Obama spending binge never happened

[Cecilie1200]

So when this was quoted in the OP:



Why did all you right-wingers shout the OP down as being a lie?

Yea, because he wants you to believe the "big stimulus" belongs to Booosh!! Sucker, he got you, too!!

Show were I ever posted that. I'm too much of a political junkie to not know who owns which stimulus package. Even some posters on here who think I'm a racist POS will admit that. So bring your "A" game if you want to play.

If you're looking for an "A" game, maybe YOU could start YOURS by explaining why a "political junkie" who "knows who owns which stimulus package" is buying into the bullshit article cited by the OP that blames Bush for Obama's first stimulus package of over $800 billion.

If you want to climb on this "See, Obama didn't really spend all that money" bandwagon, you need to own THAT little lie first off.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

you 'sir' are a dolt.

Are you claiming that a tax subsidy doesn't reduce revenue? You're the dolt.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yea, because he wants you to believe the "big stimulus" belongs to Booosh!! Sucker, he got you, too!!

Show were I ever posted that. I'm too much of a political junkie to not know who owns which stimulus package. Even some posters on here who think I'm a racist POS will admit that. So bring your "A" game if you want to play.

If you're looking for an "A" game, maybe YOU could start YOURS by explaining why a "political junkie" who "knows who owns which stimulus package" is buying into the bullshit article cited by the OP that blames Bush for Obama's first stimulus package of over $800 billion.

If you want to climb on this "See, Obama didn't really spend all that money" bandwagon, you need to own THAT little lie first off.

The stimulus package was a several year deal moron. It's also included in the OP article, and confirmed by Politifact.

 

[Trajan]

my god not .... not Politifact



dolt is dolt....

 

[The T]

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

you 'sir' are a dolt.

Are you claiming that a tax subsidy doesn't reduce revenue? You're the dolt.

They aren't subsidies idjit. Government gives them NOTHING except allowing them to KEEP thier own damned money.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From 2005 to 2009, the Bush Administration increased the federal debt by $4.521 billion.

From 2009 to the end of 2011, the Obama Administration increased the federal debt by $4.334 billion - and yet the Republicans act as if they only discovered that the debt was a problem after Obama took office.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What point are you trying to make?

The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!

No, genius, he's spending WORSE than any Republican. He's spending worse than any DEMOCRAT, which is exponentially bad.

The point is that the best defense the liberals can provide for Obama is "Bush is responsible for Obama's first year of spending! No, really! Just believe it, PLEASE!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dick and Salt need to read this and come back:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0412.pdf

Not really. I already know that one of the biggest causes of the deficit is due to a huge drop in revenue, after the Bush economy collapsed. The problem with some of the right wing morons here, is they're too dense to understand that a drop in revenue is automatically effect a balance sheet. They like to live in their lalaland that revenue doesn't matter, since if they didn't they'd have to accept the reality of the OP article.

"No, I don't need to read any of your fucking facts, because I found an article that's telling me the lies I've decided to believe instead. I already know Obama made the sky red, so I don't really need to go outside and look up."

 

[mudwhistle]

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..

There is no such thing as ‘small government,’ it’s a rightist contrivance and fantasy like Camelot or Shangri-La.

The United States is a First World, industrialized Nation, and its government reflects that fact. There is no ‘going back.’

Conservatives need to get over this ‘small government’ nonsense and abandon their reactionary myth of an American past that never existed to begin with.

Smaller Government....not Small Government.

Most of the governing should be done by the states, but Obama has attempted to centralize government so that he's trying to remove states as an active part of government in some respects.

The Federal government has specific responsibilities. A couple of them is to defend the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to secure the borders, nether of which they are currently doing.

Instead they're telling us how and where we can worship God, taking over ownership and operation of private companies, sponsoring rioters in our streets, carrying out personal legal vendettas against anyone that pisses them off, imposing restrictions to our mineral rights on our companies but opening it up to other nations, giving away our technology to our enemies, spying on our allies, spying on private citizens without probable cause, fomenting a radical Islamic movement in the Middle East, decimating our military and space programs, and telling us not to eat french fries.

