Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[depotoo]

So that justifies the Right lying about the true cost of Bush's war on terror.

are you claiming the CBO and the GAO are lying with their figures?
Earlier I posted Bill Clinton's agreement with us going into iraq. Want me to post that again? Want me to post those other countries that had intelligence that agreed with ours and joined us? Want me to post the names of all the Dems that also voted for us to go into Iraq? If not, then quit the bull of always blaming Bush.

Are you claiming the numbers you posted included the costs of caring for the injured?

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs."
- President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001

do those numbers include a budget for the military hospitals? Yes

Too bad CLinton, Kerry, et al seemed to think it was enough of a threat as to make policy to get rid of him.

We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again... So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors."

President Clinton
The White House
December 19, 1998

Meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and protecting U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf has been a high priority of President Clinton's Administration. The Administration has pursued a policy towards Iraq that rests on three pillars: containment of Saddam Hussein to prevent him from rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs or threatening his neighbors; humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people to minimize their suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein; and supporting regime change to remove Saddam Hussein from power so that Iraq and its neighbors can live in peace. This policy has successfully prevented Saddam Hussein from again attacking his neighbors as he did during the Persian Gulf War and increased pressure on his regime through international isolation. The Clinton Administration remains committed to working with U.S. allies to maintain the United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iraq, while looking to a future with a new Iraqi leadership, where the United States and its allies can support the removal of sanctions and offer assistance to bring Iraq back into the family of nations.

CONTAINING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ

The Post returned to the story the next day (11/29/07), repeating that Clinton "went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003." The Post did try to challenge Clinton's position by noting that he had participated in briefings with key Bush administration officials, and had allegedly expressed support for the invasion plan.

But Clinton's public support for the war is a matter of record. Just before George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair invaded Iraq, Clinton published an op-ed in the London Guardian (3/18/03) urging Britons to "Trust Tony's Judgment":

As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties.... But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
Clinton's column included the less-than-prescient prediction that "military action probably will require only a few days."
...
Soon after the invasion (3/30/03), Clinton appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes with former Senator Robert Dole and endorsed the war, saying, "Senator, unlike some of your Republican friends during Kosovo, I support our troops in Iraq and the president." ...
In a 2004 interview with Time magazine (6/28/04), Clinton reiterated this before-the-fact support for the invasion: "You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over."

Clinton went on to claim that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were of concern, especially after the September 11 attacks:

So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing.
Clinton added: "So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the president, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for."

....

Sunday night, Tenet gave the impression that any thought of Saddam and al Qaeda's cooperating was pure fantasy. You never would have known that in October 2002, Tenet wrote a letter to Sen. Bob Graham that said: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade"; "Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression"; "We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad"; "We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities"; and so on.

Don't Pity George Tenet - CBS News
and I can't find anything on those last 2 statements. Please also note, if they are real, which I doubt at this moment, looking at the dates. Bush wasn't even inaugurated until Jan. 20.

 

[Redfish]

So that justifies the Right lying about the true cost of Bush's war on terror.

did I say that? BTW, who by name is "the right" ? Who by name has lied about the cost of caring for injured soldiers?

The perpetual dumb act.

you made the claim. I just asked you to back it up. If you can't, just say so.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know how long it took for people to realize the Reagan more than doubled Carter's spending?

Obama has spent less than Bush, and his deficits are smaller.

FOX News is raising a generation of Republicans on propaganda. .

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

 

[Google]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

 

[Google]

Do you know how long it took for people to realize the Reagan more than doubled Carter's spending?

Obama has spent less than Bush, and his deficits are smaller.

FOX News is raising a generation of Republicans on propaganda. .

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

Such bullshit. The mentality from government obsessed, and yes it is an obsession--with the DNC convention proudly proclaiming "government is the only thing we all belong to"--fanatics is dumbfounding.

How do you pay for a tax cut? Well, first you have to believe that all revenue is the government's to begin with, and whatever they allow you to keep is a government expenditure.

Forget that every single time since JFK that tax rates were substantively reduced, the result has always been increased tax revenue.

But that is neither here nor there.

This is the left's delusional reasoning and logic, they don't give a damn about spending, debt or the deficit. The entire premise of this thread is a lie. These are the same people that told us government spending would spur economic growth.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

 

[Brain357]

Numbers don't lie. Republican presidents have been big spenders. They are clearly the reason we have so much debt now.

 

[Google]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

 

[Redfish]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

OK, I see. Bush was responsible for the debt increases when he was in office, Bush is responsible for the debt increases when obama is in office, so I guess Bush was also responsible for the debt increases when Clinton was in office.

