.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:1327753"]Thanks. One other thing to back up my point that most Obama spending comes from Bush policies, here are the hard numbers (in a clear straightforward way without relying on any charts that can be spun): [QUOTE="Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts:1327316"]TRILLIONS of dollars in "stimulus" between two rounds of quantitative easing (with a third one planned, not added in yet!), big bank bailouts, and possibly worst of all (?) the billions upon billions given to other countries, including countries that would be very happy to see Americans die and have said so (Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, every other gasolineistan). Where'd trillions of dollars go? Besides many billions to his friends, you know[/QUOTE] OK, let's go exactly by the policies you just listed, using only raw numbers. Stimulus [URL='http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/23/stimulus-price-tag-rises-again/']cost[/URL] $833B. Quantitative easing cost $0 since the Fed creates new money (bad for inflation as Ron Paul has pointed out, [URL='http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/13/news/economy/federal-reserve-qe3/index.html']but taking no money from the treasury: "the central bank does not use taxpayer money to buy bonds."[/URL]) The bank bailouts [URL='http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/business/07tarp.html?_r=2&hp&'] cost[/URL] $42B after all the banks have paid back. The auto bailouts [URL='http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13281710-auto-bailout-cost-now-upped-to-25-billion?lite']cost[/URL] $25B after all the auto companies have paid back. Foreign aid ([URL='http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-increased-foreign-aid-80-spent-76-more-foreign-aid-border-security']having gone up from about $13B a year under Bush on average to $20B under Obama last year[/URL]) adds up to an Obama increase of $70B over comparable ten year periods. Solyndra was given considerably less than $1B in government money ([URL='http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/obama-spent-535-million-on-solyndra.html']$535M to be exact[/URL]) but for the sake of easy math let's say $1B. $833B + $42B + $25B + $70B + $1B= [B]$971B[/B] $4T ([URL='http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/169293-study-iraq-afghan-wars-cost-nearly-4-trillion']Cost Of Bush Wars Over Ten Years[/URL]) + $2.9T ([URL='http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/']Cost of Bush Tax Cuts Over Ten Years[/URL]) + $1.25T ([URL='http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/part-d-revisited/']Cost of Bush's Medicare D over ten years[/URL]) = [B]$8.15T[/B] How is there any comparison? How can a Republican who doesn't denounce the Bush fiscal policies as a failure and credibly plan to do things differently on spending even be considered seriously as a candidate? [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][