Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Faun]

The debt increased 5T under Bush in 8years and 7T under Obama in 5 years and Bush is responsible for more of it?

First of all, you're blindly counting from inauguration to inauguration. While I understand the Conservative mind is limited to such rudimentary thinking, the causes of debt are far more complex than your underdeveloped brain can comprehend. Furthermore, other factors weigh in. Factors which are directly attributable to Bush and/or the conditions Obama inherited. Such as the Iraq war (which to this day, still costs us money), the Great Recession, and the structurally broken economy Bush handed Obama. All these are factors which contributed greatly to the debt since Obama's inaugration. And lastly, being the Conservative thinking, knuckle-dragging, mentally lazy individual you are, it also escapes your notice that we were still operating under Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 when obama became president.

I hope that helps you. I have my doubts, mind you. But being Liberal, I remain hopefull nonetheless.

So if you dont want to count inauguration to inauguration, what time period do you want to count?
The Iraq War is over. Bush negotiated the settlement and Obama took it and ran for the door. If it is still costing money, who's fault is that?
Were the Democrats in Congress powerless to defund Bush's programs for 4 years? Didn't they run in 2006 on the premise of fiscal responsibility?
We werent operating under Bush's budget in 2009 for the simple reason the Senate failed to pass a budget that year. In fact as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate they have not passed a budget. But Congress, which was controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's presidency approves spending. Even so, spending went up after Bush left office. A lot of this was to fight the recession. But the recession has been over technically for several years. Yet spending is still higher than before the recession. Is that also Bush's fault? What part of the blame goes to Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

Of course we were operating under Bush's budget for much of FY2009. You have no clue how the government operates, do you? While it's true that a new budget for FY2009 was not passed, Bush signed a continuing budget resolution to fund the government for the first half of FY2009. And long come dumbfucking Conservatives, attributing that to Obama.

Btw, before Obama even became president, to account for the Great Recession, the CBO revised their FY2009 deficit projection to $1.2 trillion. That's Obama's fault too and not Bush's, right, brain-dead Conservative?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

It's sad that so many of your dumbass Conservatives are such retards.

Look at the chart I posted again.

That IS the "national deficit.". And it's not higher than it's ever been. At $680b, it's lower than the previous 4 years.

Why is it you freaks on the right can't learn the difference between deficit and debt?

Your dumber than a rock faun, yeah,

Am I supposed to care when I'm called dumb by someone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're?"

the projected deficit is on 680 billion, lower than it's been under odumas watch. But it's like you personally having $500 dollars in your checking account, you tell the wife she can buy a new dress for the holidays. She goes out and pays $1000 for one, but she tells you, "but honey it was on sale, it normally costs $1,500."

Either way, your fucking flat ass broke AND overdrawn at the bank. DO you get it now, do ya? How are you going to spin that one? Blame it on Bush? Say he did the same thing? IT STILL HAS TO STOP AND THE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE BALANCED, CUT SPENDING!!

Your Conservative ignorance aside, I never said $680b was chump change. I corrected another dumbass Conservative who idiotically said that was the biggest deficit ever. And btw, that $680b figure is not a projection. It's in the books for fiscal year 2013.

Resorting to grammar corrections to try and save face, huh? I know you never said 680 billion was chump change, you said spending was flat. I conceded that fact to you, however, you dodged that fact that odumas spending is still over 600 billion higher than ANY GW budget.

The 2013 FY is over, but the books are not closed out. White house budget office, CBO, all gov websites still state PROJECTED! It takes about 3 months to close out the books for the government, so the final spending amounts won't be accurately known until after the first of the year, which is the usual.

 

[Redfish]

First of all, you're blindly counting from inauguration to inauguration. While I understand the Conservative mind is limited to such rudimentary thinking, the causes of debt are far more complex than your underdeveloped brain can comprehend. Furthermore, other factors weigh in. Factors which are directly attributable to Bush and/or the conditions Obama inherited. Such as the Iraq war (which to this day, still costs us money), the Great Recession, and the structurally broken economy Bush handed Obama. All these are factors which contributed greatly to the debt since Obama's inaugration. And lastly, being the Conservative thinking, knuckle-dragging, mentally lazy individual you are, it also escapes your notice that we were still operating under Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 when obama became president.

