Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Obama the big spender? Not so fast.... (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=4980)

Bigerik 11-08-2012 07:04 AM

Obama the big spender? Not so fast....
 
I don't know if this has article has been disucssed over here, but I sure found it to be an interesting read.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...ned-2012-05-22

I really found this graph to be interesting:

http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia...e-002128049ad6

http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia...e-002128049ad6

So which party are the reckless spenders again?

As an interesting aside, it was our Federal Liberal party that had to step in with the tough medicine to fix our screwed economy and federal spending after years of conservative rule.

whell 11-08-2012 07:31 AM

This article can't be serious. The has been no "Obama Budget", hasn't been for a while now. Even his own party voted overwhelmingly against his last budget submission, so it was DOA. For fiscal 2013 the article suggest that spending is scheduled to fall, but that's due to the sequester, which both parties are gearing up to negotiate about how to avoid. Also, the Stimulus was passed by Obama, but the article suggests that the responsibility for that is assigned to the last fiscal year of Bush's presidency, so it "doesn't count" against Obama's spending?

Gimme a break, please.

Bigerik 11-08-2012 08:14 AM

Did you miss the election? All the BS from ROmney and the Republicans about out of control spending? More importantly, I find the historical numbers interesting. So which party is really the one that does the big spending?

piece-itpete 11-08-2012 08:26 AM

Bushes last year included the bailout, which was supposedly paid back, and Iraq, which is over.

However Obamas' numbers are the new norm.

Pete

Bigerik 11-08-2012 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 133657)
Bushes last year included the bailout, which was supposedly paid back, and Iraq, which is over.

However Obamas' numbers are the new norm.

Pete

So we shouldn't include it because of the bailout? That was his call.

How about all of Bush's other years? Or Reagans? Or Poppa Bush?

The lowest Republican increase is 25% more than the highest Dem one.

piece-itpete 11-08-2012 08:30 AM

It's a shame that chart didn't include control of Congress.

Pete

Bigerik 11-08-2012 08:31 AM

And here you go ruining all of my fun, Pete. :)

piece-itpete 11-08-2012 08:41 AM

:)

Pete

piece-itpete 11-08-2012 08:43 AM

I'll give Obama this - he did take office during a hard time. I wonder if it's actually easier to have the opposition control part of Congress.

Pete

icenine 11-08-2012 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 133635)
This article can't be serious. The has been no "Obama Budget", hasn't been for a while now. Even his own party voted overwhelmingly against his last budget submission, so it was DOA. For fiscal 2013 the article suggest that spending is scheduled to fall, but that's due to the sequester, which both parties are gearing up to negotiate about how to avoid. Also, the Stimulus was passed by Obama, but the article suggests that the responsibility for that is assigned to the last fiscal year of Bush's presidency, so it "doesn't count" against Obama's spending?

Gimme a break, please.

What about the other stimulus package Bush passed before Obama...the $700 Billion dollar one?

Why was Obama re-elected Whelly? Why?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.