Obama Ended Recession 4 months into Presidency... Under (43)'s Final Budget!

[uscitizen]

A good things that cons do their history revisions in pencil.

Ya cause you and the left have not argued that 2009 was Bush's budget. Right? I mean YOU get your story right, either 2009 was Bush's budget or it was Obama's, which is it?

that is what many on the right seemed to have a problem with. It is history in many posts on this board.

 

[Care4all]

A good things that cons do their history revisions in pencil.

Ya cause you and the left have not argued that 2009 was Bush's budget. Right? I mean YOU get your story right, either 2009 was Bush's budget or it was Obama's, which is it?

the budget for fiscal 2009 is attributed as President bush's budget....it was you arguing that it was not.....have you now changed your mind?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Question is: Did and does congress stay within the budget?

 

[Flopper]

Question is: Did and does congress stay within the budget?

Of course they didn't. The 2009 budget was created by the Bush administration before the recession, therefore it reflected none of the cost needed to deal with the recession. TARP was passed by Congress with bilateral support in the fall of 2008 before Obama took office. It became the biggest budget buster in the 2009 budget.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Question is: Did and does congress stay within the budget?

I hope not. I'm sure the real Marxists want to see our economy fail. I don't.

 

[Avatar4321]

GDP feel the last two quarters of the Bush presidency and unemployed rose 5.5% to 7.4%. Bush left office in middle of worst credit crisis within the last 50 years or longer. I think Obama could have done quite well without this inheritance.

Obama's Budget is in force...and he's escalated the Debt...Added onto it...needlessly. But he had to take over GM and other entities...didn't he?

And Yes Bush screwed up...

However...?

The panel that determines the timing of recessions concluded Monday that this one ended - technically, anyway - in June 2009, and lasted 18 months. The duration makes it the longest since World War II.
It may be over, but you won't be hearing any cheers from the millions of Americans who are struggling to find a job. Or are worried about the ones they have. Or have lost their homes. Or are behind on the mortgage.
"Every single one of the individuals who wrote the report needs a serious reality check," said Bob Johnson of the Queens borough of New York, who is 46, had worked in communications and has been looking for a job for more than three years.
Not that it's the fault of the academics - in this case the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of economists based in Cambridge, Mass. It's their job to declare when recessions officially begin and end.
Their finding is one that economic historians spend a lot of time pondering. Politicians care, too. They don't want to be blamed for downturns that happen on their watch.
One of those politicians is President Barack Obama, who inherited the recession - it began in December 2007, according to the bureau. Obama found little reason Monday to celebrate that it had officially ended.
"The hole was so deep that a lot of people out there are still hurting," the president, whose Democratic Party faces a likely setback in the midterm elections, said at a town-hall meeting sponsored by CNBC.

Obama made it worse by his actions...which the OP alluded to.

Obama took what he 'Inherited' and made it WORSE...why don't you tell those STILL outta work?

Mortaging their homes...being kicked OUT of thier homes?

Tell it to those that are using their life savings trying to get by Because of Obama's policies? This Congress?

Obama Care...healthcare costs going UP and it isn't even in force yet?

My advice to you? Tey again. Stop making excuses. Obama saw this as an oppritunity to unleash his brand of Marxism/Socialism to 'Return the WEALTH TO THE PEOPLE'...By thrusting them into slavery to the Government.

Come join us here in the real world...and stop making excuses for your messiah's fuck ups...and that of this Statist Congress that means to stand in YOUR way.

You have Mark Levin in your sig. Credibility shot/ ad hominem.

In other words, you can't address a single one of his points

 

[SFC Ollie]

So the budget means little or nothing. Congress has been spending above the budget for many many years. And most of those years they have been Democrat controlled.

Just the facts....................................

 

[Care4all]

So the budget means little or nothing. Congress has been spending above the budget for many many years. And most of those years they have been Democrat controlled.

Just the facts....................................

no ollie, most were not democratic controlled....most in the last decade were republican controlled that overspent. I can show you, via reports from cbo or the gao, if you would like?

 

[mal]

So the budget means little or nothing. Congress has been spending above the budget for many many years. And most of those years they have been Democrat controlled.

Just the facts....................................

no ollie, most were not democratic controlled....most in the last decade were republican controlled that overspent. I can show you, via reports from cbo or the gao, if you would like?

The HEAVY Spending has been since the DemocRATS and a Lame Duck (43)...