I hope that helps you. I have my doubts, mind you. But being Liberal, I remain hopefull nonetheless.

So if you dont want to count inauguration to inauguration, what time period do you want to count?
The Iraq War is over. Bush negotiated the settlement and Obama took it and ran for the door. If it is still costing money, who's fault is that?
Were the Democrats in Congress powerless to defund Bush's programs for 4 years? Didn't they run in 2006 on the premise of fiscal responsibility?
We werent operating under Bush's budget in 2009 for the simple reason the Senate failed to pass a budget that year. In fact as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate they have not passed a budget. But Congress, which was controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's presidency approves spending. Even so, spending went up after Bush left office. A lot of this was to fight the recession. But the recession has been over technically for several years. Yet spending is still higher than before the recession. Is that also Bush's fault? What part of the blame goes to Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

Of course we were operating under Bush's budget for much of FY2009. You have no clue how the government operates, do you? While it's true that a new budget for FY2009 was not passed, Bush signed a continuing budget resolution to fund the government for the first half of FY2009. And long come dumbfucking Conservatives, attributing that to Obama.

Btw, before Obama even became president, to account for the Great Recession, the CBO revised their FY2009 deficit projection to $1.2 trillion. That's Obama's fault too and not Bush's, right, brain-dead Conservative?

federal debt when obama took office 10 trillion

federal debt today 17 trillion

probable federal debt when obama leaves office 21 trillion.

spin it however you like, obama has added more to the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

 

[TooTall]

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.

The National Debt has increased 7 Trillion in the last 5 years. That means that Federal Government SPENDING exceeded REVENUE by that much.

A weasel would pretend that entitlement programs aren't spending, but the are.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

First of all, you're blindly counting from inauguration to inauguration. While I understand the Conservative mind is limited to such rudimentary thinking, the causes of debt are far more complex than your underdeveloped brain can comprehend. Furthermore, other factors weigh in. Factors which are directly attributable to Bush and/or the conditions Obama inherited. Such as the Iraq war (which to this day, still costs us money), the Great Recession, and the structurally broken economy Bush handed Obama. All these are factors which contributed greatly to the debt since Obama's inaugration. And lastly, being the Conservative thinking, knuckle-dragging, mentally lazy individual you are, it also escapes your notice that we were still operating under Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 when obama became president.

I hope that helps you. I have my doubts, mind you. But being Liberal, I remain hopefull nonetheless.

So if you dont want to count inauguration to inauguration, what time period do you want to count?
The Iraq War is over. Bush negotiated the settlement and Obama took it and ran for the door. If it is still costing money, who's fault is that?
Were the Democrats in Congress powerless to defund Bush's programs for 4 years? Didn't they run in 2006 on the premise of fiscal responsibility?
We werent operating under Bush's budget in 2009 for the simple reason the Senate failed to pass a budget that year. In fact as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate they have not passed a budget. But Congress, which was controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's presidency approves spending. Even so, spending went up after Bush left office. A lot of this was to fight the recession. But the recession has been over technically for several years. Yet spending is still higher than before the recession. Is that also Bush's fault? What part of the blame goes to Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

Of course we were operating under Bush's budget for much of FY2009. You have no clue how the government operates, do you? While it's true that a new budget for FY2009 was not passed, Bush signed a continuing budget resolution to fund the government for the first half of FY2009. And long come dumbfucking Conservatives, attributing that to Obama.

Btw, before Obama even became president, to account for the Great Recession, the CBO revised their FY2009 deficit projection to $1.2 trillion. That's Obama's fault too and not Bush's, right, brain-dead Conservative?

Every President has had to live with the ramifications of the policies of their predecessors. Nothing new, except that oduma likes to use this as an excuse. Budgets are like pies. Every budget proposal is the ingredients for a pie that will finish baking in four years. You pull one pie out that was put in the oven four years ago and slice it up for that year. Oduma has been feeding more air and handing out less pie than ANY president in HISTORY! Even with the largest pies ever made.

