Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

[sd'sker]

Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

 

 

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

[knapplc]

That's not what Rush tells me. I don't believe your liberal lies.

[sd'sker]

That's not what Rush tells me. I don't believe your liberal lies.

you caught me. i'm just a leftist femi-nazi propagating disinformation.

[carlfense]

Does not compute.

[Moiraine]

So we just decided to pretend we still had the same amount of money coming in. That's not as grabby though.

[Ziggy]

Percentages are always a great way to show spending....no really they are. And spending comes from the congress not the President. And does the percentages give the Tarp spending to Bush and the repayment to Obama? That tends to be the way it works. Trying to put spending on any one administration or a specific congress is nearly impossible.

[strigori]

Percentages are always a great way to show spending....no really they are. And spending comes from the congress not the President. And does the percentages give the Tarp spending to Bush and the repayment to Obama? That tends to be the way it works. Trying to put spending on any one administration or a specific congress is nearly impossible.

But that's what the right is doing, painting Obama as an "out of control spender" even when the facts do not support it.

[Ziggy]

What facts? This is politics we are talking about. Obama is a out of control spender and Romney just wants to put black people back in chains. Getting factual information about government spending is like trying to catch a greased pig while wearing a latex suit.

[sd'sker]

What facts? This is politics we are talking about. Obama is a out of control spender and Romney just wants to put black people back in chains. Getting factual information about government spending is like trying to catch a greased pig while wearing a latex suit.

sounds like my wedding night. (please don't tell my wife that).

[Ziggy]

My lips are sealed.

[HSKR]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

[sd'sker]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

that is a valid argument. my counter? gag me with a spoon.

[carlfense]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

If they get the credit for that they can also take the blame for the weak economic recovery, right?

 

I'd hate to see anyone blame the other party for anything bad and credit their own party for anything good.

[HSKR]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

that is a valid argument. my counter? gag me with a spoon.

 

I have no problem saying that for the most part it's better for our country when one political party doesn't control the House, Senate and White House all at the same time. You get one party in control of it all, either side IMO and the budget becomes a blank check. With balance you have compromise or at worst gridlock but I would even take gridlock over all out spending of either parties pet projects. I think the Clinton years were a good example of balance.

[strigori]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

that is a valid argument. my counter? gag me with a spoon.

 

I have no problem saying that for the most part it's better for our country when one political party doesn't control the House, Senate and White House all at the same time. You get one party in control of it all, either side IMO and the budget becomes a blank check. With balance you have compromise or at worst gridlock but I would even take gridlock over all out spending of either parties pet projects. I think the Clinton years were a good example of balance.

And if we had what used to be Republicans it actually worked. The Tea Party are not Republicans. Not really, they have high jacked the party. Republicans used to have different ideas than Democrats, but then both parties would get together, talk it out and come up with a compromise plan. Exactly the way things are supposed to work. The Tea Party is a collection of Zealots that think compromise is the same things as failure. Which only works in a dictatorship, or the way they seem to want, a theocracy.