spending is one thing, what it's spent ON, is another...
Posted on 05/31/2012 5:11:54 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The latest digression in the presidential campaign between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is a fresh argument about government spending that took place in 2008 and 2009. Should it count as Obama's spending? Or that of his predecessor, George W. Bush? The answer, apparently, will determine whether Obama is an "old-school liberal" addicted to spending, as Romney insists, or a more thrifty leader carefully husbanding taxpayer dollars.
I can't prove it, but my contention is that any president, of any party, would have approved the bank and housing-agency bailouts and other stimulus measures that Bush approved, and even Obama's $800 billion stimulus plan, which passed in 2009. It's easy to forget, but the economy was on the verge of free-falling into a depression back then, and there was intense pressure on the government to prevent that. Politicians get elected to do what the voters want, and voters wanted somebody to stop the bleeding and save the economy.
I'd go as far as to say that any president would have approved the 2009 auto bailouts, too.
In my view, Obama's true spending habits should be judged from the middle of 2009 onward. That would obviously include his signature healthcare-reform law, a series of temporary tax cuts and subsidies for the unemployed, plus a bunch of other stimulus measures that Obama proposed but Congress denied. Obama is clearly a man who prefers government solutions to many problems, but so did a lot of others during the financial crisis, when there didn't appear to be any other solutions. Voters shouldn't punish the president for helping save the economy when it needed saving.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
I'm sick of this, "we didn't know how bad the economy was" message from the socialists. They passed Porkulus in the first 30 days, thought massive spending would solve everything, then jumped headlong into the Healthcare disaster. Obama is an incompetent true-believer Marxist. He could care less about economic growth, he seized government control of 20% of our GDP. His administration then went on to regulate commerce and liberty in a way that ensures a stagnant economy.
This Statist must GO!
....When you waste trillions, stealing a few billion is easy.
When the facts aren't going you way, just make something up and print it as news.
why it helps destroy America, why else?
This is ridiculous. First of all, that's a half truth on Bush "approving" those bailouts - Obama also holds culpability with his "Aye" vote in the Senate which helped get it to Bush's desk for signature. And there is more to the stimulus than just the dollar figure - much of that spending was on complete junk - not even what could be called pork. The infrastructure improvements may have had some nominal effect on the economy, but if that was all that was done, the price tage would have been what, $50 billion? The rest was a complete waste - studying ants in Africa, sending jobs to China, Solyndra, etc. The debt it added and the compounding interest has been a net negative for the economy overall not only in the present but will be a continuing drag on the economy for many years to come, as the CBO head has admitted.
spending is one thing, what it's spent ON, is another...
This is one of the magazines I don’t read in a doctors office and this article confirms I made the right decision. The warning leaflets on drugs are more interesting and informative.
Alternate title: “What any reporter would write to try to save Obama”.
I agree. In 2009, you know what I saw from the ‘Stimulus’ shovel-ready jobs? The only thing?
Road signs.
Rick Newman, standing in a long line of media clowns taking their turns smooching Obamugabe’s arse. Wear that lipstick thick, Rick.
The US is spending $1.40 for every $1 income.
Just like the family in 2008 riding a wave of false prosperity funded by credit cards and helocs.
Two luxury SUVs on lease and a 4000 sf McMansion with zero equity.
US Snooze....figures.
However, W was a big spender, too. All the DC pols are addicted to deficits. Makes me sad, the world fiat economy requires deficit spending, whether at the governmental level or at my level via credit card spending which I don’t do.
The frugal saver is just screwed in today’s world, Bernake is doing all he can to devalue my savings so Obama’s (and Bush’s) deficits appear to shrink.
To say that our economic condition was worse than it was at any time is ludicrous. The entire economy was in full free fall collapse in 1920. The response from the Harding and Coolidge was the exact opposite. They slashed spending and government, They slashed taxes. The economy quickly roared back to massive growth and massive increases in government revenues.
In 1981 The country was in a much worse recession. Reagan followed the lead of Warren and Calvin and slashed taxes, regulations, and unleashed Americas economic might, once again a massive wave of growth, employment and government revenue occurred.
The constant rewriting of history to distort the facts is despicable.
I still see this glib indictment of bush as a root problem of conservatism.
Bush’s spending was indeed distinct. The democrats did indeed seek to incite a financial bank panic in fall 2008. In January 2007 democrats in congress such as Obama deregulated the GSEs Fannie and Freddie to pop the real estate bubble.
Despite these adverse partisan acts to bring the election of Obama bush expended only half of the TARP funds. Bush’s stipulations on TARP are the height of fiscal conservatism.
The funds were specifically targeted to banks in crisis.
The funds had to be paid back.
The funds had to be paid back with interest.
What govt programs have ever done this?
All the bush funds have been paid back. The same is not true of obamas expenditures.
I think that is true because there is almost no difference between a democrat and a republican politician.
Well that is simply nonsense since Bush was never a Conservative.
Rats had super majorities in both the house and senate starting in 2007.
When did the recession start? 2007. Who was in the Senate then ? Breakit Obama.
Historic unemployment, unprecedented trillion dollar deficits and no budget. The dims fiscal negligence really has no parallel in the 230 year history of this country. Too argue that any president would have behaved as the kenyan did is farcical.
This is a particularly ignorant attempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.