"Tallying Trump's tab": The liberals suddenly care about excessive spending

[Toddsterpatriot]

He could have cut spending. He didn't.
He gets blamed for the increase in the debt, even though he's black.

Liar!
He did cut spending with his Obamaquester.
How quickly the Right forgets!

He did cut spending with his Obamaquester.

When you've added $7.5 trillion to the debt, you haven't cut spending.

He hasn't added $7.5 trillion to the GOP National Debt, liar.

The debt was $10.6 trillion on Jan 20, 2009 and is $18.1 trillion now.
Even a stupid liberal should be able to punch those numbers into a calculator.

The fiscal year ended Sept 30,2009, stop pretending to be too dumb to know it.

Ignoring the spending bills Obama signed for FY 2009?

 

[edthecynic]

Liar!
He did cut spending with his Obamaquester.
How quickly the Right forgets!

He did cut spending with his Obamaquester.

When you've added $7.5 trillion to the debt, you haven't cut spending.

He hasn't added $7.5 trillion to the GOP National Debt, liar.

The debt was $10.6 trillion on Jan 20, 2009 and is $18.1 trillion now.
Even a stupid liberal should be able to punch those numbers into a calculator.

The fiscal year ended Sept 30,2009, stop pretending to be too dumb to know it.

Ignoring the spending bills Obama signed for FY 2009?

They were $140 billion to $203 billion depending on how far Left or Right the person doing the calculating is.

 

[rightwinger]

After years (decades?) of pushing huge spending increases and "Do it for the children" rhetoric designed to get people to ignore that they are plunging the country into bottomless debt, suddenly the liberals have decided that a spending proposal is too expensive.

That spending proposal is, of course, Donald Trump saying he will make the government obey our immigrations laws. We can't have that!

-----------------------------------------------------

Tallying Trump s Tab NBC Suddenly Cares About Excessive Spending

'Tallying Trump's Tab': NBC Suddenly Cares About Excessive Spending

By Scott Whitlock
August 18, 2015
11:31 AM EDT

NBC finally cares about government spending. The network that has been very friendly to Barack Obama (under whom the national debt will reach $19 trillion) worried that Donald Trump's policy goals may cost too much. Today reporter Hallie Jackson on Tuesday fretted, "The candidate known for his big money... turns out to be a big spender when it comes to his presidential proposals."

Jackson lamented Trump's plans as wasteful: "Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants estimated to cost about $138 billion. Taking back Iraqi oil fields, which would mean U.S. boots on the ground, $13 billion to $22 billion and repealing the Affordable Care Act may cost the government $137 billion in the next decade."

Showcasing NBC's new-found interesting in fiscal austerity, Jackson complained of Trump: "He dodged NBC's Katy Tur's question about where that money to deport undocumented immigrants would come from."

Over ABC's Good Morning America, Tom Llamas did not focus on the cost of the immigration policies. Instead, he yelled questions at Trump (who was in New York City for jury duty) on enforcement: "How would you do it?... What would you tell a child of an undocumented immigrant? What would you tell that child born in the U.S.?"

Let's see?

Spend money helping the American people or building a stupid wall?
I think I will help people

You're going to help American workers by importing cheap foreign labor to take their jobs and drive their wages down?

You realize that you're a despicable jackass, don't you?

They are already here

You would allow, and even encourage, more to come. Plus, we can deport the ones who are already here.

They come for the jobs. Arrest some employers and the jobs disappear
More effective and less costly than a wall

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He did cut spending with his Obamaquester.

When you've added $7.5 trillion to the debt, you haven't cut spending.

He hasn't added $7.5 trillion to the GOP National Debt, liar.

The debt was $10.6 trillion on Jan 20, 2009 and is $18.1 trillion now.
Even a stupid liberal should be able to punch those numbers into a calculator.

The fiscal year ended Sept 30,2009, stop pretending to be too dumb to know it.

Ignoring the spending bills Obama signed for FY 2009?

They were $140 billion to $203 billion depending on how far Left or Right the person doing the calculating is.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending. Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct. If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct. The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances. …

"President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. ...

"President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree. ...

"How can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto? Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis. Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.


Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

 

[edthecynic]

He hasn't added $7.5 trillion to the GOP National Debt, liar.

