose he didn't, would our national debt be lower? How hard is it for them, or anyone to understand - just fucking stop spending! I know there are a shitload of things that "have" to be paid for, but cut the rest and tough shit if the people don't like it. Its that simple. Spend responsibly for the next 20yrs and just maybe America can get back on track. But when the place is in the shitter, tossing $5 fucking trillion at it isn't going to fix it!

[OCA]

He spent as much as other presidents have spent in over 1/4 a century!! Suppose he didn't, would our national debt be lower? How hard is it for them, or anyone to understand - just fucking stop spending! I know there are a shitload of things that "have" to be paid for, but cut the rest and tough shit if the people don't like it. Its that simple. Spend responsibly for the next 20yrs and just maybe America can get back on track. But when the place is in the shitter, tossing $5 fucking trillion at it isn't going to fix it!

Is stopping spending gonna happen? By either party? No....so its unrealistic and it won't get fixed.

[gabosaurus]

If you stop spending, you stop growing. Or so the business people say. Obama has spent a lot in areas where previous presidents have cut spending to the point of strangulation.
But it is not to the degree that many ConReps believe.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/389210_426237087396889_1634087639_n.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

If you stop spending, you stop growing. Or so the business people say. Obama has spent a lot in areas where previous presidents have cut spending to the point of strangulation.
But it is not to the degree that many ConReps believe.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/389210_426237087396889_1634087639_n.jpg

I seem to remember a thread debunking that graph, gabs. What puts it into serious question is the fact that it was put up by the Obama Admin.

[gabosaurus]

It wasn't put up by the Obama administration, or else I would have questioned it. The graph was compiled from three economic indicators (listed as "sources") and reprinted by the Obama reelection campaign.

Any statistical representation can be "debunked." That is the best thing about statistics. They are easily manipulated.

[DragonStryk72]

It wasn't put up by the Obama administration, or else I would have questioned it. The graph was compiled from three economic indicators (listed as "sources") and reprinted by the Obama reelection campaign.

Any statistical representation can be "debunked." That is the best thing about statistics. They are easily manipulated.

Yes, but if the graph is purposely leaving out the huge sums that Obama spent, then it sort of just shoots the whole message in the foot.

[Kathianne]

If you stop spending, you stop growing. Or so the business people say. Obama has spent a lot in areas where previous presidents have cut spending to the point of strangulation.
But it is not to the degree that many ConReps believe.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/389210_426237087396889_1634087639_n.jpg

When I saw the 'marketwatch' sourcing, figured this was from Nutting. It is:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Which brings up the fact checking here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html


The facts about the growth of spending under Obama By Glenn Kessler (http://www.washingtonpost.com/glenn-kessler/2011/03/02/ABzNymP_page.html), Published: May 24 | Updated: Friday, May 25, 5:02 AM Carolyn Kaster/AP “I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.”
— White House spokesman Jay Carney, remarks to the press gaggle (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-colorado-springs-co-523), May 23, 2012

The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.


Carney made his comments while berating reporters for not realizing that “the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.” He cited as his source an article (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1) by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama spending binge never happened,” which has been the subject of lots of buzz in the liberal blogosphere.


But we are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of numbers — numbers that are easily manipulated. Let’s take a look.


The Facts


First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.


Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.


In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.


Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do (http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/19475/TreasFED11052010.pdf) the (http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf) math (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-outlook.pdf), was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.


Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)


On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf), which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.


The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.
So this is what we end up with:


2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion


Under these figures, and using this calculator (http://www.investopedia.com/calculator/CAGR.aspx#axzz1vox9yA3X), with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.) ...





The whole article is well worth reading, bottom line though:


The Pinocchio Test


Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.



The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used.



Three Pinocchios


http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA





Three Pinocchios Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When I saw the 'marketwatch' sourcing, figured this was from Nutting. It is:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Which brings up the fact checking here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html



The whole article is well worth reading, bottom line though:

Outright lies, half truths and fudged numbers are all part of the obama admin propaganda and agenda.
It is quite evident that to them lying is like breathing. The clearly hold to the premise of --Anything to win!
That way of thinking absolutely represents = no honor...
For me people with absolutely no honor are sub-human. When possible I completely ignore them but when its not I tend to tell them exactly how the cow ate the cabbage and do not give a damn how they take it...
Always the feelings/outrage of such people means about as much to me as the solid waste that I flushed after this early morning's dump..-:laugh:
While we all have to take such dumps we do not have to pay heed to the feelings of "things" so void of integrity and common sense!
This I do and taught my children to do as well. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

While we all have to take such dumps we do not have to pay heed to the feelings of "things" so void of integrity and common sense!
This I do and taught my children to do as well. --Tyr

I've taught my daughter a lot of things. But how to take a dump is not one of them. But it is good to know that some parents teach their kids to be void of integrity of common sense.
Though it does add up. Having too much integrity and common sense often turns kids into liberals. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've taught my daughter a lot of things. But how to take a dump is not one of them. But it is good to know that some parents teach their kids to be void of integrity of common sense.
Though it does add up. Having too much integrity and common sense often turns kids into liberals. :rolleyes:

That's good to know that you were either too busy or too lazy to potty train your own daughter.
I'm going to guess that is a liberal thing too!
Having too much integrity and common sense liberals have never had to worry about.-:lol:
Just getting in out of a pouring rain seems to be hard enough for most of them..:laugh2:--Tyr

[ConHog]

That's good to know that you were either too busy or too lazy to potty train your own daughter.
I'm going to guess that is a liberal thing too!
Having too much integrity and common sense liberals have never had to worry about.-:lol:
Just getting in out of a pouring rain seems to be hard enough for most of them..:laugh2:--Tyr

Ah poor loon doesnt understand that there is a difference between teaching your child how to shit and teaching yohr child that there is an appropriate place to shit.

