- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The author of the article is knowingly lying-by-omission by focusing on percentages. Because spending at the end of Bush's administration was so absurdly high, almost anything other than more increases the next person does has to look more reasonable in comparison... when you use percentages. It's disingenuous. It's dishonest. It proves Mark Twain's cliche (paraphrasing), "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics".OK, spending is increasing at the lowest rate since Eisenhower (I get that), but it is still increasing. I don't lay it all on Obama's lap, since other presidents contributed to the problem, and some at a higher rate. But Obama is the one in office now, and by virtue of being the president, is to blame. Those who come after Obama will also have to wear the mantle of spending if spending is not reduced, and by saying reducing spending, I am NOT saying reduce the rate of increase. That is still spending. If whoever comes after Obama does the same thing, I will be just as critical of him as I am with Obama now.
The author of the article is knowingly lying-by-omission by focusing on percentages. Because spending at the end of Bush's administration was so absurdly high, almost anything other than more increases the next person does has to look more reasonable in comparison... when you use percentages. It's disingenuous. It's dishonest. It proves Mark Twain's cliche (paraphrasing), "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Probably without intending to, what the author is saying is that Bush II was bad for increasing federal spending to $3.2+/- trillion dollars, but that Obama was ok for keeping it there. It's really just a partisan hack job.