New Obama Record-$1.2T 2012 budget deficit

[freedombecki]

My apologies for being off topic a little.

 

[freedombecki]

Whole point is obama is unfit for office, he is a one man wrecking crew,he has financially destroyed this Country, and it will only get worst......

Wow, how con can you get. No stats, no links, just con opinion. Just part of believing what you want to believe.
Check this out, and you will find out why you believe what you believe:
New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

Gee whiz, Rshermr. that could say anything tomorrow the way you change stuff around to make yourself look good and everybody else look bad.

You have advanced yourself to intermediate level of LLWWacko. "congratulations"

 

[Rshermr]

Whole point is obama is unfit for office, he is a one man wrecking crew,he has financially destroyed this Country, and it will only get worst......

He gets bad advice because he avoids the construct to get Congressional approval by waiting for them to go on vacation, then appointing whoever the hell he wishes, bypassing congress. He implements his own edicts also bypassing the Congress.
What you are refering to, as nearly as I can tell, are recess appointments. You apparently believe they are being overused by obama, or are unique to obama. You should check your "facts", which is really easy to do in this case. Obama has 32 recess appointments, Bush 2 had 171. Here is the link that actually proves the numbers:
http://www.senate.w,gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P
For your education, recess appointments have been made by every president for a long time now.

Some traditions should be continued. This trampling all over the Constitution needs to see the door. Since that's not gonna happen, we need to shove His Royal Eminence back out the door. He is putting all caps on the phrase "not qualified to be president."
And you are so correct. We've now been downgraded twice due to democrats trying to run mortgage lending into the ground with freebies for Democrats that Republicans have no access to. They choose the least fair thing for the American people and call it something like "Fairness Act," which is a misnomer to conceal hidden loopholes for Democrat Congress to lather goodies on their families like the Pelosi Solyndra scam that guaranteed her relative $535 million in bad loan recovery a year after Obama made threatening calls to the Treasury to write a check right there on the spot for $535 million to those relatives and collaborators, then they jerked the rug out from under 1100 employees with pink slips with no notice whatever. I've never really felt like slugging someone before Fancy Nancy sunk her talons into the treasury at our expense ...

Wow, a paragraph full of BS. Any proof of any of what you just said. Or do you just listen to Fox to get your information
Here, check this out:
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/It-s-Official-Watching-Fo-in-General_News-120522-817.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Administration projects $1.2T 2012 budget deficit | Political Headlines | Comcast

The White House predicts this year's federal budget deficit will end up at $1.2 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year of trillion dollar-plus deficits during President Barack Obama's administration.

The bleak figures, while expected, are sure to add fuel to the already heated presidential campaign, in which Obama's handling of the economy and the budget is a main topic. Friday's release came as the government announced that U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the second quarter of this year, as consumers cut back sharply on spending.

The White House budget office also predicts for this year that the economy will grow at a modest 2.6 percent annual rate and that the jobless rate will average 8 percent. It forecasts modest growth of 2.6 percent next year — down from the 3.0 percent it predicted in February — before rising to 4.0 percent in 2014. Unemployment would remain above 7 percent through the end of 2014, registering at 7.3 percent, the report predicts.

Obama keeps breaking records, what a guy ........and we continue to spend , spend , spend.......

View attachment 20207

I hate to burst your con bubble, but the record budget deficit was W's last budget, at $1.41T. Here is the link to actual numbers. Your link goes to an article with no author, and no footnotes. Not sure where those numbers and statements came from. As you will note in the referenced article, That number was not adjusted for inflation, which would be over $1.5T in today's dollars.
Really, if you are trying to make a point based on untruth, you should try something easier to disprove.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

I hate to bust your bubble but any source that claims Clinton has a surplus should not be used,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5705299-post16.html Yesterday at 8:07 PM

Last edited by Rshermr; Yesterday at 10:03 PM.

Oh, my from a concessionary speech to a blast from talking points. Nothing like the shifting sands of omission errors among some posters, and I'm not going to forget this one! What a 180-degree turnaround!