I'm not sure you have a clue how the government works either.

 

[Rozman]

Let's do cut the bullshit about spending under Obama!
Are we more in debt now or less since Obama took over?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Let's do cut the bullshit about spending under Obama!
Are we more in debt now or less since Obama took over?

ohhh, don't bring that little fact up, the libtards on this board will lose their minds!

 

[TooTall]

First of all, you're blindly counting from inauguration to inauguration. While I understand the Conservative mind is limited to such rudimentary thinking, the causes of debt are far more complex than your underdeveloped brain can comprehend. Furthermore, other factors weigh in. Factors which are directly attributable to Bush and/or the conditions Obama inherited. Such as the Iraq war (which to this day, still costs us money), the Great Recession, and the structurally broken economy Bush handed Obama. All these are factors which contributed greatly to the debt since Obama's inaugration. And lastly, being the Conservative thinking, knuckle-dragging, mentally lazy individual you are, it also escapes your notice that we were still operating under Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 when obama became president.

I hope that helps you. I have my doubts, mind you. But being Liberal, I remain hopefull nonetheless.

So if you dont want to count inauguration to inauguration, what time period do you want to count?
The Iraq War is over. Bush negotiated the settlement and Obama took it and ran for the door. If it is still costing money, who's fault is that?
Were the Democrats in Congress powerless to defund Bush's programs for 4 years? Didn't they run in 2006 on the premise of fiscal responsibility?
We werent operating under Bush's budget in 2009 for the simple reason the Senate failed to pass a budget that year. In fact as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate they have not passed a budget. But Congress, which was controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's presidency approves spending. Even so, spending went up after Bush left office. A lot of this was to fight the recession. But the recession has been over technically for several years. Yet spending is still higher than before the recession. Is that also Bush's fault? What part of the blame goes to Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

Of course we were operating under Bush's budget for much of FY2009. You have no clue how the government operates, do you? While it's true that a new budget for FY2009 was not passed, Bush signed a continuing budget resolution to fund the government for the first half of FY2009. And long come dumbfucking Conservatives, attributing that to Obama.

Btw, before Obama even became president, to account for the Great Recession, the CBO revised their FY2009 deficit projection to $1.2 trillion. That's Obama's fault too and not Bush's, right, brain-dead Conservative?

The TARP spending bill passed in 2008 can be attributed to Bush, but Obama did spend what was left of it in 2009. Who got the trillion dollar STIMULUS passed and started spending it in 2009? That would not be Bush.

 

[Faun]

No, Billy you dont get it. Go to the link you yourself posted. Look up what the debt was when Bush took office in 2001. Look what it was teh day he left and Obama took office. Look what it is now.
I didnt make up those numbers. The numbers are: Bush increased the debt 5T in 8 years, Obama has incresaed the debt 7T in 5 years. This is simply fact.

Well gee as Faun pointed out spending spills over. A president's policies do not end when they leave office.

At what point do they end? Please name a time frame.

There is no such date. That's like asking, at what point did the Great Recession Obama inherited, cease straining the deficit? On which date, did Bush's war in Iraq cease costing money?

 

[TooTall]

Before you start calling Liberals' stupid, you should first learn the difference between "spending" and "debt," otherwise, you look even more ignorant than those you are insulting.

Adding $7t in debt is not "spending" $7t. Actually, we've spent $17.6t since Obama became president. Debt is the amount we spent beyond the revenues taken in. Now ya know so there is no excuse in the future.

Please make a note of that before you make your next ignorant statement.

Um what? How does one add debt without spending? Do you even know what you're talking about? Don't you mean "$17.6t since Washington became president"?

Straw man = a weak or imaginary argument which is created to defeat when the actual argument can't be refuted.

Suffice it to say, your straw man is useless as I didn"t say debt was added without spending. Perhaps rereading my post a few more times will aid your feeble cognitive abilities understand what I actually wrote?

c'mon, try harder. I have faith you can do it!

Read the statements you made that I colored and explain to me that they do not contradict each other.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Well gee as Faun pointed out spending spills over. A president's policies do not end when they leave office.

At what point do they end? Please name a time frame.

