not sure if this still applies, but i remember a big push to get nader 5% of the vote because then his party would have to be included in the next cycles presidential debates? if so thats a great reason to vote johnson
I don't disagree it's not important, but to me it pales in comparison to the economic issues facing the country.
My article is from Forbes, the business site. Obama's rate of spending growth is a record low, if you assign the initial budget to Bush, since Obama was inaugurated 4 months into it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Putting it in a picture doesn't make the metric any more ridiculous. And to call George W. Bush a limited government president is just silly.
First you abandon Libertarianism. Then you reject Malcolm and Steve Forbes. Watch out. You don't want to become as isolated as Netanyahu is right now over Iran.
The WaPo, among others, already shredded that chart to pieces, as it is based on Oct-Sep fiscal years for the federal government, and not reality. By your chart, Bush takes the blame for the Stimulus Bill. LOL, your posts are so stupid when you're not solely criticizing other posts. It should be embarrassing to you, but I know it's not. Luckily, the only person moderating here is a flaming liberal, so this post will likely be deleted. Nice to see you're still living 9 months ago, though. Not a surprise.
I agree that year over year, and since congress won't pass the budgets Obama has actually asked for, the figures are as Forbes says. However, attributing a $3.6T BUDGET to Bush and then using that as the baseline for general govt. spending is disingenuous at best. Of that $3.6T spent in Bush's last year, $500B of it was TARP, a one-time emergency bailout package. Obama's following budgets spend TARP sized borrowed money on 20% bigger govt. every year on top of Bush's last actual budget. Much of that TARP money was paid back, with interest. Obama spent it.
That was an enlightening exposition of your skill at convincing me of my stupidity. How did you discover my secret that I am living 9 months ago? You are one smart Earthling.
Damn, a gentleman as usual. Okay, that makes sense. Let's see the numbers with the stimulus taken out. I know. Let's have PapaG run my old ten-key so we can get something reliable.
The feds' fiscal year is sept. to sept. If the Senate were doing its job, they'd have passed 13 spending bills each year during the Obama years, for the upcoming fiscal year. They DID do their job during the Bush years, including by Sept. of 2008, a couple of months before Obama was elected. Bush served through January of 2009, and his $3T budget was spent through Sept. of 2009. Again, it's disingenuous to look at the growth of govt. SPENDING. Obama increased the BUDGET to $3.6T and spent at a $500B higher rate for his entire term. This chart is the CBO estimate of Obama's deficits, caused by massively higher increased spending, and based upon his 2009 budget (Sept. 2009-Sept. 2010). And the actual measured results:
You have the makings of a salesman, Denny, but you gotta learn this, kid. You don't admit the car is 3 years old when the customer thinks he's looking at a new one on this lot. So these are 3-year-old predictions, based upon only Obama's inherited first year, assuming that such a terrible year would be his norm. Lemme look at a Volt.
My understanding, and I could be wrong, was that the deficit was at 10T$ when Obama took office, and now it's at 16T$. Maybe my math is off, but I don't see that as triple.