So we have one of those?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Administration projects $1.2T 2012 budget deficit | Political Headlines | Comcast

The White House predicts this year's federal budget deficit will end up at $1.2 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year of trillion dollar-plus deficits during President Barack Obama's administration.

The bleak figures, while expected, are sure to add fuel to the already heated presidential campaign, in which Obama's handling of the economy and the budget is a main topic. Friday's release came as the government announced that U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the second quarter of this year, as consumers cut back sharply on spending.

The White House budget office also predicts for this year that the economy will grow at a modest 2.6 percent annual rate and that the jobless rate will average 8 percent. It forecasts modest growth of 2.6 percent next year — down from the 3.0 percent it predicted in February — before rising to 4.0 percent in 2014. Unemployment would remain above 7 percent through the end of 2014, registering at 7.3 percent, the report predicts.

Obama keeps breaking records, what a guy ........and we continue to spend , spend , spend.......

View attachment 20207

I hate to burst your con bubble, but the record budget deficit was W's last budget, at $1.41T. Here is the link to actual numbers. Your link goes to an article with no author, and no footnotes. Not sure where those numbers and statements came from. As you will note in the referenced article, That number was not adjusted for inflation, which would be over $1.5T in today's dollars.
Really, if you are trying to make a point based on untruth, you should try something easier to disprove.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You are a fracking idiot. The 2009 deficit does not belong to Bush, and only a partisan hack would try to claim it does. Even if we actually credit Bush with the entire federal budget for 2009, which would be dishonest, the ARRA was lobbied for by Obama, and signed by him. That makes almost $800 billion of that $1.5 trillion all his.

By the way, since the ARRA is not considered on budget spending, and a portion of the 2010 deficit came from the the remnants of the 2009 ARRA, this year is actually the largest budgetary deficit ever, even if the Senate never actually passed a budget. Yet you, and Obama, want me to belive he actually cut $1.2 trillion in spending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Administration projects $1.2T 2012 budget deficit | Political Headlines | Comcast

The White House predicts this year's federal budget deficit will end up at $1.2 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year of trillion dollar-plus deficits during President Barack Obama's administration.

The bleak figures, while expected, are sure to add fuel to the already heated presidential campaign, in which Obama's handling of the economy and the budget is a main topic. Friday's release came as the government announced that U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the second quarter of this year, as consumers cut back sharply on spending.

The White House budget office also predicts for this year that the economy will grow at a modest 2.6 percent annual rate and that the jobless rate will average 8 percent. It forecasts modest growth of 2.6 percent next year — down from the 3.0 percent it predicted in February — before rising to 4.0 percent in 2014. Unemployment would remain above 7 percent through the end of 2014, registering at 7.3 percent, the report predicts.

Obama keeps breaking records, what a guy ........and we continue to spend , spend , spend.......

View attachment 20207

I hate to burst your con bubble, but the record budget deficit was W's last budget, at $1.41T. Here is the link to actual numbers. Your link goes to an article with no author, and no footnotes. Not sure where those numbers and statements came from. As you will note in the referenced article, That number was not adjusted for inflation, which would be over $1.5T in today's dollars.
Really, if you are trying to make a point based on untruth, you should try something easier to disprove.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

but the record budget deficit was W's last budget, at $1.41T.

How can you call it Bush's budget?
Blame Bush for Obama's stimulus which was spent in fiscal 2009?
Or for the bank portion of TARP that was repaid in fiscal 2010 or 2011?
Sounds untruthful.

Using facts is lying, just like directly quoting Obama's words.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Administration projects $1.2T 2012 budget deficit | Political Headlines | Comcast

The White House predicts this year's federal budget deficit will end up at $1.2 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year of trillion dollar-plus deficits during President Barack Obama's administration.