There is no such date. That's like asking, at what point did the Great Recession Obama inherited, cease straining the deficit? On which date, did Bush's war in Iraq cease costing money?

It causes a strain on the deficit? English lesson for you since you are so fond of them. It's a strain on the budget, the deficit or surplus is a result of the budget.

 

[Faun]

Um what? How does one add debt without spending? Do you even know what you're talking about? Don't you mean "$17.6t since Washington became president"?

Straw man = a weak or imaginary argument which is created to defeat when the actual argument can't be refuted.

Suffice it to say, your straw man is useless as I didn"t say debt was added without spending. Perhaps rereading my post a few more times will aid your feeble cognitive abilities understand what I actually wrote?

c'mon, try harder. I have faith you can do it!

Well faun, at least you can understand how weak your argument is. I provide you with facts that dispute your claim, and like most libs, you ignore them.

You're spouting nonsense, not facts. For example, in response to being informed that much of the spending when a new president assumes office, is continued spending from the previous administration, the "fact" you offered was "lame." Well, no, your mind-blowing analysis is wrong. Completely. Not onoy is "lame" a response I might expect from a seven year old, it fails miserably at refuting the point to which it was addressing. Like it or not .... understand it or not ... a president's policies don't end the day they move out of the White House.

G'head .... this is where you respond with some more elementary level invective.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Straw man = a weak or imaginary argument which is created to defeat when the actual argument can't be refuted.

Suffice it to say, your straw man is useless as I didn"t say debt was added without spending. Perhaps rereading my post a few more times will aid your feeble cognitive abilities understand what I actually wrote?

c'mon, try harder. I have faith you can do it!

Well faun, at least you can understand how weak your argument is. I provide you with facts that dispute your claim, and like most libs, you ignore them.

You're spouting nonsense, not facts. For example, in response to being informed that much of the spending when a new president assumes office, is continued spending from the previous administration, the "fact" you offered was "lame." Well, no, your mind-blowing analysis is wrong. Completely. Not onoy is "lame" a response I might expect from a seven year old, it fails miserably at refuting the point to which it was addressing. Like it or not .... understand it or not ... a president's policies don't end the day they move out of the White House.

G'head .... this is where you respond with some more elementary level invective.

Your opinion of my analogy, while entertaining, is onoy just that, your opinion. May I ask, have you any actual experience in governmental budgeting? or is your arrogant attitude attributed to just books?

BTW, I've never stated that a president's policies end the day they move out. Maybe you couldn't comprehend, I'll write slower in the future.

 

[Avatar4321]

Clearly by the blatantly falsehoods in the original post we can't cut the bs.

We are spending more than ever and somehow he has cut spending... We must live in the twilight zone for anyone to believe that nonsense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Yeah, never mind that $7,000,000,000,000 in new debt...

 

[Redfish]

Clearly by the blatantly falsehoods in the original post we can't cut the bs.

We are spending more than ever and somehow he has cut spending... We must live in the twilight zone for anyone to believe that nonsense.

the fools on the left think that if you cut the rate of growth in spending, you cut spending. As is proven here every day, liberals are idiots.

 

[Faun]

Your dumber than a rock faun, yeah,

Am I supposed to care when I'm called dumb by someone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're?"

the projected deficit is on 680 billion, lower than it's been under odumas watch. But it's like you personally having $500 dollars in your checking account, you tell the wife she can buy a new dress for the holidays. She goes out and pays $1000 for one, but she tells you, "but honey it was on sale, it normally costs $1,500."

Either way, your fucking flat ass broke AND overdrawn at the bank. DO you get it now, do ya? How are you going to spin that one? Blame it on Bush? Say he did the same thing? IT STILL HAS TO STOP AND THE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE BALANCED, CUT SPENDING!!

Your Conservative ignorance aside, I never said $680b was chump change. I corrected another dumbass Conservative who idiotically said that was the biggest deficit ever. And btw, that $680b figure is not a projection. It's in the books for fiscal year 2013.

Resorting to grammar corrections to try and save face, huh? I know you never said 680 billion was chump change, you said spending was flat. I conceded that fact to you, however, you dodged that fact that odumas spending is still over 600 billion higher than ANY GW budget.

