Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
Originally Posted by gcoll
That graph is about growth in government spending over the previous year. And it credits 2009 to Bush.
So, the use of the stat is odd to me. Why not just use actual spending? And the article makes no attempt to explain why this measure is more important/accurate/better than measuring actual spending.
So I really think it's a meaningless point. As to why Democrats aren't running with it? They probably just think other lines of attack are more effective.
Doesn't take into account inflation, growth of the population, changes in economic social and security conditions. That is why spending change makes sense because it is likely that the two presidents year to year are dealing with relatively similar issues. Nothings going to be perfect. What we know for sure is that every president spent more than he took in every year except a few clinton years. I think we need the flexibility to do that in a recession or a war, but the restraint to save some money for those times as well.
Last edited by flips333; 09-05-2012 at 11:16 AM.
Originally Posted by MrPoon
man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.