The graph is about policy changes.

The change in tax policy affects the amount of money in the federal budget. It is for all intents and purposes a cost. The word "spending" in the graph is used to label certain expenditures, but not the tax cuts.

Once again, my question/point with the graph is not validating any of the spending on either side. I'm pointing out the ridiculous nature of the republican party bitching about the cost of Obama's policies. We

So your metaphor is out of place.

If BO has a job and his wages are reduced, that loss of wages will affect his personal budget in the same way the amount of McDonalds he buys does.

Sure it reduces the budget; but let's not forget who the money belongs to in the first place.

It is taxpayers money well before it is government money. Government doesn't create wealth; individuals do. The government is only created to protect our ability to live in freedom; not to create some perfect utopia and force all taxpayers to provide it at their expense. Progressives need to learn the proper function of government. Stop spending other peoples money on your great experiments in sociology and socialism.

Now you sound like one of the republicans that inspired me to create the thread.

How in the fuck is it only the progressives that want to spend government funds? Or did you mean to say "Silly every major political party"

jpc, dead isnt a republican, hes a libertarian. so while he agrees with republicans that govt should be smaller, he disagrees with how much spending has happened under their control in recent history.

is that about right dead?

yes

Although if Ron Paul wins the republican nomination I will (for once) proudly call myself a republican.

what if he won the democratic primary?

I'd vote for him

You passed.

I'm well aware of his political leanings. I said the last thing he said made him sound like one of the republicans that inspired me to make this thread.