Romney's claim on Obama refuted, lol

You angry idiots don't get it, *ROMNEY'S* claim was bogus, lets not get side tracked with ad-hominems, if you're mad say you're mad.

So Obama's not a big spender because some asswipe on Facebook says so?

Gee - thanks. I didn't know that.
 
This thread serves only to add to the growing pile of evidence substantiating the FACT that Obamaroids in mass are becoming hysterically desperate for something good to say about Obama.
 

from your link...
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.

That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.
Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.
 
Yes it was, you idiots are in denial.

So your claiming the stimulus wasnt Obama's doing?
Yes, it was Obama and the two unpaid for wars was Bush, Jr.
Romney, with the blessing of the GOP, wants to follow Europe's austerity.

The cost of the wars, though not in our "Budget", was paid for by Emergency SPending Bills that continued by BOTH parties, and was calculated into our total debt/deficit.

Prove otherwise.

Hell, even Ed King of CNN said, last night, that for the same time frame Bush spent 4.9 and Obama spent 5.1


Even Obama's sweethearts are turning on him.
:lol:
 
Conservatives dont want to follow Europe's austerity. Europe is increasing taxes and cutting spending.

We want to cut taxes and cut spending.

There is a major difference. Our way is proven to work.
 

Not this again.

Yes, Obama has increased spending at a slower rate than any recent president. But still, he did increase it from the insane levels Bush left it at, meaning Obama is still spending an insane amount.

Again, he didn't increase it much, but an increase of an already insane level is still bad.

We were kind of stuck with Bush/Republican commitments. Duh!
 
We were kind of stuck with Bush/Republican commitments. Duh!

No. actually you weren't. See, if the current President doesnt like something the previous President has done, they can change that.

I know. Radical concept. Change what the previous President did wrong, not magnify and increase it exponentially.
 
Conservatives dont want to follow Europe's austerity. Europe is increasing taxes and cutting spending.

We want to cut taxes and cut spending.

There is a major difference. Our way is proven to work.

Cutting taxes when a country has a deficit does not reduce and eliminate debt, simple mathematics, if you have record low tax revenue combine with more spending equals more debt, you have to have combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
 

Forum List

Back
Top