Bush is responsible for every penney of the debt, obama and clinton are not responsible for anything, ever. Are you a total lunatic? do you really believe the bullshit that you post?

 

[Redfish]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

of course, he is the kenyan messiah, he is above responsibility for anything, we should just bow down and worship him. just like he bowed to the saudi king.

obama is a total buffoon and the worst president in history, and yet the libtards continue their blind worship of him--------pathetic.

 

[Brain357]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, he was handed a country that was in two wars, had a huge deficit, and a slowing economy. I don't recall any other president having to deal with so many issues. Bush was handed a country in very good shape and created problems.

 

[Google]

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, he was handed a country that was in two wars, had a huge deficit, and a slowing economy. I don't recall any other president having to deal with so many issues. Bush was handed a country in very good shape and created problems.

Yes, he took over the White House during a time of turmoil--and that is apart of the damn job. Also, lacking a lot of perspective to sit there and say his presidency was the most trying. Bush took office during a recession, one that the media BLAMED HIM FOR. Remember, by Bush just stating economic figures the media told us he was TALKING THE ECONOMY DOWN. Read a history book.

Obama chose to LEAD, and he took office and exacerbated the problem. Never passing a budget, NEVER, increasing the debt by $5 trillion and setting record breaking deficits month after month. Woe is he.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

OK, I see. Bush was responsible for the debt increases when he was in office, Bush is responsible for the debt increases when obama is in office, so I guess Bush was also responsible for the debt increases when Clinton was in office.

Bush is responsible for every penney of the debt, obama and clinton are not responsible for anything, ever. Are you a total lunatic? do you really believe the bullshit that you post?

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, he was handed a country that was in two wars, had a huge deficit, and a slowing economy. I don't recall any other president having to deal with so many issues. Bush was handed a country in very good shape and created problems.

Yes, he took over the White House during a time of turmoil--and that is apart of the damn job. Also, lacking a lot of perspective to sit there and say his presidency was the most trying. Bush took office during a recession, one that the media BLAMED HIM FOR. Remember, by Bush just stating economic figures the media told us he was TALKING THE ECONOMY DOWN. Read a history book.

Obama chose to LEAD, and he took office and exacerbated the problem. Never passing a budget, NEVER, increasing the debt by $5 trillion and setting record breaking deficits month after month. Woe is he.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

HERE is what Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress did. They put us on a trajectory to control to the debt (Extended Baseline Scenario). The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the teapublican plan...YOU choose...

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)


Here is the 'rub'...We are on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.

the CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.

The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

 

[007]

 

[Brain357]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

 

[depotoo]

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

OK, I see. Bush was responsible for the debt increases when he was in office, Bush is responsible for the debt increases when obama is in office, so I guess Bush was also responsible for the debt increases when Clinton was in office.

Bush is responsible for every penney of the debt, obama and clinton are not responsible for anything, ever. Are you a total lunatic? do you really believe the bullshit that you post?

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

That is very misleading. What you fail to mention is that receipts fell, and yet spending was growing. Therefore the gap is wider.

..........Receipts Outlays
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079
2011 2,303,466 3,603,059
2012 2,450,164 3,537,127
2013
estimate 2,712,045 3,684,947

(in millions of dollars)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2014-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2014-TAB-1-1.xls

 

[Google]

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

OK, I see. Bush was responsible for the debt increases when he was in office, Bush is responsible for the debt increases when obama is in office, so I guess Bush was also responsible for the debt increases when Clinton was in office.

Bush is responsible for every penney of the debt, obama and clinton are not responsible for anything, ever. Are you a total lunatic? do you really believe the bullshit that you post?

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Well, I think we all agree that deficit spending is a substantial problem--which itself is an improvement. The Bush administration was reckless in their spending, and didn't take firm enough actions in the lead up to the mortgage catastrophe. Though, the Bush administration did push for more oversight and regulations over Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats lambasted those attempts, labeling them 'a political lynching'.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjoW_IXos4]Senate Committee Hearings on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 2004 - YouTube[/ame]


This is the issue that motivated me to join and become active in the Tea Party, and I'm all for those on the left or right that believe spending and debt is too high and needs to be addressed.

But this administration can't even get enough Democrat votes to pass their own budget. How many votes did it garner again?

 

[PredFan]

Let me 'splain something to you lefty morons:

Congress has the purse strings, not the President.

The "cut in the rate of spending increase", because that's wht it truely is, is the result of the House putting the brakes on obama.

 

[Google]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

Let us not forget that spending fell under Clinton because Republicans, in a historic election, swept Congress, and began pushing a balanced budget that eventually resulted in a billion dollar surplus that Clinton always get credit for.

Clinton worked with a Republican controlled congress and passed many conservative policies--welfare reform and DOMA among them.