• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Record Spending On 2012 Elections By GOP Groups

TheDemSocialist said:




Holy **** that is a **** ton of money! I expect the same **** from Obama. But dear god! This just adds into my feeling that democracy in the US is for sale. And the politicians are almost puppets on a string from these ****s

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...


So, since Obama's fund raising machine is in the toilet this round of elections, the dem talking point is going to be that the election is for sale.
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

You guys are laughable, this same echo chamber comment has been knocking around left wing blog sites for a bit now. Maybe if Obama is getting clobbered in fund raising he shouldnt have been demonizing corporate America so much and implementing bad policies. He bit the hand that fed him one time too many.
 
Phys251 said:
But much of that money comes from corporations, which could have passed it on as savings to their customers.

And please let the Obama debt half-truth die. He inherited from Bush a $1.3-trillion deficit, which he has stabilized even in the midst of a painfully slow recovery.
Click to expand...

That Obama debt half-truth is being pushed as 100% blatant lie from his camp right now. Lowest spending *increase* is being conflated with lowest spending ever, and even worse, it's only the lowest increase if you discount all of 2009 and add that year to Bush's figures. It's a lie on top of a lie. And people are just soaking it up, repeating it like gospel. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
 
Jesse Ventura said it best -- these guys spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $100k. His take: "I spent $300,000 in my campaign for Governor, and I made over $400,000."
 
Anyone that donates to a politician is a political ignoramus...especially if it is their own money and they are not loaded.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
That Obama debt half-truth is being pushed as 100% blatant lie from his camp right now. Lowest spending *increase* is being conflated with lowest spending ever, and even worse, it's only the lowest increase if you discount all of 2009 and add that year to Bush's figures. It's a lie on top of a lie. And people are just soaking it up, repeating it like gospel. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Click to expand...

We're repeating FACTS? Gosh, you're right, we'd better rethink this. Better to take a page from the serial liar known as Mitt Romney and brag about the Obama income tax hike, Obama's Muslim faith, Obama's Kenyan birth, and all sorts of other things that absolutely, categorically, never happened.
 
Phys251 said:
We're repeating FACTS? Gosh, you're right, we'd better rethink this. Better to take a page from the serial liar known as Mitt Romney and brag about the Obama income tax hike, Obama's Muslim faith, Obama's Kenyan birth, and all sorts of other things that absolutely, categorically, never happened.
Click to expand...

Nice redirect. But it doesn't change the fact that Obama's spending is the highest ever, nor that people are repeating the lie that it's the lowest. The awful Nutting article entitled "Obama lowest spender in decades" relies on a chart as evidence called "Slowest spending in decades, annualized growth of federal spending." The title is a lie exposed by the data, and the data within is also a lie exposed by its own methodology. You have to throw 2009 right out in order for Nutting's conclusion to follow. It's like some people don't understand English well enough to define the words "low" and "slow," or how the apostrophe attributes ownership when attached to someone's name.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Nice redirect. But it doesn't change the fact that Obama's spending is the highest ever, nor that people are repeating the lie that it's the lowest. The awful Nutting article entitled "Obama lowest spender in decades" relies on a chart as evidence called "Slowest spending in decades, annualized growth of federal spending." The title is a lie exposed by the data, and the data within is also a lie exposed by its own methodology. You have to throw 2009 right out in order for Nutting's conclusion to follow. It's like some people don't understand English well enough to define the words "low" and "slow," or how the apostrophe attributes ownership when attached to someone's name.
Click to expand...

And you just lied there. I clearly said lowest INCREASE, NOT lowest spending. If you want to try to make a fact-based claim, you would be better off using facts. Here is a precise measurement that shows the truth of Obama's statement. The only thing he got wrong was the inflation factor, but even with that, he's second-best after Eisenhower. Not bad company.
 
Phys251 said:
And you just lied there. I clearly said lowest INCREASE, NOT lowest spending. If you want to try to make a fact-based claim, you would be better off using facts. Here is a precise measurement that shows the truth of Obama's statement. The only thing he got wrong was the inflation factor, but even with that, he's second-best after Eisenhower. Not bad company.
Click to expand...

