Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm not wrong, I'm just looking at the chart a different way. The chart said "larger" not "increase". The formulas are not the same. I prefer to look at change.
The 2009 budget was set by Bush and approved by a Republican House in 2008. Yes, Obama signed it into law but to claim he alone instigated the spending would be false.
The chart posted was only about spending, the pies by comparison include both spending AND deficit.
The counter-terror infrastructure could have been implemented without engaging in long-term massive scale wars that Obama inherited. Even considering the rampant fraud and waste of both actions...if this is legitimate spending under Bush I don't see how you can blame Obama for continuing it...you just refuted your own point.
Yes, good to note that the DOW is near an all time high. The recession was a massive correction and far worse than most imagined it would be. What you don't know is how much worse things could have been had we not bailed out the banks and shored up GDP via the Stimulus.
Never saw it.
Depends on the day...right now it's pretty gray.
-spence
|
" I prefer to look at change"
Spence, you need to learn to quit when you are behind.
The "change", if that's what you like, between 2.7 and 3.8, is 40%. The chart says that the spending of 3.8 is 40% more than when we spent 2.7. You said that was wrong. But it was not wrong, you were wrong. Every 4th grader who didn't flunk math, knows you were wrong.
"but to claim he alone instigated the spending would be false."
And where did I claim any such thing?
Obama is the president. The buck stops with him, at least it is supposed to stop with him.
"...if this is legitimate spending under Bush I don't see how you can blame Obama for continuing it...you just refuted your own point"
Do you ever, ever get tired of being wrong? Obama's spending hike is not a function of his continuation of the Bush anti-terror policies. In fact, Obama is benefitting from the fact that Bush's wars are winding down on his watch, which lowers spending. If Obama did nothing but allow Bush's policies to run their course, spending would be lower. Obama's spending increase comes from his desire for economic justice, as he sees it.. You really don't know that?
"What you don't know is how much worse things could have been had we not bailed out the banks and shored up GDP via the Stimulus."
No one can know what didn't happen. Any benefit of that stimulus, has to be weighed against the fact that your kids and my kids will be paying the bill for that.
When all you can do is say "the economy sucks, but it would have been worse without Obama's spending", that is pure speculation. Wild, rampant speculation. I like to deal with what we know as fact.
We know Bush freed millions of Muslims from other, monstrous Muslims, I saw that firsthand, unlike you, who get your news from The Daily Worker. Bush also managed to save more than one million lives in Africa, thanks to his AIDS initiative which he spearheaded.
Yet Bush gets called a racist, and Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything noteworthy. Kudos to you and your ilk. You added trillions to our debt, and all you have to show is a net gain of around zero jobs, pathetic GDP growth, and lower median wages. If that is the measure of "a job well done", if that's a good result for adding more than $5 trillion to the debt, then you have low standards indeed.
Oh, and if you say everyone knows SS and Medicare are in deep trouble...what exactly has your hero done about that, in 4 years? Precisely zip.
Spence, you cannot win. I'm holding all the cards.
...sometimes the mistake is ever sitting down at the table in the first place....
Hybrid Mode
