Good call. I'm helping write some propaganda for the Beaumont Tea party and line up some speakers. I think we're going to invite Chet Edwards. He's been an advocate of fiscal responsibility in the past, and whenever the Obama excitement wears off, I think he could be an advocate in the future.
Let's see all the things wrong about this: 1. The original statement did not include anything about a deficit. It simply said: But you do realize that Obama has almost spent more money in his first sixty days then Bush did in his entire two terms. 2. Obama hasn't spent 2 trillion and counting. 3. He hasn't spent remotely close to as much deficit spending at this point. The estimated deficit for 2009 is $1.8 trillion. We're two months into his term, putting us at about $316B. The total deficits over Bush's term Its several hundred billion compared to $2.7 trillion during Bush - not counting all the off-budget items such as the $600+B Iraq War. 4. A substantial chunk of the 2009 and 2010 deficits were already in place prior to Obama due to the slowing economy and TARP legislation. While Obama's budget projects a $1.8 trillion deficit in 2009, much of that *already existed* and is not Obama's proposed spending. 5. Obama's budget has not been passed. Therefore, he hasn't "spent" any of that money. Again, stop using right-wing nonsense to source your information. You consistently post garbage that is factually incorrect. Either you do it intentionally or you have no clue what you're talking about. Neither option looks particuarly good for you.