The bleak figures, while expected, are sure to add fuel to the already heated presidential campaign, in which Obama's handling of the economy and the budget is a main topic. Friday's release came as the government announced that U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the second quarter of this year, as consumers cut back sharply on spending.

The White House budget office also predicts for this year that the economy will grow at a modest 2.6 percent annual rate and that the jobless rate will average 8 percent. It forecasts modest growth of 2.6 percent next year — down from the 3.0 percent it predicted in February — before rising to 4.0 percent in 2014. Unemployment would remain above 7 percent through the end of 2014, registering at 7.3 percent, the report predicts.

Obama keeps breaking records, what a guy ........and we continue to spend , spend , spend.......

View attachment 20207

I hate to burst your con bubble, but the record budget deficit was W's last budget, at $1.41T. Here is the link to actual numbers. Your link goes to an article with no author, and no footnotes. Not sure where those numbers and statements came from. As you will note in the referenced article, That number was not adjusted for inflation, which would be over $1.5T in today's dollars.
Really, if you are trying to make a point based on untruth, you should try something easier to disprove.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You are a fracking idiot. The 2009 deficit does not belong to Bush, and only a partisan hack would try to claim it does. Even if we actually credit Bush with the entire federal budget for 2009, which would be dishonest, the ARRA was lobbied for by Obama, and signed by him. That makes almost $800 billion of that $1.5 trillion all his.

By the way, since the ARRA is not considered on budget spending, and a portion of the 2010 deficit came from the the remnants of the 2009 ARRA, this year is actually the largest budgetary deficit ever, even if the Senate never actually passed a budget. Yet you, and Obama, want me to belive he actually cut $1.2 trillion in spending.

His source also said Clinton has a surplus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all, this budget deficit is the Republicans' fault. They are responsible for the Bush Tax cuts, the Bush Wars and the Bush Unfunded Medicare Part D benefit. Those are the big reasons for our deficits.

Second, spending is the only way out of the mess the Republicans created. In fact, if were spending now, that is, if the stimulus hadn't already run it's course, we wouldn't be experiencing the bad GDP performance.

Spend. Spend. Spend. It's the only way out.

First of all, this budget deficit is the Republicans' fault. They are responsible for the Bush Tax cuts, the Bush Wars and the Bush Unfunded Medicare Part D benefit. Those are the big reasons for our deficits.

And yet, all of these were in place in 2007, when the deficit was $162 billion.

Certainly. However, the full effect of the Republicans' devastation of the economy hadn't yet had an effect on the economy. The combination of the two, destruction of the economy and bad policies, have created deficits as far into the future as we can see.

Are you talking about the boost in GDP when the Bush tax cuts hit, or the increase in federal revenue that resulted from them? Have you ever actually wondered if there was a law that Bush signed that can actually be pointed to as causing the recession that started in 2007? Was there something he signed that had a direct, and negative, impact on the economy? One that was actually predicted by a majority of economists from both sides of the aisle?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

However, the full effect of the Republicans' devastation of the economy hadn't yet had an effect on the economy.

Those Republican things had been in place for many years and yet the deficit had been declining since 2004.

It might be more accurate to say the full effect of the Democrat takeover of the House and Senate hadn't yet taken effect.

The combination of the two, destruction of the economy and bad policies, have created deficits as far into the future as we can see.

Yes, Obama has certainly done that. Don't worry, things will improve when he leaves in January.

Of course, as a con, you never have the integrity to take credit for those things that do not work. Like the Bush economy. Which was an unmitigated disaster. But, you as a true con can not admit that we ended up in the worst recession since 1929 because of repub policies.
Instead, you blame Obama for the deficit. Consider:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree….

