Obama "Smallest Government Spender" Myth Debunked

[tooAlive]

I see people making this fallacious statement time and time again, so I thought I'd make a thread and hopefully put an end to the misinformation once and for all.

Lets start off with a nice picture illustration:

Political Math » MarketWatch?s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic)

Here's an article from Forbes:

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democratic Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014. But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months. That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion. The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

That's just a little snippet from page 2 I found interesting.

We also have The Washington Post with 2 excellent articles:

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama, Part 2 - The Washington Post

Part 1 -

The Facts

First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

So this is what we end up with:

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

We sent our analysis to Carney but did not get a response. (For another take, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute has an interesting tour through the numbers, isolating various spending categories. For instance, he says debt payments should be excluded from the analysis because that is the result of earlier spending decisions by other presidents.)

UPDATE: The Associated Press also dug into the numbers and came to the same conclusion as we did. “The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the [Nutting] analysis counted them as government spending cuts,” the AP said. “It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.”

Part 2 -

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

Obama supported and voted for Bush-started programs such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Moreover, many key appropriations bills were held back by Democrats until Obama became president, and then he pushed through an $830 billion stimulus bill (which consisted of mostly spending). In ordinary times, one could argue that 2009 should be counted as Bush’s year, but in fact many of the key spending decisions were actually made by Obama.

As the AP documented, programs such as TARP also mess up the figures in the later years. The straight-line CBO accounts of outlays that MarketWatch and PolitiFact used are distorted by the fact that repayments of TARP funds by banks and Wall Street firms in 2010 make the actual spending seem much smaller.

By the AP’s calculation, repayments to TARP and reduced spending on Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bailouts shrink the official 2010 spending figure by $317 billion and the 2011 spending figure by $72 billion. In other words, the raw numbers give a distorted picture.

We agree that those adjustments should be made, which really changes the picture of Obama’s spending, at least in the early years of his presidency. Bernstein, by contrast, argues that “MW’s using official budget numbers and by those numbers, the Obama administration legitimately gets credit for effective management of the TARP.”

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives put the brakes on Obama’s spending ambitions, though whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your perspective. (Bernstein views it as an opportunity lost.)

Their verdict to Obama being the "Smallest Government Spender":

Three Pinocchios

(Four Pinocchios would be the highest false-ness rating)

And finally we have The Heritage Blog.

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

 

[OKTexas]

Everybody know in their heart this is true, but the zombis won't admit it in public. They can't allow themselves to be seen as disloyal to their dear leader. They would have to admit they were wrong, yep, like that's gonna happen.

 

[Lakhota]

Right-winger are hilarious. Bush debt drivers didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.

 

[OKTexas]

Right-winger are hilarious. Bush debt drivers didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.

You're right, but your dear leader added multipliers, come on admit it, you'll feel better.

 

[Lakhota]

Right-winger are hilarious. Bush debt drivers didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.

You're right, but your dear leader added multipliers, come on admit it, you'll feel better.

Please give us a "credible" accounting of exactly how much NEW debt Obama has added that wasn't a direct/indirect result of Bush actions and policies. You can't just draw a dividing line on January 20, 2009. It ain't that simple...

 

[JQPublic1]

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

When I read this knew I had to read no further. When uneducated fools fail to understand what they are reading and then attempt to make sweeping analyses based on their wrong interpretations of the narratives before them, what can I do but point out the error and hope they will learn.
Son, the fiscal year does start in Oct of each calendar year, That means the sitting president on October 2008, George Bush, signed the budget for the entire fiscal year up until Oct 2009. Obama was responsible for everything after Oct 1 2009 or fiscal year 2010. When you get your basic facts right, come on back and try again...heh heh heh!

 

[Lakhota]

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

When I read this knew I had to read no further. When uneducated fools fail to understand what they are reading and then attempt to make sweeping analyses based on their wrong interpretations of the narratives before them, what can I do but point out the error and hope they will learn.
Son, the fiscal year does start in Oct of each calendar year, That means the sitting president on October 2008, George Bush, signed the budget for the entire fiscal year up until Oct 2009. Obama was responsible for everything after Oct 1. When you get your basic facts right, come on back and try again...heh heh heh!

I agree - except for one thing: Obama was NOT responsible for EVERYTHING after October 1, 2009. He could not single-handedly reverse the Bush tax cuts and end both wars - and even if he could have - the costs would not have immediately stopped. Plus, we mustn't forget the Great Bush Recession.

 

[OKTexas]

Right-winger are hilarious. Bush debt drivers didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.

You're right, but your dear leader added multipliers, come on admit it, you'll feel better.

Please give us a "credible" accounting of exactly how much NEW debt Obama has added that wasn't a direct/indirect result of Bush actions and policies. You can't just draw a dividing line on January 20, 2009. It ain't that simple...

