edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
As I have shown so many times before, when caught in their lies CON$ervcoFascists simply lie some more!I concede that point. But the funding of the stimulus was still multiyear, supporting the facts laid out in the OP's analysis. It also doesn't break out how much of the bill was loans. Did you tell Cecilie she's a liar with her number? Of course not, you're a partisan hack who follows Reagan's 11th commandment.
You're still a fucking cyberstalking moron.
Obama established a higher baseline with the Stimulus and he's hiding behind it, juggling the numbers so it doesn't appear like he's increasing spending any faster. Baseline (budgeting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The funding of the Stimulus started after Bush. No Republican had anything to do with it. The Stimulus ran out quickly and then Obama asked for another $140 billion stimulus.
The genesis of baseline budget projections can be found in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. That act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare projections of federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year based on a continuation of the existing level of governmental services. It also required the newly established Congressional Budget Office to prepare five-year projections of budget authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit. OMB published its initial current-services budget projections in November 1974, and CBO's five-year projections first appeared in January 1976. Today's baseline budget projections are very much like those prepared more than two decades ago, although they now span 10 years instead of five.
The Budget Act was silent on whether to adjust estimates of discretionary appropriations for anticipated changes in inflation. Until 1980, OMB's projections excluded inflation adjustments for discretionary programs. CBO's projections, however, assumed that appropriations would keep pace with inflation, although CBO has also published projections without these so-called discretionary inflation adjustments.
Obama has stopped from going over the debt limit sooner than projected by using Quantitative Easing of the debt. Monetizing the debt by printing money. We're on our 3rd QE so far.......and last week Obama quietly asked for another Stimulus, then the talk has already started about raising the debt even more.
QE1, QE2, and QE3
The expression "QE2" became a "ubiquitous nickname" in 2010, usually used to refer to a second round of quantitative easing by central banks.[56] In retrospect, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 may be called "QE1". Similarly, "QE3" refers to proposals for an additional round of quantitative easing following QE2.[57]
Effectiveness
According to the IMF, the quantitative easing policies undertaken by the central banks of the major developed countries since the beginning of the late-2000s financial crisis have contributed to the reduction in systemic risks following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The IMF states that the policies also contributed to the improvements in market confidence and the bottoming out of the recession in the G-7 economies in the second half of 2009.[58]
Economist Martin Feldstein argues that QE2 led to a rise in the stock-market in the second half of 2010, which in turn contributed to increasing consumption and the strong performance of the US economy in late-2010.[59]
In November 2010, a group of conservative Republican economists and political activists released an open letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke questioning the efficacy of the Fed's QE program. The Fed responded that their actions reflected the economic environment of high unemployment and low inflation.[60]
Risks
Quantitative easing may cause higher inflation than desired if the amount of easing required is overestimated, and too much money is created.[16] On the other hand, it can fail if banks remain reluctant to lend money to small business and households in order to spur demand. Quantitative easing can effectively ease the process of deleveraging as it lowers yields. But in the context of a global economy, lower interest rates may contribute to asset bubbles in other economies.
Obama has been able to keep from worsening the economy by printing more money, but then again he has increased inflation which doesn't get wide media coverage because food and energy nolonger are included in figuring inflation....which is total insanity. What other factors effect the value of your incomes more than groceries, gas, and energy? This is what drives the economy yet it's conveniently excluded.
Obama was trying to be slick when he took office. He signed a discretionary spending bill or Stimulus during fiscal year 09' hoping to get away with establishing a higher baseline of spending and thus attempted to transfer blame onto Bush. Bush didn't even sign the 09' budget because it contained massive earmarks, and even Obama wouldn't sign it heh....heh.......because he knew they could blame him for it. So this chode Knut ignores all of this and sent out this bogus report and you're running with it (as predicted).
The Devil is in the details and you're not interested in the details. This is why these hosers put out these hoaxes is because Obama Fluffers are out there swallowing it and it takes weeks, months, or even years to prove it was a total fabrication.
Links
Baseline (budgeting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baseline spending jumps by $4.4 trillion | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government
There was no QE3, as every worthless lying CON$ervoFascist knows!
And there was only 107.1 billion of the stimulus spent in 2009 and Nutting credited it to Obama not Bush, so big spender Bush set the 2009 baseline.
But keep lying, it shows just how desperate CON$ are and how effective Nutting's truth has been.