What with all the positive hoopla surrounding Obama's (@BarackObama) call to action today, I checked out a few cleverly titled news articles on the subject.
I happened to come across this tweet by Utah Senator Mike Lee (R)...
SenMikeLee Mike Lee
Those who will be impacted most by Obama's reckless spending should tweet him to #compromise & support a BBA, but they haven't been born yet
To which I replied...
@SenMikeLee nice talking point but 7T came f/ Bush vs @BarackObama 's 1.4T "spending" http://1.usa.gov/... so don't #compromise facts
I used to live in Utah myself, which is why I decided to reply (no, he didn't respond, maybe because he's too busy prepping for his appearance on Sean Hannity today). It frustrates me to no end to see elected officials of all people spout erroneous drivel uncritically. It not only makes a travesty of the fact-driven society we should be, but also highlights how malleable they think the populace is.
You can view the informative infographic in question, from the White House, sourced from CBO data right here.
But, basically:
-$12.7T has been added to the national debt in the last decade
-$7T came from Bush policies (wars and tax cuts)
-Only $1.4T has come from Obama's policies (the Recovery Act, middle class tax cuts, etc)
-The rest stems from finance debt and economy-related things
Essentially, if we hadn't gone to war and we hadn't cut taxes temporarily for the rich—which the rich now don't want give up even while it drives the country down the drain—we'd be in much better shape. So don't #compromise the facts by pinning it on Obama's supposed "reckless spending".
What do you think—is Obama's spending reckless, or is it the inadherence to facts by Republicans?