celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Time for a little deficit math.The new administration budget said that the fiscal 2009 deficit would reach $1.84 trillion, or $89 billion more than forecast in February, while the 2010 figure now is estimated at $1.26 trillion, or $87 billion above the previous number. The fiscal 2008 deficit was $459 billion.
MORE ON THE OBAMA DEFICIT: The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a stagger?The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today.
For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt.
Indeed. The silence from the left is most telling.Obama supporters instead of defending the spending splurge are almost universally ignoring it and hyping up any other story they can find.
Another crisis that will not be wasted. Prez Doofus will use it to panic everyone into doing healthcare reform to reduce the deficit.
..
Indeed. The silence from the left is most telling.
Greetings, left. So facts and figures that mock Dear Leader's fiscal inabilities are of no interest to you.Hi, this is the left just checking in to break the silence. I would actually comment on this, but since you start 4 to 5 threads a day whining about President Obama, it's just not really worth it any more.
Time for a little deficit math.
On the day President Bush took office, total public debt for the US was $5,727,776,738,304.64, and the US was headed into recession.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele on ABC's "This Week" rejected the notion that Republicans are solely responsible for the current economic mess -- by placing part of the blame on William Jefferson Clinton. (Yep, the same guy who left the country with huge surplus.)
"Bush inherited a recession," Steele said when Stephanopoulos pressed him on Bush-era economic failures.
Turns out this has been a Republican argument for years -- although it was used primarily to explain away the relatively mild 2001-02 recession to help out Congressional candidates -- not to deflect responsibility for the greatest downturn for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, eight years ex post facto.
"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school in 2002.
Bush's claim was rebuffed, if mildly, by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research which determined:
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.
In any event, the economy was back expanding, albeit meekly, by mid-2002.
Glenn Thrush's Blog: Blame Clinton - Politico.com
On the day Dear Leader took office, total public debt for the US was $10,625,053,544,309.79, and the US had already entered a recession.
The increase in total public debt during the Bush Administration was $4,897,276,806,005.15
In between, there were 2,922 days. On average, President Bush spent $1,676,001,644.77 per day the government did not have.
As of May 8, 2009, 107 days after Dear Leader took office, total public debt for the US is $11,258,693,795,457.10
The increase in total public debt during the first 107 days of Dear Leader's administration is $633,640,251,147.31
On average, Dear Leader spent $5,921,871,506.05 per day the government did not have.
If the average holds, and Dear Leader serves a single term (1461 days), his contribution to the total public debt will be $8,651,854,270,338.51.
However, the average already is not holding. As the article referenced above shows, the deficit is growing, not shrinking, both in this current year and in next year, by $89 billion and $87 billion respectively. The $8.6 trillion Dear Leader will add to the total public debt in his term of office is, by all accounts, the best case scenario. Dear Leader's deficit spending for four years will be, by the most optimistic calculation, 177% of the of deficit spending for all eight years of the Bush Administration.
Against all this debt, Dear Leader and his "experts" have combed the federal budget and discovered a whopping $17 billion in "savings" to carve out of the federal budget. That is roughly 3% of the increase in total public debt over his first 107 days in office.
- After the first 107 days of the Bush Administration, on May 8, 2001, total public debt had decreased by $79,895,704,884.55.
- The $633,640,251,147.31 of public debt added by Dear Leader's administration in 107 days took President Bush's administration 709 days to surpass, when the total public debt reached $6,405,707,456,847.53 on December 31, 2002.
- On January 21, 2005, after 1461 days of the Bush Administration, total public debt had increased by $1,886,691,622,346.66
Dear Leader has a strange idea of what constitutes making "hard choices".
These are the historical numbers per the US Treasury. Every figure cited is from a primary source. They are already true.Another republican talking point, regardless how many times you say it, it will not come true.
Again, these figures are not debatable at all. They are the historical record. These figures are the total public debt at various intervals. No matter whether the spending was on budget or off budget, the increase in public debt is an inescapable measure of real spending.Thats debatable at best. Bush never included neither the Iraq war or Afghanistan wars in his budgets. His instead constantly requested "emergency" spending. So the cost of the Iraq war is still debatable.