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

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.…

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear…
Obama Lowest Spending President in Recent Memory » Jeff Wartman

Then there is the national debt, which cons continue to blame obama for, in its entirety. So, consider:
When Reagan took office, the national debt was $930B
Under Reagan, natl debt ended at $2700B $1770B increase
Under Bush1 $4170B $1470B increase
Under Clinton $5662B $1492B increase
Under Bush2 $10,700B $5,038B increase
Under Obama $15,126B $4,426B increase, As of 1/12
(from National Debt by Presidential Term - per Capita and as Percentage of GDP
Since Reagan's presidency, the national debt has increased by $14,196B. Of that
$4,918 came under Democratic presidents. So, republican presidents are responsible
for $9.2T in national debt.
So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans?? Republicans have followed the two santa clause plan since it was espoused by jude wanniski in 1976. It says, spend for what people want when republicans are in power. Then blame the dems for the deficit and espouse tax decreases and cutting spending when out of power. Deficits go up when repubs are in power but. Has been happening since Reagans term.

So, what would cons have us do?? Why, they push the con dogma. Decrease taxes. decrease spending. That will fix things, right??
Well, no. That policy has never worked. Drove the economy into the ground for Reagan, causing him to borrow to the point he tripled the national debt. then he did the rational thing. Deficit spending, which worked.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Liberal math, I love it!

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?
That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.

So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans??

I don't know about other conservatives, but I think Bush spent way way too much.
In 8 years, he increased the national debt by about $5 trillion.
Obama did the same in less than 3.5 years. I never thought it was possible to make Bush look like a responsible spender, but Obama has done it.

The logic is simple.

Don't pass a real budget for Bush to sign, just a stop gap bill that gets you through February. Give the rest of the 2009 budget to Obama, throw in a massive increase in spending, toss in a bigger stimulus, and let Obama get the credit when all that Keynesian spending provides the biggest economic boost in the history of the world.

Wait, it didn't work? Has to be Bush's fault for the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. Largest increase in federal spending ever? It was Bush's budget that did it. but, hey, spending is good, so lets pretend the budget always included the stimulus, since it didn't work anyway, and then cut spending from the level of the budget and the stimulus to claim Obama is saving money.

It has to work, we believe it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?

For several reasons:

1. It happened during Bush's final budget year.
2. It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.
3. The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years. In fact, spending was still happening this year.
4. About 1/3 of the stimulus was in tax decreased demanded by the republican congress. Per the CBO, those tax decreases had almost no impact

So, you admit the stimulus was not part of Bush's budget, yet you still want to count it against him because it is politically convenient, and anyone who calls you on it is dishonest.

Gotta love progressive logic.

 

[Nova78]

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand the figures. In the US today, it takes about $105 of debt to create $100 dollars of GDP. And now this economic genius wants to create even more debt to support Wall Street and the banks (Yep! Believe it or not). Imagine a collapsing stock market in an election year. Of course he spins it by telling all that he is caring for the underdog. What BS! The figures speak for themselves. The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and five months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it." If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. If GDP grows at an annual rate of 3%, it will take $120 of debt to create $100 dollars of GDP. (similar to Italy). More simply put, a household that earns $100,000 will need loans of $120,000 to support that income. Bottom line, the US is heading into bankruptcy and the American dream is becoming a nightmare.

And who is it that supports this president, besides the super elitist left media and the occupy stoners? His largest support base are the public sector unions. Let's take the average municipal worker in Wisconsin. These folks can retire after 25 years of service and continue to receive full salary and healthcare for the rest of their lives. Millions of parasites swarming all over the US economy and sucking the life out of hard working families and their children. Almost 50% of US citizens don't pay federal income taxes while Obama campaigns for the other 50% to pay their fair share. The Greek socialists would be proud of these figures.

In conclusion, its clear to anyone with an inkling of common sense that all this man cares about is re-election. If he is elected for four more years, extinguish the lights. The nightmare will quickly metamorphose into reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I hate to burst your con bubble, but the record budget deficit was W's last budget, at $1.41T. Here is the link to actual numbers. Your link goes to an article with no author, and no footnotes. Not sure where those numbers and statements came from. As you will note in the referenced article, That number was not adjusted for inflation, which would be over $1.5T in today's dollars.
Really, if you are trying to make a point based on untruth, you should try something easier to disprove.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You are a fracking idiot. The 2009 deficit does not belong to Bush, and only a partisan hack would try to claim it does. Even if we actually credit Bush with the entire federal budget for 2009, which would be dishonest, the ARRA was lobbied for by Obama, and signed by him. That makes almost $800 billion of that $1.5 trillion all his.

