Democrats anti-business

Conclusions Dusty ... no one party has a claim that they are not overspending. President Clinton did bring spending finally under control, however after events of 9/11 and the sore condition of our military equipment, drastic increases in defense spending was needed. Am I saying there's not waste in defense spending ... no, I believe there's waste in every govt program. Plus when a contractor says that if you want the F-35, that'll be $137M for one airframe, or $2B if you want this A/C Carrier you have greed and corruption. Spending in Education in FY12 was $822.8B and the current crop of kids are still lacking in basic skills. They can take the SAT as many times as they want, then submit whichever score they want to the particular college, due to a 2008 change.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Over, so your conclusions are? U must remember we cons need help from fox and there has not been one lib who has told me exactly how to think about your post. And thank u...

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Forgot to say my sources. Total govt employee from the Congressional Budget Office website and the total govt spending from usgovernmentspending dot com, which has the govt totals going back to 1794

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Just to throw in some comparisons on total govt spending and where it went. They're all Presidents, so with no disrespect, I'll leave off the title to each. 1980, Carter 4,984,000 Govt employees, $940.2B budget. $167.9B (18%) Defense and $100.5B (9%) Welfare. 1988, Reagan 4,568,000 employees. $1.77T. $530.2B (19%) Defense and $152B (9%) Welfare. 1992, H.W. Bush 5,152,000 employees $2.35T. $348.6B (15%) Defense $253B (11%) Welfare. 2000, Clinton 4,362,000 employees $3.24T. $358.9B (11%) Defense. $293.5B (9%) Welfare. 2008, H. Bush 4,161,000 employees $5.34T. $730.7B (14%) Defense. $497.4B (9%) Welfare. 2012, Obama 4,425,000 employees $6.23T. $903.2B (14%) Defense. $697.5B (11%) Welfare. The biggest increase was Pensions. This went from $143.3B in 1980 to $1.05T in 2012.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Thus, you 2009 thingy was from the previous dude..."

So THAT'S why there's been no budget. They can keep blaming "the previous dude."

This is Pres. Obama's second term, so he is now the "previous administration" of 2009-2013. (I didn't say "dude" out of respect for his office. See how that's done?)

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Well guys at least 2009 had a budget thanks to GW Bush.

Cannot say the same for the rest of Obamas time in office. he doesn't think following the law is important. He has not produced a budget that his own people will pass.

Hard to tell if he is within budget when he doesn't have one. But then any idiot can figure out he has blown the heck out of the budget when you spend TRILLIONS EVERY YEAR your in office. Face it folks Obama is the biggest spender and the biggest loser ever and he still has no budget does he?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

loco...You're right, I was trying to be funny because after requesting some proof to the contrary and not getting it as usual...That's all that is left...It's at the end of the line when they ask you "paper or plastic"

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bill will never get it. Under the budgeting process, the first year of a Presidency is run under the policies and budget of the previous President. Thus, you 2009 thingy was from the previous dude... You still don't know a thing.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Billdoesntgetit .The only people I see crying are the three headed elephants lead by boehner.Still cant get over gettig your donkey kicked.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Veritas, if only your posts connected to themselves somehow.

Paper or plastic what? Dolls? Hats? Dollars? Moons?

Oh, I get it. You were trying to be clever. Emphasis on "trying."

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

And the left wing continues to cry..

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

loco...I guess all that's left for you then is asking "paper or plastic"

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Veritas, I've seen enough lib rhetoric to fill a barn big enough for a three-headed elephant. It's called "talking points" and I think it's past time for libs to acknowledge that they have some of their own.

I can't help it that my particular dose of rhetoric is not to your taste. As far as proof, if I've got the time to research your sources, I'll do it. But excuse me if I stray off the path you've set out for me and all us non-libbers. Still a free country, and boy, that internet highway is a biggie.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

loco...I really just shake my head everytime you fill the box with rhetoric instead of proof...Proof of any sort...Proof to dispute proof if need be but proof of anything at best.

CBO,Tax Policy Center,US Census....

Biass..miass....Since the subsequent post fell off into neverland with the MDN upgrade you would have seen the concurring reports to what is called verification of source with content. Try it sometime.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DustOff3, I'm locomotive and I approve of your laundry list.

