Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
You might want to read the link below which is a fair and non biased look at Obama spending, by not only the Washington Post but also AP.
It does the analysis WITHOUT the bail out stuff. I doubt if you will read it and not going to waste space on here with a lot of quotes....but suffice to say...it ends like this...
"The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...h6nU_blog.html
A good read if you want unvarnished truth instead of the political crap. |
When are you going to stop with the wise ass comments? It is childish to say the least. I have said many times figures lie, and liars figure. The Washington Post, and Carney are both guilty of using numbers to support their argument.
Using total numbers, doesn't give the whole story. The devil is in the details. We have an aging population. More people are collecting social security, and Medicare. So, using total dollars doesn't take this into consideration. One year is not comparable to the previous years. There are other government mandated programs such as food stamps that have the same affect on the total cost of government. A fair evaluation of Obama would be programs that he started and the cost of these programs. Right or wrong?
What that article did not reference was the drop in government receipts due to the great recession. That has a lot to do with the rise in national debt during the Obama years. Less people working equals less taxes collected.
Why is the increase in national debt always a topic of discussion? There will always be an argument that leans to the party that you support. In our current state of politics, common sense is flushed down the toilet. The blame game has taken over.