The "stimulus" package is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The emergency spending requested by Dear Leader for Iraq and Afghanistan is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The Omnibus spending bill infamous for its 9,000+ pieces of pork was passed on Dear Leader's watch, and he did nothing at all to bring the spending to heel. Of that there can be no debate.This is also debatable, no doubt Obama has contributed to the public debt. However one would also have to remember that we are currently operating under the fiscal budget set forth by the Bush Administration.
If my words are dishonest then you can explain what figures I posted that were factually inaccurate, and where my math is flawed.Its a bit early to average what he will or will not spend, this is a bit dishonest to be blunt about it. How about we wait and see what happens and were cuts are made etc before we jump to conclusions shall we?
So the savings of 10 years is 30% of the spending for 107 days of Dear Leader. A most curious ROI model you have.17 billion dollars across 10 years is how much again? 170 billion dollars. The small cuts add up over time of course. Maybe we should just wait and see what's going to be cut i expect numerous cuts to follow but then again i am patient.
These are the historical numbers per the US Treasury. Every figure cited is from a primary source. They are already true.
Again, these figures are not debatable at all. They are the historical record. These figures are the total public debt at various intervals. No matter whether the spending was on budget or off budget, the increase in public debt is an inescapable measure of real spending.
The "stimulus" package is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The emergency spending requested by Dear Leader for Iraq and Afghanistan is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The Omnibus spending bill infamous for its 9,000+ pieces of pork was passed on Dear Leader's watch, and he did nothing at all to bring the spending to heel. Of that there can be no debate.
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) opposed yesterday's $410 billion omnibus spending bill because it was "bloated" and included $7.7 billion in earmarks. “At a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means," he said in a statement.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the spending bill a "missed opportunity" and urged President Obama to veto it. "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime," he said.
And Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R) said in opposition to the legislation: "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."
But as it turns out, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Bayh had four solo earmarks attached to his name in the legislation, worth $2.7 million; McConnell had 36 totaling $51 million; and Inhofe had 34 earmarks worth $53 million.
Indeed, of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill last night -- in the form of a "no" on the cloture vote -- 28 of them had solo earmarks in the legislation.
In total, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these 28 senators had a combined 307 solo earmarks totaling nearly $240 million. The breakdown is below.
When First Read asked Bayh's office why he opposed the legislation yet had earmarks in it, spokesman Eric Kleiman replied, "Bayh ranks 78th in total earmarks in the omnibus bill. He was also one of only two Dem senators to vote for the McCain amendment last week to strip all earmarks from the bill, even his own."
Earmark hypocrisy? - First Read - msnbc.com
If my words are dishonest then you can explain what figures I posted that were factually inaccurate, and where my math is flawed.
If you cannot do that, then your charge of dishonesty fails for lack of evidence.
So the savings of 10 years is 30% of the spending for 107 days of Dear Leader. A most curious ROI model you have.
Show me $170 billion in "savings" THIS YEAR and you have the beginnings of a point. $17 billion in a $3.4 trillion budget is an economic death of ten thousand "cuts".
By the same logic you apply to fiscal 2009 being a "Bush budget", a recession beginning in March 2001 is properly attributable to Clinton. If the 2001 recession belongs to Bush, the 2009 spending belongs to Dear Leader. Anything less is a double standard and a failed argument.No it is not, I provide information that puts this to rest. Bush didnt inherit a recession. In fact the economy stopped expanding after he was sworn in.
Following on your own statement that the US runs on deficit spending, a fairly accessible definition of "real spending" would be the increase in total public debt between any two reference dates. To reiterate what you refuse to recognize, the figures I cite are the total public debt--every thing the US government owes to somebody--and are provided courtesy of the US Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt. They are a primary source, and, unless you have some interesting dish about the Treasury that has yet to be reported, they are authoritative and beyond contestation.Please, define what "real spending" is for us all? To be quite frank about the situation the US is virtually running on deficit spending only and has been doing so for quite some time now. The cost of the Iraq war is still unknown. And we honestly wont know for quite some time down the road after healthcare for vets have been figured in as well.
