Obama spending binge never happened

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Liar, Bush signed TARP.

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.
The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion.[1] The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By March 28, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $32 billion.[2] This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[3] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[3] Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.[3]

 

[Meister]

The libs can hang their hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet and call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

 

[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.

Study your damn topic:

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765, enacted October 3, 2008) is an Act of Congress signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, which was designed to mitigate the growing financial crisis of the late-2000s by giving relief to so-called "Troubled Assets."[1][2]
Its formal title is "An Act To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes."

The Act created a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A), and also enacted the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (division B), Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 (division C), which also included the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, and the Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008.[3][4]

Public Law 110-343 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PUBLIC LAW 110 - 343 - EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008

Date Approved October 3, 2008
Full Title An act to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

Public Law*110 - 343 - Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

 

[Dick Tuck]

The libs can hang there hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

No they're not. Most people understand that you have to put money into a checking account before taking it out. If you don't have enough money to put in, you count on overdraft protection and cut back on your spending. Most people are smart enough to understand that the jump in the deficit was more the result of revenues spiraling down because of Bush's failed economy.

 

[Meister]

The libs can hang there hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

No they're not. Most people understand that you have to put money into a checking account before taking it out. If you don't have enough money to put in, you count on overdraft protection and cut back on your spending. Most people are smart enough to understand that the jump in the deficit was more the result of revenues spiraling down because of Bush's failed economy.

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

 

[Salt Jones]

The libs can hang their hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

That is true. But, as "The T" and "Infidel" have shown, when you are too lazy to study the topic and just get your information for right-wing talk radio and tv shows you have not the slightest clue what the "numbers" are. Therefore, you can't even make a coherent argument to dispute the "numbers".

 

[Salt Jones]

The libs can hang there hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

No they're not. Most people understand that you have to put money into a checking account before taking it out. If you don't have enough money to put in, you count on overdraft protection and cut back on your spending. Most people are smart enough to understand that the jump in the deficit was more the result of revenues spiraling down because of Bush's failed economy.

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

So, you agree Obama should have ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in office, dismantled DHS, repealed the bush tax cuts and repealed Medicare Part D, all of which were implemented and never funded under GWB?

 

[Dick Tuck]

The libs can hang there hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

No they're not. Most people understand that you have to put money into a checking account before taking it out. If you don't have enough money to put in, you count on overdraft protection and cut back on your spending. Most people are smart enough to understand that the jump in the deficit was more the result of revenues spiraling down because of Bush's failed economy.

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

Most people will make ends meet using credit to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. You want to balance the budget, without touching the DOD budget, good luck. The Ryan numbers just don't add up.

Do we stop meat inspections because the revenue fell through the floor? Do we stop air traffic control? Do we toss people out of NIH and VA hospitals? Dump all of TSA, FBI, etc? Nope, the only thing possible, considering that the Obama has not grown government, and shrinking it would be a drop in the bucket, is to increase revenue.

 

[Stephanie]

, the only thing possible considering Obama hasn't grown government..

Is tax the shit out of people..I mean come on folks, Obama NEEDS your money to inspect your meat.

brilliant

 

[Stephanie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp0-s35aRwM]Obama: Since I've Been President Federal Spending Has Risen at Lowest Pace in 60 Years - YouTube[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

No they're not. Most people understand that you have to put money into a checking account before taking it out. If you don't have enough money to put in, you count on overdraft protection and cut back on your spending. Most people are smart enough to understand that the jump in the deficit was more the result of revenues spiraling down because of Bush's failed economy.

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

So, you agree Obama should have ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in office, dismantled DHS, repealed the bush tax cuts and repealed Medicare Part D, all of which were implemented and never funded under GWB?

We should have pulled out the day he took office. The prick doesn't want to fight the wars so why continue the fascade?

Repealing the Bush Tax-cuts would have been a mistake. It would have decimated the economy.

If you want to pull Medicare Part D.....go for it.....see how much the voters love him for it.

 

[mudwhistle]

No they're not. Most people understand that you have to put money into a checking account before taking it out. If you don't have enough money to put in, you count on overdraft protection and cut back on your spending. Most people are smart enough to understand that the jump in the deficit was more the result of revenues spiraling down because of Bush's failed economy.

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

Most people will make ends meet using credit to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. You want to balance the budget, without touching the DOD budget, good luck. The Ryan numbers just don't add up.

