Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another right wing lie debunked.
Obama spending binge never happened
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Liberal bloggers have been passing around a piece by Rex Nutting at Market Watch arguing that although “almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending,” in fact, “it didn’t happen.”
Except, well, it did.
Nutting’s evidence consists of the a chart showing that the annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is 1.4 percent, compared with 7.3 percent from 2002-2005 during George Bush’s first term and 8.1 percent from 2006-2009 during Bush’s second term.
Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s historical spending data. That’s a steep enough rise. But it’s nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.
But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.
Another right wing lie debunked.
Obama spending binge never happened
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an inferno of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our childrens future. Even Democrats seem to think its true.
But it didnt happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Are you fucking retarded???
All you progressives do is tell one side of the story or outright lie...
The Obama Spending Binge - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Liberal bloggers have been passing around a piece by Rex Nutting at Market Watch arguing that although almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, in fact, it didnt happen.
Except, well, it did.
Nuttings evidence consists of the a chart showing that the annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is 1.4 percent, compared with 7.3 percent from 2002-2005 during George Bushs first term and 8.1 percent from 2006-2009 during Bushs second term.
Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices historical spending data. Thats a steep enough rise. But its nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.
But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.
The real federal deficit is much worse than whats being reported, according to a new report from USA TODAY.
The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, Dennis Cauchon writes for USA TODAY.
That is, if the federal government operated under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and the accounting rules legally required of major businesses, government debt is about $42,054 per household, which is almost four times the official number being reported by Washington.
Considering that the median income for the average U.S. household is about $49,000, wed say that the real deficit numbers are pretty scary.
But why are the numbers different? Why does Congress report one thing while basic accounting rules report another?
The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits, Cauchon explains.
Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules, he adds.
Under the accounting rules required of businesses, the national deficit in 2011 was $5 trillion. But under Congress official accounting rules, the national deficit was $1.3 trillion.
When has the government paid for anything since 1957??
The wars still are not over...
Bush II was no fiscal goody two shoes... but Obamalama is even worse, no matter how bad Bush was...
And OBL has WHAT to do with this?? The Prez is responsible for building a private building??
Another right wing lie debunked.
Obama spending binge never happened
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
Are you fucking retarded???
All you progressives do is tell one side of the story or outright lie...
The Obama Spending Binge - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Liberal bloggers have been passing around a piece by Rex Nutting at Market Watch arguing that although almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, in fact, it didnt happen.
Except, well, it did.
Nuttings evidence consists of the a chart showing that the annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is 1.4 percent, compared with 7.3 percent from 2002-2005 during George Bushs first term and 8.1 percent from 2006-2009 during Bushs second term.
Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices historical spending data. Thats a steep enough rise. But its nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.
But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.
At what point in the Bush administration did Bush pay for those wars?
Heck..when did he end them?
Heck..when did he get Bin Laden?
Heck..when did he rebuild the WTC?
Oh wait.
HE FUCKING DIDN"T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
Of course Obama's first act of business was to ensure union workers had jobs, so he asked congress for roughly 800 billion dollars to "stimulate the economy, I mean unions", then his second act was to BAILOUT United Auto Workers Union er "save GM" by pretty much nationalizing the fucking company...
You see - Obama didn't give two fucks about GM as a corporation - he gave a shit about HIS VOTING BASE which are UNION WORKERS.... That only cost the taxpayers 15 billion dollars so a bunch of overpaid union fucks could keep their jobs..
All Obama has done is bailout unions and state and local overpaid government employees.
That motherfucker just throws money at his voting base - providing them with high paying jobs while he tells everyone else to fuck off, all this while he plays victim....
Are you fucking retarded???
All you progressives do is tell one side of the story or outright lie...
The Obama Spending Binge - Hit & Run : Reason.com
At what point in the Bush administration did Bush pay for those wars?
Heck..when did he end them?
Heck..when did he get Bin Laden?
Heck..when did he rebuild the WTC?
Oh wait.
HE FUCKING DIDN"T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
What wars did Obama end, which wars did he contribute to??
In what universe do you believe presidents spend money anyways??? NO our congress spends money and you know what??? Obama had a super majority for two fucking years in which both his House and Senate approved EVERY FUCKING THING HE ASKED FOR..
Also, lets not forget that since CONGRESS FUNDS WAR SPENDING democrats are fucking hypocrites for even bitching about the war spending because YOUR DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVES VOTED TO FUND THE WAR - SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT WAR SPENDING....
You fucking progressives attempt to portray EVERY democrat/progressive as being opposed to war spending when in reality the MAJORITY of democrats approved war spending.
Now shut your ignorant pie-hole (or cut off your fingers).
Of course Obama's first act of business was to ensure union workers had jobs, so he asked congress for roughly 800 billion dollars to "stimulate the economy, I mean unions", then his second act was to BAILOUT United Auto Workers Union er "save GM" by pretty much nationalizing the fucking company...
You see - Obama didn't give two fucks about GM as a corporation - he gave a shit about HIS VOTING BASE which are UNION WORKERS.... That only cost the taxpayers 15 billion dollars so a bunch of overpaid union fucks could keep their jobs..
