Obama spending binge never happened

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That is true, but it requires a grade school graduate to understand it.

Of course, if you hadn't stopped with grade school, you'd also know why it's a big fucking lie, just like when your hooker du jour tells you what a great lover you are. No matter what she says, it's NOT the biggest she's ever seen, and no matter what Rex Nutjob says, Obama is a shopaholic on an internationally epic level.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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 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.

Here's your post that I responded to.

Quit fucking with the quote boxes...........

If you cant use basic code appropriately then don't do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is true, but it requires a grade school graduate to understand it.

You couldn't graduate your way out of a grade school lavatory, pinhead.

Oh, I believe that he eventually managed to graduate grade school. I just don't think being the tallest in his class was much of a compliment when he was also the only one there old enough to shave.

 

[KissMy]

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

Really?

General Motors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

So... they started at $33.00 a share, and closed yesterday at $22.13 a share. Do the math, dipshit... that's a DROP in value of 33%.

Actually we sold the first chunk of GM to China for a 33% loss. We are paying China to take our companies & military secrets. How stupid.

Our US Government sold GM IPO stock under our cost & China bought a bunch of this US subsdized GM stock to go along with the Saginaw Steering Gear company that GM (Government Motors) sold them. The Saginaw Steering Gear company has over a 1,000 patents, many of which are for high tech US Military Weapons. You can bet this is what the Chinese were after.

 

[Wiseacre]

To me, that would be both sides of the aisle. Not sure what sweetheart deals you're referring to, but IMHO enough people on the Dem side had to support any so-called deals. Surely you're not going to tell me the Dems from oil states didn't support any such deals?

You guys got a problem with numbers..

You think 1 or 2 = Entire Democratic Party..

That's why Boehner rolls out such nonsense as "Bi-Partisan" support..when he gets an outlier blue dog on his side.


LOL, you don't think Obama and the Dems do the same thing? Wasn't it back in '09 when the Dems got those 2 female RINOs to vote for an appropriations bill, and they hailed it as bipartisan?

In any case..

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.

I'm so relieved.

About 4 Trillion of it is not "new" debt but was accrued in the previous administration.

Bush really did spend like a drunken sailor. Obama bellied up to the bar and paid the tab.

Horseshit. Rex Nutjob included nearly the entire first year of Obama's administration, up to October 1, in BUSH'S spending, rather than Obama. That just coincidentally has the effect of blaming Obama's first stimulus - $825 billion; a spending bill Bush specifically rejected, which Obama immediately signed off on upon taking office - $410 billion; and the second half of the TARP money, which Bush specifically announced he would not need to spend, and Obama insisted on having released so he COULD spend it - $200 billion.

As intriguing as I'm sure the liberal "I couldn't balance a checkbook, so it's a good thing I'm broke" idiots in the audience find Rex Nutjob's theory of "the new President is stuck with the last President's budget, so he's not responsible", sane people hold responsible for the spending the guy who ACTUALLY SIGNED THE BILLS . . . as well as lobbied for them, in the case of Obama's stimulus bill.

If you're going to "debunk" something, you might try doing it with something other than rank lies any child can see through.

 

[The T]

To me, that would be both sides of the aisle. Not sure what sweetheart deals you're referring to, but IMHO enough people on the Dem side had to support any so-called deals. Surely you're not going to tell me the Dems from oil states didn't support any such deals?

You guys got a problem with numbers..

You think 1 or 2 = Entire Democratic Party..

That's why Boehner rolls out such nonsense as "Bi-Partisan" support..when he gets an outlier blue dog on his side.


LOL, you don't think Obama and the Dems do the same thing? Wasn't it back in '09 when the Dems got those 2 female RINOs to vote for an appropriations bill, and they hailed it as bipartisan?

In any case..

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Indeed. Government didn't spend anything to foment commerce by such breaks as you rightly pointed out every business gets.

A Taxbreak is NOT an expenditure by the government.

 

[Trajan]

 

[Mr.Nick]

You guys got a problem with numbers..

You think 1 or 2 = Entire Democratic Party..

That's why Boehner rolls out such nonsense as "Bi-Partisan" support..when he gets an outlier blue dog on his side.


LOL, you don't think Obama and the Dems do the same thing? Wasn't it back in '09 when the Dems got those 2 female RINOs to vote for an appropriations bill, and they hailed it as bipartisan?

In any case..

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Indeed. Government didn't spend anything to foment commerce by such breaks as you rightly pointed out every business gets.

A Taxbreak is NOT an expenditure by the government.

I don't know what progressives don't understand about that...

These alleged companies and corporations are still writing a check to the government for millions and sometimes billions.....

It's almost like progressives believe the government allows companies and corporations to keep some of their earnings like some kind of an allowance, but the government is entitled to what they want.

Of course in reality and in the educated world it's the exact opposite....

 

[Sallow]

To me, that would be both sides of the aisle. Not sure what sweetheart deals you're referring to, but IMHO enough people on the Dem side had to support any so-called deals. Surely you're not going to tell me the Dems from oil states didn't support any such deals?

You guys got a problem with numbers..

You think 1 or 2 = Entire Democratic Party..

That's why Boehner rolls out such nonsense as "Bi-Partisan" support..when he gets an outlier blue dog on his side.


LOL, you don't think Obama and the Dems do the same thing? Wasn't it back in '09 when the Dems got those 2 female RINOs to vote for an appropriations bill, and they hailed it as bipartisan?

In any case..

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Well first off..it's about degrees to which things are done. And trying to say something like "well Democrats have at least done this once to Republicans 10 times..so it's a wash" really is a false equivalance.

And as to oil subsidies..they were done during the Clinton era to encourage investment into finding new sources of oil. Well considering the windfall revenue of oil companies over the last decade or so..and considering much of it was due to deployments by the US military to protect US oil interests..and considering all the infrastructure that the US provides for the oil business..

A little ROI isn't to much to ask..now is it?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.

I'm so relieved.

The statistic quoted was SPENDING - not DEFICIT.

Do you understand the difference?

But what creates those deficits?

Revenue - spending = surplus if positive, or deficit if negative

You really didn't know that? Wow.

 

[The T]

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Indeed. Government didn't spend anything to foment commerce by such breaks as you rightly pointed out every business gets.

A Taxbreak is NOT an expenditure by the government.

I don't know what progressives don't understand about that...

These alleged companies and corporations are still writing a check to the government for millions and sometimes billions.....

It's almost like progressives believe the government allows companies and corporations to keep some of their earnings like some kind of an allowance, but the government is entitled to what they want.

Of course in reality and in the educated world it's the exact opposite....

The same Progressives belive the economy is STATIC...and have to wreck it to prove thier point.

They live in a Zero Sum Game world.

"The pie never grows...and we'll make sure it doesn't."

 

[Sallow]

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Indeed. Government didn't spend anything to foment commerce by such breaks as you rightly pointed out every business gets.

A Taxbreak is NOT an expenditure by the government.

I don't know what progressives don't understand about that...

These alleged companies and corporations are still writing a check to the government for millions and sometimes billions.....

It's almost like progressives believe the government allows companies and corporations to keep some of their earnings like some kind of an allowance, but the government is entitled to what they want.

Of course in reality and in the educated world it's the exact opposite....

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It's the very first charge and power of congress.

To tax..in order to pay debts.

If the government isn't doing...it's failing to live up to it's CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

 

[The T]

The statistic quoted was SPENDING - not DEFICIT.

Do you understand the difference?

But what creates those deficits?

Revenue - spending = surplus if positive, or deficit if negative

You really didn't know that? Wow.

Where were you a few hours ago when I posted that? It was already addressed...and NOT in YOUR favour.

Day late dollars bankrupt Tick Duck.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You guys got a problem with numbers..

You think 1 or 2 = Entire Democratic Party..

That's why Boehner rolls out such nonsense as "Bi-Partisan" support..when he gets an outlier blue dog on his side.


LOL, you don't think Obama and the Dems do the same thing? Wasn't it back in '09 when the Dems got those 2 female RINOs to vote for an appropriations bill, and they hailed it as bipartisan?

In any case..

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Indeed. Government didn't spend anything to foment commerce by such breaks as you rightly pointed out every business gets.

A Taxbreak is NOT an expenditure by the government.

A subsidy reduces revenue. Oh that's right, you don't know how to compute surplus/deficit.

 

[Sallow]

Indeed. Government didn't spend anything to foment commerce by such breaks as you rightly pointed out every business gets.

A Taxbreak is NOT an expenditure by the government.

I don't know what progressives don't understand about that...

These alleged companies and corporations are still writing a check to the government for millions and sometimes billions.....

It's almost like progressives believe the government allows companies and corporations to keep some of their earnings like some kind of an allowance, but the government is entitled to what they want.

Of course in reality and in the educated world it's the exact opposite....

The same Progressives belive the economy is STATIC...and have to wreck it to prove thier point.

They live in a Zero Sum Game world.

"The pie never grows...and we'll make sure it doesn't."

Says the guy with a "made up patriot" in his avatar and sig line.

This country and it's economy has grown much since 1776.

Your "small government" vision seems to have not..

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't know what progressives don't understand about that...

These alleged companies and corporations are still writing a check to the government for millions and sometimes billions.....

It's almost like progressives believe the government allows companies and corporations to keep some of their earnings like some kind of an allowance, but the government is entitled to what they want.

Of course in reality and in the educated world it's the exact opposite....

The same Progressives belive the economy is STATIC...and have to wreck it to prove thier point.

They live in a Zero Sum Game world.

"The pie never grows...and we'll make sure it doesn't."

Says the guy with a "made up patriot" in his avatar and sig line.

This country and it's economy has grown much since 1776.

Your "small government" vision seems to have not..

First of all, we've had an economy long before 1776, Secondly "small government" was the rule of thumb in the "New World" since 1492, Thirdly that trend continued until about 1900...

The Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights played a crucial role in developing this nation and you progressive fucks are doing everything possible to destroy those ideas.

 

[Wiseacre]

You guys got a problem with numbers..

You think 1 or 2 = Entire Democratic Party..

That's why Boehner rolls out such nonsense as "Bi-Partisan" support..when he gets an outlier blue dog on his side.


LOL, you don't think Obama and the Dems do the same thing? Wasn't it back in '09 when the Dems got those 2 female RINOs to vote for an appropriations bill, and they hailed it as bipartisan?

In any case..

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Well first off..it's about degrees to which things are done. And trying to say something like "well Democrats have at least done this once to Republicans 10 times..so it's a wash" really is a false equivalance.


10 times to 1? Really? Love to see any numbers supporting that claim. Not that the Repubs haven't done it, but I'm thinking it's probably a lot closer to 50-50 that you suggest.


And as to oil subsidies..they were done during the Clinton era to encourage investment into finding new sources of oil. Well considering the windfall revenue of oil companies over the last decade or so..and considering much of it was due to deployments by the US military to protect US oil interests..and considering all the infrastructure that the US provides for the oil business..

A little ROI isn't to much to ask..now is it?

The US Gov't provides infrastructure to everybody, no?

Deployments by our military to the ME to protect US oil interests? I thought it was done to preclude WMDs getting into the wrong hands, or to try to preclude terrorist attacks on the US from terrorist camps in Afghanistan. And BTW, are you ready for gas at $10/gal if we didn't go? What would that do to our economy I wonder.


So tell me, you wanna cut the tax breaks for the oil companies. which I gather nets us about 4 billion a year, BFD. Where's the line going to be drawn for who gets tax subsidies and who doesn't? How much profit is going to be designated as too much? How comfortable are you that crony capitalism, already a problem, doesn't get even worse as companies and industries fight to get exemptions? You really wanna go down that road?

 

[The T]

About those oil subsidies, it's really tax breaks that every business gets,isn't it? And what's that got to do with the subject of the thread? Doesn't count as spending.

Well first off..it's about degrees to which things are done. And trying to say something like "well Democrats have at least done this once to Republicans 10 times..so it's a wash" really is a false equivalance.


10 times to 1? Really? Love to see any numbers supporting that claim. Not that the Repubs haven't done it, but I'm thinking it's probably a lot closer to 50-50 that you suggest.


And as to oil subsidies..they were done during the Clinton era to encourage investment into finding new sources of oil. Well considering the windfall revenue of oil companies over the last decade or so..and considering much of it was due to deployments by the US military to protect US oil interests..and considering all the infrastructure that the US provides for the oil business..

A little ROI isn't to much to ask..now is it?

The US Gov't provides infrastructure to everybody, no?

Deployments by our military to the ME to protect US oil interests? I thought it was done to preclude WMDs getting into the wrong hands, or to try to preclude terrorist attacks on the US from terrorist camps in Afghanistan. And BTW, are you ready for gas at $10/gal if we didn't go? What would that do to our economy I wonder.


So tell me, you wanna cut the tax breaks for the oil companies. which I gather nets us about 4 billion a year, BFD. Where's the line going to be drawn for who gets tax subsidies and who doesn't? How much profit is going to be designated as too much? How comfortable are you that crony capitalism, already a problem, doesn't get even worse as companies and industries fight to get exemptions? You really wanna go down that road?

And as Obama gladhands those he demonizes for election? What a game.

 

[The T]

I don't know what progressives don't understand about that...

These alleged companies and corporations are still writing a check to the government for millions and sometimes billions.....

It's almost like progressives believe the government allows companies and corporations to keep some of their earnings like some kind of an allowance, but the government is entitled to what they want.

Of course in reality and in the educated world it's the exact opposite....

The same Progressives belive the economy is STATIC...and have to wreck it to prove thier point.

They live in a Zero Sum Game world.

"The pie never grows...and we'll make sure it doesn't."

Says the guy with a "made up patriot" in his avatar and sig line.

This country and it's economy has grown much since 1776.

Your "small government" vision seems to have not..

Made up Patriot? Tells ME that you have nothing else...

He and his story was REAL...[names changed...story isn't]

The Swamp Fox

Educate yourself. Stop looking stupid.