By the way, since the ARRA is not considered on budget spending, and a portion of the 2010 deficit came from the the remnants of the 2009 ARRA, this year is actually the largest budgetary deficit ever, even if the Senate never actually passed a budget. Yet you, and Obama, want me to belive he actually cut $1.2 trillion in spending.

His source also said Clinton has a surplus.

To be fair, Newt Gingrich also said Clinton had a surplus. Technically, if you count the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, he did. That is political math, which I never use.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bank atms and airport kiosks continue to thwart Obama's best efforts at economic recovery

 

[Rshermr]

You are a fracking idiot. The 2009 deficit does not belong to Bush, and only a partisan hack would try to claim it does. Even if we actually credit Bush with the entire federal budget for 2009, which would be dishonest, the ARRA was lobbied for by Obama, and signed by him. That makes almost $800 billion of that $1.5 trillion all his.

By the way, since the ARRA is not considered on budget spending, and a portion of the 2010 deficit came from the the remnants of the 2009 ARRA, this year is actually the largest budgetary deficit ever, even if the Senate never actually passed a budget. Yet you, and Obama, want me to belive he actually cut $1.2 trillion in spending.

His source also said Clinton has a surplus.

To be fair, Newt Gingrich also said Clinton had a surplus. Technically, if you count the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, he did. That is political math, which I never use.

According to the CBO, the last surplus was under Clinton. I know you want to make it seem untrue, but you are quite wrong. How about the Surplus under Reagan? Oh, that's right. He actually had a Deficit. Well, then there was Bush 1. Oh, thats right. He had an even bigger Deficit. Well, we can see Clinton had one. How about Bush 2? Surely with all of his good work, he must have had one. Nope, record deficit.
You actually need to look at the numbers. The budget deficit of Bush would have been a record, with or without the ARRA. Do a bit of research, and you will see it is true. If I am wrong, prove it, though I do not for a minute believe you either can or will.

 

[Rshermr]

By the way, the cost of ARRA in 2009 was $114B. Cheap cost to Bush's budget,considering the damage done by the economy he left.

CBO | Actual ARRA Spending Over the 2009-2011 Period Quite Close to CBO's Original Estimate

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, as a con, you never have the integrity to take credit for those things that do not work. Like the Bush economy. Which was an unmitigated disaster. But, you as a true con can not admit that we ended up in the worst recession since 1929 because of repub policies.
Instead, you blame Obama for the deficit. Consider:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree….

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

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.…

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear…
Obama Lowest Spending President in Recent Memory » Jeff Wartman

Then there is the national debt, which cons continue to blame obama for, in its entirety. So, consider:
When Reagan took office, the national debt was $930B
Under Reagan, natl debt ended at $2700B $1770B increase
Under Bush1 $4170B $1470B increase
Under Clinton $5662B $1492B increase
Under Bush2 $10,700B $5,038B increase
Under Obama $15,126B $4,426B increase, As of 1/12
(from National Debt by Presidential Term - per Capita and as Percentage of GDP
Since Reagan's presidency, the national debt has increased by $14,196B. Of that
$4,918 came under Democratic presidents. So, republican presidents are responsible
for $9.2T in national debt.
So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans?? Republicans have followed the two santa clause plan since it was espoused by jude wanniski in 1976. It says, spend for what people want when republicans are in power. Then blame the dems for the deficit and espouse tax decreases and cutting spending when out of power. Deficits go up when repubs are in power but. Has been happening since Reagans term.

So, what would cons have us do?? Why, they push the con dogma. Decrease taxes. decrease spending. That will fix things, right??
Well, no. That policy has never worked. Drove the economy into the ground for Reagan, causing him to borrow to the point he tripled the national debt. then he did the rational thing. Deficit spending, which worked.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Liberal math, I love it!

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?
That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.

You say it is liberal math. Which it is not. It is simply math, based on CBO numbers. So do you have additional issues???

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
For several reasons:

1. It happened during Bush's final budget year.
2. It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.
3. The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years. In fact, spending was still happening this year.
4. About 1/3 of the stimulus was in tax decreased demanded by the republican congress. Per the CBO, those tax decreases had almost no impact

Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?

That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.
Dishonest?? Looks to me like another con attempt to misplace economic blame. So, again, it was part of the 2009 Bush budget. And it asked for by Bush to stave off a depression created by his own policies. So, what do you want, to suggest that Bush's successor should pay for his mess??

So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans?? *

I don't know about other conservatives, but I think Bush spent way way too much.
In 8 years, he increased the national debt by about $5 trillion.
Obama did the same in less than 3.5 years. I never thought it was possible to make Bush look like a responsible spender, but Obama has done it.

So, again the con effort to dodge the problem that they created.
1.Had the biggest recession since 1929 coming out of the bush presidency.
2. Bush Created the worst unemployment situation since Reagan in 2002.
3.Then blame obama because he looses revenue on a huge scale because the unemployed do not pay taxes..
4. Then republicans refuse to allow any deficit spending. The only spending that got through was with a democratic house, and every single republican voted against it in the Senate.
5.Repubs all sign a pledge to not increase any taxes, and proceed to vote against any tax increases.
So you wonder why the Deficit has increased? Or do you? Maybe you actually do understand but simply continue to push that good old repub dogma.


And by the way, Reagan tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. Kinda forgot that one, eh.
And Bush 1 was on a course to beat Reagan's record, but did not have a second term to continue it.

You say it is liberal math. Which it is not. It is simply math, based on CBO numbers.

Blaming Bush for spending Obama added before FY 2009 was over....is liberal math.

It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.

That is awesome. It's still Obama's, not Bush's spending.

The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years.

That is awesome. To be honest, you should find out exactly how much was spent in FY 2009.

it was part of the 2009 Bush budget.

Yes, TARP was part of Bush's budget.

And it asked for by Bush to stave off a depression created by his own policies.

Not entirely his own policies, but okay.

So, what do you want, to suggest that Bush's successor should pay for his mess??

No way! Obama should not pay for the portion of TARP that Bush spent before he left office.
Like the $250 billion that was spent to buy bank preferred stock. That should not be charged to Obama. But when it's paid back, shouldn't it be credited back to Bush?
It would be dishonest to credit $250 billion to Obama for repayments, right?
And if Obama gave $60 billion to the automakers in 2009 that they'll never repay, should that be charged against Bush? Not if you're being honest.
If Obama gave $500 million to Solyndra and they repaid it under President Romney, it shouldn't be charged against Obama.

Then republicans refuse to allow any deficit spending.

I wish, but unfortunately, the national debt has increased by more than $1.8 trillion since January 2011.

 

[Rshermr]

his source also said clinton has a surplus.

to be fair, newt gingrich also said clinton had a surplus. Technically, if you count the social security and medicare trust funds, he did. That is political math, which i never use.

according to the cbo, the last surplus was under clinton. I know you want to make it seem untrue, but you are quite wrong. How about the surplus under reagan? Oh, that's right. He actually had a deficit. Well, then there was bush 1. Oh, thats right. He had an even bigger deficit. Well, we can see clinton had one. How about bush 2? Surely with all of his good work, he must have had one. Nope, record deficit.
You actually need to look at the numbers. The budget deficit of bush would have been a record, with or without the arra. Do a bit of research, and you will see it is true. If i am wrong, prove it, though i do not for a minute believe you either can or will.

bs.

