Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Under Speaker Pelosi

[edthecynic]

Only liberal wacko, Socialist idiot would understand that crap, most real Americans won’t. It must be really horrible to be in you’re liberal mind, with such skewed perspective on you're country. I'm sure you have some sympathies for the Soviet Union Thank God there are very few like you in this country you’d fit in better in Europe

How exactly does Reagan arming terrorists who hated America when he armed them make ME a Soviet sympathizer???

Only a FASCIST whacko, CON$ervative idiot could rationalize that, no real American could. It must be really horrible to be in you’re Fascist mindset, with such a skewed perspective of pure hatred for this great country. Thank God there are very few like you in this great country, you’d fit in better in Nazi Germany.

We armed the Afghans idiot.. Not bin-laden. Maybe he joined in after. I know its too bad you’re Communist buddies were defeated, and only 20% of Americans are in you're lib wako camp.. Sorry, also what is a fascist in your mind? Or do you even know? And come up with you're own words if you're able. you seem to be in an alternate universe or something.. Physiological counseling might help.

Reagan armed many who hated America, the West. It was called the REAGAN DOCTRINE. Ever heard of it????? I know Fascists have very selective memories, but even you must remember it! GOP congressman even admits it!

Orange County News, Events, Restaurants, Music

It was called the Reagan Doctrine. In the eyes of Reagan officials bent on rolling back the Reds everywhere, Afghanistan exemplified the phrase "communist domination." By the time the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S government had lavished $3 billion in arms on the rebels, who, during the bloodiest days of the war, were downing an average of one Russian helicopter gunship per day.

"These weren’t American weapons," said Rohrabacher. "By and large, it was done with Russian equipment bought from Egypt or one of the other states that was once allied with Russia but was now friendly to us. About the only American weapons they had were the Stinger missiles."...

... the majority of U.S. military-aid recipients were unsavory, even unstable characters. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which coordinated the efforts on the ground in Afghanistan, was never very choosy about who got arms.

Roughly half the weapons the CIA supplied went to fundamentalist Afghan leader Gulbeddin Hekmatyar—"one of the most stridently anti-Western of the resistance leaders," according to Mary Ann Weaver’s May 1996 article in The Atlantic Monthly. Another arms customer was the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, later convicted of involvement in the 1993 botched bombing of the World Trade Center. Oh, and Osama bin Laden, the man whom George W. Bush says was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.


During the Afghan war, the Saudis were, as they are today, doing America’s bidding on the world stage. The CIA-at the behest of a White House, Congress and American media completely united in helping the Afghan rebels-was calling the shots. It is a fact Rohrabacher himself has acknowledged in the recent past.

"I witnessed this in the White House when U.S. officials in charge of the military aid program to the mujahideen permitted a large percentage of our assistance to be channeled to the most anti-Western, nondemocratic elements of the mujahideen," said Rohrabacher in an April 14, 1999, official statement on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.

Rohrabacher saw firsthand evidence to support his claim. In November 1988, having just been elected to Congress, Rohrabacher took off on his first trip to Afghanistan. The anti-Soviet war was still raging as Rohrabacher set off on a five-day hike with an armed mujahideen patrol from Pakistan into eastern Afghanistan.

"We at one point in that march came across a camp of tents," Rohrabacher said of his visit to Jalalabad, then under siege by the Afghan rebels. "I was told at that point I must not speak English for at least another three hours because the people in those tents were Saudi Arabians under a crazy commander named bin Laden and that bin Laden was so crazy that he wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians."

 

[Jroc]

Look idiot... we support the people who are fighting our enimies at the time, as we did when supporting Stahlin, Thats just the way it is, Sorry the world is not a perfect place. If the Soviets were not defeated there we'd still be dealing them.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Still milking the dumb act.

The words that aren't mine I highlighted in RED and then made the words"adding crap" RED, but as a CON$ervative you were too stupid to put them together.

The post I quoted was long so I deleted what wasn't relevant to my question and obviously got part of Jroc's post mixed in. Of course, you automatically jump to the conclusion and think I altered the quote. Of course, you won't believe that and just call me a dumb CON or a liar or . . . whatever. You're predictable (wait for it folks).

OK, I believe you when you say you were just too dumb to know how to edit a quote accurately.

Predictable, as previously noted. Negged for being an asshole.

 

[edthecynic]

The post I quoted was long so I deleted what wasn't relevant to my question and obviously got part of Jroc's post mixed in. Of course, you automatically jump to the conclusion and think I altered the quote. Of course, you won't believe that and just call me a dumb CON or a liar or . . . whatever. You're predictable (wait for it folks).

OK, I believe you when you say you were just too dumb to know how to edit a quote accurately.

Predictable, as previously noted. Negged for being an asshole.

Yeah, you sure PREDICTED that!

 

[Charles_Main]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

Yep, and even using those numbers of 6 Trillion over 8 years.(2 of which the Dems were adding to the Bush budgets and discretionary spending.) You are still left with the fact that in the 2 years that the Dems have had Both houses and the WH. They have spent 3 Trillion in new dept. Which is a pace to DOUBLE what bush did. Obamas own projections for the next 6 years added to that 3 already add up to almost 11 Trillion in new Debt in 8 years. Nearly double what Bush added by your own figures. Yet somehow you are not screaming about this spending. Like I am sure you were when Bush was in office. Instead you spend your time trying to discredit those who are screaming about it now.

But of course you will use the tired old line that they had to do it. So why am I bothering.

 

[Liberty]

woodrow wilson would be proud.

 

[edthecynic]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

Yep, and even using those numbers of 6 Trillion over 8 years.(2 of which the Dems were adding to the Bush budgets and discretionary spending.) You are still left with the fact that in the 2 years that the Dems have had Both houses and the WH. They have spent 3 Trillion in new dept. Which is a pace to DOUBLE what bush did. Obamas own projections for the next 6 years added to that 3 already add up to almost 11 Trillion in new Debt in 8 years. Nearly double what Bush added by your own figures. Yet somehow you are not screaming about this spending. Like I am sure you were when Bush was in office. Instead you spend your time trying to discredit those who are screaming about it now.

But of course you will use the tired old line that they had to do it. So why am I bothering.

First of all, it is dishonest to add Bush's budget deficits to Obama's budget years. I could say we should add the deficits from Bush"s two wars, his plan D deficits and the interest on his $6 trillion in deficit to his $6 trillion.
And secondly adding 6 obama years to 3 Dem congress years compares 9 years to 8, also dishonest.

So if we compare Bush's 8 budget deficits to the CBO projection for Obama's 8 years, the CBO projection of $-7,137 which is HIGHER than "Obama's own projections," it still isn't double Bush's. In fact if you back out only the interest on the $11 trillion in debt Obama inherited, which is about $250 billion /year, it would be less than Bush's total.

Even if you take the last 2 Bush budgets, which you pin on the Dems, and the first 6 Obama years, comparing 8 years to 8 years and using the higher CBO numbers it only comes to $-6.5 trillion. Again hardsly double Bush's $-6 trillion.

Powered by Google Docs

Projected Deficits in CBO’s Baseline

(Billions of dollars)

Total Deficit

2010 to 2019 $-7,137

 

[Jroc]

Obama the Marxist..

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:
•Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
•Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
•Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;
The chart above compares the President’s budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office’s budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama’s 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.

Now the President is apparently arguing that his trillions of dollars in additional deficit spending are needed to “invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.”

This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday.

President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically “free” a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the “free” category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we’ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to “mostly free.” As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama’s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama the Marxist..

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:
•Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
•Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
•Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;
The chart above compares the President’s budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office’s budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama’s 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.

Now the President is apparently arguing that his trillions of dollars in additional deficit spending are needed to “invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.”

This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday.

President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically “free” a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the “free” category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we’ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to “mostly free.” As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama’s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

Gee what do you know, the right wing extremist Heritage foundation's 2010 budget estimate is wrong, and too high rather than too low. Who would have guessed?

Obama's first 2010 budget deficit is LESS than Bush's last 2009 deficit. Again listening to CON$ one would have thought it was triple Bush's last budget deficit.

Congressional Budget Office - Monthly Budget Review

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was slightly less than $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and $125 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2009. The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP). The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy. CBO’s deficit estimate is based on data from the Daily Treasury Statements and CBO’s projections; the Treasury Department will report the actual deficit for fiscal year 2010 later this month.

 

[Jroc]

CBO has to caculate base on what those idiots in congress give totally not credtable numbers Look how the health care law was screwed becouse they had to go by the numbers given to them by congress..I noticed you don't have any problem with loosing our freedoms...of course not you're a socialist idiot and the more government control the better in you're warped mind

 

[edthecynic]

CBO has to caculate base on what those idiots in congress give totally not credtable numbers Look how the health care law was screwed becouse they had to go by the numbers given to them by congress..I noticed you don't have any problem with loosing our freedoms...of course not you're a socialist idiot and the more government control the better in you're warped mind

I see you haven't lost your freedom to post stupid Fascist crap!

The GOP hate media told you Obama's first budget deficit was triple Bush's last budget deficit and no amount of data from any source will get you to admit the truth as long as just one CON$ervoFascist source tells you what you want to hear.
Got it.

 

[Jroc]

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle as part of a cross-country campaign trip on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration


Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov?t Data | CNSnews.com

 

[edthecynic]

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle as part of a cross-country campaign trip on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration


Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov?t Data | CNSnews.com

Don't you ever get tired of posting lies? Don't you ever check your CON$ervoFascist sources?
The CON$ervative News Service is hardly an honest source of anything!

First lie of all, Obama's first fiscal budget didn't start until Oct 1, 2009, not Jan 20, 2009 so his public debt at the date specified above was $1.3284 trillion not $2.560 trillion.

The second lie was the public debt at the end of St Ronnie's last fiscal budget year, Sept 30, 1989 was $ 2.8574 Trillion not $2.1907 trillion.

Click on the September link:
Government - 1989

 

[Jroc]

Don't you ever get tired of posting lies? Don't you ever check your CON$ervoFascist sources?
The CON$ervative News Service is hardly an honest source of anything!

First lie of all, Obama's first fiscal budget didn't start until Oct 1, 2009, not Jan 20, 2009 so his public debt at the date specified above was $1.3284 trillion not $2.560 trillion.

What the hell does fiscal budget have to do with anything idiot...DEBT GET IT? I didn't say budget deficit... Were the hell do you think he got the money for that stupid stimulus passed in March 09 which cost us almost a trillion dollars? He barrowed it GET IT? He increased the debt.. Get you’re little socialist pea brain out of you’re ass and learn something. Oh wait a minute...You just did.

 

[edthecynic]

Don't you ever get tired of posting lies? Don't you ever check your CON$ervoFascist sources?
The CON$ervative News Service is hardly an honest source of anything!

First lie of all, Obama's first fiscal budget didn't start until Oct 1, 2009, not Jan 20, 2009 so his public debt at the date specified above was $1.3284 trillion not $2.560 trillion.

What the hell does fiscal budget have to do with anything idiot...DEBT GET IT? I didn't say budget deficit... Were the hell do you think he got the money for that stupid stimulus passed in March 09 which cost us almost a trillion dollars? He barrowed it GET IT? He increased the debt.. Get you’re little socialist pea brain out of you’re ass and learn something. Oh wait a minute...You just did.

As I have pointed out SOOOOOOO MANY TIMES already, CON$ will argue both sides of every issue as their spin demands at the time. When the CON$ wanted to call the stimulus a slush fund or if they wanted to show the economy had recovered on its own, they pointed out that only 10% would be spent in 2009, but now that they want to blame Bush's 2009 budget deficit on Obama they say it was was all spent on 2009.

Many here have said only about half has been spent up to today. All you CON$ can't be telling the truth!

Say Anything Shocker: Only 10% Of “Stimulus” Money To Be Spent In 2009
Shocker: Only 10% Of “Stimulus” Money To Be Spent In 2009

Only 10 percent of the spending from the stimulus occurs in 2009. Which means that the vast majority of the almost $800 billion will be spent after the economy has begun to right itself. In other words, after the horse has already decided to return to the barn and close the door on its own.

 

[daveman]

Only 10 percent of the spending from the stimulus occurs in 2009. Which means that the vast majority of the almost $800 billion will be spent after the economy has begun to right itself. In other words, after the horse has already decided to return to the barn and close the door on its own.

So, when Obama said we had to pass this huge bill RIGHT NOW or else we were doomed, he was full of shit, right?

 

[edthecynic]

Only 10 percent of the spending from the stimulus occurs in 2009. Which means that the vast majority of the almost $800 billion will be spent after the economy has begun to right itself. In other words, after the horse has already decided to return to the barn and close the door on its own.

So, when Obama said we had to pass this huge bill RIGHT NOW or else we were doomed, he was full of shit, right?

Or the CON$ are full of shit, which is always the case.

Before the money can be spent the projects have to be started and work has to be done. Do you pay the full amount up front if someone was going to build you a house? Well you are a CON$ervative, so you are probably dumb enough to pay the whole thing in advance, but smarter people only give part of the money up front and pay more as the job is being done.

 

[Charles_Main]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

Yep, and even using those numbers of 6 Trillion over 8 years.(2 of which the Dems were adding to the Bush budgets and discretionary spending.) You are still left with the fact that in the 2 years that the Dems have had Both houses and the WH. They have spent 3 Trillion in new dept. Which is a pace to DOUBLE what bush did. Obamas own projections for the next 6 years added to that 3 already add up to almost 11 Trillion in new Debt in 8 years. Nearly double what Bush added by your own figures. Yet somehow you are not screaming about this spending. Like I am sure you were when Bush was in office. Instead you spend your time trying to discredit those who are screaming about it now.

But of course you will use the tired old line that they had to do it. So why am I bothering.

First of all, it is dishonest to add Bush's budget deficits to Obama's budget years. I could say we should add the deficits from Bush"s two wars, his plan D deficits and the interest on his $6 trillion in deficit to his $6 trillion.
And secondly adding 6 obama years to 3 Dem congress years compares 9 years to 8, also dishonest.

So if we compare Bush's 8 budget deficits to the CBO projection for Obama's 8 years, the CBO projection of $-7,137 which is HIGHER than "Obama's own projections," it still isn't double Bush's. In fact if you back out only the interest on the $11 trillion in debt Obama inherited, which is about $250 billion /year, it would be less than Bush's total.

Even if you take the last 2 Bush budgets, which you pin on the Dems, and the first 6 Obama years, comparing 8 years to 8 years and using the higher CBO numbers it only comes to $-6.5 trillion. Again hardsly double Bush's $-6 trillion.

Powered by Google Docs

Projected Deficits in CBO’s Baseline

(Billions of dollars)

Total Deficit

2010 to 2019 $-7,137

I did not pin the last 2 years of Bush on the Dems. I said the Dems added to it. However my figures attributed all those years to Bush, not to the Dems.

Obama has chosen to continue 1 of the 2 wars and even ramp it up thereby increasing the cost of it. He has also committed to a long term presence in Iraq He could yank them all out. You can have it both ways. EIther he is the president and we count all the spending on his watch, or he is a child unable to handle responsibility. Which is it.

It is an act of desperation to want to count all the war spending since Bush on Bush figures.

No matter how you slice it the facts are the Facts. and these facts are that Obama and the Dems are out spending Bush and the Republicans significantly.

But nice try.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama's first 2010 budget deficit is LESS than Bush's last 2009 deficit. Again listening to CON$ one would have thought it was triple Bush's last budget deficit.

Congressional Budget Office - Monthly Budget Review

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was slightly less than $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and $125 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2009. The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP). The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy. CBO’s deficit estimate is based on data from the Daily Treasury Statements and CBO’s projections; the Treasury Department will report the actual deficit for fiscal year 2010 later this month.

No matter how you slice it the facts are the Facts. and these facts are that Obama and the Dems are out spending Bush and the Republicans significantly.

But nice try.

No the fact is that Obama's first budget deficit is LESS than Bush's last budget deficit, so deficit spending is heading DOWN with Obama's first budget and that's including the continued spending on Bush's wars.

 

[Jroc]

Before the money can be spent the projects have to be started and work has to be done. Do you pay the full amount up front if someone was going to build you a house? Well you are a CON$ervative, so you are probably dumb enough to pay the whole thing in advance, but smarter people only give part of the money up front and pay more as the job is being done.

What? I thought they were shovel ready?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMgSHYGgNvY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMgSHYGgNvY[/ame]


All that money was sent to states to bail out the public sector unions Obama' cronies