Record Spending

[elwood127]

The crawl line during Shepard Smiths news said that Obama has spent 3.5 trillion dollars in his first year, up from Bush's 1.8 trillion. I can't seem to figure out what it went too. I guess the grandkids can worry about that.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by elwood127

The crawl line during Shepard Smiths news said that Obama has spent 3.5 trillion dollars in his first year, up from Bush's 1.8 trillion. I can't seem to figure out what it went too. I guess the grandkids can worry about that.

I just love all the concern about the next generation when the right wing mantra is lower taxes.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I just love all the concern about the next generation when the right wing mantra is lower taxes.

Taxes are for the little people.

Besides, what's the National Debt at this time, 2 or 3x the GNP of the Nation? Depending on which liar you chose to believe.

The National Debt will never be paid.

Chas

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by elwood127

The crawl line during Shepard Smiths news said that Obama has spent 3.5 trillion dollars in his first year, up from Bush's 1.8 trillion. I can't seem to figure out what it went too. I guess the grandkids can worry about that.

Follow the money. Its not to you and me. Its to the big boys.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by elwood127

The crawl line during Shepard Smiths news said that Obama has spent 3.5 trillion dollars in his first year, up from Bush's 1.8 trillion. I can't seem to figure out what it went too. I guess the grandkids can worry about that.

First off, this is Fox we're talking about here who will stop at almost nothing to make Obama look bad so I am VERY skeptical. Here's what I think - and I'm working on it.

If the figures Fox quoted are in any way legitimate, they almost certainly are looking at spending in those years, not authorizations in those years. That means most or all of the 700 billion Bush authorized under the Stimulus is being moved over to Obama's column.

And then there's this, from The Moonie Times no less:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...efore-bailout/

John

[merrylander]

AFAIK Bush also kept the cost of Iraq and Afghanisan off-budget.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

AFAIK Bush also kept the cost of Iraq and Afghanisan off-budget.

Yes, for the most part. The Defense Budget largely ignored the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars were funded by a series of "Supplementals" to the DOD budget. Congress had to approve them, of course, but the practice of using supplementals to fund the wars was BushCo's idea.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by elwood127

Shepard Smiths news

News? sdfsd

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Yes, for the most part. The Defense Budget largely ignored the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars were funded by a series of "Supplementals" to the DOD budget. Congress had to approve them, of course, but the practice of using supplementals to fund the wars was BushCo's idea.

John

The Dems are working on this. Watch how fast the right turns it into a "they're taking your money" issue. Taking *your* money to pay for their mess.

[wajobu]

ALL war expenditures during the Bush years were off the books. The Bush legacy is many trillions of dollars of debt. Even worse, so much of the money in Iraq cannot be accounted for...billions of it...along with the no-bid, no-work and no-accountability contracts. They belong in jail.