Obama, the Big Spender?

#26
#26
volprof said:
So our spending needs haven't increased at all since the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, or the 1790s, for that matter? I'm not saying we need to keep running up the spending at the cost of increasing the deficit, so please don't misinterpret me; however, doesn't it make sense that a country's needs will grow with a growing population?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing this as rationalization for crap like election repayment and aca?

Please recognize revenue side of perpetual growth and stop this silliness.
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
Are you seriously arguing this as rationalization for crap like election repayment and aca?

Please recognize revenue side of perpetual growth and stop this silliness.
Click to expand...

I do recognize the revenue side. I realize we also need a revenue to match the spending; however, my comment was about spending. The article is about spending (and if that comes at the expense of revenue concerns, then we can call the article out on that), and the fact of the matter is that spending has increased at less of a percentage even though our needs have also grown during this period.
 
#28
#28
volprof said:
I do recognize the revenue side. I realize we also need a revenue to match the spending; however, my comment was about spending. The article is about spending (and if that comes at the expense of revenue concerns, then we can call the article out on that), and the fact of the matter is that spending has increased at less of a percentage even though our needs have also grown during this period.
Click to expand...

That is not the fact of the matter.

List the increased spending items driven by population growth and let me know how much hey grew? Surely it matches population growth.
 
#29
#29
Neither side is fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible. Both are "big spenders." Both suck. Game over. End thread.
 
#31
#31
Let's be honest, Bush spent a ton, wars aren't cheap.

Obama has spent a ton, entitlement programs and solar energy bailouts aren't cheap.

Romney could spend a ton, wars aren't cheap, etc etc etc.
 
#32
#32
I don't see how this accounts for the Ominbus spending bills that Obama signed that combined increased discretionary spending over 20%. I realize discretionary spending just one part of the budget but that alone should account for a few percentage points.

Also don't see how the stimulus fits.

Funny too that we've seen Obama call tax cuts "spending" as in spending on the rich. Well, the payroll tax cut, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc. should be called spending?
 
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
seems kinda odd to simply talk about spending and devote one line to revenue. When you make less money shouldn't your budget also decrease?
Click to expand...

Key word here is Budget. I hear Nobama is rewriting all the dictionaries in use in our schools to take that word out as it has no meaning what so ever to him.
 
#35
#35
volprof said:
So our spending needs haven't increased at all since the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, or the 1790s, for that matter? I'm not saying we need to keep running up the spending at the cost of increasing the deficit, so please don't misinterpret me; however, doesn't it make sense that a country's needs will grow with a growing population?
Click to expand...

Yes they have increased. As the portion of the population that exists on entitlement spending rises, the costs of a socialist regime committed to taking care of everyone "equally" (read buying votes) rises. In essence, my families "wealth" is confiscated by ever increasing taxes to support Paco and his fourteen cousins that just crossed the border last month. Never mind that Paco is busy going to Kroger's and wiring $2000 a week in CASH to Mexico or Nicaragua or what ever third world country that they came from. Or to support someone in the hood selling drugs on the corner spending more cash than I see in a year buying BMDubs or Caddy's. Sorry, but your idea that the need for government spending has doubled since 09 for required and necessary things is absolutely out to lunch.
 
#36
#36
TNGlen said:
Yes they have increased. As the portion of the population that exists on entitlement spending rises, the costs of a socialist regime committed to taking care of everyone "equally" (read buying votes) rises. In essence, my families "wealth" is confiscated by ever increasing taxes to support Paco and his fourteen cousins that just crossed the border last month. Never mind that Paco is busy going to Kroger's and wiring $2000 a week in CASH to Mexico or Nicaragua or what ever third world country that they came from. Or to support someone in the hood selling drugs on the corner spending more cash than I see in a year buying BMDubs or Caddy's. Sorry, but your idea that the need for government spending has doubled since 09 for required and necessary things is absolutely out to lunch.
Click to expand...

You ought to go study the national debt. Paying "Paco and his fourteen cousins" or supporting "someone in the hood selling drugs on the corner" is the least of our worries. Both are a drop in the bucket.

If you're going to rant about spending, at least make an argument against the most egregious programs of national debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top