All Obama has done is bailout unions and state and local overpaid government employees.
That motherfucker just throws money at his voting base - providing them with high paying jobs while he tells everyone else to fuck off, all this while he plays victim....
Democrats in charge of both Houses were all too willing to comply with Porkulus.
" But there were a few problems with Nuttings numbers. Nuttings methodology assumes spending in the first year of a presidential term should be credited to the previous president. OK, fine. But he attributed a $410 billion spending bill in March of 2009 to George W. Bush even though it was signed by Barack Obama. Nutting also didnt use inflation adjusted numbers.
But I did both of those and got wildly different results from Nutting, as seen in the chart at the top of this post. (Note: I looked at absolute spending as opposed to the rate of increase.)
My numbers show that spending under the 10-13 Obama budgets far outstrips spending by a generation of presidential predecessors. This should not be surprising since spending as a share of GDP under Obama is the highest in U.S. history outside of World War II.
We can disagree about whether all of Obamas massive spending is a good idea or not. But we cant factually argue about whether it happened or not. It did. "
The stunning chart that shows the Obama spending binge really happened « The Enterprise Blog
Wonder if the 862 billion stimulus bill was also accredited to Bush? And the outragious appropriations bill the Dems pushed through in 2009 that paid off every dem supporter in sight.
" But there were a few problems with Nuttings numbers. Nuttings methodology assumes spending in the first year of a presidential term should be credited to the previous president. OK, fine. But he attributed a $410 billion spending bill in March of 2009 to George W. Bush even though it was signed by Barack Obama. Nutting also didnt use inflation adjusted numbers.
But I did both of those and got wildly different results from Nutting, as seen in the chart at the top of this post. (Note: I looked at absolute spending as opposed to the rate of increase.)
My numbers show that spending under the 10-13 Obama budgets far outstrips spending by a generation of presidential predecessors. This should not be surprising since spending as a share of GDP under Obama is the highest in U.S. history outside of World War II.
We can disagree about whether all of Obamas massive spending is a good idea or not. But we cant factually argue about whether it happened or not. It did. "
The stunning chart that shows the Obama spending binge really happened « The Enterprise Blog
Wonder if the 862 billion stimulus bill was also accredited to Bush? And the outragious appropriations bill the Dems pushed through in 2009 that paid off every dem supporter in sight.
Of course Obama's first act of business was to ensure union workers had jobs, so he asked congress for roughly 800 billion dollars to "stimulate the economy, I mean unions", then his second act was to BAILOUT United Auto Workers Union er "save GM" by pretty much nationalizing the fucking company...
You see - Obama didn't give two fucks about GM as a corporation - he gave a shit about HIS VOTING BASE which are UNION WORKERS.... That only cost the taxpayers 15 billion dollars so a bunch of overpaid union fucks could keep their jobs..
All Obama has done is bailout unions and state and local overpaid government employees.
That motherfucker just throws money at his voting base - providing them with high paying jobs while he tells everyone else to fuck off, all this while he plays victim....
Democrats in charge of both Houses were all too willing to comply with Porkulus.
"Super" majority.
Of course Obama's first act of business was to ensure union workers had jobs, so he asked congress for roughly 800 billion dollars to "stimulate the economy, I mean unions", then his second act was to BAILOUT United Auto Workers Union er "save GM" by pretty much nationalizing the fucking company...
You see - Obama didn't give two fucks about GM as a corporation - he gave a shit about HIS VOTING BASE which are UNION WORKERS.... That only cost the taxpayers 15 billion dollars so a bunch of overpaid union fucks could keep their jobs..
All Obama has done is bailout unions and state and local overpaid government employees.
That motherfucker just throws money at his voting base - providing them with high paying jobs while he tells everyone else to fuck off, all this while he plays victim....
Democrats in charge of both Houses were all too willing to comply with Porkulus.
"Super" majority.
Democrats in charge of both Houses were all too willing to comply with Porkulus.
"Super" majority.
Yeah you fucking retard.
The president tells the House he wants X, Y and Z and the House gladly drafts a bill giving him everything he wants, the bill passes and then goes to the Senate which is also majority democrat and they GLADLY pass the bill to the presidents desk because they have a majority and republicans cant oppose in either House or Senate..
Yes a "super majority."
GM is doing just fine, and "they" don't owe us anything. We own stock in the company, and that stock has appreciated significantly since that smart investment. You also know that Ford was trading under $2/share in January '09. They were hanging on by their teeth.
OE: This post was neg repped by Kissmy
The Company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange again on November 18, 2010 following a US$33-a-share initial public offering of US$23 billion, including preferred shares.
I imagine that if you didn't count the stimulus, cash for clunkers, housing rebates, etc. and not mention Obamacare...he would look pretty good.... But, you can't just throw out those numbers by moving the goal posts.
I imagine that if you didn't count the stimulus, cash for clunkers, housing rebates, etc. and not mention Obamacare...he would look pretty good.... But, you can't just throw out those numbers by moving the goal posts.
