Obama 1st Term Spending up 24% vs. Bush's Last Term

[Conservative]

Blog: Even with Nutting's Math, Obama 1st Term Spending up 24% vs. Bush's Last Term

But even if you take all of the FY2009 outlays and blame it on Bush - which would include the second half of TARP that Obama requested; most of the Auto Bailout which Obama pushed; The Mortgage/Loan Medication Program; The Omnibus Spending Bill signed by Obama March 2009; The Stimulus Bill, and the S-CHIP expansion - take all of this and place it on Bush, spending is still up by almost 24% in Obama's first term versus Bush's last.

Total outlays in the four Budget years ending and including FY2009 was $11.882 trillion dollars. Total spending for the following four years will total approximately $14.645 trillion dollars. This, my friends, is an increase of almost 24%.

It's beyond me how Jay Carney has the blatant Chutzpa to use to Market Watch math which claims Obama spending rose by only 1.4% to challenge reporters for "buying into the Republican BS," when in fact even with the most false way of counting the outlays, Obama is still up a solid twenty four percent.

 

[Zander]

It's Bush's fault. Obama is a victim of the worst economy since the great depression. Republicans forced Obama to spend, spend, spend money. Money that we do not have. It was a crisis. He had to save GM. It was the war in Iraq. It was the war in Afghanistan. We have to support our allies in Europe and prop up their banks. Also.... It's Bush's fault. If we didn't spend all this money we don't have, the world would have ended! Solyndra needed that money! We created or saved a lot of jobs. We saved GM and Chrylser. We passed Obamacare. Romney is mean. The Stimulus will show a profit. The multiplier effect! SAVED JOBS!!! Bush did it!!!

 

[Zander]

Some more handy excuses and scapegoats that Obama uses to flower over his atrocious record: George W Bush, faced Economic ”headwinds", Uncooperative Republicans drinking “Slurpees”, Congressional inaction, Super PAC ad spending, George W Bush, lack of stimulus money, Economic woes of Spain, Italy, Greece, George W. Bush, ATM usage, airport ticket kiosks, the Arab Spring, Japanese tsunami, George W Bush, Oil speculators, The Evil 1%, White man's greed, Trayvon Martin, George W Bush.

 

[Conservative]

Some more handy excuses and scapegoats that Obama uses to flower over his atrocious record: George W Bush, faced Economic ”headwinds", Uncooperative Republicans drinking “Slurpees”, Congressional inaction, Super PAC ad spending, George W Bush, lack of stimulus money, Economic woes of Spain, Italy, Greece, George W. Bush, ATM usage, airport ticket kiosks, the Arab Spring, Japanese tsunami, George W Bush, Oil speculators, The Evil 1%, White man's greed, Trayvon Martin, George W Bush.

 

[The Infidel]

Some more handy excuses and scapegoats that Obama uses to flower over his atrocious record: George W Bush, faced Economic ”headwinds", Uncooperative Republicans drinking “Slurpees”, Congressional inaction, Super PAC ad spending, George W Bush, lack of stimulus money, Economic woes of Spain, Italy, Greece, George W. Bush, ATM usage, airport ticket kiosks, the Arab Spring, Japanese tsunami, George W Bush, Oil speculators, The Evil 1%, White man's greed, Trayvon Martin, George W Bush.

 

[naturegirl]

Come on, everyone knows Obama didn't spend any money...........didn't you see Ducky Tucky's thread??

He masterfully is hypnotizing his followers, filling their eyes and ears with illusion all the while laughing about how utterly stupid they must be.

The Siren Song is in full swing.

 

[Conservative]

i see the usual libtar asshats are staying away from this thread in droves

 

[rightwinger]

Just for reference..

Did the Bush spending include the two wars that he was keeping off the books?

 

[SniperFire]

And of course, the truth of the matter is that Pelosi-Reid- and President Elect Obama wouldn't let Bush anywhere near the 2009 budget:

President Obama Signs FY 2009 Omnibus Budget Bill
Written by Michael Wero
Friday, 13 March 2009 14:29

Navajo Nation Washington Office &view=article&id=66resident-obama-sign s-fy-2009-omnibus-budget-bill-&catid=35:fy20 09&Itemid=45

'It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.'


Obama signs massive, 'imperfect' spending bill - politics - White House - msnbc.com



'Feb 26, 2009
OBAMA 2009 BUDGET PROJECTS DEFICIT OF $1.75 TRILLION

President calls for fiscal responsibility and hard choices, but not yet.

Washington, DC - President Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2009 budget will spend money today and burden taxpayers for generations. Under the Presidents proposal, spending will increase to nearly 35 percent of GDP, far from the historical norm of 20 percent, and the deficit will soar to 12.3 percent of GDP, levels not seen since the height of World War II.'

http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/obama -2009-budget-projects-deficit-of-175-trillion



Vote responsibly next time, peeps.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama spending binge never happened!

