Here is a great article from well established business magazine, Forbes: Obama's spending has been lowest of any president!! The analysis takes out the spending in the first year...which was preestablished by the Bush presidency who set the budget the previous Sept. Similarly when It looks at Bush's first year it assigns it to Clinton. The comments on the article are incredibly heated as Right Wing extremists have gone on the vicious name calling salacious commentary attack language attack. I guess they hate true facts.
Another day another article of propaganda from Hussein's fanboys . Father Stalin would be proud of you comrade . Just remember the party's undying credo : WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I cited an article with facts. You wrote the above. More examples of your unsubstantiated fuming anger.
Oh, gee, what a convenient piece of bullshit. Oh, in case you forgot, during the last two years of the Bush presidency the Democrats dominated both houses so all budget items had to be approved by Pelosi and Reid. And gee, isn't the budget the responsibility of the House of Representatives? Wow, I think I read that somewhere - oh yeah, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION! And, oh, during Bush's last two years in office he did not veto one bill the Democrats sent him. Not one. Here is a quiz for you, Earl - those budget bills during Obama's first year - WHO were the sponsors, Republicans or Democrats? C'mon now, look it up and tell us, O.K.? Earl, you should go back to your High School History teachers and tell them that you forgot everything they taught you about how the government works.
Interesting article. Did you see the bottom of it? The Forbes author had to edit: Lots of angry people right now. The comments are almost as interesting, because the author is engaged in the conversation. I thought this was funny >
Corwin: I either feel sorry for you, or suggest you up the quantity of meds you take. There is reality...and in some cases there is a twisted perspective of history as Corwin wishes others to see it. Here is a history of George W Bush's vetos while in office. (its through 2008) http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm The veto history from a respected source is only completely different than what you suggested above and have suggested before. I'm not sure on this. Maybe angry republicans like the kind of information you throw out. Its everything to do with emotions and nothing to do with facts. Independents and people who use their brains get disturbed by it. I'd try again.
2 posts are already in that situation so very angry. It's the stupid war looking for WMD that was not there. Nice job Earl ! You always hit the nerve ! Viva the Democrats !
Seriously Corwin: Sometimes your commentary is scary relative to the entire package of misinformation: Please explain the following list of veto's relative to your insistence that Bush did not veto a single bill the Democrats sent to him: Do you live in an alternate universe???
My mistake. Bush vetoed 11 bills from the Dems his last two years, and ONLY ONE was an appropriations bill. Unlike Earl, I am happy to admit when I've made a mistake. That is what adults do. Earl, however, would rather swim the breast stroke in his own diarrhea than admit to his many, many screwups! And it doesn't change the fact that Earl's original premise is bullshit - the trillions of dollars in spending during Obama's first term was part of Obama's "stimulus", the one that was promised to prevent the unemployment rate from going over 9%! The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office. In just four years Obama has ballooned the national debt accumulated by all previous presidents by a whopping 50%!
corwin: I'm glad to see you admit your comment about veto's was wrong. I too admit to mistakes. Meanwhile if you read, not only the article I sourced but the commentary, which is highly interesting. Through the first 25 or so comments, there was a lot of name calling by members of the Right and a tremendous effort to both stay civil and stick to the facts by the author. His point is simply that the explosion of both spending and debt in the first year of the Obama administration can and should be attributed to the Bush administration. That is a highly valid point. The previous years Bush administration set spending levels. In all fairness the debt additionally exploded because of two other factors: On the government income side (tax revenues)...govt income plummeted because of the recession. That had a brutal impact on debt. On the government spending side it exploded...partially because of set in place government programs to support the unemployed. Those programs were in place, in all fairness, long before Bush came into power. Those weren't the only two reasons, but those two were part of the extraordinary circumstances that contributed to the incredible increase in debt. If you don't believe the government should have stepped in to help the millions of people who were laid off and lost jobs....well Marie Antoinette felt similarly when she was queen of France. She was beheaded. If you want to break down all of the spending do it with facts, not some blanket statement and calling the article I cited and my original premise bullshit. Show facts, not opinions.
The principal? Give us our free shwag or we will behead you. Looks like Scott Walker survived his beheading. No more free shwag for free loaders. Regarding budgets and federal spending, Harry Reid who hasn't passed a budget since FY2009(George Bush) makes the argument(excuse) that a budget is just a formality. The government spends what it spends. Federal spending under the Obama regime, all three years of it, has grown exponentially, and no amount of partisan print is going to change that, even if it is published in the Holy Bible.
Ah...O_nation: I see you have returned from your sojourn/vacation/three weeks in lock-up/south pole exploration/tour of Scottish distilleries/several weeks of intense therapy/ national fund raising effort on behalf of Scott Walker/or returned from peddling foreign haciendas to ex-pat Americans. Whichever. I can see it hasn't changed your POV.
There is a lot of name-calling from BOTH Repubs and Dems. There are good people in both parties but their voices are drowned out by the negativity. That is a highly invalid point. It's total bullshit. If you think about it, the first year of the Obama administration all we heard about was budget hearings and stimulus bills. The very first bill (ARRA 2009) was introduced by Democratic Congressman Dave Obey, and by the time the Democrats got done with it, it cost the taxpayers around $1.1Trillion. If you read about the bill you will see that in it's history Dems kept adding more and more spending. Although all Repubs voted against the bill it passed. This is the bill we were told needed to be passed or unemployment would go over 9%. Look, let's make something clear here. Unless there is drastic change, neither party will pay down the debt. As columnist and humorist Dave Barry put it, the purpose of Congress is to spend our money, period. NO ONE gets re-elected by cutting spending. The language barrier is important. Senator Demrep will show initial projections to to raise spending on the government Widget Project by $150 Billion. Six months later, Sen. Demrep revises his figures and chooses to raise spending by "only" $100 Billion instead. He then goes on CNN and proudly proclaims to the American people that he cut the budget by $50Billion. Partisan hacks decide that the problem is insolvable, so instead let's use soundbites to assign blame. Yell and point your fingers, say "It's the other party's fault!", then fold your arms in satisfaction. The partisanship of Washington reflects upon the leadership of the sitting President. That's why President Bill Clinton's leadership is so admired - he understood that Blame is NOT a Solution.. I still maintain that this country would have quickly exited this deep recession if Hillary Clinton were President instead of Obama or McCain.
The data on that Forbes article is 100% accurate. But accuracy doesn't lead to the truth. What forbes did was simply manipulate the data in Obama's favor. You see, the little chart in the article that appears to show Obama as having the most fiscal restraint is extremely misleading. What it shows is spending growth. And keep in mind that it does not include 2009. When the recession hit in 2008-2009, both Bush and Obama passed stimulus packages. Obama's was the most expensive, at almost 1 trillion dollars. Our nations spending and debt hit all time highs. What this chart tells you is that since hitting those highs, Obama has continued to push those limits upward. Granted, that upward push is at a much slower rate that the other presidents on the list. Its slower because he inherited spending that was huge because of wars and the recession. Now, to all of you who still think Obama is not a big spender, here are some numbers that you cannot manipulate or blame on Bush: Under Bush's two terms the deficit rose $4.899 trillions dollars. Under Obamas 3 and 1/2 years it rose more than $5 trillion. That number will continue to rise if he gets re-elected, and if his current budget proposals were to be passed in his second term he would have raised the debt almost 10 trillion in two terms. That is double the spending of Bush. Liberals can mask the data anyway they want. The fact remains that Obama has racked up more debt in one term than Bush did in two. The fact also remains that Obama has not passed a single budget while in office, even when Democrats had control of the house for 2 years. His last budget proposal didnt even get 1 vote.