posted December 24, 2011 01:34 PM            

as to butter being too fat, what the hayell do people think butter IS?(it's illegal to call it butter if it's not at LEAST 80% fat)

nothing new about federal grants, and i would have to agree some people get some doozies, but i don't believe those go through the oval office for approval, there's a DEPT somewhere doing that!

as to the museum that IS a lot of money though IMAGE BEING EVERYTHING these days i'm sure blowing the usa's horn about how good our tech is, is seen to be well spent money.

if it is YEARLY then it is RIDICULOUS money but i suspect it was more likely a ONE-TIME payout?

posted December 24, 2011 04:42 PM            

The math is very straight forward acoustic.

O'Bomber hands off millions or billions to his campaign contributors and they hire 10 employees...and then file for bankruptcy!

You acoustic, being a student of Marxist Math can't do the numbers.

Further acoustic, I didn't make broad sweeping comments on Colburn's exhibits. I didn't need to do so. The stupidity involved in what the demoscat Stimulus Bill money was spent on...speaks for itself!

Another thing acoustic...since you saw fit to interject the CBO into this discussion.

The CBO..Congressional Budget Office...warned prior to passage of O'Bomber's misnamed Stimulus Bill that it would do more harm to the economy in the long run than if nothing were done at all!

They were right then. Unemployment is higher today than when O'Bomber's Pork Bill was passed...but, O'Bomber had all those fat cat campaign contributors to pay-off!

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Wednesday, February 4, 2009

President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long -haul/

"Overall, however, I think it's important to point out that spending under Obama has not been increased in amounts equal to his predecessor (who increased spending to a greater extent than the six predecessors before him)."...acoustic

posted December 24, 2011 09:16 PM            

perhaps congress should put up a bill to USE what's there for shovel ready infrastructure projects and quit moaning?

saw an ad on FB the other day that worried me...from the obama camp, "we can't wait for congress". i thought THAT sounded ominous, until i realized there is quite a lot he can do by executive order and if congress doesn't pull it's finger out, he most likely WILL NOT WAIT for them to get on board.

of course everyone will shriek and howl about that but it is perfectly constitutional for him to do so under the circumstances. they had a year to get on the case and all they did was hold to their NORQUIST PLEDGE and follow mitch mcconell's directions to (metaphorically) KILL the obama administration.

posted January 03, 2012 08:17 PM            

CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs
The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.html#ixzz1iV9AtKsC

As opponents continue to point out, the stimulus did not keep unemployment below 8 percent, as initial projections by the Obama administration had suggested. In rational policy terms, there’s an easily understood and obvious explanation for that discrepancy:

At the time of those projections in early 2009, initial government reports estimated that economic output had declined 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. That would have made it quite a serious setback, the deepest recession in 30 years.

As we learned later, in reality GDP had declined 8.9 percent in late 2008, which was much worse than anyone understood at the time. It also fell 6.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009. That’s the biggest two-quarter decline since 1947, when government statisticians started tracking quarterly numbers. In short, in early 2009 we thought the economy had fallen off a ladder. In reality, it had fallen off a six-story building.

Politically speaking, of course, such realities cannot be acknowledged, because they contradict a useful narrative. They remain realities nonetheless.

posted January 04, 2012 12:29 PM            

The CBO said passing O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill would cause worse damage to the US economy in the long run..THAN IF NOTHING WERE DONE AT ALL.

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Wednesday, February 4, 2009 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long -haul/

That's fact acoustic..on 2 counts.

1. The Congressional Budget Office DID MAKE THAT PREDICTION ON THE EFFECTS OF O'BOMBER'S PROPOSED PORKULUS BILL.

2. The Congressional Budget Office prediction on the long term effects of O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill proved to be right on the mark.

There are fewer Americans employed in America now then there were when O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill was passed...A LOT FEWER ARE EMPLOYED.

From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus

There were approximately 2.4 million fewer Americans working in June 2011 than there were when President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus bill on Feb. 17, 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to the BLS, there were approximately 141.68 million people counted as “employed” in America back in February 2009. By June of 2011, that number had fallen to approximately 139.33 million, yielding a net reduction in jobs of approximately 2.4 million.

When the economic stimulus – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — was created, Obama promised that the then-$787-billion spending package would create or save 3.5 million jobs, saying it would preserve the “American dream” for millions of people. http://visiontoamerica.org/2260/2-4-million-fewer-americans-w orking-now-than-when-obama-signed-economic-stimulus/

So, O'Bomber most certainly DID NOT create 3 million jobs.

There are many more Americans on Food Stamps today than there were when O'Bomber signed his Porkulus Bill to pay off his big campaign contributors.

