Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,864 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 932,170
Pageviews Today: 1,167,890Threads Today: 214Posts Today: 4,014
08:01 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why the "Big government Obama/Democrats" is a clear LIE(with data from the Economist)

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20595083
United States
07/28/2012 03:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the "Big government Obama/Democrats" is a clear LIE(with data from the Economist)
...


LOL yes what a silly pointless and intentionally misleading stat. Its the actual $$$ spent that's important and so many ways to fudge statistics on who exactly is a "public sector employee" (e.g., contractors, military, government subsidized corporations, a state or local employee being counted as local even though they are largely being funded by the feds).

Obama's fucking deficits are 4X greater than Bush!

[link to www.usgovernmentspending.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20595083


Those charts are all in nominal terms. Perhaps you could link to the charts in real terms.
 Quoting: Wonkish


Pointless and a waste of time, as that site doesn't bother to five the values in real term, and what huge difference would there be 1-8 years anyway between administrations between the nominal and real rate?

Here's an even better figure than the real or nominal rate, the % of the deficit increase compared to GDP. You still see the 4X greater rate under Obama than Bush. Again, absolutely HORRIFIC figures for Obama!

[link to www.usgovernmentspending.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20595083


The difference would only be a waste of time if you were hoping to present an intellectually dishonest argument---you knew that though. So let's see if you're willing to swallow your pride and present the figures in real terms.
 Quoting: Wonkish


Ha ha I swear Wonkish that site doesn't give it in terms of real $. But here is an equivalent. The deficit in terms of 2005 dollars.

Still see the same trend? Of course you do.

[link to www.usgovernmentspending.com]

Sigh, goes to show you how all the idiots have bought into the MSM propaganda and lies, "oh Bush worse president ever, destroyed economy, etc. etc. Obama is, ummm, OK. Just gotta give him more time, like 4 more years."

Meanwhile, every American should be sick and revolted at what has happened to the economy under Obama. Absolutely incredible how the MSM dupes all the tards.
Anonymous Coward
07/28/2012 04:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the "Big government Obama/Democrats" is a clear LIE(with data from the Economist)
...


Those charts are all in nominal terms. Perhaps you could link to the charts in real terms.
 Quoting: Wonkish


Pointless and a waste of time, as that site doesn't bother to five the values in real term, and what huge difference would there be 1-8 years anyway between administrations between the nominal and real rate?

Here's an even better figure than the real or nominal rate, the % of the deficit increase compared to GDP. You still see the 4X greater rate under Obama than Bush. Again, absolutely HORRIFIC figures for Obama!

[link to www.usgovernmentspending.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20595083


The difference would only be a waste of time if you were hoping to present an intellectually dishonest argument---you knew that though. So let's see if you're willing to swallow your pride and present the figures in real terms.
 Quoting: Wonkish


Ha ha I swear Wonkish that site doesn't give it in terms of real $. But here is an equivalent. The deficit in terms of 2005 dollars.

Still see the same trend? Of course you do.

[link to www.usgovernmentspending.com]

Sigh, goes to show you how all the idiots have bought into the MSM propaganda and lies, "oh Bush worse president ever, destroyed economy, etc. etc. Obama is, ummm, OK. Just gotta give him more time, like 4 more years."

Meanwhile, every American should be sick and revolted at what has happened to the economy under Obama. Absolutely incredible how the MSM dupes all the tards.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20595083


I believe you when you say that the site does not provide the numbers in real terms, and that is a problem. It's not your problem, or my problem necessarily, but it is a problem.

One should not compare figures over time unless the numbers have been treated in an appropriate manner, in this case the nominal figures should be treated to reflect real figures with some base year. If the figures are not treated in this manner then the comparison is worthless as $1 in 2000 is not the same as $1 in 2012---inflationary pressure.

News