Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman and AEI’s James Pethokoukis have noted, spending under the Obama administration has been at historic highs, consuming an average of more than 24 percent of the economy, compared to an average of around 20 percent under George Bush
You do realize that fractions have denominators? Spending can rise to 24% of the economy by spending rising or the economy falling, which it did.
This is one of the not-so-clever ways conservatives mislead the public.
Since the deficit for 2009 was $1.3 trillion, that means that Bush accounted for $900 billion of that deficit, or 70%. No matter how much you want to shift blame to Obama, it's mostly Bush. Facts are facts and numbers are numbers.
Since the deficit for 2009 was $1.3 trillion, that means that Bush accounted for $900 billion of that deficit, or 70%. No matter how much you want to shift blame to Obama, it's mostly Bush. Facts are facts and numbers are numbers.
Hey, Sherlock, what part of the US national debt is on the course to be 1/3 of the world's GDP by 2020 and will match the world's GDP by 2040 is so hard for you to understand?
No, Obama is not a fiscal hawk and saying so only makes you look like a total buffoon.
In addition, it wasn't a trillion. It was about $800 billion, spread out over two-years with 40% tax-cuts. Only a person set out to deceive would label tax-cuts as spending.
"The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison."
There are plenty of neutral sources chiming in on this outrageous claim. Obama is now in full spin-cycle, and he's willing to soak all of us to get re-elected.
Since the deficit for 2009 was $1.3 trillion, that means that Bush accounted for $900 billion of that deficit, or 70%. No matter how much you want to shift blame to Obama, it's mostly Bush. Facts are facts and numbers are numbers.
Bush is accountable for the $3.1 trillion he requested, not the $3.5 trillion that was spent. Bush was never presented with a budget. If he signed a budget that authorized spending $3.5 trillion, he would be responsible for that spending, but that never happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
