Posted on 09/01/2012 5:57:29 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I heard that too but I can’t figure out how they could think that. The debt went up more than the other president’s combined. I would love to see the math on this.
... guess it all depends on how one defines the term “government spending” ....
What a load of sycophantic crap.
i remember when this came out...Carney evidently screamed at reporters on Air Force 1 about this report....it was debunked within 24 hours, hence that’s why we have not heard of it much since....
This is the crap where they claim that since the Fiscal Year started under Bush (10/2008), the stimulus that was passed in 2009 was Bush’s spending. All I know is the Paln lives in Unger mind rent free.
Is Marketwatch doing satire now? I too would like to see their math.
This has been extensively debunked by the WSJ, IBD, and others. It has no place at this point on this forum.
I guess it would be true if you took a hit of Acid every day!
“but I can’t figure out how they could think that.”
Simple, he’s spent less of his own money than any president in history. All his vacations and campaign trips are on our dime.
Demagogic Party Talking Points ping. Thanks Major Matt Mason.
“Did you know this penny is larger than the sun?” (Holds coin to eye)
A couple things are missing from these calculations. First is that much of the discretionary spending in the 2009 fiscal year wasn't passed until March of 09, meaning they carry Obama's signature. Second is that Obama voted for TARP, signed the Stimulus bill, signed those Omnibus portions of the 09 budget, and hasn't had a budget passed since then. If spending in his administration was really flat (it isn't) then nobody can claim the credit because the democrats haven't passed a budget in the Senate since then.
Actually since Bush’s TARP was paid back, the net was zero.
These ‘Progressives’ are delusional. From 8/31/12
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2924839/posts?page=23#23
Read this nonsense in the post by the author of the article!!
“Obama is a Republican at heart, but he decided (probably in 1996) to enter politics as a Democrat, because there would be no way for him to become the first black President as a self-acknowledged conservative and Republican. As President, he negotiated in congress more with Boehner than with either Pelosi or Reid, and he did that right at the start, when Democrats dominated in both houses. It’s too much to go into here; but, in any case, I nowhere said that Obama is liberal. I consider him fairly conservative, conservative enough to want the Republicans to control Congress, even though that requires him to negotiate much harder with Boehner and McConnell than he would have to negotiate with Pelosi and Reid if he were a liberal. But my interpretation of Obama’s motivation isn’t even part of this article; all it discusses about him is that the nation has veered even farther to the right during his Presidency, something that loads of polls document.”
When this 1st came out, I think I can remember that someone, maybe Eric Bolling, was saying that they attached Obama’s spending on to the Bush admin at the very beginning of the O admin.
I can’t remember details, but this was debunked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