:-)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The only reason I posted Veritas' source is this: a fellow lefty, centerish, always says any point a non-lib makes is from Fox News et al. So I thought I'd out the source for Veritas' point.

All my post proved is that perhaps, just perhaps, many lefties get their info from, shall we say, non-neutral sources?

Now go ahead and prove that my points in general were specifically lifted from Fox et al. Can't do it.

Sorry my little jab was interpreted as nuclear warfare. And if the message is sound, it'll stand, Veritas.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LIBS/CONS Maybe "who did it" is some thing to discuss? How about "what do we do now, Ollie?" LIBS, here is a con approach... Stop all foreign aid. Change retirement age for SS and Medicare to 70(my retirement age was changed from 65 to 67 and the world kept rotating)..STOP being the world police force cause we can no longer afford to do so. Cut actual defense spending by 10 per cent. Bring 75 per cent of ALL troops home. Cut the farm program by 25 per cent. Give the responsibility of education back to the states cause there are so many indicators telling us the current system is NOT educating our youth. And most importantly don't vote for people who do otherwise. Now is there a LIB out there who can cross over and join me AND add a few to my short list and not u Jackahh cause u have not completed your evolvement yet...

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lorexxdoesntgetit...and never will!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

And just a few more facts for the left.

The first year of the Obama presidency, 2009, is the largest year in decades, with federal outlays totaling a whopping 25.2 percent of GDP. Since then, federal outlays relative to GDP have fallen, but they are still incredibly large. In fact, you have to go back to 1946 to find a year when federal outlays were as large as they have been every year of the Obama presidency.

So big is big no matter how little Obama has done to fix the economy.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

So, loco, you write to discredit where Veritas gets his information? Interesting...How about Forbes Magazine as a source for his information. Check the May 24th, 2012 issue and it also states similar information. Also, scroll down the comments below this article about four or five comments for even more information. I realize that it hurts to find that your beliefs are shattered on this issue by factual data, but tuff it out. We need you here. Veritas was also correct on the advice for you to google it as it is out there from numerous sources. Well, not Fox News, fair and unbalanced.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

My word, where did all my grenade throwing LIB friend go? Is there a big Mr. Ed, talking mule, show on Fox News tonight and they were told to watch it?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

here are some facts for you veritas..If you think Obama hasn't spent any money then why the he%%%% are we 6 TRILLION deeper in debt then when he took office.

The first year of the Obama presidency, 2009, is the largest year in decades, with federal outlays totaling a whopping 25.2 percent of GDP. Since then, federal outlays relative to GDP have fallen, but they are still incredibly large. In fact, you have to go back to 1946 to find a year when federal outlays were as large as they have been every year of the Obama presidency.

Your packs from your liberal web sight are nothing more then liberal math.. Ya know the thing that says 6 TRILLION is OK that group!!!!Soon to be 7 TRILLION as Obama continues to blow the lid of the debt ratings here in America.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

loco...You're attacking the messenger and avoiding having to produce FACTS to prove otherwise.

There's plenty of information out there...Go ahead and paste it!

In fact, provide us with bi-par sig-nor you can stand with..upright and roar like a lion...Un-Afraid, like losing your blanket after an all night feast discovering you're far from home.

We know the lioness does the hunting and the cantor does most of the singing.......What beautiful music they think.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Veritas' source: ThinkProgress . org

"ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards and chosen as an Official Honoree in the 2009 and 2012 Webby awards."

"Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund."

The Center for American Progress Action Fund's sister organization is the Center for American Progress, which is "an independent nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action."

Well, at least it ain't Fox News, right?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

By Travis Waldron on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:55 am

Government spending under President Obama has grown at a slower rate than it did under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower was in office six decades ago, according to an analysis from Bloomberg.

Flabbergasted Rand Paul Learns Public Employment Decreased Under Obama By Jeff Spross on Sep 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm.

Twice as high as the Reagan years. January 17, 2013 | Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email. Business executives like to portray the Obama administration as the “ most anti-business” in history, creating an “ increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” However, the data tells a far different story. According to a Bloomberg News analysis, corporate profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, the most in the post-war era:

Dusty...Why do some people never learn when relieving ones self to have your back to the wind?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »