It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
According to a US News and World Report article, Obama has outspent the last five presidents.


A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."




Edit to add: And worse, all this spending is not helping the economy. Today's jobs report shows that even using the dreamy-eyed labor statistics, unemployment went up this past month from 8.1% to 8.2%. (Of course, the real unemployment number is three times that, but that's another thread.)
edit on 6/1/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: add biased opinion




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
and in the mind of the programmed...

this story qualifies Romney somehow.

fun 2012



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
and in the mind of the programmed...

this story qualifies Romney somehow.

fun 2012


In a way yes. It qualifies someone else to give it a shot because the guy we have sucks and a vote for anyone other than Romney will more than likely just give Obama a vote because a third party will not win. So absolutely in a completely round about way yes. It qualifies Romney on the basis that anything has to be better. ANYTHING because NOTHING has ever been worse.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTardis
 


this is how the elite control us.

the solution to a bad big mac is not to buy a whopper.

it is to stop eating fast food altogether.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Was Bush's war included in his expenditures? I think not.

Is recovering from Bush's war in Obama's expenditures? I think yes.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I completely understand but there has to be a big enough movement and history has proven that it just isnt happening right now. George Sr. Lost to Clinton because of Ross P. Enough people voted for Ross to change the election, but not for the better. He didnt take votes from Clinton, he took them from Bush. The same thing is going to happen because there has been enough democratic propaganda to push some people away from Romney and all it is going to do is give Obama another 4 years and that could be a complete disaster for us all. I would love to see Ron Paul get a shot but I just dont think it will happen. But I do think a third party could sway the election. Just not for the better. Someone is going to have to lay the groundwork for a third party to win and it isnt going to happen in one election year. It is going to take a full scale 4 year campaign by someone.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
How? If he's spent less than Bush
how could he have out spent the last 5?

dailydish.typepad.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Bush's war? I thought it was America at war? And if it was "Bush's" war then whey didnt Obama get us out of it like he promised? Instead he tacked on a few of his own. Stop throwing stones. We were at war and you, me and the general public dont have all the reasons. Obama didnt even have all of the reasons. Once he was privy to that info he knew he couldnt get is out, just like Bush couldnt. Stop using that as a crutch and stop blaming Bush for everything going on. Its tired and played out. Maybe the first couple of years you can blame the outgoing president. But that ship sailed.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Annee
 


Bush's war? I thought it was America at war?



Ha Ha Ha - - if it was Obama - - you'd be calling it Obama's war.

Actually it was Cheney's war - - - if you read the PNAC it lays it all out. That was in 1998 I believe.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Annee
 


Bush's war? I thought it was America at war?



Ha Ha Ha - - if it was Obama - - you'd be calling it Obama's war.

Actually it was Cheney's war - - - if you read the PNAC it lays it all out. That was in 1998 I believe.



See that is where you are wrong. I grew up in a military family. I know why we are there and it has nothing to do with the president being some war monger in my opinion and I am not here to debate that. But calling it "Bushs" war is just a joke. I dont like Obama but not because of that. Its because he is trashing this country and has no respect for the office he sets in. I actually have a small sliver of respect for the fact that he didnt pull the troops out as soon as he got into office like he promised you he would. He finally realized they were there for a reason. But I wouldnt call it Obama's war.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Annee
 


Bush's war?



Yes - Bush's war and his expenses.

Only they were conveniently absent from his official expenses.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Annee
 


Bush's war? I thought it was America at war?



Ha Ha Ha - - if it was Obama - - you'd be calling it Obama's war.

Actually it was Cheney's war - - - if you read the PNAC it lays it all out. That was in 1998 I believe.



See that is where you are wrong. I grew up in a military family. I know why we are there and it has nothing to do with the president being some war monger in my opinion and I am not here to debate that. But calling it "Bushs" war is just a joke. I dont like Obama but not because of that. Its because he is trashing this country and has no respect for the office he sets in. I actually have a small sliver of respect for the fact that he didnt pull the troops out as soon as he got into office like he promised you he would. He finally realized they were there for a reason. But I wouldnt call it Obama's war.


I don't believe that you wouldn't call it Obama's war - - if it had been him as president at the time.

Have you read the PNAC? If you haven't you should.

FACT is - - - the expense of that war happened under Bush as president.

FACT is - - - Bush's official expenses - - do not include the war.

FACT is - - - many of what Obama is dealing with are a direct result of Bush's war expenses.

---------------------------------------------------------

Very fuzzy math.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


If by "recovering from" you mean continuing then I suppose so.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
No, president Obama is making up for e mistakes of the last five presidents.

And I'm not a supporter...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by Annee
 


If by "recovering from" you mean continuing then I suppose so.


Just tell me what Bush's REAL expenses are.

That would include the expenses of the war on his watch.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Was Bush's war included in his expenditures? I think not.

Is recovering from Bush's war in Obama's expenditures? I think yes.



I'll address this just because it pisses me off to see ignorant Liberals spouting this every chance they get.

Bush did not include funding for the War(s) in the "official" budget, but rather through special funding. However the total is included in "total expenditures" and deficit accumulation .. it's not "off the books" it was just passed at a different time. And if you want to be technical about it, technically under Obama's administration there has not been an "official" budget ever passed. The funding of the US Government is currently under "special funding" or temporary stopgaps throughout the year without an official annual budget. Then there are other "special funding" events that Obama used exactly like the war funding.. like "stimulus" bills that were never part of a budget, but rather a "special expenditure" .. it's still calculated under total spending and total deficit, but was never part of a budget.

But no worries.. educating progressives is what I do.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Annee
Was Bush's war included in his expenditures? I think not.

Is recovering from Bush's war in Obama's expenditures? I think yes.



I'll address this just because it pisses me off to see ignorant Liberals spouting this every chance they get.


Love the arrogant Neo-Cons - - who assume everyone who doesn't "toe their line" is Liberal.

You don't know me. You don't know my politics.

So spout away with all your BS - - - since you've already tainted your opinion with your biased opening statement.
edit on 1-6-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Firstly, I'm a Libertarian. And I DO know you.. I've seen all the ridiculousness you post for years now. You're a Progressive Liberal, a textbook case just as I'm a textbook Libertarian.

And for all your rage does not change the fact that I am right..... and you are wrong.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Most of it wasn't spent. It was given away. It would be bad enough if it had been spent. That would mean he bought something. Instead it has been raping of the American bank account and given to everyone but the American people. He has acted as if in a timed race to see how fast he can get rid of the American people's money.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Annee
 


Firstly, I'm a Libertarian. And I DO know you.. I've seen all the ridiculousness you post for years now. You're a Progressive Liberal, a textbook case just as I'm a textbook Libertarian.

And for all your rage does not change the fact that I am right..... and you are wrong.


Oh well - excuse me. Was I judging you incorrectly? My bad.

I don't discuss my politics on ATS - - - so therefore you are completely clueless in your assessment of me.

And I am fully aware the War Expenditures were shoved somewhere. Kind of like Off site - - Don't Look Here.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join