 

[Rshermr]

Of course, as a con, you never have the integrity to take credit for those things that do not work. Like the Bush economy. Which was an unmitigated disaster. But, you as a true con can not admit that we ended up in the worst recession since 1929 because of repub policies.
Instead, you blame Obama for the deficit. Consider:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree….

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

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.…

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear…
Obama Lowest Spending President in Recent Memory » Jeff Wartman

Then there is the national debt, which cons continue to blame obama for, in its entirety. So, consider:
When Reagan took office, the national debt was $930B
Under Reagan, natl debt ended at $2700B $1770B increase
Under Bush1 $4170B $1470B increase
Under Clinton $5662B $1492B increase
Under Bush2 $10,700B $5,038B increase
Under Obama $15,126B $4,426B increase, As of 1/12
(from National Debt by Presidential Term - per Capita and as Percentage of GDP
Since Reagan's presidency, the national debt has increased by $14,196B. Of that
$4,918 came under Democratic presidents. So, republican presidents are responsible
for $9.2T in national debt.
So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans?? Republicans have followed the two santa clause plan since it was espoused by jude wanniski in 1976. It says, spend for what people want when republicans are in power. Then blame the dems for the deficit and espouse tax decreases and cutting spending when out of power. Deficits go up when repubs are in power but. Has been happening since Reagans term.

So, what would cons have us do?? Why, they push the con dogma. Decrease taxes. decrease spending. That will fix things, right??
Well, no. That policy has never worked. Drove the economy into the ground for Reagan, causing him to borrow to the point he tripled the national debt. then he did the rational thing. Deficit spending, which worked.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Liberal math, I love it!

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?
That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.

You say it is liberal math. Which it is not. It is simply math, based on CBO numbers. So do you have additional issues???

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
For several reasons:

1. It happened during Bush's final budget year.
2. It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.
3. The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years. In fact, spending was still happening this year.
4. About 1/3 of the stimulus was in tax decreased demanded by the republican congress. Per the CBO, those tax decreases had almost no impact

Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?

That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.
Dishonest?? Looks to me like another con attempt to misplace economic blame. So, again, it was part of the 2009 Bush budget. And it asked for by Bush to stave off a depression created by his own policies. So, what do you want, to suggest that Bush's successor should pay for his mess??

So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans?? *

I don't know about other conservatives, but I think Bush spent way way too much.
In 8 years, he increased the national debt by about $5 trillion.
Obama did the same in less than 3.5 years. I never thought it was possible to make Bush look like a responsible spender, but Obama has done it.

So, again the con effort to dodge the problem that they created.
1.Had the biggest recession since 1929 coming out of the bush presidency.
2. Bush Created the worst unemployment situation since Reagan in 2002.
3.Then blame obama because he looses revenue on a huge scale because the unemployed do not pay taxes..
4. Then republicans refuse to allow any deficit spending. The only spending that got through was with a democratic house, and every single republican voted against it in the Senate.
5.Repubs all sign a pledge to not increase any taxes, and proceed to vote against any tax increases.
So you wonder why the Deficit has increased? Or do you? Maybe you actually do understand but simply continue to push that good old repub dogma.


And by the way, Reagan tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. Kinda forgot that one, eh.
And Bush 1 was on a course to beat Reagan's record, but did not have a second term to continue it.

You say it is liberal math. Which it is not. It is simply math, based on CBO numbers.

Blaming Bush for spending Obama added before FY 2009 was over....is liberal math.

It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.

That is awesome. It's still Obama's, not Bush's spending.

The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years.

That is awesome. To be honest, you should find out exactly how much was spent in FY 2009.

it was part of the 2009 Bush budget.

Yes, TARP was part of Bush's budget.

And it asked for by Bush to stave off a depression created by his own policies.

Not entirely his own policies, but okay.

So, what do you want, to suggest that Bush's successor should pay for his mess??