How about we just go with your dear leaders signature legislation, Maobmamcare, original cost estimates 900 billion, new estimates 2.7 trillion, yep that's with a T and still climbing by the way.

 

[OKTexas]

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

When I read this knew I had to read no further. When uneducated fools fail to understand what they are reading and then attempt to make sweeping analyses based on their wrong interpretations of the narratives before them, what can I do but point out the error and hope they will learn.
Son, the fiscal year does start in Oct of each calendar year, That means the sitting president on October 2008, George Bush, signed the budget for the entire fiscal year up until Oct 2009. Obama was responsible for everything after Oct 1 2009 or fiscal year 2010. When you get your basic facts right, come on back and try again...heh heh heh!

That would be correct assuming Maobama only spent within the budget, did you happen to miss the trillion dollars stimulus that wasn't in the 09 budget, it's actually turning into around 1.2 trillion, but what's a couple of hundred billion between friends. Oh, let's not forget the expanded SCHIP program, yep that's another off budget expense.

 

[JQPublic1]

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

When I read this knew I had to read no further. When uneducated fools fail to understand what they are reading and then attempt to make sweeping analyses based on their wrong interpretations of the narratives before them, what can I do but point out the error and hope they will learn.
Son, the fiscal year does start in Oct of each calendar year, That means the sitting president on October 2008, George Bush, signed the budget for the entire fiscal year up until Oct 2009. Obama was responsible for everything after Oct 1. When you get your basic facts right, come on back and try again...heh heh heh!

I agree - except for one thing: Obama was NOT responsible for EVERYTHING after October 1, 2009. He could not single-handedly reverse the Bush tax cuts and end both wars - and even if he could have - the costs would not have immediately stopped. Plus, we mustn't forget the Great Bush Recession.

Correct.. I meant he was responsible for the budgeting in fiscal year 2010... NOT those unavoidable expenditures set in motion by the previous administration. Good call though...I should have been clearer.

 

[tooAlive]

You can't attribute FY2009's spending solely to Obama; but you can't rid him of it entirely either.

It would have been nice if you would have read the entire thing without just stopping at the first line. Anyways, here's another snippet that goes into more detail about that specific part:

There are three things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it’s really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a “best estimate of what Obama inherited”, but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

Finally, my biggest goal here was to point out the inconsistencies in the analysis. Nutting wants to use the 2009 CBO estimates, but only one column (only for attacking Bush on spending). He wants to compare estimates from one year to actual spending from other years to the CBO baseline from this year. And, as if he is a magical cherry-picking elf, he manages to pick just the right numbers to give him just the right data. This could be an accident. Stranger things have happened. But it seems more likely that he intended to squash a talking point by any means necessary and he went looking for the best data to do that.

I will be accused of massaging the data by people who don’t understand what I’m doing here. I’m pointing out the data massaging on Nutting’s side and calling him on it. I’m saying “If you’re going to use the CBO estimate, use the f***ing CBO estimate!” Don’t use just the part you want and then pretend like the rest of it doesn’t exist. Commit yourself to the data you’re using and follow it, even if it doesn’t go where you want it to go.

OK… references:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

 

[tooAlive]

I love how liberals avoid this thread.

 

[Darkwind]

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

When I read this knew I had to read no further. When uneducated fools fail to understand what they are reading and then attempt to make sweeping analyses based on their wrong interpretations of the narratives before them, what can I do but point out the error and hope they will learn.
Son, the fiscal year does start in Oct of each calendar year, That means the sitting president on October 2008, George Bush, signed the budget for the entire fiscal year up until Oct 2009. Obama was responsible for everything after Oct 1 2009 or fiscal year 2010. When you get your basic facts right, come on back and try again...heh heh heh!

So, you are going to have to admit to two things with these kinds of wrong statements.

1. Bush did not squander Clinton's suprlus (there wasn't any to begin with) because by Oct. 2001 came around, there was no surplus. Oct. 2001 would have been the start of Bush's budgets. Right?

2. The stimulus spending by both Bush AND Obama, plus the other spending signed into law by OBAMA during the spring of 2009 were what is called, 'extra-budgetary' spending. In other words, deficit spending that was NOT on the budget of the 08/09 budget.

To simply state that the budget until Oct 2009 was all Bush and then lay the blame for spending that was off budget by Obama at Bush's budget is not only dishonest, it shows a complete lack of understanding.

Perhaps you should rethink your little attempts at insulting someone on their starting point when you clearly don't understand it.

BTW....we do NOT start where you say we do. The facts are not yours to change.

 

[JQPublic1]

You can't attribute FY2009's spending solely to Obama; but you can't rid him of it entirely either.

