Obama spending binge never happened

[Salt Jones]

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.

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?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

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?

I answered your questions prick.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Now anyone a CON$ervoFascist calls a liar is obviously telling the truth. Not only did Nutting include the stimulus spending as Obama's 2009 spending. Nutting counted $140 Billion of stimulus spending plus other spending in 2009 for Obama and the CBO put the 2009 stimulus as $107.1 billion.

I can remember the CON$ bitching at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 about the fact that less than 10% of the stimulus had been spent. While NOW CON$ say the economy has never recovered, back then they said the economy had already recovered so there was no need to spend the other 90%, once again proving that whatever CON$ say one day they contradict the next day.

From the Nutting link:
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.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Now anyone a CON$ervoFascist calls a liar is obviously telling the truth. Not only did Nutting include the stimulus spending as Obama's 2009 spending. Nutting counted $140 Billion of stimulus spending plus other spending in 2009 for Obama and the CBO put the 2009 stimulus as $107.1 billion.

I can remember the CON$ bitching at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 about the fact that less than 10% of the stimulus had been spent. While NOW CON$ say the economy has never recovered, back then they said the economy had already recovered so there was no need to spend the other 90%, once again proving that whatever CON$ say one day they contradict the next day.

From the Nutting link:
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.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace

Obama spends $9 billion a day where as Bush spent $6.8.

At the rate Obama was spending in 2009 he would have had us much deeper in debt than we already are, but a strange thing happened. The GOP took back the House and that brought all of that massive spending to a halt. We're still spending at a massive rate, but it's not increasing all that much. The problem is it needs to be decreasing and Obama is doing nothing to get that done.

Obama is attempting.....once again.....to take credit for something that he had nothing to do with.....while blaming Bush for all of the spending he actually did have something to do with. Obama should be trying to work toward a surplus so he can pay off the debt, instead he's trying to brag about not spending as much as his predecessors, which is a bold-faced lie.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Have you ever met a thinking individual?

Your fellow Klansman aren't the intellectual giants you imagine them to be.

Bush signed TARP into law in October of 2008. Virtually all disbursements were made by the Obama administration.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Now anyone a CON$ervoFascist calls a liar is obviously telling the truth. Not only did Nutting include the stimulus spending as Obama's 2009 spending. Nutting counted $140 Billion of stimulus spending plus other spending in 2009 for Obama and the CBO put the 2009 stimulus as $107.1 billion.

I can remember the CON$ bitching at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 about the fact that less than 10% of the stimulus had been spent. While NOW CON$ say the economy has never recovered, back then they said the economy had already recovered so there was no need to spend the other 90%, once again proving that whatever CON$ say one day they contradict the next day.

From the Nutting link:
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.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace

Obama spends $9 billion a day where as Bush spent $6.8.

At the rate Obama was spending in 2009 he would have had us much deeper in debt than we already are, but a strange thing happened. The GOP took back the House and that brought all of that massive spending to a halt. We're still spending at a massive rate, but it's not increasing all that much. The problem is it needs to be decreasing and Obama is doing nothing to get that done.

Obama is attempting.....once again.....to take credit for something that he had nothing to do with.....while blaming Bush for all of the spending he actually did have something to do with. Obama should be trying to work toward a surplus so he can pay off the debt, instead he's trying to brag about not spending as much as his predecessors, which is a bold-faced lie.

BOOM, there it is!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once again I must chime in. I thought Dems favored government spending as stimulative to the economy....are we off that now?

Isn't it good that Obama spend so much?

 

[The T]

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

Have you ever met a thinking individual?

Your fellow Klansman aren't the intellectual giants you imagine them to be.

Bush signed TARP into law in October of 2008. Virtually all disbursements were made by the Obama administration.

Yep. Obama signed the spending...and ratcheted it up.

 

[The T]

Once again I must chime in. I thought Dems favored government spending as stimulative to the economy....are we off that now?

Isn't it good that Obama spend so much?

They're getting into Blame Republicans mode...

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

This is really funny, coming from someone I have repeatedly watched respond to every criticism of Obama with, "Well, Bush did [fill in the blank]". Now, all of a sudden, you have a problem with false equivalence.

I can't see how you fools take YOURSELVES seriously, much less expect anyone else to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Even schoolchildren know that's not how the federal government really works.

First they decide how much they're going to spend. THEN they take in the revenues, and inevitably discover that it's less than they already spent. So THEN they go borrow the money from somewhere else. And finally, they screech and holler about how some bunch of "greedy bastards" isn't paying enough.

The equation would look like this:

0 - Spending + revenue = deficit + added debt + bullshit - even more spending + decreased revenue = more deficits + massive debt + continued bullshit (repeat indefinitely)

If that looks like an equation that would never work . . . well, that's why the federal government is so fucked up, now, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes we do. Were you stupid enough to believe that the bills being run up by the prior administration would never become due? This is the high point of intellectual dishonesty. You want to blame Obama for the fact that he's required under law, to pay debt when it's due.

Your little "Aha!" lie was sliced, diced, and pureed before you ever even showed up here to crow about it. You're done.

Wrong again. All the facts hold water, but tell partisan hacks like yourself, things they don't want to hear.

Yeah, the facts hold so much water, that you couldn't even untuck your little dick enough to respond to my first post laying bare what a trumped-up piece of bullshit your OP was. You had to wait and respond to this one, so that you could try to get away with just saying, "No, I'm right, and you're wrong, and I WIN!"

Sorry, Chuckles, but the only thing you win is a continued giant horselaugh from everyone on this thread.

Call me when you grow a pair, loser. Done and ancient history.

 

[The T]

But what creates those deficits?

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

You really didn't know that? Wow.

Even schoolchildren know that's not how the federal government really works.

First they decide how much they're going to spend. THEN they take in the revenues, and inevitably discover that it's less than they already spent. So THEN they go borrow the money from somewhere else. And finally, they screech and holler about how some bunch of "greedy bastards" isn't paying enough.

The equation would look like this:

0 - Spending + revenue = deficit + added debt + bullshit - even more spending + decreased revenue = more deficits + massive debt + continued bullshit (repeat indefinitely)

If that looks like an equation that would never work . . . well, that's why the federal government is so fucked up, now, isn't it?

Tick thinks he's the smartest one in the room...

 

[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.

"I don't need to read anything! I already know what I'm going to believe, so stop bothering me with your facts!"

 

[Conservative]

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

You really didn't know that? Wow.

Even schoolchildren know that's not how the federal government really works.

First they decide how much they're going to spend. THEN they take in the revenues, and inevitably discover that it's less than they already spent. So THEN they go borrow the money from somewhere else. And finally, they screech and holler about how some bunch of "greedy bastards" isn't paying enough.

The equation would look like this:

0 - Spending + revenue = deficit + added debt + bullshit - even more spending + decreased revenue = more deficits + massive debt + continued bullshit (repeat indefinitely)

If that looks like an equation that would never work . . . well, that's why the federal government is so fucked up, now, isn't it?

Tick thinks he's the smartest one in the room...

only when he's alone.

 

[Conservative]

Examiner Editorial: Big-spending Obama frames himself as scrooge | Washington Examiner

Nutting's piece employs several abuses of the numbers (including some underhanded switching between projected and actual spending data), but his most productive sleight of hand is to assign all of fiscal year 2009's spending to President Bush. Nutting doesn't start the clock on Obama's spending until fiscal 2010.

In most cases, that would be fair, because presidents typically sign the next year's spending bills in the calendar year before they leave office. But not in 2009. The Democratic Congress, confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009's 12 appropriations bills (Defense; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them, and Obama signed them.

So whereas Bush had proposed spending just $3.11 trillion in fiscal 2009, for a 3 percent increase, Obama and the Democrats ended up spending $3.52 trillion, for a 17.9 percent increase in spending -- the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.

By the end of Obama's first year in office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 25.2 percent, the highest it has ever been since World War II. As Obama's stimulus spending has receded, spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, but only slightly. Under President Bush, spending averaged 19.6 percent of GDP. Under President Clinton, it was 19.8 percent. The historical pos/world/ War II average is 19.7 percent. In 2012, after four years of Obama's fiscal leadership, it is expected to be 24.3 percent.

 

[Trajan]

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.

here ya go, you guys put a lot of faith in this shit, fact checking etc....wanna play that game, eat up sheep.






The Facts

First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

snip-


One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent




3 Pinocchio's....

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

 

[The T]

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.

here ya go, you guys put a lot of faith in this shit, fact checking etc....wanna play that game, eat up sheep.


One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent




3 Pinocchio's....

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

Tick Duck (A Paid informant on here) will shortly be pressing THIS to report YOU to his master...

 

[KissMy]

 

[Trajan]

hey he can press the button to the cows come home...but you know what? the fact that obama is actually flogging this crap is a lie, plain and simple, its not a mischaracterization, a misquote, its a lie. he is treating people like dolts of course there are dolts that are such sheep and I mean this exactly as I say it and frame it- they just don't care, they suspend ANY curiosity or sense and just flog it for him too...useful idiots ...