Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Faun]

What's sad is that you believe (in your infinite arrogance) that you believe you have the right to take someone else's money for "science", education, or bridges.

If you want science funded, fund it yourself you greedy, lazy, moron.... It is not the responsibility of the federal government. Not are roads, bridges, or education (those are all state responsibilities - learn to read the Constitution).

My Constitution allows for the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Education and roads being inclusive of general welfare.

Which part of "your" constituton provides that?

Article I, section 8.

 

[francoHFW]

And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined. When Reagan added a trillion, we we're only a trillion in debt. When Obama added the obnoxious, outrageous, unacceptable $7 trillion, we were already a staggering $10 trillion in debt (ie 10x's where we were under Reagan).

As usual, you prove to be stupid beyond words. No, Obama has not added more debt than all other presidents combined. Stop listening to your delusions -- they betray you.

Obama: $6.6t
All other presidents combined: $10.6t

not even in you bizarro backwards Conservative world is 6.6 greater than 10.6.

A bit of a reading comprehension problem [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

See, I was responding to your post (which can still be seen above in this post right here) in which you cited Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan (highlighted and bolded above since you have a reading comprehension problem).

As anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading would have known, those three presidents you cited were the "all" I was referring to. I was not referring to all presidents in U.S. history (although Obama has surpassed them if you take first terms only - yep, that's right, Obama added more to the U.S. debt in his first term than all other presidents in U.S. history combined did).

Feel stupid now Fauny? You should...

and that had NOTHING to do with Boooosh AND the ABYSS he left Obama...IDIOT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

First the guy claimed that spending went down.

Then he claimed that is went up at the slowest rate ever.

Now he is saying that he is right, it actually remained flat.

Is it remotely possible he is so stupid that he actually believes this crap?

 

[Faun]

And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined. When Reagan added a trillion, we we're only a trillion in debt. When Obama added the obnoxious, outrageous, unacceptable $7 trillion, we were already a staggering $10 trillion in debt (ie 10x's where we were under Reagan).

As usual, you prove to be stupid beyond words. No, Obama has not added more debt than all other presidents combined. Stop listening to your delusions -- they betray you.

Obama: $6.6t
All other presidents combined: $10.6t

not even in you bizarro backwards Conservative world is 6.6 greater than 10.6.

A bit of a reading comprehension problem [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

See, I was responding to your post (which can still be seen above in this post right here) in which you cited Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan (highlighted and bolded above since you have a reading comprehension problem).

As anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading would have known, those three presidents you cited were the "all" I was referring to. I was not referring to all presidents in U.S. history (although Obama has surpassed them if you take first terms only - yep, that's right, Obama added more to the U.S. debt in his first term than all other presidents in U.S. history combined did).

Feel stupid now Fauny? You should...

Why on Earth would I feel stupid because an imbecile thinks he's clever? After all, at the end of the day, you're still nothing but an imbecile who thinks he's clever. But let's look at your exact words before you altered them ...

'And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined.

well, no, he hasn't.

Last 3 Republicans: 8.1t
Obama: 6.6t

And while I noticed even you realize your bullshit was bullshit, leading you to amend your initial statement by limiting it to their first term only, You are now mired in your sickness by comparing insignificant nominal figures as well as attempting to conceal the fact that Bush's first term was aided by the low deficit he inherited while Obama was drowned in the massive deficit and broken economy he inherited.

Carry on with your delusions ... they're all you have.

 

[Faun]

What's sad is that you believe (in your infinite arrogance) that you believe you have the right to take someone else's money for "science", education, or bridges.

If you want science funded, fund it yourself you greedy, lazy, moron.... It is not the responsibility of the federal government. Not are roads, bridges, or education (those are all state responsibilities - learn to read the Constitution).

My Constitution allows for the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Education and roads being inclusive of general welfare.

And therein lies the problem. Maybe your Constitution allows for that, but the U.S. Constitution does not.

First of all, "general welfare" is not one of the specific, 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. "General welfare" is simply mentioned as a reason why the federal government is being granted 18 specific, enumerated powers. But it is not a power itself

Second, when you take from 52% and use it to reward a specific group, that is not the "general welfare". That is punishing a larger group for the welfare of a smaller group. General means ALL or MOST (see definition below). And since 48% of the people (the parasite class) pay no federal taxes, you are punishing 52% to reward 48%. Those numbers are a far cry from ALL or MOST.

Now that I have educated you on the Constitution (no need to thank me, it has been my pleasure) and illustrates how even your misinterpretation of the Constitution doesn't hold up, would you like to try again?

gen·er·al (ˈjenərəl/)
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

 

[The Rabbi]

My Constitution allows for the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Education and roads being inclusive of general welfare.

Which part of "your" constituton provides that?

Article I, section 8.

Wrong.
As pointed out, that does not give license to Congress to do whatever "promotes the general welfare."
Wow, you show yourself more and more clueless with every post.

 

[The Rabbi]

My Constitution allows for the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Education and roads being inclusive of general welfare.

And therein lies the problem. Maybe your Constitution allows for that, but the U.S. Constitution does not.

First of all, "general welfare" is not one of the specific, 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. "General welfare" is simply mentioned as a reason why the federal government is being granted 18 specific, enumerated powers. But it is not a power itself

Second, when you take from 52% and use it to reward a specific group, that is not the "general welfare". That is punishing a larger group for the welfare of a smaller group. General means ALL or MOST (see definition below). And since 48% of the people (the parasite class) pay no federal taxes, you are punishing 52% to reward 48%. Those numbers are a far cry from ALL or MOST.