That is a clever "single factor" way of viewing the matter, yet ignores reality completely. Federal spending spiked in 2008/2009 due to TARP, making that level the "Obama" base line, so yes, AFTER that level was established, no FURTHER massive spending increases were required to keep the massive federal spending alive and well. But if you use the AVERAGE Bush federal spending 2001 to 2008 (20% of GDP), and the AVERAGE Obama federal spending 2009 to 2012 (24% of GDP), then you CAN say that Obama INDEED raised federal spending by 20% over that of Bush, yet kept the federal taxation rate (17% of GDP) the same. The nonsense of the federal spending "percentage of increase" argument is then exposed as the lie it is.
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Oh, that's right, he was expected to raise a billion for this campaign. And your complaining about the Republications?
Click to expand...

With this. Yes. I complain about both sides.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a clever "single factor" way of viewing the matter, yet ignores reality completely. Federal spending spiked in 2008/2009 due to TARP, making that level the "Obama" base line, so yes, AFTER that level was established, no FURTHER massive spending increases were required to keep the massive federal spending alive and well. But if you use the AVERAGE Bush federal spending 2001 to 2008 (20% of GDP), and the AVERAGE Obama federal spending 2009 to 2012 (24% of GDP), then you CAN say that Obama INDEED raised federal spending by 20% over that of Bush, yet kept the federal taxation rate (17% of GDP) the same. The nonsense of the federal spending "percentage of increase" argument is then exposed as the lie it is.
Click to expand...

Problem is, though, "Obama's record spending" was one of the Republicans' biggest talking points. And it's been shot to hell.

Now you're throwing in GDP into the mix, whereas I was referring to pure spending. I'll have to look over that and get back to you.
 
Phys251 said:
And you just lied there. I clearly said lowest INCREASE, NOT lowest spending. If you want to try to make a fact-based claim, you would be better off using facts. Here is a precise measurement that shows the truth of Obama's statement. The only thing he got wrong was the inflation factor, but even with that, he's second-best after Eisenhower. Not bad company.
Click to expand...

Where did you say the word "Increase"? You claimed the "Obama debt half-truth," I assume based on the blatantly dishonest and misleading Nutting article of much recent fame that itself conflates lowest ever with lowest increase... which is also wrong.
 
Phys251 said:
Problem is, though, "Obama's record spending" was one of the Republicans' biggest talking points. And it's been shot to hell.

Now you're throwing in GDP into the mix, whereas I was referring to pure spending. I'll have to look over that and get back to you.
Click to expand...

Thank you, for considering my point, please do check on my assertions, to ensure that they are truely facts. The federal deficit is a very simple concept, it is a function of federal spending EXCEEDING federal revenue, under Bush it averaged 20%, under Obama it averaged 40%. The congress made, and agreed to, "rules" that stated that ANY spending increases, must be "paid for" by either cuts in spending or tax increases to fund the new spending, UNLESS they were "emergencies". The congress is so stupid, or arrogant, that they even considered the 2010 census (a 200 year old tradition) to be treated as an "emergency" for spending purposes. The congress then chose to use only "promises" of spending cuts, occurring in future budget years (as many as 10 of them), to "pay for" new "non-emergency" spending in the current year. These "promises" are not law, or binding in any way, as no current congress may deny (or limit) any furture congress (or president) the power to "budget" as they see fit. USA, USA, USA...
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you, for considering my point, please do check on my assertions, to ensure that they are truely facts. The federal deficit is a very simple concept, it is a function of federal spending EXCEEDING federal revenue, under Bush it averaged 20%, under Obama it averaged 40%. The congress made, and agreed to, "rules" that stated that ANY spending increases, must be "paid for" by either cuts in spending or tax increases to fund the new spending, UNLESS they were "emergencies". The congress is so stupid, or arrogant, that they even considered the 2010 census (a 200 year old tradition) to be treated as an "emergency" for spending purposes. The congress then chose to use only "promises" of spending cuts, occurring in future budget years (as many as 10 of them), to "pay for" new "non-emergency" spending in the current year. These "promises" are not law, or binding in any way, as no current congress may deny (or limit) any furture congress (or president) the power to "budget" as they see fit. USA, USA, USA...
Click to expand...

Hey, no problem. I'm always willing to change my mind, BUT it will take a well-reasoned, BS-free argument to get me there.