Food Stamp Nation: 39% more Americans on Food Stamps Since Obama Took Office


http://escapetyranny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/food-stamps-chart.jpg

There are many more Americans living below the poverty line today than there were when O'Bomber signed his Porkulus Bill to pay off his big campaign contributors.

WASHINGTON — Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

These are all facts acoustic and cannot be avoided by confused agrument, demoscat lies or spin.

Now, the destruction of the final piece of your horse crap that Bush was a bigger spender than O'Bomber.

In 8 years..2001 through 2008, Bush spent a total of 19 trillion, 164 billion, 700 million dollars...19,164.7 Billion.

In 3 years, 2009, 2010, 2011, O'Bomber spent 10 trillion, 80 billion, 350 million dollars..10,080.35 Billion.

The budget O'Bomber proposed for 2012..which even Senate demoscats laughed at was for 3.7 Trillion dollars..3,700.0 Billion. There is no 2012 budget. The country is being run on "continuing resolutions". However if O'Bomber's 2012 budget had been passed, it would have brought O'Bomber's total spending...in only 4 years to 14 trillion, 503 billion, 500 million...14,503.5 Billion.

In only 4 years O'Bomber's actual and proposed spending was 14.5 Trillion vs 8 years of total Bush spending of 19.2 Trillion..I rounded Bush UP.

Average spending per year under Bush...2.395 Trillion.

Average spending per year under O'Bomber..3.626 Trillion.

posted January 04, 2012 03:49 PM            

quote:

---

The CBO said passing O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill would cause worse damage to the US economy in the long run..THAN IF NOTHING WERE DONE AT ALL.

---

Tell me, oh practical one, how does that make A LICK OF DIFFERENCE when the CBO has measured it's success in its wake?

quote:

---

2. The Congressional Budget Office prediction on the long term effects of O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill proved to be right on the mark.

---

This is NOT a factual reality. You've done nothing to support this assertion.

Virtually your whole post has been undone by my preceding post:

quote:

---

As opponents continue to point out, the stimulus did not keep unemployment below 8 percent, as initial projections by the Obama administration had suggested. In rational policy terms, there’s an easily understood and obvious explanation for that discrepancy:

At the time of those projections in early 2009, initial government reports estimated that economic output had declined 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. That would have made it quite a serious setback, the deepest recession in 30 years.

As we learned later, in reality GDP had declined 8.9 percent in late 2008, which was much worse than anyone understood at the time. It also fell 6.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009. That’s the biggest two-quarter decline since 1947, when government statisticians started tracking quarterly numbers. In short, in early 2009 we thought the economy had fallen off a ladder. In reality, it had fallen off a six-story building.

Politically speaking, of course, such realities cannot be acknowledged, because they contradict a useful narrative. They remain realities nonetheless.

---

8.9% plus an additional 6.7% decrease in GDP versus the anticipated 3.8%. Any notion that you've got a handle on any facts here is beyond rational comprehension.

quote:

---

So, O'Bomber most certainly DID NOT create 3 million jobs.

---

You have nothing to back your assertion here.

Your repeated claims of Obama paying off contributors lacks credibility. Obama didn't design the stimulus nor pass it through Congress. Putting money into "shovel-ready" military endeavors cannot be considered giving handouts to contributors, can it? The example Shura looked into randomly certainly can't be remotely conceived of as a kickback for campaign contributors. You're trying to skate on water. There's not even thin ice for you to be on here.

quote:

---

These are all facts acoustic and cannot be avoided by confused agrument, demoscat lies or spin.

---

The moment you start reporting facts, there won't be need for anyone to be here. Until then, you shouldn't be making pronouncements that are patently untrue.

It is true that more people are food stamps than ever before, but that does NOT negate any possible positive effects of the stimulus. That's confused thinking on your part. By your estimation the stimulus should have righted the economy instantly.

The Wall Street Journal puts the recession cost to the government at 4.2 trillion: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/recession-cost-uncle-sam-42-trillion-2011-04-21

posted January 04, 2012 06:39 PM            

As for you acoustic, it's been laid out for you chapter and verse...and I didn't even make you analyze...which is certainly not your strong suit. Straight facts which need no analysis were reported.

As for your credibility acoustic, I'd say it's on a par with Baghdad Bob's...Saddam's Minister of Propaganda. Baghdad Bob, who was screeching at American reporters that there were no American troops in Baghdad when the reporters could see and hear American tanks driving down the streets of Baghdad in front of their hotels.

I didn't even mention the continued and accelerating residential and commercial real estate foreclosures.

Or

The fact average family income has fallen under O'Bomber's Socialist bullshiiit economic policies.

Or

The fact the price of oil is up from $32 per barrel the day Bush left office to more than $100 today under O'Bomber.

Or

The fact regular gasoline was $1.87 per gallon the day O'Bomber took over and it's $3.35 today at the cheapest gas station in my area.

posted January 04, 2012 07:26 PM            

quote:

---

Straight facts which need no analysis were reported.