Reading skills. Get some.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ah poor loon doesnt understand that there is a difference between teaching your child how to shit and teaching yohr child that there is an appropriate place to shit.

Reading skills. Get some.

Kid, teaching a child how to take a dump includes not only the where but the how to wipe thier own ass afterwards.
How many more times will I have to quote and point out your many grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes before you learn your lesson?
I just bet you ate the covers off the back of your books in school.-:laugh2:-Tyr

[ConHog]

Kid, teaching a child how to take a dump includes not only the where but the how to wipe thier own ass afterwards.
How many more times will I have to quote and point out your many grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes before you learn your lesson?
I just bet you ate the covers off the back of your books in school.-:laugh2:-Tyr


Okay, now that I'm on my PC rather than my Droid. Allow to address you. I will try to use small words so as not to confuse you.

I can appreciate that you are trying to find your place here and all, but attacking typos is not the way to go.

Now since you called me a kid and questioned my education allow me to reiterate what you could have already known had you actually spent some time reading the board before just diving in telling everyone else how childish and stupid they are for daring to disagree with your right wing hack self.

I am 41. I am a graduate of not only Army Officer School, but THREE different universities.

And guess what else? As educated as I am, unlike you I don't think I'm the smartest person posting here . I think I'd be in the conversation, but I don't think everyone else is arrogant for thinking they are also intelligent the way you do.

You're my dad's age and act more like my son. In fact I am compelled to ask, do you post as Del on USMB?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Okay, now that I'm on my PC rather than my Droid. Allow to address you. I will try to use small words so as not to confuse you.

I can appreciate that you are trying to find your place here and all, but attacking typos is not the way to go.

Now since you called me a kid and questioned my education allow me to reiterate what you could have already known had you actually spent some time reading the board before just diving in telling everyone else how childish and stupid they are for daring to disagree with your right wing hack self.

I am 41. I am a graduate of not only Army Officer School, but THREE different universities.

And guess what else? As educated as I am, unlike you I don't think I'm the smartest person posting here . I think I'd be in the conversation, but I don't think everyone else is arrogant for thinking they are also intelligent the way you do.

You're my dad's age and act more like my son. In fact I am compelled to ask, do you post as Del on USMB?

^^^^^^^^^ This attempt at proving your great intelligence and "civility" doesnt cut it dude. Not after the lack of class you revealed in telling me, "shut up you old bitch " in Reputation comment.. I'm new here but had thought that I had read that the Reputation comments were not to be used for insulting jabs. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that if that is the case.
I'd say it's you acting rather childish. At least I post my insults out in the open like a man and dont try to hide them in a Rep comment. I only did that after being hounded by a want to be Mod for quite some time..-Tyr

[ConHog]

^^^^^^^^^ This attempt at proving your great intelligence and "civility" doesnt cut it dude. Not after the lack of class you revealed in telling me, "shut up you old bitch " in Reputation comment.. I'm new here but had thought that I had read that the Reputation comments were not to be used for insulting jabs. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that if that is the case.
I'd say it's you acting rather childish. At least I post my insults out in the open like a man and dont try to hide them in a Rep comment. I only did that after being hounded by a want to be Mod for quite some time..-Tyr

There is no rule against flaming in rep comments. There is however a rule about revealing rep comments on the open board.

[mundame]

Maybe I shouldn't post on this thread because it lost focus, but it seemed a good topic to me, from the OP.

Yesterday there was news on Reuters that Ben Bernanke is planning an "endless QE" --- more "quantitative easing," which is Fed doublespeak for creating more money out of thin air, to prop up the economy, he hopes, in this new turn-down that just started.

"Helicopter Ben" believes that throwing trillions at the economy will prevent a recession/depression.

But ---- he already did that, and it didn't work. At least, we went up a little, but now we're going down again, and it's been YEARS since the crisis in 2008. So I'm not enthusiastic about throwing fed money from helicopters.

Anyone?

[fj1200]

"Helicopter Ben" believes that throwing trillions at the economy will prevent a recession/depression.

But ---- he already did that, and it didn't work. At least, we went up a little, but now we're going down again, and it's been YEARS since the crisis in 2008. So I'm not enthusiastic about throwing fed money from helicopters.

You can't necessarily argue that it didn't work. The problem IMO is that the Fed is tapped out in what it can do in "helping" the economy and that is exposing the failings of our current fiscal policy.

[Abbey Marie]

Maybe I shouldn't post on this thread because it lost focus, but it seemed a good topic to me, from the OP.

Yesterday there was news on Reuters that Ben Bernanke is planning an "endless QE" --- more "quantitative easing," which is Fed doublespeak for creating more money out of thin air, to prop up the economy, he hopes, in this new turn-down that just started.

"Helicopter Ben" believes that throwing trillions at the economy will prevent a recession/depression.

But ---- he already did that, and it didn't work. At least, we went up a little, but now we're going down again, and it's been YEARS since the crisis in 2008. So I'm not enthusiastic about throwing fed money from helicopters.

Anyone?

I've been expecting the Fed to prop up the economy right before the Presidential election. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

The nations future perhaps?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca060612dBP20120607014550.jpg