But not Obama’s spending?
President Bush spent 19.6 percent of GDP and the deficit was $161 billion in 2007; whereas two years into the economic recovery in 2011, President Obama’s budget projects outlays at 25.1 percent of GDP and a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2011.
That’s an 800% increase in…
“Waaaaaaa!….Bush was getting our troops killed in two needless wars and he was killing babies too! But our Messiah is simply trying to get us out of the big mess that Bush got us in.”
Liberal thought process…..and the real answer
“Because Bush was a Republican and our man Obama is a Democrat”
Well, I think we have a lot more than “nothing” to show for it. I think the spending has definitively helped us. But hey, let’s see if you’re the first to respond to this argument:
Since we all recognize that the amount being spent is high, why should we continue discussing it? I think we can all agree that no matter the amount, it can be spent correctly. If don’t feel that’s the case, what’s the cutoff for “good spending”? If you do feel that’s the case, why are you arguing this? Shouldn’t we instead be arguing about how he’s spending the money?
Edit: I already said that everyone agrees that there’s an affect to the large spending. That has nothing to do with my point, and it has nothing to do with my response to the link. My response to teh link (and yes, I did read it) is that if you really cared about the spending, you’d spend your time explaining how it’s been executed badly. All you’ve done here is merely state that it’s done badly (that’s not explanation) and then spend most of your time pointing out how much has been spent. My point is that merely stating how much has been spent is not enough. If we all agree that the amount spent is a lot and will do some damage, how about you argue how the money being spent will not help alleviate the problems we see right now and prevent that damage? Isn’t that what’s important? You’re not responsive to my central argument.
Why is it always liberal this or liberal that? Why can’t we as Americans just talk to each other instead of labeling each other and attempting to disparage one another? Every American should hold the President of the country responsible for the budget because they are like the CEO of the country. They are the leader of the government. They can go up and down the budget and veto the areas they do not want. What you point out with your rephrasing of the question is that the President has to give up some things to get others and indeed that is a conflict of interest. This is why it is important that we elect fiscally responsible people in Congress and have a President that is more loyal to the people than to any agenda. The President needs to take his or her agenda and put it to the side for the good of the people and make sure Congress doesn’t overspend. The President should be able to talk to members of Congress and ask them to make sacrifices so the budget doesn’t get to be excessive like it is now.
The deficit under Bush kept increasing. Then the economy collapsed and made the deficit bigger from the loss of tax revenue. That’s when the deficit really started to get out of control. He also added 4 trillion to the national debt. Also, the percentage of government spending with the same budget on a shrinking economy(GDP) the percentage changes. I’m not saying Obama didn’t add alot to the deficit or debt, but it was already spiraling out of control before he took office.
Because Bush’s spending was “theft”:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
Bush started the spending, so Obama had to do something to get things back under control. Look at all the damage Bush did before he cut and ran.
Like everything else Bush does it, its wrong. Obama does the same thing most time 10 times worse but its ok cause its Obama doing it. Dem’s are by definition hypocrites.
Neglecting ones obligations cannot be called a virtue. All of the spending that is being done during the Obama first term is due to either underfunded Bush era projects, or projects that where needed in that era and ignored.
I didn’t complain about Bush’s spending and I know plenty of people complaining about Obama’s. There you go again, making things up.
Do the words cause and effect ring a bell?
If the toxic mess had not been left behind, there would be no reason to clean it up.
I hope that did not go over your head.