Anyway. Here is what I was able to find. For the life of me I had real trouble getting many useful charts past the year 2010.

spending.png


Let the debate begin over that spike at 2009. The way I see it, though, there's clearly a rise right around the time Obama took office--but compared to the rest of the graph, especially those spikes at WWI and WWII, it honestly doesn't look like much more than a natural ebb and flow.
 
As a percentage of GDP, Obama's spending is higher than Bush's. In real numbers, it's the highest ever. Now, adjusted for inflation, I haven't a clue. I have no idea what the real rate of inflation is at this moment in time.
 
Phys251 said:
Hey, no problem. I'm always willing to change my mind, BUT it will take a well-reasoned, BS-free argument to get me there.

Anyway. Here is what I was able to find. For the life of me I had real trouble getting many useful charts past the year 2010.

spending.png


Let the debate begin over that spike at 2009. The way I see it, though, there's clearly a rise right around the time Obama took office--but compared to the rest of the graph, especially those spikes at WWI and WWII, it honestly doesn't look like much more than a natural ebb and flow.
Click to expand...

That's a nice way to put it. However to me it looks like a big spike. Aside from the chart, in just four yrs under Obama he has raised the national debt by close to 6 trillion.
 
Born Free said:
That's a nice way to put it. However to me it looks like a big spike. Aside from the chart, in just four yrs under Obama he has raised the national debt by close to 6 trillion.
Click to expand...

It is a big increase, from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP, or a 20% increase in federal spending. What is shown is only federal spending but not federal revenue, the federal deficit (or surplus) is the difference between spending and revenue. While spending, under Obama, went up by 20%, revenue remained the same, at 17% of GDP, causing the deficit to DOUBLE, yep 100% more average annual national debt increase, under Obama, than under Bush. Yes he did!
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
It is a big increase, from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP, or a 20% increase in federal spending. What is shown is only federal spending but not federal revenue, the federal deficit (or surplus) is the difference between spending and revenue. While spending, under Obama, went up by 20%, revenue remained the same, at 17% of GDP, causing the deficit to DOUBLE, yep 100% more average annual national debt increase, under Obama, than under Bush. Yes he did!
Click to expand...

Problem is, though, if 20% to 24% is a "big increase," then there are a LOT of "big increases" on that chart. Strictly IMO, I only see two big increases.

Note, BTW, that right after the 2009 spike, it starts to come down a little.
 
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/o2012-donate-main

https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=blogger&passive=1209600&continue=http://www.blogger.com/home?pli%3D1&followup=http://www.blogger.com/home?pli%3D1&ltmpl=start#s01

https://www.mittromney.com/donate

Can you pull yourself back a few steps and think about the political climate throughout American history and to what extent the general populace had the ability to shape its political destiny? Have the democratic reforms of the political process over the past century given you any thought as to how your democratic impulse has actually improved in the United States rather than eroded?

Chicken littles without any historical sense.
 
You know what would be cool? If we were smart enough that all this hot air blowing, all the lies, all the hype, and all the advertising (pronounced "lying") didn't sway us to vote for just the two main parties, and didn't let the people who destroyed our economy, and doomed the young generation to debt and unemployment get a pass. All that money that's being spent really does buy our votes. I would much rather that all this money couldn't influence our elections. Wise up, people. You wanna get the money out of elections? Then stop listening to the guys who spend it.
 
Phys251 said:
Problem is, though, if 20% to 24% is a "big increase," then there are a LOT of "big increases" on that chart. Strictly IMO, I only see two big increases.

Note, BTW, that right after the 2009 spike, it starts to come down a little.
Click to expand...

Well thats pretty charitable. After raising the budget by 800billion for a total deficit of 1400 billion he then agreed to cut it by 60billion. Am I the only one that sees that as bad?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Well thats pretty charitable. After raising the budget by 800billion for a total deficit of 1400 billion he then agreed to cut it by 60billion. Am I the only one that sees that as bad?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear how the 2009 "spike" compares to the WWI and WWII spikes.

And the more I think about this, when did analysis of government spending become "spending per GDP"?
 
X Factor said:
Hey, they're spending money freely given to them, just as the Dems are doing. It's like a business, it's a voluntary relationship. That's different than spending tax money that people are obligated to pay. The notion of fiscal restraint deals with the latter.
Click to expand...

Elections are like a business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom