Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[M14 Shooter]

Fear not - I deal with impossibly ignorant people such as yourself all the time.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FY2009 deficit? Obama.

You may post something that seems to attribute GW's spending to Obama, but you're not understanding what you are posting. I think you are one of the ones mentioned in this article, that doesn't understand how federal budgeting works!

You think incorrectly.
What I stated is true.

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms.

Of no relevance here.

This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year.

FY2009 started 3 months before Obama took office, and so presided over 75% of it.
Obama signed FY2009 budged into law; before this the government was funded by constinuing resolutions, some of which Obama signed.

It also needs to be noted that every penny of FY2009 spending was passsed by a Dem house/senate.

Not much more needs to be said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well actually it is.

Doesn't seem to be yours.

"Had" is past tense.

Wow, are you dishonest. Like there was any doubt.
You wrote that Saddam "had mostly" gotten rid of it. Mostly means not entirely. Which means he still had WMDs, according to you.

Not dishonest at all. I realize that I am dealing with a binary reptile mind here so I was pretty careful with my language.

Saddam was ordered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons cache.

For the most part, he did, but it also seems he missed a few sites. However, when those sites were found, the ordnance was no longer useful. Seems there is a shelf life to these sorts of weapons.

In any case..there was no reason to attack Iraq..even if they had "wmds".

None.

Everyone disgreed with you until it became clear that GWB woudl do it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I would consider this a step, a small one mind you, in the right direction. Now we just have to ACTUALLY CUT SPENDING

 

[M14 Shooter]

Quote:
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FY2009 deficit? Obama.
__________________

The 2009 Budget was initiated and submitted by GW and friends....

... passed by congress and signed by Obama.
So, how do you blame Bush?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bottom line: The debt was less than $11 trillion when Bush left office, and it's over $16 trillion now. Libs will latch onto any blogger that says Obama isn't responsible for his own actions, but we ALL know this is his debt.

Um..no..
It's not.

You are rither lying, or ignorant. I'll let you pick which.

National debt

1-20-2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
1-20-2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 +5,728,195,796,181.57 over 8 years
5-16-2013 16,765,040,725,133.72 +6,138,163,676,220.70 over <4.5 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wonder what the debt would look like if Bush had not had two useless wars and reduced the tax rate on the wealthy to pay for the wars? We will be paying for those two Bush wars for the next seventy or so years, but Reagan also deserves some of the blame for getting us started down this primrose path by tripling the national debt.
One of these days the excuse that the debt was caused by lazy Americans that refuse to work will lose its traction.

Spoken like a true partisan bigot. Nicely done.

 

[007]

First of all, if Rachel Maddow reported it, it's probably not true. But even if it is, the deficit is STILL in record territory. When you overspend by $1.2 trillion, and cut it by $800 billion, That still leaves $400 billion being added to the record debt he created. So, even if the numbers are accurate (which I highly doubt), he is still the biggest spender in history.

. No, President Obama is not the biggest spender in history. That discussion was short lived in another forum when a credible and verifiable source showed just the opposite.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

Sorry, but you're just pretty much, well, full of shit...

 

[007]

well, whooop dee doo !!

what about the DEBT ?

still over $16,000,000,000,000,000

and the libs/democrats just keep the debt hole deeper and deeper.

"... don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain... "

 

[007]

 

[007]

 

[007]

Anyone that tries to spin the LIE that obama is somehow doing this country some kind of financial GOOD is either a fucking bald faced LIAR or just plain fucking RETARDED... course could be both too...

 

[JQPublic1]

Bottom line: The debt was less than $11 trillion when Bush left office, and it's over $16 trillion now. Libs will latch onto any blogger that says Obama isn't responsible for his own actions, but we ALL know this is his debt.

Um..no..
It's not.

You are rither lying, or ignorant. I'll let you pick which.

National debt

1-20-2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
1-20-2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 +5,728,195,796,181.57 over 8 years
5-16-2013 16,765,040,725,133.72 +6,138,163,676,220.70 over <4.5 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hmm, now if the above were true, then Nancy Pelosi and her crew were responsible for spending under Bush...CORRECT? Hmmmm tseems to me that the Democrats were FAR more thrifty than the present Boehner controlled house....CORRECT????HEH heh heh!

 

[S.J.]

Um..no..
It's not.

You are rither lying, or ignorant. I'll let you pick which.

National debt

1-20-2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
1-20-2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 +5,728,195,796,181.57 over 8 years
5-16-2013 16,765,040,725,133.72 +6,138,163,676,220.70 over <4.5 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hmm, now if the above were true, then Nancy Pelosi and her crew were responsible for spending under Bush...CORRECT? Hmmmm tseems to me that the Democrats were FAR more thrifty than the present Boehner controlled house....CORRECT????HEH heh heh!

I sense a little desperation on your part, Mr. Pubic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anyone that tries to spin the LIE that obama is somehow doing this country some kind of financial GOOD is either a fucking bald faced LIAR or just plain fucking RETARDED... course could be both too...

Is the wars, i.o.u and medicare counted in??? The left thinks it wasn't under Bush is what they tell me.

 

[JQPublic1]

You are rither lying, or ignorant. I'll let you pick which.

National debt

1-20-2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
1-20-2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 +5,728,195,796,181.57 over 8 years
5-16-2013 16,765,040,725,133.72 +6,138,163,676,220.70 over <4.5 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hmm, now if the above were true, then Nancy Pelosi and her crew were responsible for spending under Bush...CORRECT? Hmmmm tseems to me that the Democrats were FAR more thrifty than the present Boehner controlled house....CORRECT????HEH heh heh!

I sense a little desperation on your part, Mr. Pubic.

NOTATALL! NOTATALL! You and I both know that spending is controlled by the House...
So,the presidents are really not even a factor in spending except for special appropriations.
M14Shooter's pretty graphs and charts are showing that the Democrat controlled House was far more thrifty than the Republican controlled House. That is undeniable and both YOU and he know it! Its a no win situation for either argument isn't it? I'm just pointing out the facts....

 

[bluecoller-eddy]

Wildman farts--
well, whooop dee doo !!
what about the DEBT ?
still over $16,000,000,000,000,000
and the libs/democrats just keep the debt hole deeper and deeper

On February 4, 2008
President Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion FY2009 budget proposal to Congress,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.htm
Bush“Thanks to the hard work of the American people and spending discipline
in Washington, we are now on a path to balance the budget by 2012,”
February 4, 2008

balance the budget by 2012, said ex-president stupid hillbilly.
Then 11 months later he hands Obama a $1,200 billion dollar deficit.

$1.2 Trillion Deficit Forecast as Obama Weighs Options
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html?em
January 7, 2009

It only takes grade school math to see how we got there.

Historical Tables | The White House
Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-)
in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars

2009 budget
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf

Bush Projected Receipts _2009 __2,700
Actual Final receipts __________2,105 -____-$595 Billion

Bush Projected outlays __2009 __3,107.0
Actual Final outlays _____2009 __3,517.7 ___+$410.7 billion

Bush Projected deficit ___2009 _-$407
Actual Final deficit _____2009__-$1,412.7 billion

The shameless lying republicans keep saying that that our really cool Irish president
is over spending by a trillion dollars a year.
--THEY LIE.-- They are shameless Fucken liars.
Most of the deficits are due too the collapse of Ex-president lying cocksucker's
supply side scam.
Actual Final receipts came in $595 billion less than the Bush Projections.
Did our really cool Irish president spend $595 billion that dident come in??

Ex-president lying cocksucker's budget showed a 407 billion dollar deficit.
Did our really cool Irish president cause that part of the deficit??

Spending was only $410 billion over budget in 2009.
Ex-president Lying cocksucker added $245 billion for tarp.
Obama added $200 billion in stimulus spending.
The very light blue in the graph Below is Obamas stimulus.

Critics Still Wrong on What?s Driving Deficits in Coming Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

-------Bluecoller--the grumpy old kraut -----

 

[ScienceRocks]

bluecoller-eddy,

Your post does make some sense as Bush did add a shit load of debt with tarp, frannie and freddy, etc. Obama just hasn't want back to pre-2008. You could also argue that maybe Bush didn't add the wars into his budgets either- so this is why his deficits weren't telling the entire story.

I'm starting to see where you people could have a point.

 

[JQPublic1]

well, whooop dee doo !!

what about the DEBT ?

still over $16,000,000,000,000,000

and the libs/democrats just keep the debt hole deeper and deeper.

"... don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain... "

Do you even look at what you post or is it just a knee jerk reaction. I guess its time to point out YOUR ignorance ... Do you even know how to write the numerals for 16 Trillion? It certainly is not the figure you coped from your friend and posted above. I embellished your ignorance in large type and highlighted it in red. Payback is a Motha aint it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmm, now if the above were true, then Nancy Pelosi and her crew were responsible for spending under Bush...CORRECT? Hmmmm tseems to me that the Democrats were FAR more thrifty than the present Boehner controlled house....CORRECT????HEH heh heh!

I sense a little desperation on your part, Mr. Pubic.

NOTATALL! NOTATALL! You and I both know that spending is controlled by the House...
So,the presidents are really not even a factor in spending except for special appropriations.
M14Shooter's pretty graphs and charts are showing that the Democrat controlled House was far more thrifty than the Republican controlled House. That is undeniable and both YOU and he know it! Its a no win situation for either argument isn't it? I'm just pointing out the facts....

Your desperation is making you say stupid shit.
The Republicans held the House until the last 2 years of Bush. Yes, they spent a lot. But that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats in the last 2 years. And that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats under Obama in the first 2 years of his administration, leaving a high baseline of spending. That it hasn't increased much over that baseline is due to Republicans retaking the House and reining in spending.

 

[bluecoller-eddy]

Matthew sez
Your post does make some sense.
Obama just hasn't want back to pre-2008.

Thank you for your kind words.

This chart shows that a decline in revenue is the major cause of the deficits.
Unemployment cost $180 billion in 2010.
people retired early because of the recession.
Obama couldn't do anything about these costs.

As for going back to 2008 Gov costs, aint gona happen.

Ex-president lying cocksucker had the golden years of SS surpluses.
About 1 and 1/2 % of GDP per year. In two more years we will have to
use general revenue funds to pay part of SS retirement. In ten years SS
retirement costs will be About one percent of GDP higher than they are today.
That's a switch of two and 1/2 % of GDP. A lot of goddam money.

Despite obamacare medical costs will continue to rise. Hopefully not as fast.

We will never get back to 2008 spending levels. Unfortunate but true.


For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

-------Bluecoller--the grumpy old kraut -----