Obama spending binge never happened

[The T]

Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.

Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.

First thing you have to learn junior? It isn't your money. You have some real audacity and you have bought into the class warfare schtick. YOU should be ashamed.

Wake me up when your nihilism becomes law, and we live in a complete predatory society governed by corporations with the profit motive, over the public interest.

Like Obama's brand of capitalism whenhe gives money to his contributors as Solyndra, and they fail and the taxpayer is left on the hook?

Public service? Really?

Spare us

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a moron you are. We've got a debt problem, and assholes like you think it's too much to ask our wealthiest people to pony up an additional 3%. You'd prefer to let everyone accumulate the debt.

Why do you hate working Americans so much?

Im sick of our leaders asking hard working Americans to "pony up" more money to pay for the idiotic spending practices of our so called leaders.

Lets see some ACTUAL spending cuts and maybe we can talk... issue is, if we make those cuts, we wont need higher taxes for anyone.

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s. Our problem remains that we had eight years of spending, like drunk sailors, under Bush.

What's really fucked up about the right, is Romney is selling himself at doing the same idiotic things, and the wingnuts are buying it.

Again you forget it was the democrats with a junior senator obama who were in control of congress when Bush was president.

 

[boilermaker55]

Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.

I'm so relieved.

You should be. Obama has no control over non discretionary spending.

Right...No control.

That's why he has failed to submit a budget that would pass muster in the most leftist of congressional delegations in history, and only run the gubmint on one continuing resolution after another.

Just balloon the debt, wash your hands of it and say "non-discretionary spending!"

Fucking cowards....Every one of y'all.

Speaking of fucking cowards. If you read the chart and make the comments you make about this president, why do you hesitate to make some comment of what the chart says about the presidents from your party?
Fucking coward.

 

[boilermaker55]

Im sick of our leaders asking hard working Americans to "pony up" more money to pay for the idiotic spending practices of our so called leaders.

Lets see some ACTUAL spending cuts and maybe we can talk... issue is, if we make those cuts, we wont need higher taxes for anyone.

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s. Our problem remains that we had eight years of spending, like drunk sailors, under Bush.

What's really fucked up about the right, is Romney is selling himself at doing the same idiotic things, and the wingnuts are buying it.

Again you forget it was the democrats with a junior senator obama who were in control of congress when Bush was president.

Both terms?
Liar.

 

[SniperFire]

Wrong idiot, I got your point. Your analogy was bullshit. If anyone is stealing, its the top 1% who got their taxes cut, and financed it with debt on working Americans.

Only spending what you don't have causes debt.

But keep repeating your nonsense over and over again until you convince yourself.

 

[The T]

Im sick of our leaders asking hard working Americans to "pony up" more money to pay for the idiotic spending practices of our so called leaders.

Lets see some ACTUAL spending cuts and maybe we can talk... issue is, if we make those cuts, we wont need higher taxes for anyone.

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s. Our problem remains that we had eight years of spending, like drunk sailors, under Bush.

What's really fucked up about the right, is Romney is selling himself at doing the same idiotic things, and the wingnuts are buying it.

Again you forget it was the democrats with a junior senator obama who were in control of congress when Bush was president.

Obama chastized Bush for debt ... 'Irresponsible', 'UnPatriotic'...He's tripled down on it and wants more. Lest we forget Obama was against the Debt ceiling raise in '06?

Yeah Bush didn't do us any favours...Obama has made it far worse.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8PKtcwzA8A"]Debt Ceiling Skyrockets, Obama No Longer Calls Bush 'unpatriotic' For Increases - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Misty]

"And even that wouldn't be the end of it. If the Obama budget is adopted in full, federal borrowing will top $18 trillion by 2020. Over the period 2011 to 2020, the president's plan is to run deficits totaling an astounding $8.5 trillion.

The problem is quite plainly runaway government spending. The administration employs all kinds of smoke and mirrors in an attempt to dress up massive governmental excess as necessary and restrained investments. But their own bottom-line numbers betray the real story. In 2008, total spending stood at nearly $3.0 trillion — not exactly government on a strict diet. But Obama wants to take the juggernaut he inherited and supersize it. By 2020, governmental spending would reach $5.7 trillion, driven heavily by mounting entitlement costs. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone would nearly double over a decade, going from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $2.6 trillion in 2020."

National Review: Out Of Control Spending

 

[auditor0007]

Im sick of our leaders asking hard working Americans to "pony up" more money to pay for the idiotic spending practices of our so called leaders.

Lets see some ACTUAL spending cuts and maybe we can talk... issue is, if we make those cuts, we wont need higher taxes for anyone.

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s.

LOL

Look at the hockey stick when Obama took office.

Thanks, your graph just proved what has been stated. Your hockey stick starts in 2011 and is based on a projection that includes massive increases in SS and Medicare spending that is currently out of Obama's control. What it does show though, is that Obama has hardly increased spending at all since he took office. But thanks for confirming this for everyone.

Oh, and one other thing it shows is that Bush increased spending per household by 50%, from $20,000 per family to $30,000 per family. Thanks for playing.

 

[Misty]

"Obama spending binge never happened". But it will if he gets re elected and democrats get control of the congress again.

 

[SniperFire]

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s.

LOL

Look at the hockey stick when Obama took office.

Thanks, your graph just proved what has been stated. Your hockey stick starts in 2011.

LOL


I think you mean 2009.


Fucking retard.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Im sick of our leaders asking hard working Americans to "pony up" more money to pay for the idiotic spending practices of our so called leaders.

Lets see some ACTUAL spending cuts and maybe we can talk... issue is, if we make those cuts, we wont need higher taxes for anyone.

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s. Our problem remains that we had eight years of spending, like drunk sailors, under Bush.