Now that I have educated you on the Constitution (no need to thank me, it has been my pleasure) and illustrates how even your misinterpretation of the Constitution doesn't hold up, would you like to try again?

gen·er·al (ˈjenərəl/)
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you don't believe in the freeways, public schools and ssi?

Government does a lot of good. Regulating the private sector is also needed....

 

[Faun]

And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined. When Reagan added a trillion, we we're only a trillion in debt. When Obama added the obnoxious, outrageous, unacceptable $7 trillion, we were already a staggering $10 trillion in debt (ie 10x's where we were under Reagan).

As usual, you prove to be stupid beyond words. No, Obama has not added more debt than all other presidents combined. Stop listening to your delusions -- they betray you.

Obama: $6.6t
All other presidents combined: $10.6t

not even in you bizarro backwards world is 6.6 greater than 10.6.

so you are obviously OK with obama spending more than half than all other 43 presidents combined did in a >200 year history. More than half in 5 years!!!

you leftard nutters are INSANE.

No, I'm not ok with it. But after watching Conservatives and Republicans defend the same whenever Republican presidents did it, I figured perhaps deficits don't matter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Are you republicans really going to run on no freeways, no public schools, no ssi and no birth control again?

You will be defeated!

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Are you republicans really going to run on no freeways, no public schools, no ssi and no birth control again?

You will be defeated!

When did they run on that to begin with?

 

[blackhawk]

So who spent that seven trillion dollars then if not Obama and the Democrats? For those who already have or will say Bush please remember as difficult as it may be for you he is not and has not been President for almost five years now.

Bush didn't budget the wars or the tax cuts within his budget. Obama added it back into the budget = why it want sky high.

Obama has been bad for science, infrastructure and education in America as he has cut it to the bone.

Really so your actually claiming the 7 trillion is all from Bush? So as the debt continues to rise during Obama's second term who's fault will it be then? Is Obama ever going to be responsible for spending even one dollar during his presidency or will it always be someone else who did it?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Even going with those numbers, which I highly doubt given the drop in the deficit, so ... ?

Where was the outrage from Conservatives at Bush when he nearly increased as much debt as every president combined before him? Where was their outrage at Bush when he turned a $17b deficit into a $500b deficit and later into a trillion dollar deficit? Where was their outrage when Bush turn a projected $6t surplus into an $8t deficit ? Where was their outrage when his father wad on pace to increase the debt more than every president combined before him? Where was their outrage when Reagan increased by almost twice every president combined before him?

Don't you remember? "Deficits don't matter." ~ a leading member of the Conservative cult

What? 6 trillion surplus? BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!! What are you smoking? Please show me anywhere we've even had even a 400 billion surplus. YOU CAN'T, because we never have. You really proved you lunacy here faun.

Your G-d given limitations aside ... of course I can prove my claim ...

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION

A NYT article that gives an ESTIMATE the never happened? You call that proof? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa! You are as misinformed as the dolt that wrote the article.

The U.S. has had only 5 years that we've had a surplus since 1958,.....1969, 1998-2001. The single largest year was 99 at 236 billion. I'm pretty sure that's not going to equate to a 6 trillion dollar surplus.

btw, estimates are not facts. try this site for a little more accurate data.......Historical Tables | The White House

 

[Faun]

And therein lies the problem. Maybe your Constitution allows for that, but the U.S. Constitution does not.

First of all, "general welfare" is not one of the specific, 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. "General welfare" is simply mentioned as a reason why the federal government is being granted 18 specific, enumerated powers. But it is not a power itself

Second, when you take from 52% and use it to reward a specific group, that is not the "general welfare". That is punishing a larger group for the welfare of a smaller group. General means ALL or MOST (see definition below). And since 48% of the people (the parasite class) pay no federal taxes, you are punishing 52% to reward 48%. Those numbers are a far cry from ALL or MOST.

Now that I have educated you on the Constitution (no need to thank me, it has been my pleasure) and illustrates how even your misinterpretation of the Constitution doesn't hold up, would you like to try again?

gen·er·al (ˈjenərəl/)
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

 

[The Rabbi]

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

Art I Section 8. You fail. Again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you don't believe in the freeways, public schools and ssi?

Government does a lot of good. Regulating the private sector is also needed....

Yes, yes, and you see the government through rose colored glasses. If you haven't already noticed, our government has done massive damage to our healthcare system. For what good the government does, it can't even build a website properly.

And just so you know, people didn't need government to get an education, or build roads. People didn't use their disability as a crutch and an excuse for handouts.

Perhaps the Public sector needs some attention.

 

[The T]

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Note that YOU and OBAMA are all for decimating the US Military...

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

 

[The T]

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

Did the Constitution call for a DOE Gracie? And where in the Constitution does it mention SCIENCE?

As to roads/Bridges? That is correct. But meant that the government was to maintain roads for the postal clause...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7.

YOU need more education on it however bub.

 

[The T]

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

So you're a socialist and wish to take power away from families and their personal affairs. No shit you do. Government was NEVER meant to do these things...the founders thought we'd take responsibility for ourselves...evidently? YOU want no part of personal responsibility..YOU are a Nanny-Stater STATIST.