The bill was signed by Dear Leader, not by Bush. As he had the option--as does every President--to veto the measure, with his signature he attaches a measure of responsibility for the spending therein to himself.I'm speaking about Omnibus, not the Stimulus package. 9,000 pieces of pork that was negotiated under Bush's watch and agreed to and politicized by republicans to attempt to gain the upper hand right?
Correction: The dishonesty is yours for making false statements about my comparisons. I derived the daily spending average for Bush over 2922 days and Dear Leader over 107 days. I then amplified the comparison by illustrating the total spending by Bush through his first 107 days in office (which, remember, was not spending but savings, as total public debt decreased during the first 107 days of the Bush Administration), as well as by extrapolating Dear Leader's spending rate through an entire term of office (1461 days), and included the caveat that the extrapolation was predicated on the presumption of the average holding (this is a generous presumption in light of the reported fact that the deficits are widening, and thus the real spending is increasing, not decreasing).You are dishonest for attempting to compare and entire 8 year administration to that of one that isn't even 6 months old. For a true overview weather increased or decreased don't you think it would be best to wait until you have full number to review?
You do realize that, regardless of whether funds are disbursed or not, the total public debt is an incurred obligation.You do realize the spending is panned out in some cases across 5, 10 years correct? You do understand that the mojority of the funds that have been approved in fact have not been spent yet. So yes we can do simple math and see what the impact is across time.
By the same logic you apply to fiscal 2009 being a "Bush budget", a recession beginning in March 2001 is properly attributable to Clinton. If the 2001 recession belongs to Bush, the 2009 spending belongs to Dear Leader. Anything less is a double standard and a failed argument.
Following on your own statement that the US runs on deficit spending, a fairly accessible definition of "real spending" would be the increase in total public debt between any two reference dates.
To reiterate what you refuse to recognize, the figures I cite are the total public debt--every thing the US government owes to somebody--and are provided courtesy of the US Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt. They are a primary source, and, unless you have some interesting dish about the Treasury that has yet to be reported, they are authoritative and beyond contestation.
The bill was signed by Dear Leader, not by Bush. As he had the option--as does every President--to veto the measure, with his signature he attaches a measure of responsibility for the spending therein to himself.
Correction: The dishonesty is yours for making false statements about my comparisons. I derived the daily spending average for Bush over 2922 days and Dear Leader over 107 days.
I then amplified the comparison by illustrating the total spending by Bush through his first 107 days in office (which, remember, was not spending but savings, as total public debt decreased during the first 107 days of the Bush Administration),
as well as by extrapolating Dear Leader's spending rate through an entire term of office (1461 days), and included the caveat that the extrapolation was predicated on the presumption of the average holding (this is a generous presumption in light of the reported fact that the deficits are widening, and thus the real spending is increasing, not decreasing).
Averages are an accepted way of comparing disparate scales.
You do realize that, regardless of whether funds are disbursed or not, the total public debt is an incurred obligation.
You do understand the numbers I cite are daily measures of debt actually incurred, for which the US is actually obligated, as of that date.
You do realize these obligations stand regardless of future events. Whether the funds are or are not disbursed does not alter the present reality of the present total public debt.
This is not "projected spending", but real spending, day by day, as measured by the increase in total public debt. It is current, it is real, and it is growing faster than during the Bush Administration.
I did not say Bush "inherited a recession." I said the country was headed in that direction--and it was. Bush did not cause the recession, nor have you supplied anything other than calendar dates to suggest that he did. If you have information to make that argument, please do so. Otherwise, your words lack substance.That is the largest pile of bull**** i have every heard. How is the recession "properly attributable to Clinton". I'm debunking your non sense that Bush inherited a recession. Which of course was not the case as i have laid out.
Have you an alternative to proffer? Otherwise, your words lack substance.Come on you dont expect me to by that bull**** do you? LOL
This is a straw man. That deficits predate Dear Leader is a given, and is not debated. What is at issue is that Dear Leader is spending at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than the presumably spendthrift Bush. The logical fallacy leaves your words without substance.Ok, so what I said was in fact true. The US Government has been running on deficit spending for quite some time now. I believe it goes all the way back to Reagan era if not longer.