It would have been nice if you would have read the entire thing without just stopping at the first line. Anyways, here's another snippet that goes into more detail about that specific part:

There are three things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it’s really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a “best estimate of what Obama inherited”, but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

Finally, my biggest goal here was to point out the inconsistencies in the analysis. Nutting wants to use the 2009 CBO estimates, but only one column (only for attacking Bush on spending). He wants to compare estimates from one year to actual spending from other years to the CBO baseline from this year. And, as if he is a magical cherry-picking elf, he manages to pick just the right numbers to give him just the right data. This could be an accident. Stranger things have happened. But it seems more likely that he intended to squash a talking point by any means necessary and he went looking for the best data to do that.

I will be accused of massaging the data by people who don’t understand what I’m doing here. I’m pointing out the data massaging on Nutting’s side and calling him on it. I’m saying “If you’re going to use the CBO estimate, use the f***ing CBO estimate!” Don’t use just the part you want and then pretend like the rest of it doesn’t exist. Commit yourself to the data you’re using and follow it, even if it doesn’t go where you want it to go.

OK… references:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

Great tactic! If you can't debate on merit, dazzle em with bullshit! By now I have read the entire thing and it still sucks; just like your rambling nonsense immediately preceding this post!

 

[JQPublic1]

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

When I read this knew I had to read no further. When uneducated fools fail to understand what they are reading and then attempt to make sweeping analyses based on their wrong interpretations of the narratives before them, what can I do but point out the error and hope they will learn.
Son, the fiscal year does start in Oct of each calendar year, That means the sitting president on October 2008, George Bush, signed the budget for the entire fiscal year up until Oct 2009. Obama was responsible for everything after Oct 1 2009 or fiscal year 2010. When you get your basic facts right, come on back and try again...heh heh heh!

So, you are going to have to admit to two things with these kinds of wrong statements.

1. Bush did not squander Clinton's suprlus (there wasn't any to begin with) because by Oct. 2001 came around, there was no surplus. Oct. 2001 would have been the start of Bush's budgets. Right?

I know you are a space cadet but please don't try to orbit more than one planet at a time. The debate is about fiscal year 2009. Besides, It would be foolish on your part to bring up
and compare the legacies of Bush and Clinton. You do remember Bush's two unfunded wars, tax breaks for the rich and the medicare part D debacle, don't you? Without those "gifts" to the American taxpayers, there would still be a surplus!

2. The stimulus spending by both Bush AND Obama, plus the other spending signed into law by OBAMA during the spring of 2009 were what is called, 'extra-budgetary' spending. In other words, deficit spending that was NOT on the budget of the 08/09 budget.

LOL! And just how much damage do you think Bush's tax cuts occurring simultaneously with two unfunded wars caused our economy? Not to mention the 800 billion dollar bank bailout that occurred on his watch! None of those things were in the FY 09 budget. That debt was simply passed on to the next President and Congress. The sad thing, though, is that talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like used their bully pulpits to lie and convince their largely right wing white male audience that the republican's spending was all Obama's fault. Much like you are doing here!

To simply state that the budget until Oct 2009 was all Bush and then lay the blame for spending that was off budget by Obama at Bush's budget is not only dishonest, it shows a complete lack of understanding.

HAHAHA! You have just hatched the MOTHER of lies here. Unbelievable! You are either naive or totally incompetent if you believe what you typed above! And you cite ME for being dishonest and having a lack of understanding?

Perhaps you should rethink your little attempts at insulting someone on their starting point when you clearly don't understand it.

BLAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! I can't stand it any more... Do you really think any sane person is going to give any credence to your wild accusations when they can read the truth for themselves? Your boy, Too alive, pissed on himself by posting erroneous fiscal year information and you are struggling to wipe it up. Good luck, its quite a puddle!

BTW....we do NOT start where you say we do. The facts are not yours to change.

HuH? what the heck are you talking about?

 

[JQPublic1]

I love how liberals avoid this thread.

Liberals AND Conservatives are avoiding this thread after reading this:

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

 

[tooAlive]

How often are you going to repeat the same lie?

You can't attribute FY 2009 to Bush completely. Even you know that would be dishonest, as many of the expenditures for that year were signed into effect by Obama himself.

But I understand you're a liberal with an agenda (I can read it in your sig) and will do anything to make your party look good. Lets leave it up to the educated folks to come up with their own conclusions.

 

[rightwinger]

Which Obama programs resulted in that massive debt?

 

[tooAlive]

Which Obama programs resulted in that massive debt?

A huge one we haven't even seen yet is the ACA.

And even without it spending under Obama has been historically high.

 

[rightwinger]

Which Obama programs resulted in that massive debt?

A huge one we haven't even seen yet is the ACA.

And even without it spending under Obama has been historically high.

Once again...we haven't seen it

Which spending passed by Obama resulted in our current debt?
How much of the debt was Obama able to unilaterally cut?