Do we stop meat inspections because the revenue fell through the floor? Do we stop air traffic control? Do we toss people out of NIH and VA hospitals? Dump all of TSA, FBI, etc? Nope, the only thing possible, considering that the Obama has not grown government, and shrinking it would be a drop in the bucket, is to increase revenue.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you might be dangerous.

Obama has been cutting the DoD since he's been in office. He's instituted a hiring-freeze that has been in place for over 3 years, he's frozen pay increases, he's cutting back on active-duty now, and all of the Bush money is drying up. Soon the military will be hollow and back to worse than it was under Carter.

 

[Trajan]

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.

politifact takes 'fact checking' to a new low, there is 'fact checking' and then there is arguemnts in mitigation, which they made, and they employed an abundance of willful ignorance.

letting the OP they 'fact checked' get away with or ignoring the fact that the OP puts every dime obama spent in 2009 et al on Bush, ignoring the cbo revenue to outlay chart that I posted, that they could have investigated in their 'fact check', isn't 'fact checking' its outright advocacy, of course, you are a slobbering partisan so, the shoe fits.....this will not convince one person who doesn't already support him already.

Obama's remarks in his "speech' on this was an exercise in plumbing the depth of mischaracterization and outright lies, its beyond pathetic.

 

[Sallow]

The libs can hang their hat on what the OP suggests, but at the end of the day the figures have to be manipulated to get to what the libs suggest.
You don't have a 5 trillion dollar increase in debt since 2009 and can still boast about how frugal the president is. People just aren't that stupid, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet and call people morons, it just isn't going to change the numbers.

Again..4/5th of the money was spent during the Bush administration. Obama just got handed the check.

I mean..you want to suggest that the debt went up during the Obama administration, fine.

But be honest about who initially larded it on.

 

[Sallow]

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

So, you agree Obama should have ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in office, dismantled DHS, repealed the bush tax cuts and repealed Medicare Part D, all of which were implemented and never funded under GWB?

We should have pulled out the day he took office. The prick doesn't want to fight the wars so why continue the fascade?

Repealing the Bush Tax-cuts would have been a mistake. It would have decimated the economy.
If you want to pull Medicare Part D.....go for it.....see how much the voters love him for it.

First off..there was no "repeal". They weren't meant to last forever..they were meant to sunset at some point.

This was probably the biggest mistake of the Obama administration. Hopefully, it's not repeated.

 

[Sallow]

, the only thing possible considering Obama hasn't grown government..

Is tax the shit out of people..I mean come on folks, Obama NEEDS your money to inspect your meat.

brilliant

He hasn't.

In fact..the opposite has happened. Government employment has contracted. Federal, state and city employment rolls have shrunk by some 600K.

You guys should be cheering this.

But instead..you keep braying on about the "slowness" of the UE numbers going down.

Gosh..make up your minds.

Private sector hiring by the way..is better now..then during the Bush administration.

And more public sector hiring was going on as well during the Bush administration. 2 wars assured that.

 

[mudwhistle]

, the only thing possible considering Obama hasn't grown government..

Is tax the shit out of people..I mean come on folks, Obama NEEDS your money to inspect your meat.

brilliant

He hasn't.

In fact..the opposite has happened. Government employment has contracted. Federal, state and city employment rolls have shrunk by some 600K.

You guys should be cheering this.

But instead..you keep braying on about the "slowness" of the UE numbers going down.

Gosh..make up your minds.

Private sector hiring by the way..is better now..then during the Bush administration.

And more public sector hiring was going on as well during the Bush administration. 2 wars assured that.

Government employment is mostly going down in the Department of Defense. Obama is letting that die on the vine. Obama is expanding other sectors of the government.....taking on expensive programs that aren't his responsibility.

Private sector hiring is good in some states but nothing Obama is doing is helping that. Most of the growth is happening in 3 or 4 states. Texas, Wisconsin, North Dakota, etc. The primary reason is low taxes, which is pulling in companies, many of them having relocated from other more heavily taxed states like California, New Jersey, etc.

Obama has been personally responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. 120,000 at GM and Chrysler dealerships alone. He has prevented job growth in the oil industry and shut down off-shore drilling. He's prevented new jobs from opening up in North Carolina, and he wonders why they hate his fucken guts. He's at odds with Mississippi, Arizona, Wisconsin, Texas,Tennessee, he's pissed a shit-load of them off with lawsuits. Now he's telling Arkansas to open up their women's bathrooms so one 36 year old student can feel more like a woman.....even though he's a man.

