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.
You libs are priceless (which is probably why you are libs).
We DO NOT SPEND PERCENTAGE INCREASES, WE SPEND DOLLARS. OBAMA HAS THE HIGHEST SPENDING IN DOLLARS OF ANY PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY. HE HAS BLOWN $6-$7 TRILLION!
No worries- at the end of Obama's term, we will be in debt $24 trillion. You libs have effectively killed the United States in a brief 8 year period. You have done more damage to the greatest nation in earth than the Soviets, the Nazis, and Japanese ever did. Congratulations! I am sure that Stalin and Hitler are smiling in hell.
You were one of the posters who took the pledge that if Romney lost, you would not post on C-D for seven days.
I posted a link to the same Forbes article awhile back and got clobbered, too. Another author published a different article at Forbes. This author goes on about how Bush's 2009 budget submitted in 2/2008 called for a meager 3% increase in spending and says" Obama was directly and personally responsible for the 2009 spending explosion". This author seems to forget that in 2/2008, no one had a clue about the stuff that was going to start hitting the fan in 9/2008:
-Lehman's failure
-Stock Market Crash
-AIG's failure and subsequent bail out
-Bear Stearns failure and government guaranteed buy out by JP Morgan
-Merrill Lynch failure and government guaranteed buy-out by BoA
-The need to expicitly guarantee FNMA/FNMA
-Failure of Wash Mu
-TARP
-The Detroit Auto CEOs flying into DC to plead their case for a bail out.
-A staggering loss of 2.65 million jobs in 2008, with 524 jobs lost in December, alone, the worst job loss in 65 years.
How the heck did any rational person think any president was going to turn the Great Recession around on a dime? Recessions end when things stop getting worse which is not the same thing as things getting better. That typically happens over 10-15 years.
According to some, Obama should not have increased the welfare state and just allowed unemployed millions of people to starve in the streets, no different than the third world. .
national debt when obusha took office: 10.6 trillion
national debt today 16.2 trillion
obama has spent more in (just short of) 4 years than bush spent in 8 years
Bush had the benefit of bubble mania. People were prematurely sucking their paper equity out of their homes to live substantially beyond their means, like there was no tomorrow. Speculators were flipping properties in the blink of an eye. Wall Street created and sold CDS instruments that no one understood- built on a house of cards. Rating agencies thought they were just swell. All of this combined into one big fat spending spree which fueled employment
Government, people, banks, insurers and investors were making too much money to seriously consisder it was not sustainable.
exactly, george bush left him a steaming pile of a budget.
It was only the stimulus package that drove the 2009 budget up, this of course was passed by a Democrat lead Congress and signed by Obama. Now we can argue about who was responsible for what but the fact remains those spending levels continued after 2009.
LOL if by "puts a microscope on it" you mean "butchers it beyond the point of meaning", then sure i agree.
i mean he goes into the analysis looking for a way to make Obama look like a big spender, and by god, he found it. If you torture the data enough it will confess to anything you want.
If you're going to subtract defense and bailouts (for VERY questionable reasons, i might add) you also have to subtract the social spending that automatically increases during recessionary periods.
These are fair criticisms, abeit overly melodramatically stated. If you read the link the writer anticipates and addresses most of them. If you don't like the piece from Cato you don't really need it to discredit the Nutting piece. The Washington Post fact check column found that the Nutting piece was full of flaws. They calculated the growth rate at about 5.2%. The WSJ had an editorial at the time that also concluded the number was in the 5% range. The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post
If you're going to subtract defense and bailouts (for VERY questionable reasons, i might add) you also have to subtract the social spending that automatically increases during recessionary periods.
The defense is questionable but the bailouts certainly aren't because those expenses should be one time deal.
LOL
Clearly you missed the fact that the 2009 budget was NOT an OBAMA budget.
And clearly you missed the fact spending under Obama has continued each and every year he has been in office like it was 2009.
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.
