Liberals, Why did you complain about Bush's spending?

B

Baroccoli

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Points
1
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 deficit spending under Obama, and we have nothing to show for it. So why do you not have a problem with this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Morici-Fridays-Jobs-Report-cnbc-878363243.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
whiteflame 55 - you obviously didn't read my link. It explains the effects of Obama's spending. It is blatantly obvious that it's not working because it was aimed in the wrong direction, yet Liberals don't want to admit it.
 
Liberal Math:

Bush spending + 800% is LESS THAN Obama spending

This is why liberals study liberal things - like art

math is too precise and complex for liberals
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top