• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama spending binge never happened


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.
 
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.
 
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.

Bingo. :)
 
LET THE QUIBBLING BEGIN !!!!!!

If we are going to call out lying by omission let's review the concept that the current spending by the Federal Government is all up to President Obama.

Unlike BushII's huge expenditures overseas, Obama has a great deal of 'his' spending that isn't up for discussion. When the economy tanked in the last part of BushII's administration the Federal Government sees a large upswing in social services payouts as folks who have lost their jobs or hours so they qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment, reduced or free school lunches, medical care...etc.

Those expenses would be there no matter the occupant of the White house.

So when attempting to claim Obama is the one keeping spending high you are lying by omission.

Now if the economy was just chugging along like it was before running off the cliff and President Obama was spending like a dry drunk fake West Texas snickering Decider in Chief THEN you can call out President Obama for not drastically reducing the spending done at the Federal level.

But the economy isn't. To try and use the huge outlays for what is left of the social safety net as somehow discretionary is nothing but a partisan hack job...
 
Back
Top Bottom