Republicans lie about "explosion of spending" under Obama

[ilia25]

If there was a debt explosion and all that debt was used for spending then why not call it a spending explosion as well?

Because the debt explosion was needed to make up for the imploding government revenues, NOT for exploding spending.

Every year since 2008 the government collects about a trillion less in taxes than it would have if the great recession didn't happen. That is why it had to borrow a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks.

 

[ilia25]

So the President hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from George Washington to Bill Clinton?

And by the way, Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So even by this measurement Obama is doing no worse than the greatest Reagan of all times

Wrong again. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Obama has been in office for only 3 years. By the time Obama has served 8 years, we will have borrowed far more than all the presidents before him.

No, Obama will NOT borrow more than all presidents before him (that honor belongs exclusively to Reagan):

 

[M14 Shooter]

If there was a debt explosion and all that debt was used for spending then why not call it a spending explosion as well?

Because the debt explosion was needed to make up for the imploding government revenues, NOT for exploding spending.

Every year since 2008 the government collects about a trillion less in taxes than it would have if the great recession didn't happen. That is why it had to borrow a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks.

No.... the decision was made to run up the debt rather than cut spendng to match revenue.
Nothing -forces- the government to spend anything, and so there's no way to argue that the money -had- to be borrowed.

 

[Zander]

There has been an explosion in DEFICIT spending. Regardless of the reasons or excuses, the President of the country gets the blame (or credit) Sorry Obama, blaming Bush won't work anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

And by the way, Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So even by this measurement Obama is doing no worse than the greatest Reagan of all times

Wrong again. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Obama has been in office for only 3 years. By the time Obama has served 8 years, we will have borrowed far more than all the presidents before him.

No, Obama will NOT borrow more than all presidents before him (that honor belongs exclusively to Reagan):

Obama has already borrowed $6 trillion after only three years. He is well on track to borrow more than $10 trillion by the end of 8 years, which is how much was borrowed prior to his Administration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And by the way, Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So even by this measurement Obama is doing no worse than the greatest Reagan of all times

Wrong again. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Obama has been in office for only 3 years. By the time Obama has served 8 years, we will have borrowed far more than all the presidents before him.

No, he will not:

Projections? LOL

GWB ran up $4,899B in debt, to $10,625B when he left office.
The Obama has already run up $4,611 in debt. To double the debt when He took office - that is, to run up more debt than all of the Presidents before Him - He needs only $6014B more, and has 5 years to do it.

Why, exactly, do you think that He won't run $1,200B deficits thru the end of His 2nd term?

 

[ilia25]

Wrong again. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Obama has been in office for only 3 years. By the time Obama has served 8 years, we will have borrowed far more than all the presidents before him.

No, he will not:

Projections? LOL

GWB ran up $4,899B in debt, to $10,625B when he left office.
The Obama has already run up $4,611 in debt. To double the debt when He took office - that is, to run up more debt than all of the Presidents before Him - He needs only $6014B more, and has 5 years to do it.

Why, exactly, do you think that He won't run $1,200B deficits thru the end of His 2nd term?

Because the economy will probably improve, which will lead to rising government revenues, which will reduce the sums that the government has to borrow in order to pay for the military and to send those social security checks.

BTW, the projections aren't mine, they are actually taken from what looks like a right-wing site -- the owner does not hesitate calling Obama a socialist. So may be I should have checked the numbers

 

[ilia25]

There has been an explosion in DEFICIT spending. Regardless of the reasons or excuses, the President of the country gets the blame (or credit) Sorry Obama, blaming Bush won't work anymore.

No.... the decision was made to run up the debt rather than cut spendng to match revenue.
Nothing -forces- the government to spend anything, and so there's no way to argue that the money -had- to be borrowed.

Well, I guess I just have to keep posting these links:
Why government must keep spending through recession
The paradox of thrift

The economy during a recession is a paradox -- what was a virtue in the good times becomes a vice.

 

[ilia25]

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

The only "lie" here is using the term "explosion" to characterize the spending.
The part about spending increases, borrowed money and adding trillions to the debt are all true.

The lie is to suggest that our debt problems are the result of Obama's big socialist government. That is what Republicans are telling on every corner and that is a lie.

The truths that you have mentioned -- that the govt. spending is rising as it has always been, or that US runs big deficits and Sun rises in the East -- those are things that everyone knows and nobody is interested to hear once more. What people want to hear is what are the problems and what are the solutions. And those are the things that Republicans keep lying about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As anyone can see from your chart, your statement is ludicrous.

Why?

Didn't you learn how to read bar graphs in school? Do I look like a fifth grade teacher?

If you actually look at your chart you will see spending went down slightly in 2007, then went up again in 2008. Obama signed his first budget on 29 April 2009, all spending after that date has his name on it. We can also add in the $1 trillion dollar stimulus that was signed in January of 2009. That puts almost all of 2009 into Obama's column for spending, and there was a clear, and sharp, increase in 2009 over 2008.

 

[Charles_Main]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

We have constantly stated he has raised Spending about 26%, which is very significant, and if you look at your charts, they CONFIRM IT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. The deficits and excessive borrowing came from Bush's tax cuts.

No they did not. Revenue actually went up after those cuts, so blaming them for the spending increases is like blaming the sun because it is dark at night.

What could be misleading about it? It's just numbers, which you could have looked up on your own.

You are denying the obvious facts for a simple reason -- because otherwise you would have to admit that you have voted for a bunch of lying bastards. That you brain was so fucked up by the right wing propaganda that you cheer when the bastards rob you.

I have not voted for one of the lying bastards in Congress or the White house in my entire life. My guess is you have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Budget? Wussdat? We don't need so stinking budget! We're Democrats!

Don't we have our productive congress partially to thank for this?

Only if you discount the fact that the House has passed a budget each and every year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the President hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from George Washington to Bill Clinton?

I'm SURE, that it has NOTHING to do with this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf

The gross tax gap is defined as the amount of true tax liability faced by taxpayers that is not paid on time. For 2006 it is estimated to be $450 billion.

The growth in the tax gap over the five years was concentrated in the underreporting and underpayment forms of noncompliance, which jointly account for more than nine out of ten tax gap dollars. The nonfiling portion of the gap hardly changed. The underreporting gap grew by 32%; the underpayment gap grew by 38%; and the nonfiling gap grew by 4%. The overall gap grew by 30%, slightly more than the growth in overall tax liabilities.

More than a third of the growth in the underreporting gap was attributable to corporate income taxes.

This was from 2001-2006. So if we aren't getting the money that we need because some people aren't paying their taxes, where the hell is it going to come from to keep our head above water? And of these asshats who aren't paying their taxes, who do you think makes up the difference? You and me.

So have these taxes been collected in full yet; or has the amount continued to grow?

Obama borrowed lots of money because the tax revenue in 2006 was less than the spending that year? Can you explain that logic to me?

 

[Charles_Main]

And by the way, Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So even by this measurement Obama is doing no worse than the greatest Reagan of all times

Wrong again. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Obama has been in office for only 3 years. By the time Obama has served 8 years, we will have borrowed far more than all the presidents before him.

No, Obama will NOT borrow more than all presidents before him (that honor belongs exclusively to Reagan):

wrong. Obama started at just over 9 Trillion. Do the math braniac.

 

[Charles_Main]

Budget? Wussdat? We don't need so stinking budget! We're Democrats!

Don't we have our productive congress partially to thank for this?

Only if you discount the fact that the House has passed a budget each and every year.

Not to mention no less than 30 Bills aimed at creating Private Sector Growth that the Esteemed asshole Democrat in Control of the Senate has tabled.

 

[Zander]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Read it again ...an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money ....that is called DEFICIT spending. Deficit SPENDING has EXPLODED under Obama. Sorry, Daniels was right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course people like Gingrich don't want taxes raised. Then he might actually have to pay his fair share.

Define fair share

Fair share would be to raise the capital gains tax. It's not right for a multi-millionaire to be paying 15-20% of their gross, and someone who grosses $200k to be paying 30-35% of their gross. I don't think it's fair. Life's not fair...but this is fucking ridiculous. What was the rumor about Romney? 15%? Screwed up.

If you raise the capital gains tax it will hit everyone, not just the rich. Could that explain why no one really wants it to go up?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Fact. from 2001 to 2008 we added 6 trillion to the deficit.

Fact from 2009 to 2012 we will have added 6 trillion more to the deficit.

Now who controlled Congress and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011 and who still has not passed a budget since 2008?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so the president hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from george washington to bill clinton?

no

During George Bush's term in office he increased the debt from about 5 trillion to 10 trillion up 100%.

During H.W. Bush's term in office he increased the debt 50%.

During Reagan term in office he pushed debt up 180%.

When Obama took office the national debt stood at about 10 trillion and will probably be 16 at end of his first term, up 60%. When you consider that most of this spending increase was due to the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession, he has done quite well at controlling spending as compared to recent Republican presidents.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Are you saying it is impossible for Congress to actually spend less if there is less money coming in? Can you show me that in the Constitution?