eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,669
- 245
You angry idiots don't get it, *ROMNEY'S* claim was bogus...
I would agree with you...but you're wrong.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You angry idiots don't get it, *ROMNEY'S* claim was bogus...
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.
Well, it's posted on facebook. It must be true.
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, well include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obamas -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bushs level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates weve seen critics offer.
Thats quite a bit larger than Nuttings $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obamas 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 theres 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 Obamas spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.
Yes, it was Obama and the two unpaid for wars was Bush, Jr.Yes it was, you idiots are in denial.
So your claiming the stimulus wasnt Obama's doing?
Romney, with the blessing of the GOP, wants to follow Europe's austerity.
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!
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.