6 Trillion in 8 years BAD, 6 trillion in 4 GOOD.

[RetiredGySgt]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

 

[SniperFire]

We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.


Major fuck up.

 

[The T]

We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.


Major fuck up.

And Bush couldn't seem to find his VETO pen either...but yes.

 

[OtaniKitano]

We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.


Major fuck up.

Is this a comment or your self-description?


I admire the short-sightedness of the far right wing. American history starts whenever you want it to and not according to any chronological table.

Anybody who seriously doesn't think Bush and Cheney didn't have a 10-year plan for Afghanistan or Iraq is, well....a far right wing nut.

 

[Conservative]

We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.


Major fuck up.

Is this a comment or your self-description?


I admire the short-sightedness of the far right wing. American history starts whenever you want it to and not according to any chronological table.

Anybody who seriously doesn't think Bush and Cheney didn't have a 10-year plan for Afghanistan or Iraq is, well....a far right wing nut.

immaterial to the OP.

BUSH and Obama did the same thing, but Obama did it in half the time, and the left cheers him on while they vilified Bush for doing it.

 

[Greenbeard]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

I realize this is the core of the current GOP narrative but it's based on a false equivalence. With the exception of the final trillion dollar deficit in FY09, the Bush deficits are actually attributable primarily to policy changes made under his tenure.

In Obama's case, that's not so. Apart from the stimulus, discretionary spending has slowed under Obama (or as the CBO put it,"Excluding the effects of ARRA, all defense and non-defense discretionary outlays will grow by about 4 percent in 2011, CBO anticipates, well below average growth rates for the past decade." [emphasis mine]).

When the economy went into freefall, two things happened: 1) the safety net swelled to catch those losing their jobs, slipping into poverty, etc, which is exactly what it's designed to do, and 2) tax revenues plunged. Higher automatic spending + the lowest tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in several decades = higher deficits. That happens independent of policy changes.

If you compare actual policy changes made by the two administrations, Obama's spending turns out to be rather modest in comparison. Even if you imagine that in a hypothetical Obama second term he would initiate new spending equivalent to that initiated in his first term (which is doubtful), his spending would still come in well below that of his predecessor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

immaterial to the OP.

BUSH and Obama did the same thing, but Obama did it in half the time, and the left cheers him on while they vilified Bush for doing it.

Once again proving: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

 

[SniperFire]

American history starts whenever you want it to and not according to any chronological table.

Do the math.

 

[SniperFire]

With the exception of the final trillion dollar deficit in FY09, the Bush deficits are actually attributable primarily to policy changes made under his tenure.

Your rhetorical excuses notwithstanding, Owebama failed.

Obama pledges to cut nation's deficit in half - Feb. 23, 2009



Next contestant.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

I realize this is the core of the current GOP narrative but it's based on a false equivalence. With the exception of the final trillion dollar deficit in FY09, the Bush deficits are actually attributable primarily to policy changes made under his tenure.

In Obama's case, that's not so. Apart from the stimulus, discretionary spending has slowed under Obama (or as the CBO put it,"Excluding the effects of ARRA, all defense and non-defense discretionary outlays will grow by about 4 percent in 2011, CBO anticipates, well below average growth rates for the past decade." [emphasis mine]).

When the economy went into freefall, two things happened: 1) the safety net swelled to catch those losing their jobs, slipping into poverty, etc, which is exactly what it's designed to do, and 2) tax revenues plunged. Higher automatic spending + the lowest tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in several decades = higher deficits. That happens independent of policy changes.

If you compare actual policy changes made by the two administrations, Obama's spending turns out to be rather modest in comparison. Even if you imagine that in a hypothetical Obama second term he would initiate new spending equivalent to that initiated in his first term (which is doubtful), his spending would still come in well below that of his predecessor.

NY Times - All the news that’s fit to print even if we have to make it up and put in pretty charts!