Dear Leader campaigned on a platform of returning to PAYGO, of stripping out earmarks, and of fiscal responsibility. He then signed a bill that violated each of those promises (an impressive trifecta even for an Anti-Republican). The bill was a monstrosity under Bush, it remained a monstrosity when it was passed, and, despite his campaign commitments to the contrary, Dear Leader refused to take a stand on it other than poo-pooing it as "last year's business." Unless you are prepared to argue the bill was a good bill and not a porkfest, your words are without substance.It seems like you are just one person with knee jerk reactions without even reading the bill or its contents. The bill was negotiated under Bushes watch. Republicans agree. They come back in January and the whole game has changed and now they suddenly just cant handle the spending right?
Again, you are dishonest. The only "praise" I accorded Bush was that in his first 107 days total public debt declined. Everything else was recitation of fact--a point you steadfastly manage to avoid acknowledging, thus leaving your words without substance.This is also dishonest, what was the end result again? I dont understand you. On one end you want to praise Bush as some steward of our great failed economy for his savings in 3 months, and completely ignore the ailments his administration left on not only our deficit but also our economy. So while Bush continues to be praised for single handly destroying our economy its all praise due because he made cuts in his first 100 days?
Wrong. An extrapolation is a projection based on existing trends. We know what will happen broadly speaking--Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans will add trillions to the public debt, far more than the spendthrift Bush. Again, your words are without substance.SO in other words you have no ****ing idea whats going to happen rights?
You have yet to demonstrate how the data cited is false. Again, your words are without substance.Only when doing so with proper data.
It would make greater sense to make cuts of a proportion to the runaway spending Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans are foisting on the taxpayers. The cuts made are the equivalent of cutting one pack of chewing gum out of weekly grocery budget of $100. Trumpeting such cuts as evidence of spending restraint leaves your words without substance.So would it not make sense to make cuts to offset that "incurred obligation"?
This question makes sense only if you are arguing that the government is stockpiling cash. There is no evidence to support this, and considerable evidence already in the media to the contrary. That lack of evidence leaves your words without substance.Yep, sure is. However if funds are not disbursed then guess what happens with those funds?
Paying down debt is not in Dear Leader's budget or the spending priorities of the Anti-Republicans. The unwillingness of the Anti-Republicans to pay down debt leaves your words without substance.If the monies are not spent and have rightly so attributed to public debt what then happens? IS the money going to be used to pay down the debt?
If Dear Leader were investing, my assessment of his dissolute spending habits would be different. Neither Dear Leader nor the Anti-Republicans are investing in America. There are at least $1.6 Trillion of needed highway, railroad, and bridge repairs needed in this nation--more than double the size of Dear Leader's "stimulus" bill. The amount directed to that need within the "stimulus" bill is barely more than an annual maintenance budget, and even that is going where it is mostly not needed.There is a stark difference between the two. Investing in America seems to be a priority of this Administration the same cant be said about George. He spent more money rebuilding ANOTHER country than he did right here in his own back yard. I will support any president that takes care of the American people. For christ sakes the basic needs of the nation were ignored as George spent away in Iraq.
I did not say Bush "inherited a recession." I said the country was headed in that direction--and it was. Bush did not cause the recession, nor have you supplied anything other than calendar dates to suggest that he did. If you have information to make that argument, please do so. Otherwise, your words lack substance.
Have you an alternative to proffer? Otherwise, your words lack substance.
This is a straw man. That deficits predate Dear Leader is a given, and is not debated. What is at issue is that Dear Leader is spending at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than the presumably spendthrift Bush. The logical fallacy leaves your words without substance.
Dear Leader campaigned on a platform of returning to PAYGO, of stripping out earmarks, and of fiscal responsibility.
He then signed a bill that violated each of those promises (an impressive trifecta even for an Anti-Republican). The bill was a monstrosity under Bush, it remained a monstrosity when it was passed, and, despite his campaign commitments to the contrary,
Dear Leader refused to take a stand on it other than poo-pooing it as "last year's business." Unless you are prepared to argue the bill was a good bill and not a porkfest, your words are without substance.