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

 

[007]

Come on, everyone knows Obama didn't spend any money...........didn't you see Ducky Tucky's thread??

He masterfully is hypnotizing his followers, filling their eyes and ears with illusion all the while laughing about how utterly stupid they must be.

The Siren Song is in full swing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-9eNSniQgg]Barack Obama: Jedi Master - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SniperFire]

Obama spending binge never happened!

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

That meme has been completely destroyed.

Time to move on to your next talking point memo.

 

[rightwinger]

Just a note in closing: Bush's FY2009 budget proposal was $3.1 trillion but after all was set and done, we spent $3.52 trillion during that budget year; an increase in spending of fourteen percent compared to what Bush requested; and a level of spending that is used as a baseline ever since.



Read more: Blog: Even with Nutting's Math, Obama 1st Term Spending up 24% vs. Bush's Last Term

The $3.1 Trillion requested by Bush in 2009 did not include the Iraq/Afghanistan war which Bush covered in a supplimental funding request

Bush's Budget: $688 Billion For War | ThinkProgress

 

[Conservative]

Obama spending binge never happened!

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Obama 1st Term Spending up 24% vs. Bush's Last Term​

 

[Conservative]

bumped to piss off the libtards.

 

[KevinWestern]

Blog: Even with Nutting's Math, Obama 1st Term Spending up 24% vs. Bush's Last Term

But even if you take all of the FY2009 outlays and blame it on Bush - which would include the second half of TARP that Obama requested; most of the Auto Bailout which Obama pushed; The Mortgage/Loan Medication Program; The Omnibus Spending Bill signed by Obama March 2009; The Stimulus Bill, and the S-CHIP expansion - take all of this and place it on Bush, spending is still up by almost 24% in Obama's first term versus Bush's last.

Total outlays in the four Budget years ending and including FY2009 was $11.882 trillion dollars. Total spending for the following four years will total approximately $14.645 trillion dollars. This, my friends, is an increase of almost 24%.

It's beyond me how Jay Carney has the blatant Chutzpa to use to Market Watch math which claims Obama spending rose by only 1.4% to challenge reporters for "buying into the Republican BS," when in fact even with the most false way of counting the outlays, Obama is still up a solid twenty four percent.

The answer is pretty simple, Conservative.

When a country enters into a recession, its government will generally be forced to dish out additional money in the form of safety-net programs like welfare, unemployment, ect, because more citizens (than usual) will be without a job and grasping for the necessities. The recession hit at only just the tail end of Bush’s final term, and was in full swing all throughout Obama’s term 1. That is why Obama's spending is significantly higher. I also want to point out that much of this spending was “auto-pilot” spending, and was setup long before Obama was ever sworn in as POTUS; therefore, I'd imagine that if Bush had taken a theoretical 3rd term (2008-2012), the spending level would have been quite similar to that of Obama’s.

On a somewhat related note, do you think that Obama was in complete control of Federal Gov't spending between 2008-2012, or do you think that the House and Senate also had a say in the matter? Personally, I think the House and Senate also had a say on the matter...


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In any event, I thought spending was good and stimulated the economy.

Why do Democrats hate stimulating the economy?

 

[The T]

Just for reference..

Did the Bush spending include the two wars that he was keeping off the books?

The Congress was FREE to defund it at anytime weren't they?

 

[KevinWestern]

In any event, I thought spending was good and stimulated the economy.

Why do Democrats hate stimulating the economy?

Not clear on what you mean.

Dems are usually the ones who support Keynesian-ish recessionary spending. Whether or not it actually works is up for debate.

Also, I doubt anyone "hates" stimulating the economy. Everyone generally wants the same thing (happiness and prosperity for as many people as possible), however people have different ideas on how to accomplish that..



.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In any event, I thought spending was good and stimulated the economy.

Why do Democrats hate stimulating the economy?

Not clear on what you mean.

Dems are usually the ones who support Keynesian-ish recessionary spending. Whether or not it actually works is up for debate.

Also, I doubt anyone "hates" stimulating the economy. Everyone generally wants the same thing (happiness and prosperity for as many people as possible), however people have different ideas on how to accomplish that...

You need some time to get use to me, I understand. I find mutually exclusive ideas and inconsistencies in the trillion column almost funny and I have a glib way of calling people out on it since starting a comment with "What are you a fucking asshole?" lacks gravitas

Paul "Far Side" Krugman seems to think we don't have a big enough deficit to stimulate the economy and depending on the day and time, Democrats either think deficits are good or bad. I'm just trying to get a coherent explanation from Democrats on their stand on government spending which is in the trillions column. You'd think at some point they'd form an opinion, a sane and coherent opinion, but they never do.