Post by Eist on Oct 19, 2012 22:13:31 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is denying that Obama has raised the deficit considerably (although it is always wise to consider it with GDP -- which looks even worse for Obama). The thing is that Bush was sitting pretty with a year-on-year surplus, then, through a series of policies I would think you would be spitting tacks over, drove the economy into the ground for Obama to pick up. He spent money, yes! We get it. But instead of funding the start of two seemingly never-ending wars and massive tax cuts to his rich mates, the money was spent on the stimulus bills (the largest cuts of that going into a series of tax incentives for both individuals and companies).
And, if you read here, the stimulus (unlike the wars and the tax cuts to the big-time CEOs and other businessmen) worked:
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
I seriously fail to see why you are caught up on this year-on-year spending. Nobody is disputing that. My argument is that Bush drove the economy into the ground, and Obama has spent a lot to get it back out (which is not a quick and trivial process, and is hampered by an ineffective congress). Therefore, it's unfair to force all of this hostile animosity towards him (his administration?). Furthermore, I do not believe that Romney will be substantially different that Bush considering Bush was very friendly to both the ultra-rich and business CEOs, of which Romney is the archetype of both.
And, if you read here, the stimulus (unlike the wars and the tax cuts to the big-time CEOs and other businessmen) worked:
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
I seriously fail to see why you are caught up on this year-on-year spending. Nobody is disputing that. My argument is that Bush drove the economy into the ground, and Obama has spent a lot to get it back out (which is not a quick and trivial process, and is hampered by an ineffective congress). Therefore, it's unfair to force all of this hostile animosity towards him (his administration?). Furthermore, I do not believe that Romney will be substantially different that Bush considering Bush was very friendly to both the ultra-rich and business CEOs, of which Romney is the archetype of both.