---

By me, yes.

Your myriad of "facts" don't save your argument. Piling on only shows that you believe my points made a valid case. A band-aid consisting of less than 20% of the projected cure isn't ever going to be a miracle cure.

I'll concede that the economy hasn't rebounded (though it is rebounding overall), but it's not because an aid package couldn't work a miracle. You put the aid package on the person who signed it into law versus the drafters, then claimed that this same person who signed it into law somehow managed to alter the package to help political partners, and then claimed it didn't help the economy without evidence except to point out that things don't seem to be any better. All kinds of wrong.

With people out of work, of course foreclosures would continue. That doesn't mean the stimulus didn't do ANYTHING, does it?

Average family income reached a high in 1999. Hasn't returned since. Who's been office since then? Yeah. I don't think you really have a point there, do you?

Now, following a recession, a drop in income is somewhat typical:

Median household income declined the first full year following the December 2007 to June 2009 recession, as well as in the first year following three other recessions (March 2001 to November 2001, January 1980 to July 1980, and December 1969 to November 1970) (Table 2). http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

Let's not be ridiculous and suppose that there would be ANY other outcome to the most severe recession since the Great Depression.

quote:

---

The fact the price of oil is up from $32 per barrel the day Bush left office to more than $100 today under O'Bomber.

The fact regular gasoline was $1.87 per gallon the day O'Bomber took over and it's $3.35 today at the cheapest gas station in my area.

---

posted January 04, 2012 10:09 PM            

O'Bomber and his crony Socialist pals ripped off American taxpayers to pay back O'Bomber's big campaign contributors. That's not going away.

Neither is O'Bomber's record of destroying American jobs, destroying America's energy infrastructure, trying to destroy America's economy, running a cover-up in the running of guns into Mexico illegally, laundering Mexican drug cartel cash and handing the cleaned money back over to them or cramming O'BomberCare down America's throat.

None of it's going away. It's going to be front and center in the coming elections.

It's O'Bomber's corrupt record and it makes Americans want to throw up.

posted January 04, 2012 11:05 PM            

quote:

---

It's O'Bomber's corrupt record and it makes Americans want to throw up.

---

You're quite wrong, undoubtedly wrong, so far wrong you don't even have any conception of reality wrong. A Republican will have to have an incredibly strong showing to beat Obama this year even in this economy. That's the reality.

quote:

---

Baghdad Bob is alive, well and hanging out at GU. His initials are AG.

---

posted January 05, 2012 12:16 AM            

Really!! Any rational person could look at the title of this thread..."demoscats Spending Your Money Stupidly!"

then look at where you've been taking this thread and come to the conclusion that changing the subject is exactly what you've attempted.

Baghdad Bob would be so proud of you!

posted January 05, 2012 06:56 AM            

Your nonsense that O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill created 3 million jobs...when there are more than 2.4 million FEWER Americans working now than there were before O'Bomber's Porkulus Bill is a loony tunes drooler's ravings...or Marxist Math. Where did O'Bomber create those jobs....on Mars?

Now, quit while you're behind. Oh, and in the future, please attempt to focus on the subject of the thread.

posted January 05, 2012 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Your allegation that Bush increased spending more than O'Bomber ranks right up there with your irrational notion that the US should have sent Saddam a water treatment plant.

---

No. It's fact.

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

Don't believe it?

Let's go to the chart.

Here's Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed:

As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federa l-president-obama-debt#ixzz1iccOUvGl

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent. http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

See also: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-since-lbj/

Even a source I'm loathe to quote says: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/?page=all

posted January 05, 2012 11:00 PM            

Oh yeah, one other thing. Don't attempt to compare 8 years of total spending under Bush with only 3 years under O'Bomber.

posted January 06, 2012 01:10 AM            

It's true that we don't get to measure eight years versus eight years, but the line in the article indicating that spending has come down under Obama suggests that under Obama spending will continue being chipped away at rather than added on to. Would you bet that Obama will reach Bush's spending heights in eight years? I wouldn't.

posted January 06, 2012 05:59 AM            

Your little tin horn dictator wannabee stands condemned as an out of control spending loon...by your own chart.

It's not often one sees a line on a chart..any chart, go straight up as O'Bomber and his loony-tunes Socialist big spenders in Congress caused this spending trend line go straight up!

posted January 06, 2012 11:51 AM            

quote:

---

Your little tin horn dictator wannabee stands condemned as an out of control spending loon...by your own chart.

---

That's patently absurd. The spending done under Obama - not Obama's spending - was done in reaction to a financial crisis which was not his doing. That is the ONLY rational way to interpret the data. Any other way would be spin.

quote:

---

Perhaps if you paid more attention to what you post...before you post it.............

---