 

[Salt Jones]

Most people understand when the money isn't in the checking account, you don't keep writing checks. That is where the rubber meets the road with Obama, Dick.

So, you agree Obama should have ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in office, dismantled DHS, repealed the bush tax cuts and repealed Medicare Part D, all of which were implemented and never funded under GWB?

We should have pulled out the day he took office. The prick doesn't want to fight the wars so why continue the fascade?

Repealing the Bush Tax-cuts would have been a mistake. It would have decimated the economy.

If you want to pull Medicare Part D.....go for it.....see how much the voters love him for it.

So, according to to you, the war spending and it's increasing costs: veterans' healthcare costs, retirement pay, weapon systems, logistics, etc shouldn't be cut.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire and the decreased revenue they cause, is bad for the economy.

And even though Bush and Congress passed an unfunded Medicare Part D program, it's too popular to end, all of which are the main culprits of Obama's "spending explosion" Obama is solely responsible for the $5 billion debt increase that occurred on his watch?

 

[Salt Jones]

, the only thing possible considering Obama hasn't grown government..

Is tax the shit out of people..I mean come on folks, Obama NEEDS your money to inspect your meat.

brilliant

He hasn't.

In fact..the opposite has happened. Government employment has contracted. Federal, state and city employment rolls have shrunk by some 600K.

You guys should be cheering this.

But instead..you keep braying on about the "slowness" of the UE numbers going down.

Gosh..make up your minds.

Private sector hiring by the way..is better now..then during the Bush administration.

And more public sector hiring was going on as well during the Bush administration. 2 wars assured that.

Government employment is mostly going down in the Department of Defense. Obama is letting that die on the vine. Obama is expanding other sectors of the government.....taking on expensive programs that aren't his responsibility.

Private sector hiring is good in some states but nothing Obama is doing is helping that. Most of the growth is happening in 3 or 4 states. Texas, Wisconsin, North Dakota, etc. The primary reason is low taxes, which is pulling in companies, many of them having relocated from other more heavily taxed states like California, New Jersey, etc.

Obama has been personally responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. 120,000 at GM and Chrysler dealerships alone. He has prevented job growth in the oil industry and shut down off-shore drilling. He's prevented new jobs from opening up in North Carolina, and he wonders why they hate his fucken guts. He's at odds with Mississippi, Arizona, Wisconsin, Texas,Tennessee, he's pissed a shit-load of them off with lawsuits. Now he's telling Arkansas to open up their women's bathrooms so one 36 year old student can feel more like a woman.....even though he's a man.

Got any stats to verify your post?

 

[mudwhistle]

So, you agree Obama should have ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in office, dismantled DHS, repealed the bush tax cuts and repealed Medicare Part D, all of which were implemented and never funded under GWB?

We should have pulled out the day he took office. The prick doesn't want to fight the wars so why continue the fascade?

Repealing the Bush Tax-cuts would have been a mistake. It would have decimated the economy.

If you want to pull Medicare Part D.....go for it.....see how much the voters love him for it.

So, according to to you, the war spending and it's increasing costs: veterans' healthcare costs, retirement pay, weapon systems, logistics, etc shouldn't be cut.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire and the decreased revenue they cause, is bad for the economy.

And even though Bush and Congress passed an unfunded Medicare Part D program, it's too popular to end, all of which are the main culprits of Obama's "spending explosion" Obama is solely responsible for the $5 billion debt increase that occurred on his watch?

No, bad for the government. They'll stay fat and sassy and never stop spending. The biggest hit on revenue is job losses and many of those jobs were high-paying jobs. If you lose 6 million jobs and each one of those taxpayers paid an average of $4500 how much revenue loss is that? How about all of the federal taxes that goes uncollected because all of those people can't afford gas, cigarettes, booze, and whatever other taxes and fees Uncle Sam charges. Obama's constant threats calling for higher taxes and spreading the wealth has caused most of the revenue loss, not to mention the lack of capital moving around the economy. Whenever money changes hands the government always gets their cut. Well, people are scared to make purchases like they used to. They feel the party's over and it's time to start stuffing their cash in the mattress. There's no way Obama can take it if it never leaves the mattress.