politics is usually a touchy subject

[ahabion]

Most economists wouldn't really consider that reckless. Any better examples? I'm really looking for deutchewise to chime in. I want to look inside his head for a minute.

Lack of a balanced budget (or any real and sensible budget)? Biting the hands that feed them ('rich' people paying majority of the tax bill). Obamacare. GM bailout. Stimulus. Ca$h for Clunkers. Buying a bus.

I'm sure there's plenty more... just can't think of any others right now.

[.blank cd]

Lack of a balanced budget (or any real and sensible budget)?

Off topic, citation needed.

Biting the hands that feed them ('rich' people paying majority of the tax bill).

Rhetoric, still paying disproportionately less, also has nothing to do with spending...

Obamacare. GM bailout. Stimulus. Ca$h for Clunkers.

Obamacare--The other side is selling the same thing. You would have ended up with one or the other, the cost isnt really out of line for what it is, I dont think we can really consider that reckless based on the facts. Bailouts and stimulus or ARRA--Agruably prevented a global economic meltdown. I say arguably because we have not yet experienced a global economic meltdown and we dont know what would have really happened had we not bailed out banks, other than what analysts have predicted.

I'm sure there's plenty more... just can't think of any others right now.

I keep hearing all this "obama is a reckless spender" rhetoric, yet no one cant point to any specific thing, other than ARRA and the balance of our foreign military engagements, nor anything out of the ordinary for any president before him