Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Oldstyle]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

A second term?

 

[Oldstyle]

I find it amusing the lengths that progressives will go on this board to deny that Barack Obama is a big government liberal whose sole answer to all problems is to create more government and spend more money.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wow two fallacies n one post.
First posting a chart from a leftist web site with an obvious agenda.
Next posting something whcih is true, for which I have provided evidence, and still mocking it because you dont understand it.
You're on a roll: batting .000

What is the 'leftist' agenda of this web site?

I have no idea.
Tell me what the chart proves. This should be good since you are unable to read a graph an draw appropriate inferences.

The chart shows two things. 1) Spending is up 4% as a percentage of GDP over the displayed time frame. 2) Revenue has remained relatively constant as a percentage of GDP over the displayed time frame.

Unfortunately, the chart does not explain what spending it is talking about, or what revenue. Nor does the chart reflect changes in the value of the dollar.

 

[Kosh]

Since the dictator in charge will not release the real numbers it is hard to know what is going on.

Want the press to do it's job and tell you what is happening in Washington elect a Republican president.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

Votes.

 

[ilia25]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Um federal spending has not been 7 trillion. That isn't how it works.

Well, enlighten us then.

The government had to borrow because the tax revenues plunged after 2008. Federal spending growth has slowed down dramatically under Obama.

 

[TooTall]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

Just for starters, here are a few companies that Obama loaned taxpayer money too and the US government still owns a chunk of GM stock.

A partial list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

 

[LTCArmyRet]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

a broke dick start to single payer health care

an arab uprising that has created more enemies for the U.S. because Al queda has infiltrated them

larger and more dangerous drug cartels along our southern border

and that's just for beginners.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Um federal spending has not been 7 trillion. That isn't how it works.

Well, enlighten us then.

The government had to borrow because the tax revenues plunged after 2008. Federal spending growth has slowed down dramatically under Obama.

You need to change your little quote below your name from "I can do math" to I can't do math.

Please tell me how going from 2.9 trillion to 3.7 trillion per year in government expenditures is reducing spending?

 

[Londoner]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.

Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.

Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.

This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.

 

[Londoner]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

Just for starters, here are a few companies that Obama loaned taxpayer money too and the US government still owns a chunk of GM stock.
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*

Stop lying.

The loan to Solyndra was created by George Bush and his GOP Congress. Obama merely allowed the money that Bush guaranteed to be paid.


Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels. The president touted the new energy law in his*2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department*issued its final rules*for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.


Go here
DOE-Loan Programs Office

 

[R.C. Christian]

Where is that faggot Van Jones when we need him to make more excuses for the bisexual in chief?

 

[Londoner]

Why did Bush and Chaney choose to initiate the Solyndra Loan?

Bush and Chaney were intimately aware of the world's dwindling petroleum reserves, along with the dangers that a supply crunch presented to the most oil-dependent economy in history. So they created a comprehensive program to fund a wide variety of energy initiatives, from nuclear to biofuels. Not every private sector investment is a winner, and not every investment initiated by government is a winner. Government's investment in the Hoover Dam and Interstate system were winners. Government's investment in Boeing and commercial aviation were winners. The investment in Solyndra was a loser. This is how investments work, and it's the reason people diversify. The reason the Southwest exists in its current form is because the American Government invested in the Colorado Drainage basin. Harvesting the water and energy of the Colorado river is why whole cities in Arizona exist. This was a good investment, and no business or collection of businesses had the capital to fund it. It's why you need government to take care of the really big things. Who do you think funded the fucking satellites that the telecom industry depends on for profits? That was another good investment by government. But, you're right - there are corrupt investment that bilk the taxpayer. Do you know the dollar total that Republican administrations have given to oil companies in the form of "programs" and "initiatives" - after these companies had amassed the capital to pay for their own costs.

TooTall, your list shows something even more interesting. It shows how much money government gives to the private sector. Do you know how much funding Republican administrations have authorized to companies like Boeing through the Pentagon Budget? I bet you have no clue how much welfare business gets from the state. And what do you think happens when the capitalist makes bad investments? Answer: they get lush bailouts. Reagan deregulated that S&L's and allowed them to take riskier loans without the cash on hand to cover their "bets". When the S&L's failed, Reagan bailed them out. This pre-figured a much larger rat's nest of corrupt real estate ventures in 2008, fueled in part by the deregulation of mortgage lending and derivative markets. And then Bush and Paulson bailed out the bad guys with TARP, and you were silent. (And yes, we know the Dems will bailout anybody at any time, but why does your party seem to do it more - and why doesn't FOX cover it, and why don't you know about it?)

Stop being a cheerleader for the Right and learn how government works.

The Private Sector gets more help from the nanny state than any collection of food stamp hobos living under bridges. The system is owned by the wealthy, and they are its primary benefactors. Who do you think funds our elections and invests trillions of dollars in our politicians every year?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Bush was pro renewables as he like many republican senators seen the benefits.

Only retarded extremist are against it.

 

[Vox]

What did Obama buy with all that money he spent?

Can one of you CON$ answer that?

Just for starters, here are a few companies that Obama loaned taxpayer money too and the US government still owns a chunk of GM stock.

A partial list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

now it would be nice to find out which of those actually continues to work.

or all of them are just solyndra-like?

 

[The Rabbi]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.

Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.

Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.

This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

 

[Londoner]

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

At least the deficits are shrinking fast, which is key to attacking the debt.
Deficit under $1T for first time in five years

(But I will admit, it's largely because of sequestration and not because Obama is the 2nd coming of uncle Milty. [Here's something for your signature] I think the refusal to run large deficits is doing long term damage to the economy, because it's resulting in spiraling layoffs, which destroys the needed consumer demand for economic growth. Reagan kept spending up during his '81 recession. He kept funding open to the states so they didn't have to lay off cops, school teachers, firemen, administrators. Why did Reagan do this? Because he didn't want to remove consumers from the economy. Each state worker buys things from local businesses, which means those businesses don't have to layoff as many workers, which keeps even more consumers from being laid off. It's called a virtuous cycle, but the GOP is not going to let Obama keep that kind of spending up . . . so the deficits are shrinking quite apart from the administration's desires.)

 

[Billy000]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.

Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.

Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.

This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

 

[The Rabbi]

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

At least the deficits are shrinking fast, which is key to attacking the debt.
Deficit under $1T for first time in five years

(But I will admit, it's largely because of sequestration and not because Obama is the 2nd coming of uncle Milty. [Here's something for your signature] I think the refusal to run large deficits is doing long term damage to the economy, because it's resulting in spiraling layoffs, which destroys the needed consumer demand for economic growth. Reagan kept spending up during his '81 recession. He kept funding open to the states so they didn't have to lay off cops, school teachers, firemen, administrators. Why did Reagan do this? Because he didn't want to remove consumers from the economy. Each state worker buys things from local businesses, which means those businesses don't have to layoff as many workers, which keeps even more consumers from being laid off. It's called a virtuous cycle, but the GOP is not going to let Obama keep that kind of spending up . . . so the deficits are shrinking quite apart from the administration's desires.)

The deficit is contributing to the increasing debt. You understand that,r ight?
The deficit is lower because all the programs Bush put in at the end of his term, and Obama doubled down on, are expiring. Add in much higher new taxes, in addition to the Bush tax cuts expiring, and it was bound to happen. But spending is still higher than it was before the recession. We are on a permanently high plateau.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.

Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.

Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.

This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

No, Billy. You are the stupid one here.
We have more revenue to the federal govt now than we did 4 years ago.
Here.
US Federal Revenue by Year 2009_2018 - Charts Tables History