2006 to 2008 under a DemocRAT Congress was Bad enough...

2008 to today?...

Come on Care, you Know the Numbers.



peace...

 

[Big Bad Bob]

Question is: Did and does congress stay within the budget?

I hope not. I'm sure the real Marxists want to see our economy fail. I don't.

Man that was really bright! Especially coming from a brain-dead lefty!

 

[Care4all]

So the budget means little or nothing. Congress has been spending above the budget for many many years. And most of those years they have been Democrat controlled.

Just the facts....................................

no ollie, most were not democratic controlled....most in the last decade were republican controlled that overspent. I can show you, via reports from cbo or the gao, if you would like?

The HEAVY Spending has been since the DemocRATS and a Lame Duck (43)...

2006 to 2008 under a DemocRAT Congress was Bad enough...

2008 to today?...

Come on Care, you Know the Numbers.



peace...

democratic first full year fiscal budget was for fiscal year 2008, begining oct 1 2007, their 2nd year was 2009....president bush had a budget turned in to them that forecasted a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit....this was without President Bush's request for fannie and freddie bail outs, without his request for AIG bail outs, without his request for some auto bail outs, without his request for TARP/bank bailouts and without the costs of the iraq and afghanistan wars and some other things that i can't remember....the 2009 spending, which began october 1, 2008 ended up being almost $1.5 trillion deficit, instead of the $1.2 original estimate.

when president bush began his reign, he had a budget deficit of ZERO, actually he started when we had a 200 billion dollar SURPLUS budget and he ended with running a deficit every year, with his last budget deficit hitting $1.5 trillion.

Presiden Obama began with a running budget deficit of $1.5 trillion....that's what was inherited, and his first fiscal budget, begining oct 1 2009 for the fiscal 2010, ends at the end of this month and is estimated to be $1.6 trillion deficit....so, he added to the running deficit he inherited, a little over $100 billion.

and $100 billion is still A LOT to be added to the $1.5 trillion yearly deficit that we were running....but we are collecting $100-200 billion less a year in tax revenues from so many unemployed not contributing to income taxes and adding to our deficit with the extra unemployment compensation that the gvt has to pay out.

He honestly has not been as bad as you all try to twist and turn and spin it in to be.

president bush gets the credit with our recession ending, because he is the one that INSISTED on all the bail outs i listed above...that gave us the $1.5 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009....and apparently, those bail outs that i disagreed with bush on like TARP etc, worked!!! (who would have thunk it?)

 

[SFC Ollie]

So the budget means little or nothing. Congress has been spending above the budget for many many years. And most of those years they have been Democrat controlled.

Just the facts....................................

no ollie, most were not democratic controlled....most in the last decade were republican controlled that overspent. I can show you, via reports from cbo or the gao, if you would like?

I just had this conversation on a local board, if i remember my research correctly; since 1945 the Democrats have controlled both House and Senate for 45 years, the Republicans for 12 years and they had the house and Senate split 10 years.

45 to 12.... Now I have to ask, who is messing up the country?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the budget means little or nothing. Congress has been spending above the budget for many many years. And most of those years they have been Democrat controlled.

Just the facts....................................

no ollie, most were not democratic controlled....most in the last decade were republican controlled that overspent. I can show you, via reports from cbo or the gao, if you would like?

I just had this conversation on a local board, if i remember my research correctly; since 1945 the Democrats have controlled both House and Senate for 45 years, the Republicans for 12 years and they had the house and Senate split 10 years.

45 to 12.... Now I have to ask, who is messing up the country?

Progressives

 

[Care4all]

ollie...no comment on my lengthy explanation already above?

Presidents create the budget....congress can follow it, or change it when they appropriate, but if they do change it and appropriate differently than what the president requests, the President can veto it....and unless congress can get 2/3's of the vote to over ride the president's veto of said bills, the president control's the spending.

Under President bush, he began with $5.8 trillion of national debt with ZERO as a running budget deficit. He ended his fiscal term with $6.2 trillion added to that national debt from the 8 full fiscal years of his budgets and spending of congress.

this means that under his watch, his rule....we more than DOUBLED the National Debt of this country....in just the 8 years, and it took us 200 years to get to the $5.8 trillion he began with...

If he had inherited a budget deficit when he began, as President Obama inherited the $1.5 running budget deficit, then maybe all of that $6.2 trillion that was added to the national debt under his command would not be attributed to him and his policies and budgets, but he didn't begin that way....he began with NO DEFICIT spending and ended with a yearly budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.

