Obama got a fresh start

Discussion in 'Politics' started by asterism, Sep 17, 2010.

  1. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    There has been a misunderstanding about government spending and deficits since President Obama was sworn in. Many people believe that Obama has not had enough time and that his first round of spending priorities is barely over.

    That is simply not true. The Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal by Bush was never appropriated. Starting October 1, 2008, spending continued at the then current levels:

    H.R. 2638

    H.R. 2638 allocated spending until March 6, 2009. President Obama and Congress then enacted spending according to H.R. 1105.

    Blaming Bush for 2009 spending increases is abjectly false.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    January 2009, just before Obama took office:

    Quite the fresh start. Not a single constraint!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    I take it you agree that all spending since March 2009 belongs to Obama and Congress.
     
  4. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,808
    Thanks Received:
    6,632
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,126
    no, I don't think greenbeard is agreeing, he is pointing out that under the laws that were enacted before Obama's entry on to the scene, he was constrained and had to pay for the government mandates and associations ALREADY in place? Tarp, Fannie and Freddie, unemployment payments etc, were all things that had to be paid based on the existing, inherited circumstance and laws, not something that Obama's 2 months in office could affect or change.... At least that is what I get out of it....?
     
  5. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    Quite a bit different than your talking point about 2009 being Bush's fault though correct? Bush can be mostly blamed for maintaining the first 5 months of FY 2009 spending at FY 2008 levels plus that monstrosity of a boondoggle called TARP.

    Which of those spending mandates did then Senator Obama vote against? Which of those spending mandates (like TARP) did President-Elect Obama not support? I think the blame is being improperly placed here.
     
  6. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,808
    Thanks Received:
    6,632
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,126
    President Bush gets 8 years of spending for his 8 year term, not 7 years, and Obama gets 8 years if reelected attributed to his terms not 9 years.

    President Clinton got the year 2001 attributed to him, as his last budget, which did not end until September 30 2001, and this means that all of President Bush's actions during his first 8 months of 2001 like the tax cuts, the stimulus checks of $600, the bailouts to new york city and the airlines after 9/11 all got attributed to president Clinton's fiscal 2001 budget, even though President Bush's actions changed what Clinton proposed back in 2000....(president Clinton would have had a much LARGER surplus for fiscal Budget 2001, if President Bush would not have passed those new tax cuts or the emergency of 911 had not happened the september after he left office, but that's not how it works, and Clinton got the fiscal budget of 2001 attributed to him)

    that's just the way it is from my understanding of it....each president gets 8 years of spending.
     
  7. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    Valid points with regard to the deficit and emergency spending. Since you think that Clinton would have had a much larger surplus for 2001, how much larger? Do you have any data? Also, this thread is about spending not deficits and taxation.

    Except in this case Bush did not get 8 years of spending. He got 7 1/2 and the current President has a voting record on spending that we can examine. What spending increases being blamed on Bush did Obama not support? I remember the approval from Obama supporters who were (correctly) projecting he'd win in 2009 and he'd get to "hit the ground running" since spending for half of 2009 was going to be dictated by him and the Democratic majority.

    Why the revision in history? The facts are right there.
     
  8. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,808
    Thanks Received:
    6,632
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,126
    btw, thanks for being nice, with your answers and questions! :)

    I am not certain, on what the Clinton budget surplus for fiscal 2001 would have been in precise measures, without spending the time to nit pic it all, once all the information is gathered....I could use what it was projected to be and find that figure....if memory serves it was $250-$350 billion....but I will see what I can find out on that when I get some time.

    President bush did get 8 years of fiscal budgets attributed to him, all reports will show such, and 2009 is attributed to him no matter what happened once the new president took office.

    think about this....what can the new president really do that will change the trend? What did congress pass to keep the government afloat....? Or even clearer...what was in this continuance of budget bill that President Bush would not have had to sign off on, that you want to put on to Obama? The wars? TARP? Unemployment payments? President bush believed in stimulus....he had a few during his term and one as late as his last year in office....do you think he would not have had a another stimulus with the economy already in the toilet?

    there is not much a president can do to change things from the way they are trending in such a DOWN economy, once they get in to office or the first few months in office will not change a downward trend such as the one we had, no matter how much they wished they could. President Obama may have signed off on the legislation that paid the bills for the rest of the year, but could not have had time to change the trend in just 2 months in office when the bill was signed.

    I did not vote for President Obama, I have no allegiance towards him, other than my support of him because he IS OUR PRESIDENT.

    It would take going through this march bill to continue our existing gvt with a fine tooth comb to figure out what Bush would not have paid for with his budget or supported imo, before we can blankly throw all of it on to President Obama from April onward.

    Care
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
    What did the New Congress ( which was Democratic just like the old one) and the New President get to change? They got to add over a trillion dollars to the NONE Budget that Bush never signed. All Bush signed was an agreement to freeze levels at 2008 levels until the NEW President and Congress created the Budget and passed it the next year.

    By the way? the 2007, 2008 budgets belong to the Democrats as well, they wrote the bills and created the budgets those years, NOT the Republicans. All Bush did is sign them.
     
  10. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,808
    Thanks Received:
    6,632
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,126
    rgs, that's just bull crud.... the gvt was running on 2008 budgets....read the january budget estimate made in january that greenbeard posted....it was $1.2 trillion in deficit spending BEFORE obama was sworn in....then add TARP, the Wars which were off budget, the increased Unemployment payments and taking in 160 or maybe it was 190 billion less taken in, in taxes because of the increase of the unemployed not paying taxes and you come pretty darn close to the nearly $1.5 trillion deficit....

    you can't just make up these new rules and not attribute a president's last fiscal year to the new president who just walked in the door.

    EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in our history, whether a budget was signed or not, gets his last year's fiscal budget attributed to him.....even if the new president had to react to the trend inherited....

    that's just a fact.

    and as my example above with Clinton and Bush, the 2001 budget gets attributed to Clinton, even with the changes President Bush and congress, made.
     

Share This Page