Again, you are dishonest. The only "praise" I accorded Bush was that in his first 107 days total public debt declined. Everything else was recitation of fact--a point you steadfastly manage to avoid acknowledging, thus leaving your words without substance.
Wrong. An extrapolation is a projection based on existing trends. We know what will happen broadly speaking--Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans will add trillions to the public debt, far more than the spendthrift Bush. Again, your words are without substance.
You have yet to demonstrate how the data cited is false. Again, your words are without substance.
It would make greater sense to make cuts of a proportion to the runaway spending Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans are foisting on the taxpayers.
The cuts made are the equivalent of cutting one pack of chewing gum out of weekly grocery budget of $100. Trumpeting such cuts as evidence of spending restraint leaves your words without substance.
This question makes sense only if you are arguing that the government is stockpiling cash. There is no evidence to support this, and considerable evidence already in the media to the contrary. That lack of evidence leaves your words without substance.
Paying down debt is not in Dear Leader's budget or the spending priorities of the Anti-Republicans. The unwillingness of the Anti-Republicans to pay down debt leaves your words without substance.
If Dear Leader were investing, my assessment of his dissolute spending habits would be different. Neither Dear Leader nor the Anti-Republicans are investing in America. There are at least $1.6 Trillion of needed highway, railroad, and bridge repairs needed in this nation--more than double the size of Dear Leader's "stimulus" bill.
The amount directed to that need within the "stimulus" bill is barely more than an annual maintenance budget, and even that is going where it is mostly not needed.
The basic needs of the country are being ignored under Dear Leader at four times the rate they were presumably being ignored under President Bush.
Your insistence on ignoring that reality leaves your words without substance.
Your post #11 in this thread explicitly claims a recession in March of 2001. You contradict yourself here.There was not a huge recession when Bush took office nor his first year in office that is a complete myth. If you can please provide any data that would back your assertion?
You reject my definition. And you have no alternative to offer. Your argument dies on the spot.I did not make that assertion that would be you, so that burden would fall in your lap not mine.
Spending on what? I have absolutely no problem with spending on domestic programs, increasing education funding, ensuring relief during economic times. That i have no problem with. For your argument to become true, Obama would need to continue to spend throughout his entire tenure as President. You nor I know the future so as i said before we just might want to wait and see what the end result is right?
And he failed to reform an earmark laden bill presented for his signature. As for the fruit he has provided--one grape from the entire vineyard; a most impressive yield.Obama said that we need earmark reform. He also said he would go line by line in the budget and cut out what was no longer needed (which we have seen fruit of)
Rank hypocrisy. Anti-Republican pork is good, Republican pork is bad. Hypocrisy causes your argument to die on the spot.He never said that he would not pass large legislation. He never said that he would veto any bill with earmarks in it. He said we need earmark reform which we do. However, not all earmarks are actually bad. As seen in the Omnibus bill, the majority of the projects that were listed were actually great investments. Parks, schools, memorials to 9/11 victims etc are not exactly bad.
Agreed. Only the 9,000 pieces of pork were bad, and constituted 9,000 reasons for Dear Leader to veto the bill and tell congress "no more pork."That is because it was last years business that was not concluded before the break. But yes we can argue the good and bad points of omnibus, because it was not all bad.
What do you think deficit spending is if not additions to the public debt? An increase in public debt captures all spending from all sources, bar none. Moreover, inflation, as well as interest, have a known impact on debt: inflation monetizes outstanding debt and makes new debt more expensive, and interest adds to the total debt directly.You simply cannot attribute spending to the end all of public debt there are simply to many factors at play. Inflation, Interest etc have unknown impact on the public debt. The decline that was seen under the Bush Administrations infancy were not directly impacted by any decisions that Bush made directly, it was in fact a carryover from the Clinton Administration, you do remember we would be almost debt free if we had adhered to the plan laid out by him.
Wrong.So you are basing your trends on incomplete data then right?
You have not shown either.Incomplete, not false.
About $1.8 trillion. TARP would be a good start. Not bailing out the parasitical UAW would make a great encore.Gross generalizations be specific. What should be cut?
