Forum
I don't talk to many conservatives in real life...
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 4:51 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT
So here's another thread so I can get some of that point of view.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday What say you? Try and be nice. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 4:56 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT Let me clarify first,
Obviously people could say "neither presidencies should be spending so much," which is a fair point. I'm wondering why those who support, or even hold office for, the GOP harp on Obama incessantly for raising the debt and spending so much. |
|
boogybytes wrote
at 5:06 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT im a socialist so i cant anticipate the conservative response....buuuut im sure they say:
(1) the wars were necessary and so it was only bad luck they happened under bush (2) the tax cuts precipitated a triple down effect, funelling wealth through a natural mechanism from the rich to the rest of us. (3) ? |
|
boogybytes wrote
at 5:06 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT (3) bush wasnt a real conservative
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 5:21 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT I don't consider myself conservative; but my opinion is that the numbers are just wrong.
Obama spent 3.445 trillion in his first 2 years. Can you please show me the article that is supposed to accompany that graphic? You can't post the supporting graphic for an article and not the actual article that explains the data. For example; the down payment on ObamaCare is over 600billion. Why is that not in the data? These questions cannot be answered unless you support the complete article and not just an illustration from one of it's pages. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 5:21 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT supply*
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 5:23 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT Also I just realized that the graphic doesn't even say it is a comparison of spending. It says it is a comparison of "NEW" policies. Therefore if Obama continues any policies from a previous administration it is not considered him spending the money.
There you go; the entire graphic is just a manipulation of data. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 5:25 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT Btw; Bush is every bit as terrible of a president as Obama is on spending; so don't consider that an endorsement of Bush's policies.
Also; it can't say much for Obama if after 8 years of calling Bush the anti-christ; now his supporters proclaim "well he isn't statistically as bad as Bush!". Wow what a change 2 years can make. |
|
CookMySock wrote
at 7:07 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT here's that graphic you were looking for dead: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
|
|
CookMySock wrote
at 7:09 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT also Obamacare is deficit neutral, it costs no money. Get your facts straight.
http://thewonksalon.com/archives/5014 |
|
deadcode wrote
at 7:10 PM, Tuesday July 26, 2011 EDT Lol; do you even read posts? Get lost... adults are speaking here.
|