Smaller government is the key phrase, not small government.

 

[Salt Jones]

Yea, because he wants you to believe the "big stimulus" belongs to Booosh!! Sucker, he got you, too!!

Show were I ever posted that. I'm too much of a political junkie to not know who owns which stimulus package. Even some posters on here who think I'm a racist POS will admit that. So bring your "A" game if you want to play.

If you're looking for an "A" game, maybe YOU could start YOURS by explaining why a "political junkie" who "knows who owns which stimulus package" is buying into the bullshit article cited by the OP that blames Bush for Obama's first stimulus package of over $800 billion.

If you want to climb on this "See, Obama didn't really spend all that money" bandwagon, you need to own THAT little lie first off.

If you read my posts I used the stats and link posted by a right-winger to show where the money went from 2008-2012.

How many states with republican governors and republican controlled legislatures took billions of Obama's stimulus dollars to balance their state budgets? The state I live in, Arizona, did for two consecutive budgets

 

[Cecilie1200]

Show were I ever posted that. I'm too much of a political junkie to not know who owns which stimulus package. Even some posters on here who think I'm a racist POS will admit that. So bring your "A" game if you want to play.

If you're looking for an "A" game, maybe YOU could start YOURS by explaining why a "political junkie" who "knows who owns which stimulus package" is buying into the bullshit article cited by the OP that blames Bush for Obama's first stimulus package of over $800 billion.

If you want to climb on this "See, Obama didn't really spend all that money" bandwagon, you need to own THAT little lie first off.

The stimulus package was a several year deal moron. It's also included in the OP article, and confirmed by Politifact.

It's included in the OP article under "Bush spending", as I've already said, so spare me more of your lies. And if you think "Look at this article by a lying sack of shit! It's backed up by these other lying sacks of shit, so that proves it!" is going to work on anyone with more than a teaspoonful of brains - in other words, anyone other than YOU - you're almost as delusional as you are piss-stupid.

And son, that takes some doing.

 

[Dick Tuck]

my god not .... not Politifact



dolt is dolt....

You hate it when they fact check, don't you. It makes it tougher for Mr. Etch-a-Sketch to lie. Interesting how Levin tried to use smoke an mirrors to dismiss the fact by also ignoring the drop in revenues, and then going to percent of GDP when the Bush economic failure set that down to its deepest trough since the post WWII recession. Nice sleight of hand. It had some wingnuts here, who weren't smart enough to see through the lies, jizzing themselves.

 

[The 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..

There is no such thing as ‘small government,’ it’s a rightist contrivance and fantasy like Camelot or Shangri-La.

The United States is a First World, industrialized Nation, and its government reflects that fact. There is no ‘going back.’

Conservatives need to get over this ‘small government’ nonsense and abandon their reactionary myth of an American past that never existed to begin with.

Smaller Government....not Small Government.

Most of the governing should be done by the states, but Obama has attempted to centralize government so that he's trying to remove states as an active part of government in some respects.

The Federal government has specific responsibilities. A couple of them is to defend the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to secure the borders, nether of which they are currently doing.

Instead they're telling us how and where we can worship God, taking over ownership and operation of private companies, sponsoring rioters in our streets, carrying out personal legal vendettas against anyone that pisses them off, imposing restrictions to our mineral rights on our companies but opening it up to other nations, giving away our technology to our enemies, spying on our allies, spying on private citizens without probable cause, fomenting a radical Islamic movement in the Middle East, decimating our military and space programs, and telling us not to eat french fries.

Smaller government is the key phrase, not small government.

Constitutionally guided Government.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If you're looking for an "A" game, maybe YOU could start YOURS by explaining why a "political junkie" who "knows who owns which stimulus package" is buying into the bullshit article cited by the OP that blames Bush for Obama's first stimulus package of over $800 billion.

If you want to climb on this "See, Obama didn't really spend all that money" bandwagon, you need to own THAT little lie first off.

The stimulus package was a several year deal moron. It's also included in the OP article, and confirmed by Politifact.