Oh god too funny the left is still pushing this...
this is from around July of last year

A few more points about the NYT chart come to mind. The war costs used by the Times appears to contain mainly costs that would have been incurred by the Department of Defense whether or not we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also fails to note the bipartisan nature of the war in Afghanistan — and somehow fails to include the costs of both wars under Obama for the first two years. Similarly, the chart correctly notes the first tranche of TARP under Bush, but skips the second tranche under Obama. Also, the category of “2008 Stimulus and Other Changes” seems pretty suspect, since the 2008 stimulus was scored at $150 billion, or less than one-fifth of the $773 billion the Times claims.​

Hey there is few problems with your chart
But if you like charts

There are plenty of issues with this chart, but let’s start with the notion that the “Bush tax cuts” cost the static-analysis price listed here. Absent those tax cuts, we would not have had the recovery from 2003-7, which generated a rather hefty increase in federal revenues; we’ll return to that in a moment. The actual revenue listed in this chart was what static analysis of the recovery would have brought into federal coffers, which is one of the main problems with static analysis. It also conflates tax cuts with federal spending, which only makes sense if one starts from the premise that the people owe their government all of their income less any that the government arbitrarily allows them to keep.​

The chart then tries to claim that Obama’s spending increases over the next 8 years (projected) will amount to just $1.44 trillion — less than the annual deficit these days. Oddly, it doesn’t mention that the last Republican annual budget passed in Congress (FY2007) only had a $160 billion deficit, which tends to interfere with the narrative Fallows and the Times wants to build here.
​

shows inflation-adjusted spending and revenue over the last 50 years:

Now look at what happens after Democrats take control of Congress. For the FY2008 budget, federal spending increased at a rate higher than that of the GOP budgets from FY2002-2007. For FY2009, Democrats ended up playing keep-away from George Bush and passed continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office and signed the omibus bill that increased spending at a mindblowing rate.​

No one except concerned trolls and the Left believe
Papa Obama is spending less money than Bush

People don't buy it and they know

Obama isn't working

 

[Pheonixops]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

If those numbers are accurate, who is saying that his spending is "good"?

 

[Pheonixops]

We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.


Major fuck up.

Who signed those spending bills in '06, '07, and '08???

 

[Pheonixops]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

I realize this is the core of the current GOP narrative but it's based on a false equivalence. With the exception of the final trillion dollar deficit in FY09, the Bush deficits are actually attributable primarily to policy changes made under his tenure.

In Obama's case, that's not so. Apart from the stimulus, discretionary spending has slowed under Obama (or as the CBO put it,"Excluding the effects of ARRA, all defense and non-defense discretionary outlays will grow by about 4 percent in 2011, CBO anticipates, well below average growth rates for the past decade." [emphasis mine]).

When the economy went into freefall, two things happened: 1) the safety net swelled to catch those losing their jobs, slipping into poverty, etc, which is exactly what it's designed to do, and 2) tax revenues plunged. Higher automatic spending + the lowest tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in several decades = higher deficits. That happens independent of policy changes.

If you compare actual policy changes made by the two administrations, Obama's spending turns out to be rather modest in comparison. Even if you imagine that in a hypothetical Obama second term he would initiate new spending equivalent to that initiated in his first term (which is doubtful), his spending would still come in well below that of his predecessor.

Interesting graph.

 

[rdean]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

You might want to check out Draper's new book. It might give you a different perspective on the Obama presidency and the support he's received from the Republican Party. Look at how they applauded him for taking out Bin Laden.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...secret-meeting-by-gop-to-take-down-obama.html

 

[rdean]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

I realize this is the core of the current GOP narrative but it's based on a false equivalence. With the exception of the final trillion dollar deficit in FY09, the Bush deficits are actually attributable primarily to policy changes made under his tenure.

In Obama's case, that's not so. Apart from the stimulus, discretionary spending has slowed under Obama (or as the CBO put it,"Excluding the effects of ARRA, all defense and non-defense discretionary outlays will grow by about 4 percent in 2011, CBO anticipates, well below average growth rates for the past decade." [emphasis mine]).

When the economy went into freefall, two things happened: 1) the safety net swelled to catch those losing their jobs, slipping into poverty, etc, which is exactly what it's designed to do, and 2) tax revenues plunged. Higher automatic spending + the lowest tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in several decades = higher deficits. That happens independent of policy changes.

If you compare actual policy changes made by the two administrations, Obama's spending turns out to be rather modest in comparison. Even if you imagine that in a hypothetical Obama second term he would initiate new spending equivalent to that initiated in his first term (which is doubtful), his spending would still come in well below that of his predecessor.

Interesting graph.

One thing that won't be factored in is the cost of tens of thousands of Americans maimed in Iraq. We will be paying for decades to come. And it didn't have to happen. Their oil will pay for it? Right? No, our middle class will pay for it. We love our kids. Republicans don't.

 

[rdean]

So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?

You might want to check out Draper's new book. It might give you a different perspective on the Obama presidency and the support he's received from the Republican Party. Look at how they applauded him for taking out Bin Laden.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...secret-meeting-by-gop-to-take-down-obama.html

Oh, yea, you can probably pick it up at Amazon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

SO to repeat, 6 trillion in 8 years bad, 6 trillion in 4 good. Politicizing the war on terror 2001 to 2008 bad, 2009 to present good. No budget in 4 years good. Destroying coal electric plants good. Destroying oil companies good. Building wind farms that cause global warming good. Forcing the production of ethanol that costs more than gas and is worse on the environment good.

What have I missed? Ohh ya no ID for voting great for Democrats and not enforcing our immigration laws while shipping weapons to Mexico illegally all good under Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, yea, you can probably pick it up at Amazon.

Won't SEIU purple shirts be going door to door handing them out like the Book of Mormon or the WatchTower?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No they past out these

 

[Neotrotsky]

SO to repeat, 6 trillion in 8 years bad, 6 trillion in 4 good. Politicizing the war on terror 2001 to 2008 bad, 2009 to present good. No budget in 4 years good. Destroying coal electric plants good. Destroying oil companies good. Building wind farms that cause global warming good. Forcing the production of ethanol that costs more than gas and is worse on the environment good.

What have I missed? Ohh ya no ID for voting great for Democrats and not enforcing our immigration laws while shipping weapons to Mexico illegally all good under Obama.

Just how fast is Papa Obama spending our great great great great grandchildren's money?
We would use updated figures but we can't keep up with the speed of spending ....

Move Over Einstein, there is a new kid in town

We know that many on the racist right have tried to play up Papa Obama's deficit spending as having no end in sight. But, through my sources at DNC,
I have been given inside knowledge of Papa Obama's theory on deficit spending. Papa Obama has actually found a universal constant to spending.

E= MC^2
where:
E= socialist egalitarianism
M= Gross National Product
C= speed of spending- which is a constant
It is so simple and beautiful
Let us approximate on our current deficit spending to show us how this works
(using 365 days) h/t to RealDealPolitics

At 4 trillion dollars a year, what we actually have....
Per actual day $10,958,904,110
Per actual hour $456,621,005
Per actual minute $7,610,350
Per actual second $126,839
​

Indeed as spending approaches the same number of units per second for the speed of light or 186,282 miles per second, we will reach our Progressive Utopia.
In Papa Obama's theory, as we approach this speed of spending constant the National Debt will actually slow down. Of course, once achieving this Utopia,
the masses will respond in kind by being the most productive ever in history and at that point the Deficit will just "wither away". Man will truly become free...

Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization,
becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.​

Trying to build on Papa Obama's theory, some progressives, like Krugman,
are hard at work to see if we can break this constant of spending to see if it would be possible to even reverse the National Debt.

These are most exciting times we live in comrades

Remember,
Papa Obama IS working, we just need more spending to get there !