Originally posted by The17sss
Well, one way to look at it is that Obama has spent more money (that we don't have) in the first 58 days than Bush did in 8 years.
Although pretty much any president in his position would enact an extremely large stimulus as well.
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Mar-19-2009 14:09:
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Well, one way to look at it is that Obama has spent more money (that we don't have) in the first 58 days than Bush did in 8 years.
As Clovis has already pointed out, that's a pretty stupid way of looking at it, considering that everybody viewed both bailouts and stimulus as necessary. And you're apparently counting TARP I as an Obama expenditure? Nice. Not to mention the fact that we don't really know how much Bush spent since he didn't incorporate some pretty big items (Iraq) under the federal budget procedure.
From the Rovester himself:
quote:
The president, having spent a good portion of the campaign decrying the $2.9 trillion in deficits during the Bush years
Hmmm... 2.9 Trillion just in deficits??? I'm guessing the amount actually spent was far beyond that, no?
Criticism of Obama is one thing - that's fine by me. But seriously, only Rush Limbaugh is worse than you at twisting anything into a negative of unparalleled proportions. Your faux outrage is tiring. You oppose everything he does not out of policy coherency, but because you don't like the guy. It severely undermines your credibility whenever you do actually have a point (as in the beginning of this thread).
Posted by Clovis on Mar-19-2009 17:37:
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
As Clovis has already pointed out, that's a pretty stupid way of looking at it, considering that everybody viewed both bailouts and stimulus as necessary. And you're apparently counting TARP I as an Obama expenditure? Nice. Not to mention the fact that we don't really know how much Bush spent since he didn't incorporate some pretty big items (Iraq) under the federal budget procedure.
Hmmm... 2.9 Trillion just in deficits??? I'm guessing the amount actually spent was far beyond that, no?
Criticism of Obama is one thing - that's fine by me. But seriously, only Rush Limbaugh is worse than you at twisting anything into a negative of unparalleled proportions. Your faux outrage is tiring. You oppose everything he does not out of policy coherency, but because you don't like the guy. It severely undermines your credibility whenever you do actually have a point (as in the beginning of this thread).
He's only bitching about the spending because it has become the defacto rallying cry of the republican party these days, regardless of the reality of the situation.
Posted by The17sss on Mar-19-2009 22:46:
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
As Clovis has already pointed out, that's a pretty stupid way of looking at it, considering that everybody viewed both bailouts and stimulus as necessary.
Everybody viewed both bailouts and stimulus as necessary huh? Everybody? Or just everybody that you want to count.
quote:
And you're apparently counting TARP I as an Obama expenditure? Nice. Not to mention the fact that we don't really know how much Bush spent since he didn't incorporate some pretty big items (Iraq) under the federal budget procedure.
Hmmm... 2.9 Trillion just in deficits??? I'm guessing the amount actually spent was far beyond that, no?
And you must not be including things like Cap and Trade which is estimated to cost another $2 trillion... which will eliminate any phantom "tax break" for the other 95% of the population you love to support Obama on by the way... that is, unless you don't need to turn your lights on or use hot water. http://washingtontimes.com/news/200...ost-2-trillion/
And you must not be including things like Obama's upcoming health care overhaul, which will come with an approximate $1.5 trillion price tag (which we all know is a lowball figure): http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...aW4WsgD9709OTG0
quote:
Criticism of Obama is one thing - that's fine by me.
I find that hard to believe, considering you circle the wagons to protect your Lord and Savior any time I criticize. You can't tell me that every single one of my criticisms hold no water and are just looney right wing maddness.
quote:
But seriously, only Rush Limbaugh is worse than you at twisting anything into a negative of unparalleled proportions. Your faux outrage is tiring. You oppose everything he does not out of policy coherency, but because you don't like the guy. It severely undermines your credibility whenever you do actually have a point (as in the beginning of this thread).
Believe me, there is nothing faux about the outrage. My blood boils on a daily basis watching this group of stooges run around the white house like the Keystone Cops. I may stroke out before 4 years is up (which you're probably secretly cheering on). What do you want man, a world where nobody disagrees with you and doesn't present you with alterior arguments/points of thought? I have to ask you... are you happy with how things are going? Are you satisfied with the players in Washington who are running things now? Is this what you voted for?
Posted by Clovis on Mar-20-2009 03:14:
