Oh.. forget all the fantasy about shoring up the 2nd Amendment... If I had a time-machine, I'd go visit the founders, use my Android phone to prove I was from the future, (while the battery lasted) and then I'd convince them to insert something about prohibiting any sort of "baseline budgeting" from any aspect of .gov.
Heck I see the limited spending as an indictment of Obama. We need more stimulus not less. The deficit isn't as important as jobs.
With the price of borrowing for the federal government being close to 0% it makes sense invest in infrastructure, funding shortfalls in state government, and increasing the social safety net.
Austerity hasn't done anything for Europe and it hasn't done anything for the US.
If we want to get out of this depression we should emulate Reagan and increased spending and taxes.
BTW I didn't think the Heritage article did much to refute the claims made by this.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
Europe's austerity is a fake.
It hasn't done much for Europe because it hasn't existed.
If we just ignore the MASSIVE SPENDING from his first year, he's only spent a little bit more than that massive increase from his first year in the succeeding years! He's a model of fiscal restraint!
not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
I'm surprised this ever made it to Forbes magazine after the outcry from conservatives over the methodology: put nearly all of Obama's first-year spending into GW's last year.Why not? If you use that methodology consistently it makes a fair comparison of how much presidents increased spending. They correctly attributed the 2009 the stimulus bill to him because he was in office by that point. How would it make sense to claim he's responsible for increases that took place before he took office?
So what part of this don't you agree with?Why not? If you use that methodology consistently it makes a fair comparison of how much presidents increased spending. They correctly attributed the 2009 the stimulus bill to him because he was in office by that point. How would it make sense to claim he's responsible for increases that took place before he took office?
Yes. I have a problem with blaming all of 2009 on Bush. Who signed the 2009 budget?
(Here's a hint: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/11/Obama-signs-earmark-laden-budget-bill/UPI-75101236770890/)
I have questions.
Why are we saying "since Eisenhower?" Has American history started with Eisenhower?
Why do they discuss only growth rates of Federal spending? According to their page, Obama spent only 1.4 more than Bush, who in turn spent spent more than Clinton, and so on - making him the largest spender since Eisenhower, not the smallest.
I have questions.
Why are we saying "since Eisenhower?" Has American history started with Eisenhower?
Why do they discuss only growth rates of Federal spending? According to their page, Obama spent only 1.4 more than Bush, who in turn spent spent more than Clinton, and so on - making him the largest spender since Eisenhower, not the smallest.
Europe's austerity is a fake.
It hasn't done much for Europe because it hasn't existed.