Staggering graphic of Romney's lies re Obama's "federal spen

Democracy4Sale wrote: The chart is about "ANNUALIZED GROWTH of FEDERAL SPENDING"...If you want to try to make it about something else, have fun.

It doesn't change the WSJ's numbers...or Romney's lies about it.

And I'll continue to tell the TRUTH about the WSJ's number on job-creation for Clinton, Bush and Obama. If you don't like that either, you can hear the disappointment in my voice.

Have a day...

Oh right, I forgot you were using the Obama job creation numbers where everytime a person was hired, Obama got a point, but everytime they lost the job, Barack wasn't penalized. So in the currently unstable job market, Obama looks like he is creating jobs, but in reality, the 8.2% unemployment rate isn't moving as people keep getting and losing jobs at the same rate.

FredHayek wrote: Oh right, I forgot you were using the Obama job creation numbers where everytime a person was hired, Obama got a point, but everytime they lost the job, Barack wasn't penalized.

Yes, it's the same formula that Romney has tried (and failed) to use regarding his "job creation" numbers vs. the number of jobs he destroyed or outsourced...(or, is it "off-shored"?...I can never remember...) But I wasn't using "job creation numbers" at all... You were.

The chart isn't about job-creation numbers.... is it. The chart is about "ANNUALIZED GROWTH of FEDERAL SPENDING"...If you want to try to make it about something else, have fun.

It doesn't change the WSJ's numbers...or Romney's lies about it.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Really?... 3 million jobs in 8 years of Bush, vs. 23.1 million under Clinton in 8 years, vs. 4.2 million under Obama in 3 years?

Uh-huh... Doesn't change the data on the chart...does it. Keep sucking down that :Koolaid:

And nothing changes the data on my chart. You're chart is wrong (that's been proven by everyone from The Washington Post to National Review), and constantly repeating the figures and posting your chart doesn't change anything or make them true.

It's apparent that the Democrats have decided to go ahead with certain talking points (like this chart) which are outright lies, repeat them over and over, in an attempt to make Romney look bad, Obama look good. It's not working, the responses on this thread prove that point too!

Keep sucking that down.

Poor LJ,
It must be much nicer preaching to the choir over at HuffPo than actually having people question your numbers.

Too bad the liberal press will swallow it like candy, for example, the fire acerage numbers from this year.

Poor Fred... Just can't seem to deflect the topic to something other than the OP and the evidence of Romney's lies. Hang in there, Fred. Sooner or later, you'll get one right...

The chart isn't about job-creation numbers.... is it. The chart is about "ANNUALIZED GROWTH of FEDERAL SPENDING"...If you want to try to make it about something else, have fun.

It doesn't change the WSJ's numbers...or Romney's lies about it. I have yet to see you post anything about the OP...

Democracy4Sale wrote: Poor Fred... Just can't seem to deflect the topic to something other than the OP and the evidence of Romney's lies. Hang in there, Fred. Sooner or later, you'll get one right...

The chart isn't about job-creation numbers.... is it. The chart is about "ANNUALIZED GROWTH of FEDERAL SPENDING"...If you want to try to make it about something else, have fun.

It doesn't change the WSJ's numbers...or Romney's lies about it. I have yet to see you post anything about the OP...

I did address that earlier. Obama is such an incompetent manager of the stimulus program that not only didn't the infrastructure get fixed, unemployment is still at record levels and he didn't spend enough. Refer to Paul Krugman's latest diatribe.
And under Obama, it would only get worse, he is about to dump hundreds of thousands of US troops on a civvie labor market with no jobs, raise taxes with taxmageddon, end cut military contractor spending.

Come on Barack, you can do it, 10% unemployment!

I agree with Krugman...It WASN'T big enough to do the job...But was the most he could get from the Neanderthals in the House...

"He is about to dump hundreds of thousands of US troops on a civvie labor market with no jobs.." ??? You mean all those troops from Bush's two UNNECESSARY WARS?!?!? You can't make this sh*t up... (So, what would the GOP do?...Keep the troops over there fighting the unnecessary war to keep them from showing up in the labor market? Hey, what's a few thousand more casualties in an unnecessary war---as long as they don't get dumped on the "civvie labor market."



"Raise taxes"....? You mean letting the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts expire that overwhelming benefit the richest?

"Cut military contractor spending...." GOD, I HOPE SO...

And, no, you DIDN'T "address it earlier"... What you posted had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the chart. It doesn't change the fact that lies about Obama's Federal spending, and the FACT that it's 1.4%, (as compared to over 8.7% for Reagan, and 8.1% for Bush) is a total falsehood... But that's okay, by tomorrow, the Romney camp will flip-flop on the statement, and change their website accordingly...if necessary.

Excuse me? BHO had a freaking blank check when he came into office, rememember those shovel ready projects Pelosi and Reid signed off on. Until January 2011, he had a no limit credit card for stimulus and he blew it. Unemployment went up, jobs decreased, etc.

The chart isn't about job-creation numbers.... is it. The chart is about "ANNUALIZED GROWTH of FEDERAL SPENDING"...If you want to try to make it about something else, have fun. What you posted had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the chart. It doesn't change the fact that lies about Obama's Federal spending, and the FACT that it's 1.4%, (as compared to over 8.7% for Reagan, and 8.1% for Bush) is a total falsehood... But that's okay, by tomorrow, the Romney camp will flip-flop on the statement, and change their website accordingly...if necessary.

It doesn't change the WSJ's numbers...or Romney's lies about it. I have yet to see you post anything about the OP...

Is there some part of that you're having trouble with?

You are making the point for both Krugman and me. American consumers pulled back on their spending and needed the goverment to prime the pump, like Keynes advised, instead Obama didn't spend enough of the federal money or in the right way.

Maybe he should have just sent everyone a $1000 check instead of wasting billions on failed green energy companies that are going bankrupt to Chinese firms.