The 2013 FY is over, but the books are not closed out. White house budget office, CBO, all gov websites still state PROJECTED! It takes about 3 months to close out the books for the government, so the final spending amounts won't be accurately known until after the first of the year, which is the usual.

Get it straight, I was not correcting you. I couldn't care less that you're too fucking stupid to know the difference between "your" and "you're." I'm certainly not here to teach the inducible. No, the reason I highlighted your ignorance was only to show that you are in no position to judge the intelligence of others.

And I'm not dodging anything. I'm pointing out how the first half of FY2009 was impacted more by Bush than Obama; as well as the entire fiscal year was impacted by the Great Recession, which Obama inherited.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Am I supposed to care when I'm called dumb by someone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're?"



Your Conservative ignorance aside, I never said $680b was chump change. I corrected another dumbass Conservative who idiotically said that was the biggest deficit ever. And btw, that $680b figure is not a projection. It's in the books for fiscal year 2013.

Resorting to grammar corrections to try and save face, huh? I know you never said 680 billion was chump change, you said spending was flat. I conceded that fact to you, however, you dodged that fact that odumas spending is still over 600 billion higher than ANY GW budget.

The 2013 FY is over, but the books are not closed out. White house budget office, CBO, all gov websites still state PROJECTED! It takes about 3 months to close out the books for the government, so the final spending amounts won't be accurately known until after the first of the year, which is the usual.

Get it straight, I was not correcting you. I couldn't care less that you're too fucking stupid to know the difference between "your" and "you're." I'm certainly not here to teach the inducible. No, the reason I highlighted your ignorance was only to show that you are in no position to judge the intelligence of others.

And I'm not dodging anything. I'm pointing out how the first half of FY2009 was impacted more by Bush than Obama; as well as the entire fiscal year was impacted by the Great Recession, which Obama inherited.

spin and twist, yes you were correcting me, otherwise, what was your point in posting about it? Oh I forget, you don't include your points, you just highlight others errors. You began the judgment session with "ignorant", "too dumb" remarks to others on this thread. And when your "points" have holes poked in them exposing your falsehoods, you revert to spell check.

keep spinning and twisting, can't hide from the FACT that your boy has increased the national debt more than any other president and he's not done yet, he is on track to increase it more than all others combined. Yeah, that's a real winner to be proud of. Oduma, hopey, changey.

 

[Faun]

So if you dont want to count inauguration to inauguration, what time period do you want to count?
The Iraq War is over. Bush negotiated the settlement and Obama took it and ran for the door. If it is still costing money, who's fault is that?
Were the Democrats in Congress powerless to defund Bush's programs for 4 years? Didn't they run in 2006 on the premise of fiscal responsibility?
We werent operating under Bush's budget in 2009 for the simple reason the Senate failed to pass a budget that year. In fact as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate they have not passed a budget. But Congress, which was controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's presidency approves spending. Even so, spending went up after Bush left office. A lot of this was to fight the recession. But the recession has been over technically for several years. Yet spending is still higher than before the recession. Is that also Bush's fault? What part of the blame goes to Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

Of course we were operating under Bush's budget for much of FY2009. You have no clue how the government operates, do you? While it's true that a new budget for FY2009 was not passed, Bush signed a continuing budget resolution to fund the government for the first half of FY2009. And long come dumbfucking Conservatives, attributing that to Obama.

Btw, before Obama even became president, to account for the Great Recession, the CBO revised their FY2009 deficit projection to $1.2 trillion. That's Obama's fault too and not Bush's, right, brain-dead Conservative?

federal debt when obama took office 10 trillion

federal debt today 17 trillion

probable federal debt when obama leaves office 21 trillion.

spin it however you like, obama has added more to the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

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

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Whoops

Oh, so all the 1 Trillion + deficits don't count because Obama was President....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the FED-R 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because Obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks Obama, and the left...

"Growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took TARP and a stimulus, pretends it's all Bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... lol, oooooook.

Their stooge has spent 7 trillion and they're denying it. Lol.