Forbes Magazine Succumbs to Obama

[clistensprechen]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Check out chart

Courtesy of Marketwatch.

[Woody]

Clara, honey, that is the marketwatch article Forbes linked to in May.  That has been debunked.  Your info is oh so old.  But hey, it is your sides convention so your turn to sling some bull.

[clistensprechen]

So now Forbes is full of bunk now, huh. Nice going, Ace--who's gonna believe THAT?! :woot:

Date on the article is 5/24/2012, which is within this fiscal quarter, no? 

[clistensprechen]

Oh...and by the way...the year 2010 was the year of the Census, and HE DID IT!....as in on time and under budget. Neener neener neener!  :mooner:

[Woody]

Three pinnochios for ya:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama-part-2/2012/05/30/gJQA3V4d2U_blog.html

[clistensprechen]

So Forbes is full of **** and is still printing? Whoaaaaaaaaah, whod-a thunk it?!

Forbes debunked--Forbes Fail.

Imagine that!  :hairfire:

The straight-line CBO accounts of outlays that MarketWatch and PolitiFact used are distorted by the fact that repayments of TARP funds by banks and Wall Street firms in 2010 make the actual spending seem much smaller.

Yeah, when stuff is paid back cuz it's a loan and not budget spending, that ain't fair.  Washington Post's pants are on fire.

WaPo lies when it says this, too:

...because it fails to mention that the bill passed under Dubya contained no conditions when Senator Obama voted for it (because it was a dire emergency at the time) but when Obama was president, conditions were added to terms of handing out that money....as in, on condition that it be repaid.

[Woody]

Forbes is full of **** for posting the marketwatch article that was debunked.  Clara, admit you're posting months old material that has been debunked.  Shall I get the factcheck.org article as well?  What will it take?


You also cherry picked but I expect no better.

[Woody]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama-part-2/2012/05/30/gJQA3V4d2U_blog.html

[clistensprechen]

Finance reports typically happen in quarters, or weren't you aware of that? Quarters consist of 4 month periods. That article was printed at the beginning of the last quarter, which wrapped up at the end of August. And here you are splitting hairs because we just (JUST!) entered September.  I posted the date of the article and that should be good enough for anybody, including you.

Time for you to admit that there's an intramural war going on inside the rapidly disintegrating GOP. It's millionaire vs millionaire, billionaire vs billionaire, Tea Party faction vs Tea Party faction and presidential/veep nominees vs the GOP platform.  :cheers:

[Woody]

Lmao! 


You now have two respected fact check articles debunking the nutting claim.  The fact check article is very good. 

[Woody]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

[Woody]

One last point.  This IS NOT a Forbes finding.  It is an Op Ed based on Nutting's marketwatch piece.  So no, Forbes is not full of ****.


The byline of your Opinion Piece reads:


Rick Unger, Contributor
Writing from the left on policy and politics

[RWE]

--"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said.--

This statement really shows what a low class reprobate we now have for a President. It's one thing to lie about his own record, but he lies about the records of nine former Presidents.

[clistensprechen]

One last point.  This IS NOT a Forbes finding.  It is an Op Ed based on Nutting's marketwatch piece.  So no, Forbes is not full of ****.


The byline of your Opinion Piece reads:


Rick Unger, Contributor
Writing from the left on policy and politics

...which got past Forbes' vetters. Forbes published it as if it had merit.  But I've already debunked one article you folk claim debunks the article. I have yet to read the others...so...in good time, in good time.  WaPo so far is full of ****.

[RWE]

So Forbes is full of **** and is still printing? Whoaaaaaaaaah, whod-a thunk it?!

Forbes debunked--Forbes Fail.

Imagine that!  :hairfire:

The straight-line CBO accounts of outlays that MarketWatch and PolitiFact used are distorted by the fact that repayments of TARP funds by banks and Wall Street firms in 2010 make the actual spending seem much smaller.

Yeah, when stuff is paid back cuz it's a loan and not budget spending, that ain't fair.  Washington Post's pants are on fire.

No... When the loan was made it was added to Bush's spending. When it was paid back it was subtracted from Obama's spending. If Bush made the loan and any of it was paid back, then that amount should be deducted from Bush's spending.