It's included in the OP article under "Bush spending", as I've already said, so spare me more of your lies. And if you think "Look at this article by a lying sack of shit! It's backed up by these other lying sacks of shit, so that proves it!" is going to work on anyone with more than a teaspoonful of brains - in other words, anyone other than YOU - you're almost as delusional as you are piss-stupid.

And son, that takes some doing.

Sorry liar, but on page 2:

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

Obama's stimulus spending is attributed to him, in 2009 and not Bush.

 

[mudwhistle]

What point are you trying to make?

The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!

No, genius, he's spending WORSE than any Republican. He's spending worse than any DEMOCRAT, which is exponentially bad.

The point is that the best defense the liberals can provide for Obama is "Bush is responsible for Obama's first year of spending! No, really! Just believe it, PLEASE!"

What's even worse Bush didn't sign the 09' budget because the Dems presented him with one that had too many ear-marks in it. He wouldn't sign it and nether would Obama.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!

No, genius, he's spending WORSE than any Republican. He's spending worse than any DEMOCRAT, which is exponentially bad.

The point is that the best defense the liberals can provide for Obama is "Bush is responsible for Obama's first year of spending! No, really! Just believe it, PLEASE!"

What's even worse Bush didn't sign the 09' budget because the Dems presented him with one that had too many ear-marks in it. He wouldn't sign it and nether would Obama.

Bush never had a problem signing ear marked budgets when the Republicans were in charge.

Bush did sign TARP however, which was pretty huge, and ran into 2009. He also started giving bridge loans to the auto industry.

 

[Salt Jones]

WHY doesn't Harry Reid even bring it up for a vote?

WHY is he shirking his duty to come up with a budget?

It's been over three years.

I say it time and time again; Know your damn topic.

"Senate rejects Ryan budget By Alexander Bolton- 05/25/11 07:22 PM ET"

"The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a budget sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that calls for significant cuts to future Medicare benefits...The 40-57 vote came one day after Republicans suffered an upset defeat in a special election in upstate New York where Democrats made Medicare cuts the primary issue."

So that was a year ago, there are other bills and budgets that the House has passed and Reid was worried about some of them passing and shelved them. Why doesn't the Senate submit and come up with their own budget proposal?

They aren't even discussing a budget.

So you agree that T lied about Reid not bring the House's budget up for a vote?

 

[The T]

No, genius, he's spending WORSE than any Republican. He's spending worse than any DEMOCRAT, which is exponentially bad.

The point is that the best defense the liberals can provide for Obama is "Bush is responsible for Obama's first year of spending! No, really! Just believe it, PLEASE!"

What's even worse Bush didn't sign the 09' budget because the Dems presented him with one that had too many ear-marks in it. He wouldn't sign it and nether would Obama.

Bush never had a problem signing ear marked budgets when the Republicans were in charge.

Bush did sign TARP however, which was pretty huge, and ran into 2009. He also started giving bridge loans to the auto industry.

Wrong. Obama signed it.

 

[The Infidel]

What's even worse Bush didn't sign the 09' budget because the Dems presented him with one that had too many ear-marks in it. He wouldn't sign it and nether would Obama.

Bush never had a problem signing ear marked budgets when the Republicans were in charge.

Bush did sign TARP however, which was pretty huge, and ran into 2009. He also started giving bridge loans to the auto industry.

Wrong. Obama signed it.

Again... details details

 

[Salt Jones]

What's even worse Bush didn't sign the 09' budget because the Dems presented him with one that had too many ear-marks in it. He wouldn't sign it and nether would Obama.

Bush never had a problem signing ear marked budgets when the Republicans were in charge.

Bush did sign TARP however, which was pretty huge, and ran into 2009. He also started giving bridge loans to the auto industry.

Wrong. Obama signed it.

You are absolutely clueless and an embarrassment to thinking individuals worldwide.

 

[Salt Jones]

Bush never had a problem signing ear marked budgets when the Republicans were in charge.

Bush did sign TARP however, which was pretty huge, and ran into 2009. He also started giving bridge loans to the auto industry.

Wrong. Obama signed it.

Again... details details

You are as dumb as the T, for cosigning his ignorance.