Quote:
Originally Posted by Keedy
Where U.S. government once accounted for 36.4percent of our economy, it is now rising to 49 percent---sending us soaring past Britain and Germany and nestling right under France---the very model of a modern socialist democracy!
So, when it comes to Barack Obama's spending programs "socialist" is no political slur. It is a simple description.
|
C'mon, Keedy. Let's be fair with the numbers.
The financial stimulus was passed at the end of the Bush administration and would have almost certainly been necessary regardless of who was President at the moment.
Similarly, the Supplemental Appropriation, which covered only a couple of months of federal spending, was needed to pay for the items also budgeted by the Bush-Cheney administration. How much of that was to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama included in his budget but Bush did not, is another source of your "socialist spending".
And it's a bit too early to lay a $675 billion bill for the healthcare changes on the Obama doorstep just yet. There's still a lot of negotiating going on in the House to make the proposed bill more "deficit neutral". Then there's the Senate, which will probably have their heels dug in even more than the House on wild-eyed spending.
I think it will only be fair to look at the spending of the Obama administration after a year or two passes. Even then it still wouldn't be totally fair to blame him for spending that was authorized and started by his predecessor.