What's really fucked up about the right, is Romney is selling himself at doing the same idiotic things, and the wingnuts are buying it.

Again you forget it was the democrats with a junior senator obama who were in control of congress when Bush was president.

Lying skank. Obama wasn't in the Senate when Bush passed a law to cut taxes for the top 1%, and finance it with debt. Why the lies?

 

[PredFan]

The most basic point all you yayhoos continue to miss is that the biggest part of the yearly deficits are due to drops in tax revenue. 73% of Obama's deficits are due to losses in revenue, yet nobody wants to increase taxes, which is what needs to happen.

Bush got us to these spending levels; Obama just has not reduced them any. The biggest problem is that we can't get the economy growing again. While Cons tell us it is because of excess regulation and taxes being too high, the real truth is that having this huge debt hanging over our heads is scaring the bejesus out of everyone, so they are not spending. If we got revenues in line and attacked the debt problem, business would start spending again. The biggest lie we have been sold is that business won't invest because tax rates are too high. We all know it's a lie, and there is more than enough proof to back that up. We have the lowest effective tax rates in over 60 years, and the economy has been dead for the last four to five years, and it was stalled for the five to six years before that. The only reason there was any growth from 2000 forward was due to the housing bubble. Had all that paper money not been available, we would have seen a long recession much sooner. But since the housing bubble kept things afloat for a while, when it burst, it actually made things much worse.

Bottom line is that we need to get revenues back in line.

Dead wrong. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.

This is laughable if it wasn't so dangerously ignorant. Did you post that like that on purpose just to win an argument, or do you actually believe it?

 

[kwc57]

Another right wing lie debunked.

Obama spending binge never happened
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Kind of like the holocaust huh?

Yes. It's another big right wing lie that you've succeeded to make into conventional wisdom.

Speaking of big lies, you sound a lot like this.

HDOT : Holocaust Denial

""Holocaust deniers" deny these well established facts about the Holocaust. They assert that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred and that the Germans are victims of a Zionist plot to extort vast sums of money from them on the basis of a hoax. Under a rallying cry created by Holocaust denier David Irving -- "Sink the Battleship Auschwitz!" -- they deny the existence of the poison gas chambers in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, as that camp lies at the symbolic core of the Holocaust and stands as the icon for Jewish suffering.

The goal of Holocaust deniers in the West is political -- they want to rehabilitate Nazism and fascism in general and Adolf Hitler in particular -- and to promote anti-Semitism and, at times, anti-Israel sentiment. Holocaust denial in the Arab and Muslim world seems to be driven primarily by the goal of undermining what is perceived to be a powerful justification for Israel's existence."

You might want to wipe Obama's shit off of your nose and gain a little perspective further away from his ass.

 

[PredFan]

Dead wrong. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.

Again.. wrong

US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

We have a HUGE spending problem

I don't think he actually believes that BS either, he just thinks we're stupid enough to swallow it.

 

[PredFan]

ok, who signed the spending bill that financed a tax cut to the top 1%, and used debt to pay for it?

{president obama signs bipartisan tax legislation that extends tax cuts signed by former president george w. Bush and renews benefits for the unemployed during a ceremony on dec. 17, 2010. (saul loeb/afp/getty images)

president obama signed $858 billion tax bill into law friday afternoon, putting the final touches on a bipartisan compromise to prevent income tax rates from increasing before the new year.}

president obama signs tax cut extension into law | pbs newshour

gee you're dumb....

pwned!

 

[PredFan]

"And even that wouldn't be the end of it. If the Obama budget is adopted in full, federal borrowing will top $18 trillion by 2020. Over the period 2011 to 2020, the president's plan is to run deficits totaling an astounding $8.5 trillion.

The problem is quite plainly runaway government spending. The administration employs all kinds of smoke and mirrors in an attempt to dress up massive governmental excess as necessary and restrained investments. But their own bottom-line numbers betray the real story. In 2008, total spending stood at nearly $3.0 trillion — not exactly government on a strict diet. But Obama wants to take the juggernaut he inherited and supersize it. By 2020, governmental spending would reach $5.7 trillion, driven heavily by mounting entitlement costs. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone would nearly double over a decade, going from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $2.6 trillion in 2020."

National Review: Out Of Control Spending

No question that the problem is spending and not revenue. No sane person questions this.

 

[auditor0007]

LOL

Look at the hockey stick when Obama took office.

Thanks, your graph just proved what has been stated. Your hockey stick starts in 2011.

LOL


I think you mean 2009.


Fucking retard.

Good God you are as stupid as they come. You don't even know how a hockey stick is shaped.

 

[The T]

Thanks, your graph just proved what has been stated. Your hockey stick starts in 2011.

LOL


I think you mean 2009.


Fucking retard.

Good God you are as stupid as they come. You don't even know how a hockey stick is shaped.

Mikey Mann...is that you?

 

[auditor0007]

Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.

Again.. wrong

US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

We have a HUGE spending problem

I don't think he actually believes that BS either, he just thinks we're stupid enough to swallow it.

I am just curious how someone can know that revenue is down over 30% and say that it is not a problem. Now you can argue that we also have a spending problem, and you have a point, because it is not all a revenue problem. Down the road that will become even a bigger problem, but currently, the bulk of our problem is a revenue problem, and while you know this to be true, you just blatantly deny it. It's laughable, and it's the reason people like you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Conservative]

Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.

Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.

Here in lies the issue... you guys hate wealthy people.

What a moron you are. We've got a debt problem, and assholes like you think it's too much to ask our wealthiest people to pony up an additional 3%. You'd prefer to let everyone accumulate the debt.

Why do you hate working Americans so much?

The fact remains that your analogy was stone stupid. No one is taking away microwaves or TVs.

show me the data that proves increasing taxes by 3% on 'the wealthy' will eliminate the debt.