Bush indeed signed the first half of TARP, but refused to sign the second half before leaving office. Obama signed the second.
Who's The Smallest Government Spender Since Ike? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
- Thread starter inactive
- Start Date
Bush indeed signed the first half of TARP, but refused to sign the second half before leaving office. Obama signed the second.
Youre right, but I'm pretty darn sure that won't happen.
Bush didn't refuse to sign the second authorisation because he was no longer in office. He would have signed the second half if he had been in office, the same way Obamma would have signed the first half had he been in office. (I hate to give my own game away) I was basically disputing the absurd idea expressed in post#18 that Congress didn't allow the government to spend any money in 2008.
Sorry but it really is. It's just exactly like the folks who buy into the "consensus in science" BS. A group of scientists agreeing does not make something so. It's a true/false thing with science, if it can't be proven either of those the reality is that the scientists don't have a clue. But they can't diminish their stature and say that so they privately say "lets have a vote".
As for Obama, all one has to do is add it up. All of it. It's pretty clear that he's spent more than all .prez's combined. But just like the scientists he can't really admit that or the sheep will wise up. So they cook the books, manipulate the reports, redefine what's called "spending" and point fingers.
Do I believe that Obama is the smallest government spender since Ike?
His out of control spending has been discussed ever since he entered office. If there was proof that these claims were false, then why weren't they brought up earlier??
The answer is that these numbers are smoke and mirrors and just an opening round in an artillery barrage of propaganda that will last from now until the election. Before this crazy assertion can be knocked down, the next one will be launched. Remember it is not about facts, it is about perception. The battle for the minds of voters has begun.
His out of control spending has been discussed ever since he entered office. If there was proof that these claims were false, then why weren't they brought up earlier??
The answer is that these numbers are smoke and mirrors and just an opening round in an artillery barrage of propaganda that will last from now until the election. Before this crazy assertion can be knocked down, the next one will be launched. Remember it is not about facts, it is about perception. The battle for the minds of voters has begun.
Lol, did I really just read this? By this logic nothing is true because someone will always disagree with every conclusion.
Right now scientists are looking for the mechanism that imparts mass to objects. The consensus is that the Higgs Boson is the guilty party. Another small group thinks that angels follow everyone around and hold their feet to the ground so they don't float away. According to you both of these theories hold equal weight.
You read it totally wrong I guess. Hypothesis = true or false. There are no "in betweens" in science. Your example just says the scientists can't prove squat. It matters not if someone disagrees.
I did not say they did not spend money in 2008. I said they did not do a budget in 2008, which would have been for 2009. The yearly budget if one is done, is always done the year before. There was a budget for fiscal year 2008 and the budget for 2009 fiscal year was not done until Obama was sworn in, but there has not been one for over 3 years now because the Dems refuse to do one even though it is mandated by law.
Another little fun fact, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, federal spending has increased 39%.
Its amazing that even some of the Dem media has outright called the report false or refused to report on it.
Shadowrider is correct. In real science a consensus means nothing, they have to prove it and the results have to be able to be duplicated by others using the same methods. Until then it is just a theory nothing more.
Back to the spending debate, I should also mention that real spending has gone up 27% during Obama's term.
Similar threads