No way! Obama should not pay for the portion of TARP that Bush spent before he left office.
Like the $250 billion that was spent to buy bank preferred stock. That should not be charged to Obama. But when it's paid back, shouldn't it be credited back to Bush?
It would be dishonest to credit $250 billion to Obama for repayments, right?
And if Obama gave $60 billion to the automakers in 2009 that they'll never repay, should that be charged against Bush? Not if you're being honest.
If Obama gave $500 million to Solyndra and they repaid it under President Romney, it shouldn't be charged against Obama.

Then republicans refuse to allow any deficit spending.

I wish, but unfortunately, the national debt has increased by more than $1.8 trillion since January 2011.

Wow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Liberal math, I love it!

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?
That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.

You say it is liberal math. Which it is not. It is simply math, based on CBO numbers. So do you have additional issues???

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

Why would you count Obama's stimulus and other 2009 spending on Bush?
For several reasons:

1. It happened during Bush's final budget year.
2. It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.
3. The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years. In fact, spending was still happening this year.
4. About 1/3 of the stimulus was in tax decreased demanded by the republican congress. Per the CBO, those tax decreases had almost no impact

Why would you blame spending bank TARP on Bush in fiscal 2009 and then credit Obama in fiscal 2010 when hundreds of billions of that bank TARP were repaid?

That's dishonest, so of course, as a liberal, you embrace it.
Dishonest?? Looks to me like another con attempt to misplace economic blame. So, again, it was part of the 2009 Bush budget. And it asked for by Bush to stave off a depression created by his own policies. So, what do you want, to suggest that Bush's successor should pay for his mess??

So, why do the cons forget about the national debt under Republicans?? *

I don't know about other conservatives, but I think Bush spent way way too much.
In 8 years, he increased the national debt by about $5 trillion.
Obama did the same in less than 3.5 years. I never thought it was possible to make Bush look like a responsible spender, but Obama has done it.

So, again the con effort to dodge the problem that they created.
1.Had the biggest recession since 1929 coming out of the bush presidency.
2. Bush Created the worst unemployment situation since Reagan in 2002.
3.Then blame obama because he looses revenue on a huge scale because the unemployed do not pay taxes..
4. Then republicans refuse to allow any deficit spending. The only spending that got through was with a democratic house, and every single republican voted against it in the Senate.
5.Repubs all sign a pledge to not increase any taxes, and proceed to vote against any tax increases.
So you wonder why the Deficit has increased? Or do you? Maybe you actually do understand but simply continue to push that good old repub dogma.


And by the way, Reagan tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. Kinda forgot that one, eh.
And Bush 1 was on a course to beat Reagan's record, but did not have a second term to continue it.

You say it is liberal math. Which it is not. It is simply math, based on CBO numbers.

Blaming Bush for spending Obama added before FY 2009 was over....is liberal math.

It was a stimulus meant to offset the downturn caused by the bush policies during his presidency.

That is awesome. It's still Obama's, not Bush's spending.

The spending did not occur primarily in 2009, but primarily in later years.

That is awesome. To be honest, you should find out exactly how much was spent in FY 2009.

it was part of the 2009 Bush budget.

Yes, TARP was part of Bush's budget.

And it asked for by Bush to stave off a depression created by his own policies.

Not entirely his own policies, but okay.

So, what do you want, to suggest that Bush's successor should pay for his mess??

No way! Obama should not pay for the portion of TARP that Bush spent before he left office.
Like the $250 billion that was spent to buy bank preferred stock. That should not be charged to Obama. But when it's paid back, shouldn't it be credited back to Bush?
It would be dishonest to credit $250 billion to Obama for repayments, right?
And if Obama gave $60 billion to the automakers in 2009 that they'll never repay, should that be charged against Bush? Not if you're being honest.
If Obama gave $500 million to Solyndra and they repaid it under President Romney, it shouldn't be charged against Obama.

Then republicans refuse to allow any deficit spending.

I wish, but unfortunately, the national debt has increased by more than $1.8 trillion since January 2011.

Wow.

I know. Actual facts make your claims look ridiculous.