Obama spends less, but the debt increases faster?

[voltron]

Obama has reduced the governments annual spending to about half of what Bush spent annually but Obama has increased the national debt at a faster rate. How is this possible, is it that Obama is putting the peoples money and credit into unsuccesful programs.

 

[Intense]

Obama has reduced the governments annual spending to about half of what Bush spent annually but Obama has increased the national debt at a faster rate. How is this possible, is it that Obama is putting the peoples money and credit into unsuccesful programs.

I think your premise is flawed.

 

[voltron]

go right ahead and prove me wrong then.

 

[Wiseacre]

go right ahead and prove me wrong then.

Actually, the onus is on you to support your contentions. Please do so, specifically about Obama spending half of what Biush did. I don't think so, in fact I'm fairly sure Obama's federal spending has increased since he took office.

According to usgovernmentspending.com, in 2001 Bush spent 1.892 trillion, and in his last year (2008) he spent 2.982 trillion. Obama's first year saw 3.517 trillion spent, and in 2012 it is projected to be 3.795 trillion.

 

[auditor0007]

Obama has reduced the governments annual spending to about half of what Bush spent annually but Obama has increased the national debt at a faster rate. How is this possible, is it that Obama is putting the peoples money and credit into unsuccesful programs.

First of all, where are you getting your information from? Obama has not spent more than Bush did in his last year, but he hasn't cut spending in half. Spending under Obama is about the same as in Bush's last year. The reason the deficit has exploded on a yearly basis is that revenue is down about 30%.

 

[auditor0007]

go right ahead and prove me wrong then.

Actually, the onus is on you to support your contentions. Please do so, specifically about Obama spending half of what Biush did. I don't think so, in fact I'm fairly sure Obama's federal spending has increased since he took office.

According to usgovernmentspending.com, in 2001 Bush spent 1.892 trillion, and in his last year (2008) he spent 2.982 trillion. Obama's first year saw 3.517 trillion spent, and in 2012 it is projected to be 3.795 trillion.

Bush's last year includes the $3.517 trillion spent as it was part of Bush's budget. The budget is approved in October; Bush didn't leave office until January. This is where Republicans try to confuse the picture, by forcing that huge budget of 2009 onto Obama. Obama's first year that he is responsible for is 2010, and his last year of this administration will be the 2013 budget. This is why we see that Obama's spending has not increased much at all, if any, since he took office.

 

[FA_Q2]

go right ahead and prove me wrong then.

Actually, the onus is on you to support your contentions. Please do so, specifically about Obama spending half of what Biush did. I don't think so, in fact I'm fairly sure Obama's federal spending has increased since he took office.

According to usgovernmentspending.com, in 2001 Bush spent 1.892 trillion, and in his last year (2008) he spent 2.982 trillion. Obama's first year saw 3.517 trillion spent, and in 2012 it is projected to be 3.795 trillion.

Bush's last year includes the $3.517 trillion spent as it was part of Bush's budget. The budget is approved in October; Bush didn't leave office until January. This is where Republicans try to confuse the picture, by forcing that huge budget of 2009 onto Obama. Obama's first year that he is responsible for is 2010, and his last year of this administration will be the 2013 budget. This is why we see that Obama's spending has not increased much at all, if any, since he took office.

And you have an equal gross misrepresentation when you compare Obama’s spending to that of te last Bush budget that was overinflated through TARP. Bush spends a trillion dollars EXTRA in his last year and you make that year the BASELINE that Obama is compared to. That is supremely dishonest.

 

[Wiseacre]

go right ahead and prove me wrong then.

Actually, the onus is on you to support your contentions. Please do so, specifically about Obama spending half of what Biush did. I don't think so, in fact I'm fairly sure Obama's federal spending has increased since he took office.

According to usgovernmentspending.com, in 2001 Bush spent 1.892 trillion, and in his last year (2008) he spent 2.982 trillion. Obama's first year saw 3.517 trillion spent, and in 2012 it is projected to be 3.795 trillion.

Bush's last year includes the $3.517 trillion spent as it was part of Bush's budget. The budget is approved in October; Bush didn't leave office until January. This is where Republicans try to confuse the picture, by forcing that huge budget of 2009 onto Obama. Obama's first year that he is responsible for is 2010, and his last year of this administration will be the 2013 budget. This is why we see that Obama's spending has not increased much at all, if any, since he took office.

2009 spending has to include the 800 billion or so for the Stimulus Bill, which is entirely Obama's responsibility. Not to mention the other spending bills Obama signed that year. Laying all that off on Bush is ridiculous and disingenuous. I refer you to this article that puts more perspective on the issue:

snippet:

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton. But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

 

[Katzndogz]

Does obama's spending include the generous grants given to his democrat buddies like the ones at Solyndra or GM union?

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama has reduced the governments annual spending to about half of what Bush spent annually but Obama has increased the national debt at a faster rate. How is this possible, is it that Obama is putting the peoples money and credit into unsuccesful programs.

First of all, where are you getting your information from? Obama has not spent more than Bush did in his last year, but he hasn't cut spending in half. Spending under Obama is about the same as in Bush's last year. The reason the deficit has exploded on a yearly basis is that revenue is down about 30%.

I agree with this, if you add near a trillion more in spending from Obama over what Bush was doing in his last years.... I mean the numbers are pretty much clear as day. Look at it like this, we are now spending so much that 800 billion increase does not seem like a big number anymore, lol.

 

[eflatminor]

Obama has reduced the governments annual spending to about half of what Bush spent annually...

Link?

but Obama has increased the national debt at a faster rate. How is this possible...

Because your premise is flawed.

 

[Intense]

Obama has reduced the governments annual spending to about half of what Bush spent annually but Obama has increased the national debt at a faster rate. How is this possible, is it that Obama is putting the peoples money and credit into unsuccesful programs.

First of all, where are you getting your information from? Obama has not spent more than Bush did in his last year, but he hasn't cut spending in half. Spending under Obama is about the same as in Bush's last year. The reason the deficit has exploded on a yearly basis is that revenue is down about 30%.

The Budget in Bush's last Year was under the control of a Democratic Congress. They saw to it that the Budget wouldn't be voted on until they were in full control.