This is what Obama's presidency began with.... and Obama has even added to that and it could be $1.6 trillion plus when he ends his first fiscal year...

BUT Obama DID NOT BEGIN AT ZERO, with no budget deficits...he began with the country running a $1.5 trillion running deficit...? Only for partisan reasons can someone not see the travesty President Bush left us financially....all obama can do is begin with the $1.5 trillion and try to reduce it from there...BUT AS NOTED, he has not reduced it, but added another 100 billion to it....there may be reasons for this....as mentioned in my earlier post, right above yours, but regardless, it is unacceptable to add another 100 billion to the running defict, imho.

Yes, congress appropriates, but it is the president's budget, that guides them for the most part and as I said....the president can use his veto power and should use his veto power, if he disagrees with the spending....he would be a better President for all of us, if he did. President bush did not veto one thing the 6 years republicans were in control of congress....that WAS A MISTAKE. He started to veto when the democrats took control, but it was too late.

President Obama BETTER LEARN to start vetoing....or his term will end up a catastrophe, when said and done.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Doesn't the budget begin at zero each year? Then the mandated spending is added. If the mandated spending takes us into a deficit then we have only congress to blame. If there is additional spending after that, we have congress and the President to blame. It would be interesting to know just how much of the deficit is mandated........(if any)

 

[Chris]

A good things that cons do their history revisions in pencil.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im stoked..........no more recession means no more asshat idea's of any more stimulus!!!

WIN


and how ironic is it that it was actually George Bush responsible for ending the recession. Shit this is a bad year for the k00ks.............

 

[Dick Tuck]

With all this right wing bullshit, I expect that witch O'Donnell will steal your mojo so you don't wank off.

 

[uscitizen]

Voodoo dolls a new political strategy.. Hmmm

 

[Care4all]

Doesn't the budget begin at zero each year? Then the mandated spending is added. If the mandated spending takes us into a deficit then we have only congress to blame. If there is additional spending after that, we have congress and the President to blame. It would be interesting to know just how much of the deficit is mandated........(if any)

ollie, i believe the budget process does not begin with zero each year...it begins like all businesses....you begin with what you did last year....what you spent in different categories or what you spent in different departments like the Dept of Defense etc., if government.

Then, you take what was divided up and spent to run all the departments from the previous year, and work this year's spending off of that....ie. you can downsize this dept so much or you can increase that dept so much, all looking at last year, and depending on the department's needs, also keeping in mind how much you will take in as revenues....if they are shy on revenues, then they borrow the money to make up the difference.

(of course in business, one is limited by what they can borrow, whereas our govt has no restraint)

No President in our History, has begun their budget, any other way, as far as I know...they do not begin with what they have in revenues to spend....as said, they begin with what was spent last year to run the country....and they can not just wipe out the previous years running deficit spending per area of business or per department, overnight...they can work slowly... reducing the size of govt by each department....so to not wipe out the Military, as an example with a 50% reduction from the previous year...(military people as example can not be reduced 50% overnight...they have contracts so to say, that have to be met with the individual and one can only reduce the forces gradually, by not recruiting as many, or by requesting old timers to retire etc.) and the Defense department also has contracts with the private sector that are obligated, which would also take breaking such contracts etc and an entire legal process that takes time. There is some leeway on spending but not much that can be done in the immediate sense without having to calcualte the repercussions of such....

Same with all other depts as well....let's say you want to cut food stamps by 50%...wiping out 50% of the people needing foodstamps overnight is just not feasible without, possible grave consequences...it could be done slowly though....

So, budgets are compared to the previous year's budget, this is the beginning point on planning a budget.

Even taking President Bush's first budget, he began with no deficits, but an actual budget surplus....he came out and told all of us, that he was going to take that surplus that they were running and he inherited in revenues from the previous year and give it back to us in a tax cuts...he began with what happened with the previous years running budget.

(the only problem I have with what President Bush did, is that he took the Surplus in revenues that came from SOCIAL SECURITY taxes collected, and gave it as a Tax break to those who paid income taxes and not to those that actually gave the government their surplus, the social security tax payers....and as you know, at the time the millionaires and anyone making over $96 k at the time, paid no social security tax above that 96k for their earnings....so to me it was a reverse Robinhood....they took taxes paid by the "worker" and for the most part they gave that in income tax breaks to the likes of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who paid no social security taxes at all...)

Care