Outside the Beltway, $17 billion is a lot. Inside the Beltway, it's chump change.I dont know what world you live in but 17 billion is alot of freaking money. Any savings that can be accrued is a good thing regardless to the amount. This goes back to what Obama said on the trail line by line remember.
Well, the government is having to borrow more and more, so there's no savings yet. When there are some, then you can crow about them.This is quite simple actually, if the money that was budget for spending isnt spent and comes in under budget that ends up saving yes saving us money as it is money that is not spent.
FDR, LBJ, Carter. Economic disasters each and every one. Enough said.Interesting, historically speaking the country has always performed well under Democratic leadership. And largest declined of debt was seen under democratic president history tells us to the contrary.
Welfare is not investment. Take infrastructure out, as he's not spending on that.Yes, investing. Infrastructure, Health Care, Education, Suring up entitlement programs you know the things that will actually invest in Americans as they have invested in government. Kinda the same thing he promised folks he would do right?
If it's stimulus, it's not relief. If it's relief, it's not stimulus. Make up your mind.So where is the funding needed? The majority of the programs affected by the Stimulus funding are getting the relief they need. Education being on that was badly suffering from NCLB among other programs that were underfunded and under performing.
What a damn shame for you that these are the things not being addressed by Dear Leader's spending.The basic needs of the country are being attended to. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, alternative energy etc are the basic needs of our nation.
This is the one that stood out for me in all your emotional ranting. Pork spending and money for corrupt groups like ACORN were overdue and underfunded? Really? Bailing out the auto industry was overdue? Guaranteeing repairs from the government (my tax dollars, and yours) was overdue? Are you serious here or have you just not taken off the rose colored shades yet?Domestic spending on programs and infrastructure that were well overdue and highly underfunder for well over a decade.
Your post #11 in this thread explicitly claims a recession in March of 2001. You contradict yourself here.
You reject my definition. And you have no alternative to offer. Your argument dies on the spot.
If the spending did the things you suggest, you might have a point. Pork spending does none of these things, so again your argument dies on the spot.
As for waiting....the time to curtail spending is before the money leaves the wallet, not after. After is too late.
And he failed to reform an earmark laden bill presented for his signature. As for the fruit he has provided--one grape from the entire vineyard; a most impressive yield.
Rank hypocrisy. Anti-Republican pork is good, Republican pork is bad. Hypocrisy causes your argument to die on the spot.
Agreed. Only the 9,000 pieces of pork were bad, and constituted 9,000 reasons for Dear Leader to veto the bill and tell congress "no more pork."
What do you think deficit spending is if not additions to the public debt? An increase in public debt captures all spending from all sources, bar none. Moreover, inflation, as well as interest, have a known impact on debt: inflation monetizes outstanding debt and makes new debt more expensive, and interest adds to the total debt directly.
Wrong.
You have not shown either.
About $1.8 trillion. TARP would be a good start. Not bailing out the parasitical UAW would make a great encore.
Outside the Beltway, $17 billion is a lot. Inside the Beltway, it's chump change.
As for Dear Leader's "line by line", going on proportions, he's made it maybe halfway through the preamble. He needs to read faster.
Well, the government is having to borrow more and more, so there's no savings yet. When there are some, then you can crow about them.
FDR, LBJ, Carter. Economic disasters each and every one. Enough said.
Welfare is not investment. Take infrastructure out, as he's not spending on that.
If it's stimulus, it's not relief. If it's relief, it's not stimulus. Make up your mind.
What a damn shame for you that these are the things not being addressed by Dear Leader's spending.
This is the one that stood out for me in all your emotional ranting. Pork spending and money for corrupt groups like ACORN were overdue and underfunded? Really? Bailing out the auto industry was overdue? Guaranteeing repairs from the government (my tax dollars, and yours) was overdue? Are you serious here or have you just not taken off the rose colored shades yet?
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_12295184ACORN is corrupt? Oh dear god not another talking point. Now what makes ACORN corrupt? I'm sure you have tons of evidence right? ACORN has not be charged with anything, employees have. That's what happens when people choose to cheat instead of earning their money honest.
Nevada authorities filed criminal charges Monday against the political advocacy group ACORN and two former employees, alleging they illegally paid canvassers to sign up new voters during last year's presidential campaign.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?