The content says, "[Bush] increase of 89%. [Obama] about 40%."
Which is quite misleading since it doesn't take into account rate which using the articles numbers is...
Bush: ($11t - $5.7t) / 8 yrs. which equals $662.5b
Obama: ($15t - $11t) / 3 yrs. which equals $1.3t
So Obama is the clear winner here at twice the rate of Bush.
Update: ...TARP shows up as an expense in Bush’s final budget, but the paybacks show up as income in Obama’s first two budgets. TARP made Bush’s spending problem look worse than it actually was, and it masked just how awful Obama’s spending problem was and is.
The rest of the article is more important. I just picked the quote that related to this post. Read it.
Bush: ($11t - $5.7t) / 8 yrs. which equals $662.5b
Obama: ($15t - $11t) / 3 yrs. which equals $1.3t
So Obama is the clear winner here at twice the rate of Bush.
Update: ...TARP shows up as an expense in Bush’s final budget, but the paybacks show up as income in Obama’s first two budgets. TARP made Bush’s spending problem look worse than it actually was, and it masked just how awful Obama’s spending problem was and is.
The rest of the article is more important. I just picked the quote that related to this post. Read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment