Hope & Change Update: 200,000 small businesses disappeared between 2008 and 2010

[Pheonixops]

That leaves Obama's admin responsible for the other 2/3s of the year.



The 2008 budget was a skeleton.
It depended on continuing resolutions that the Dem-Majority-controlled-government took and ran with.

And they haven't pulled their heads out of their ass and passed a fucking budget since.

Take that up with the Cato Institute!!!!
Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit
You know how Cato is such a democrat rag................

Too funny you do not even read the whole articles you post


.

..though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending​

Of course, you do know that since Papa Obama signed for 2009 budget in March
he had control on the outcome with both Houses being Democrat



The prior post point is still valid

Also from your article

It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.​

So sure Bush sucked
Papa Obama sucks more

thanks for article

"In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. "

"But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. "

 

[Neotrotsky]

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009- Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security.
Papa Obama signed all the rest in March of 2009


The Democrats purposely held off on the process because they hoped for a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills.
Plus, they held off because Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his spending requests.

Remember, Papa Obama was in the Senate when these bills were created



Really if you are trying to promote the belief that Papa Obama does not
spend money-

With trillion dollar deficit spending a year with this administration

good luck with that-


But again
they both sucked

Papa Obama just sucks more
because he spends even more

At least I can admit the truth

 

[hortysir]

Take that up with the Cato Institute!!!!
Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit
You know how Cato is such a democrat rag................

Too funny you do not even read the whole articles you post


.

..though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending​

Of course, you do know that since Papa Obama signed for 2009 budget in March
he had control on the outcome with both Houses being Democrat



The prior post point is still valid

Also from your article

It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.​

So sure Bush sucked
Papa Obama sucks more

thanks for article

"In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. "

"But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. "

That's why I said Obama's only at fault for 2/3

 

[Moonglow]

Comrades,

we must speak on anything but the economy

We must stay focused on the real issues

How Romney spends his money
not how Papa Obama spends taxpayer's money

Double speak, you just can't even concentrate on the OP message.
Hey , Bush was president in 2008. He is a loser if Obama is a loser.

True,

But it grew far worse under Obama. If you can judge Reagans first term as bad then you have to judge Obama's the same.

It was bad under Reagan, he starved us out, Carter, hyperinflation,bad under Ford,had the recesion also. Bush sr, black monday. Things did not get better until Clinton, then before the recession we had illegals taking our work, my recssion started then and contiues until 2010. Now I have more work than I can handle, but fortunately I have a great reputation and people are willing to wait for my services.

 

[Pheonixops]

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009- Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security.
Papa Obama signed all the rest in March of 2009


The Democrats purposely held off on the process because they hoped for a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills.
Plus, they held off because Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his spending requests.

Remember, Papa Obama was in the Senate when these bills were created



Really if you are trying to promote the belief that Papa Obama does not
spend money-

With trillion dollar deficit spending a year with this administration

good luck with that-


But again
they both sucked

Papa Obama just sucks more
because he spends even more

At least I can admit the truth

Where did I say that he didn't spend any money? Where did I state that he's the greatest president? What policies of his have I supported? I'm just trying to do what the Cato Institute did, that is add perspective and accuracy to the issue .

 

[Neotrotsky]

You don't have to

your posts "reek" of the stench of being an "enabler" for Papa Obama

 

[Pheonixops]

Too funny you do not even read the whole articles you post


.

..though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending​

Of course, you do know that since Papa Obama signed for 2009 budget in March
he had control on the outcome with both Houses being Democrat



The prior post point is still valid

Also from your article

It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.​

So sure Bush sucked
Papa Obama sucks more

thanks for article

"In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. "

"But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. "

That's why I said Obama's only at fault for 2/3

I don't know how:

FY 2008=Bush
FY 2009=Bush
FY 2010=Obama

Equals "2/3's Obama's fault".

 

[Neotrotsky]

It started in March of 2008

recalculate

 

[Pheonixops]

You don't have to

your posts "reek" of the stench of being an "enabler" for Papa Obama

That's your surrender, you can't back up your bogus claims. Do you think that the Cato is an "enabler" for President Obama? I quoted their article.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You don't have to

your posts "reek" of the stench of being an "enabler" for Papa Obama

That's your surrender, you can't back up your bogus claims. Do you think that the Cato is an "enabler" for President Obama? I quoted their article.

Not at all
I responded in kind to your prior posts

I was responding to your last question

Don't be mad
because I am right

 

[tjvh]

Obama=all things good
Bush=all things bad
Yeah... We got it, numbskulls. How exactly is that hope and change working out for America again? Feel free to explain....

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama=all things good
Bush=all things bad
Yeah... We got it, numbskulls. How exactly is that hope and change working out for America again? Feel free to explain....

According to the Papa Obama enablers on the left
very good

the chocolate ration went up to 25 grams per week​

 

[Pheonixops]

It started in March of 2008

recalculate

REALLY? REALLY?

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.

 

[Pheonixops]

You don't have to

your posts "reek" of the stench of being an "enabler" for Papa Obama

That's your surrender, you can't back up your bogus claims. Do you think that the Cato is an "enabler" for President Obama? I quoted their article.

Not at all
I responded in kind to your prior posts

I was responding to your last question

Don't be mad
because I am right

No, you are actually wrong.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It started in March of 2008

recalculate

REALLY? REALLY?

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.

Read the article fool
the point of measure began in March of 2008

twit

 

[Neotrotsky]

That's your surrender, you can't back up your bogus claims. Do you think that the Cato is an "enabler" for President Obama? I quoted their article.

Not at all
I responded in kind to your prior posts

I was responding to your last question

Don't be mad
because I am right

No, you are actually wrong.

your posts "reek" of the stench of being an "enabler" for Papa Obama
is wrong?

Hey

it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks for the DEPRESSION, and now total obstruction and fear mongering, dupes.

 

[Pheonixops]

It started in March of 2008

recalculate

REALLY? REALLY?

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.

Read the article fool
the point of measure began in March of 2008

twit

Hey TWIT, that sentence above was quoted from the article! So you are the fucking fool!

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty

 

[Neotrotsky]

too funny

speaking of "enablers" for Papa Obama

go back to the OP and the original article clearly states
they are talking about March of 2008 to March 2010

The other part you refer to is not from the article but a point
I put into another post, as well

Again you can not count all of 2008 or all of 2010
So the poster who said 2/3 for Papa Obama was
on target

Liberals are so bad with math
no wonder Papa Obama deficits spends the way he does

Of course, you don't mind that last statement since you are not an enabler for Papa Obama

 

[Pheonixops]

Not at all
I responded in kind to your prior posts

I was responding to your last question

Don't be mad
because I am right

No, you are actually wrong.

your posts "reek" of the stench of being an "enabler" for Papa Obama
is wrong?

Hey

it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want

Yeah, keep on doing this: