President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

[007]

Debt when Ovomit took office: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Debt now: A 6 TRILLION dollar increase and climbing: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
No other President IN HISTORY has spent so much, so fast, fact.

Anyone at this point trying to pass off this obamalamadingdong hasn't spent any money BULL SHIT is a BALD FACED FUCKING LIAR EXTRAORDINAIRE, and if you think anybody is BUYING that line of CRAP, you're even dumber than once thought of BEFORE!

Sheeeeezuz... get a fucking CLUE. People that DON'T support the your little kenyan boi king AREN'T THAT FUCKING STUPID.

 

[SniperFire]

Debt when Ovomit took office: National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Debt now: A 6 TRILLION dollar increase and climbing: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
No other President IN HISTORY has spent so much, so fast, fact.

Anyone at this point trying to pass off this obamalamadingdong hasn't spent any money BULL SHIT is a BALD FACED FUCKING LIAR EXTRAORDINAIRE, and if you think anybody is BUYING that line of CRAP, you're even dumber than once thought of BEFORE!

Sheeeeezuz... get a fucking CLUE. People that DON'T support the your little kenyan boi king AREN'T THAT FUCKING STUPID.

Best. Post. Ever.

 

[Stephanie]

The whole deal will become academic when the numbers are counted in November. We're going to kick your wingnut asses.

There are enough mindless Libs along with the mindless media, to make it close... but wingnuts aren't thrilled with Romney. He is anything but a conservative. Like most elections, one has to pick the better of two evils. And you don't get much more evil than the current mistake in the white house.

Obama has been a really good president. Right wingers are simply too fucking stupid and racist to see it. If he hadn't pulled the bacon out of the fire, we would be in a deep depression.
Mitt and the Republicans will take us back to Bush policies. How do we know? They told us. How did it work out the first time? Uh, not so good. Think it will work a second time? There is a very good chance we'll find out.

lol, if he hadn't pulled the bacon out of the Fire?

 

[Sallow]

Costs money to avert the SECOND Pub WORLD GREAT DEPRESSION, and help 10million unemployed....great job pubbies- and thanks for paralyzing gov't since 2/2010....Pub dupes!!

People today have no clue about hard times. Hoover and the bankers put the entire nation in despair in the late 1920's and early 1930's. There were no social security benefits, no pensions, no unions with any clout, no time off from a job for any reason. People went door to door begging until the second world war started. Before social security people who were crippled or poor ended up in county poor farms where they were left to fend for themselves. This nation is covered with unmarked graves from those old "Poorhouses" and the Republicans would love to take us back to those times. Their idea of cutting costs is by taking a couple of hundred billions away from the benefits of the poor and continuing to turn over a trillion to big contractors who are funded through the defense budget. Oh well....General Dynamics and Halliburton have to eat too.

Looks like a description of what Republican consider "paradise".

They have convinced themselves this is the definition of "freedom" and ending these terrible situations is "socialism". American helping American is a "no no" to the Republicans. How they have fallen so low I simply don't understand. They will call you a liar for pointing this out, but when you ask them why it's a lie, they run off.

Basically..yeah..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuI2LEKHGiQ]Real Time in Mississippi - YouTube[/ame]

 

[HomeInspect]

Seems to me Obama must like the suffering. Check out the increase in food stamps since he took office. But we all know, government dependency is the goal of the mindless left.

 

[rdean]

Seems to me Obama must like the suffering. Check out the increase in food stamps since he took office. But we all know, government dependency is the goal of the mindless left.

Because the very day Obama took office the economy fell apart. The previous 8 years of Republican policies had nothing to do with it?

Right wingers are such jerks.

 

[HomeInspect]

Seems to me Obama must like the suffering. Check out the increase in food stamps since he took office. But we all know, government dependency is the goal of the mindless left.

Because the very day Obama took office the economy fell apart. The previous 8 years of Republican policies had nothing to do with it?

Right wingers are such jerks.

It takes a mindless jerk to believe the 100% increase in food stamp recipients today has nothing to do with the last three and a half years of failed policies. Same with the 15.7 trillion dollar debt. Bush was a failure, it's a shame the mindless can't see the current one.

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Oops.

Your chart is wrong and typically for you, a LIE!!!

Actually, his chart is very much correct. But it's the way it's being presented that's wrong. The premise of the thread is that Obama has spent more than any other president, that much is true. But what is also true, and what is presented in the graph, is that Obama has increased spending at a slower rate than any other president in recent times. Unfortunately, an increase in spending of even 0.01% from Bush still means that Obama is spending more Bush.

Republicans state that Obama has spent more, democrats counter that he has increased spending at a slower rate. Again, both sides are right, so just kiss and make up already.

 

[francoHFW]

No shytte moron- averting the SECOND Pub World Depression, and helping 10 million UE costs money...DUH.

20% of USA now believe OBAMA started this recession LOL...Pub dupes-the dumbest voters anywhers...

 

[rdean]

No shytte moron- averting the SECOND Pub World Depression, and helping 10 million UE costs money...DUH.

20% of USA now believe OBAMA started this recession LOL...Pub dupes-the dumbest voters anywhers...

I wonder how many believe it was Republicans who got Bin Laden?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Oops.

You claim to be an engineer, so I have a question, do you actually understand math? If you do I want to challenge you to go through the math with me and find out who spent more money, Bush or Obama.

Obama.

The graph depicts how much each President INCREASED spending.

CAN YOU READ?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

what, can't be
links and chart with article at site..
By Elizabeth Flock
June 1, 2012 RSS Feed Print



President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.

A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.

Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.

all of it here with comments.

President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Most of the increase is due to 2 things;
1) GDP contracted, making spending higher as a % of GDP - this would be true even if spending stayed the same. This contraction was particularly deep this time around, making an increase not a surprise under any circumstance.

2) The US government follows a counter-cyclical economic policy; when GDP contracts the government expands in order to take up the slack, as the only actor who can. This is true of every single developed country government on earth. The only countries that follow pro-cyclical policies are those that simply must because they're too poor, you know, your typical Central African republic - when GDP comes down, government necessarily must as well. And well, I guess half of Europe now too. The effects of pro-cyclical economic policy are disastrous, they have been throughout history and they are today.

 

[edthecynic]

what, can't be
links and chart with article at site..
By Elizabeth Flock
June 1, 2012 RSS Feed Print



President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.

A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.

Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.

all of it here with comments.

President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Bush spent about 40 trillion in 8 years and Obama has spent 15.2 trillion so far. Some how in CON$ervoFascist Fuzzy Math 15 trillion is more than 40 trillion!!!

 

[Neotrotsky]

USnews is part of the evil right wing cabal
Who knew



The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by Papa Obama

MSNBC reported that..
Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. "Obama signed it (the bill) in private. He declined to answer a shouted reporter's question why."
This final bill also featured 7991 earmarks totaling nearly 5.5 billion dollars.

The Left are poor students of history.....(which explains a lot)

In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into Papa Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Papa Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. Papa Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

So to include all of 2009 to Bush is flawed and Nutting’s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting’s whole piece is based on flawed data.
Like most things- the left has to lie and they are flawed


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact , it is their worst enemy

Indeed no one, except the Left, believes Papa is a "tightwad"
No one, except the Left, believes he is going to win the next election

Obama is not working

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since we know for a fact that more was spent under Bush than has been spent under Obama,

why would you people keep saying that Obama has spent more than Bush did?

 

[edthecynic]

USnews is part of the evil right wing cabal
Who knew



The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by Papa Obama

MSNBC reported that..
Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. "Obama signed it (the bill) in private. He declined to answer a shouted reporter's question why."
This final bill also featured 7991 earmarks totaling nearly 5.5 billion dollars.

The Left are poor students of history.....(which explains a lot)

In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into Papa Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Papa Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. Papa Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

So to include all of 2009 to Bush is flawed and Nutting’s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting’s whole piece is based on flawed data.
Like most things- the left has to lie and they are flawed


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact , it is their worst enemy

Indeed no one, except the Left, believes Papa is a "tightwad"
No one, except the Left, believes he is going to win the next election

Obama is not working

OK, let's include ALL of fiscal 2009 spending as Obama's, which means Bush's spending ends Sept 30, 2008. Bush STILL outspent Obama 33.6 trillion to 20.1 trillion!!! So no matter how much you jigger the numbers, Bush STILL out spent Obama.

 

[edthecynic]

Since we know for a fact that more was spent under Bush than has been spent under Obama,

why would you people keep saying that Obama has spent more than Bush did?

Why, you ask, because CON$ervoFascist scum are pathological liars.
Lying is the Holy Eucharist of the hate religion of CON$ervoFascism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Bush's FY 2009 budget proposal called for 3.1 trillion in spending.

2. Revenues for FY 2009 were 2.1 trillion.

3. Obama inherited a 1 trillion dollar deficit from Bush based on Bush's OWN budget.

 

[jack113]

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Oops.

Your chart is wrong and typically for you, a LIE!!!

Actually, his chart is very much correct. But it's the way it's being presented that's wrong. The premise of the thread is that Obama has spent more than any other president, that much is true. But what is also true, and what is presented in the graph, is that Obama has increased spending at a slower rate than any other president in recent times. Unfortunately, an increase in spending of even 0.01% from Bush still means that Obama is spending more Bush.

Republicans state that Obama has spent more, democrats counter that he has increased spending at a slower rate. Again, both sides are right, so just kiss and make up already.

You do the Kiss up and while your doing it remember what the Jews said in the death camps. "I didn't speak up and now their is nobody to speak up for me."