The spending on TARP under Obama was authorized while bush* was president.
Obama did not expand upon the Iraq War, which was supposed to last "weeks, not months or years". And he surged in Afghanistan because bush* fumbled the ball there. He extended the tax cuts at the insistence of republicans and spending on HSA, TSA, Medicare D, etc are the responsibility of bush* and republicans.
TARP I, not TARP II, and if you want to play the hyper partisan game the spending on TARP was authorized under the Democratic Congress which is who controls spending. Obama didn't expand on Iraq, he drew down in line with Bush's time table. On the flip side he surged in Afghanistan and engaged in Libya. You can keep trying to make this into a partisan bitch fest, but you're doing it one sided. I made no comments in any way shape or form to the legitimacy, success, or necessity of the wars...simply that they occured, and that they were continued and/or expanded. I'm speaking about FACTS, what I just said is a FACT, what you're trying to focus on is opinion and partisan rhetoric. You're doing it in attempts to bait me into playing that game, and I'm not interested, I've dealt with hyper partisan hacks before...you're nothing new.
it's a deficit that our economy can easily deal with and it doesn't require cutting every fed agency to 0.
Irrelevant to the fact it was pointing out your idiotic statements regarding the deficit and the effects cuts to the military would have on it.
And I never said the entire deficit is bush*'s fault. That is fiction
No, you stated singularly that the reason for our deficit is "on budget" expenditures, not off budget, and proceeded to post up pictures focusing on "bush" tax cuts, tarp, and wars accounting for all the deficit. This is, of course, all fictional hyper partisan bull****. Cutting all "on budget" expenditures would still leave us with a deficit. Cutting all relics of the Bush era would still leave us with a deficit.
No, I said a specific amount (ie $48 billion). Nice try
Ah, so generic "billions" which could mean anything from $3 billion to $999 billion is something grant and to be applauded, something specific like $48 billion is "nothing" then.
Please, indicate where the cut off in "billions" is for what's "nothing" and what's something to gloat about? I'm eager to be enlgihtened.
More fictions. I have posted links to back up what I said.
Yes, you've masterfuly posted biased sources that don't actually have the information about the things they're referencing all throughout this thread.
Well, if someone on the internet says so, it must be true!!
Your posts say it, not me.
If you weren't so busy trying to win an internet debate, you would have read the article and realized the # came from a reputable, non-leftwing source.
I did, it came from a random economist at Bloomberg who was speaking about a graph he had on a television show, and reported it with a typically hyper partisan left wing slant that is known for the Daily KOS while providing absolutely 0 information concerning how he came to that number, what that number meant, etc save for calling it a "projection". Meanwhile, I've posted not a projection but the actual, official, REAL numbers by the agency itself.
