10 Reasons To Vote Democrat In 2014

[Sean Renaud]

In 2007 the Feds spent $2.7 trillion. Since 2009, it's been $3.5 to $3.7 EVERY year.

Nice austerity

Even assuming that's true (I'm not in the mood to pull up the facts and figure) we are still cutting spending when we should have increased it.

It's still austerity.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

When you two twinks have walked a mile in his boots, come back and tell us all about it.

No bitterness, just contempt.

What was untrue about WE's addendum to this chain mail listicle crap?

If you can't take the verity concerning your "heroes," that's nobody's problem but yours, baby bubba.

 

[Queersetti]

Fuck you asshole.

Just part of a word game, right?

 

[Sean]

Vettebigot seems to be doing a lot of cheerleading for criminals recently.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wrong Element]

In 2007 the Feds spent $2.7 trillion. Since 2009, it's been $3.5 to $3.7 EVERY year.

Nice austerity

In FY 2008, spending was $2.98 trillion. It went up to $3.5 trillion thanks to the stimulus (and the need to spend more simply to deal with higher unemployment, and TARP). But last year it was $3.45 trillion, which is basically flat or slightly down over a 4-year period. This is historically pretty unusual. In FY 1982, spending was $745 billion. Four year later under the leadership of fiscal conservative Ronald Reagan, it was just shy of a trillion -- an increase of nearly 25 percent instead of an outright cut.

You have to go back to the 1950s and the decline in spending following the Korean War to find the last time spending has been this flat for this long.

 

[Sean]

Yeah sure. Unlike you I've never lead any cheers for the enemy.

Condemning war criminals is cheerleading for some nebulous "enemy"?

 

[Amberchgo]

In FY 2008, spending was $2.98 trillion. It went up to $3.5 trillion thanks to the stimulus (and the need to spend more simply to deal with higher unemployment, and TARP). But last year it was $3.45 trillion, which is basically flat or slightly down over a 4-year period. This is historically pretty unusual. In FY 1982, spending was $745 billion. Four year later under the leadership of fiscal conservative Ronald Reagan, it was just shy of a trillion -- an increase of nearly 25 percent instead of an outright cut.

You have to go back to the 1950s and the decline in spending following the Korean War to find the last time spending has been this flat for this long.

It's 4.4% per year increase vs inflation 1.5%. Yup... Austerity

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's 4.4% per year increase vs inflation 1.5%. Yup... Austerity

And there are more people in America and the Baby Boomers are all getting old at the same time. That doesn't mean it's not austerity. We should be spending quite a bit more than we are just to keep pace with those things.

 

[morocco]

Agree with you Sean; I enjoy reading your posts. Research has shown that government needs to be spending more during times of recession in order to stimulate the economy. And, as you've pointed out, with an older population we will have to spend more money. That doesn't mean we can't figure out ways to spend smarter, but simply making arbitrary cuts is not the answer.

And there are more people in America and the Baby Boomers are all getting old at the same time. That doesn't mean it's not austerity. We should be spending quite a bit more than we are just to keep pace with those things.

 

[Bry1313]

It's 4.4% per year increase vs inflation 1.5%. Yup... Austerity

It's gone down as a portion of the economy under Obama. Yeah, yeah, welfare, takers, free spending Dems, etc.

And didn't we just get a lecture from RWCJ nation that the government was artificially reporting lower inflation? That's it's actually 10%? RWCJ nation keeps making up things so fast I lose track.