The debt was $10.6 trillion on Jan 20, 2009 and is $18.1 trillion now.
Even a stupid liberal should be able to punch those numbers into a calculator.

The fiscal year ended Sept 30,2009, stop pretending to be too dumb to know it.

Ignoring the spending bills Obama signed for FY 2009?

They were $140 billion to $203 billion depending on how far Left or Right the person doing the calculating is.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending.

Those numbers do not come from "Nutting." The come from the CBO.

BTW: Your link also had this gem:

"Let’s "take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted ‘primary spending.’ After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office.

"Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The debt was $10.6 trillion on Jan 20, 2009 and is $18.1 trillion now.
Even a stupid liberal should be able to punch those numbers into a calculator.

The fiscal year ended Sept 30,2009, stop pretending to be too dumb to know it.

Ignoring the spending bills Obama signed for FY 2009?

They were $140 billion to $203 billion depending on how far Left or Right the person doing the calculating is.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending.

Those numbers do not come from "Nutting." The come from the CBO.

BTW: Your link also had this gem:

"Let’s "take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted ‘primary spending.’ After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office.

"Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory."

Those numbers do not come from "Nutting." The come from the CBO.

If Nutting took the CBO numbers and used them to blame Bush for bank TARP loans and credit Obama for bank TARP repayments, then Nutting is wrong.

If Nutting blamed Bush for FY 2009 bills that Obama signed, then Nutting is wrong.

Here's more........

There’s obviously room for disagreement, but most people will agree that the Cold War and 9/11 meant higher defense spending, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet Empire inevitably meant lower military expenditures, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge.

So let’s now look at primary spending after subtracting defense outlays (still adjusting for inflation, of course). All of a sudden, Reagan jumps to the top of the list by a comfortable margin. LBJ and W continue to score poorly, but Nixon takes over last place.

But it’s also worth noting that Obama still scores relatively well, beating Clinton for second place. Inflation-adjusted domestic spending (which is mostly what we’re measuring) has grown by 2.0 percent annually during his three years in office.........

So let’s take the preceding set of numbers and subtract out the long-run numbers for deposit insurance, as well as the TARP outlays since 2009. And keep in mind that repayments of TARP monies (as well as deposit insurance premiums) show up in the budget as “negative spending"

As you can see, this produces a remarkable result. All of a sudden, Obama drops from second to second-to-last.

This is because there was a lot of TARP spending in Bush’s last fiscal year (FY2009), which created an artificially high benchmark. And then repayments by banks during Obama’s fiscal years counted as negative spending.

When you subtract out the big TARP spending surge, as well as the repayments, then Bush 43 doesn’t look quite as bad (though still worse than Carter and Clinton), while Obama takes a big fall.

In other words, Obama’s track record does show that he favors an expanding social welfare state. Outlays on those programs have jumped by 7.0 percent annually. And that’s after adjusting for inflation! Not as bad as Nixon, but that’s not saying much since he was one of America’s most statist presidents.

Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which President Is the Biggest Spender of All?

Article is three years old...........

 

[edthecynic]

The fiscal year ended Sept 30,2009, stop pretending to be too dumb to know it.

Ignoring the spending bills Obama signed for FY 2009?

They were $140 billion to $203 billion depending on how far Left or Right the person doing the calculating is.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending.

Those numbers do not come from "Nutting." The come from the CBO.

BTW: Your link also had this gem:

"Let’s "take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted ‘primary spending.’ After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office.

"Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory."

Those numbers do not come from "Nutting." The come from the CBO.

If Nutting took the CBO numbers and used them to blame Bush for bank TARP loans and credit Obama for bank TARP repayments, then Nutting is wrong.

If Nutting blamed Bush for FY 2009 bills that Obama signed, then Nutting is wrong.

Here's more........

There’s obviously room for disagreement, but most people will agree that the Cold War and 9/11 meant higher defense spending, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet Empire inevitably meant lower military expenditures, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge.

So let’s now look at primary spending after subtracting defense outlays (still adjusting for inflation, of course). All of a sudden, Reagan jumps to the top of the list by a comfortable margin...

Well geezz, if you are going to deduct whatever spending you want you can make whoever you want come out on top! And St Ronnie's higher "defense" spending had nothing to do with the Cold War, it was mostly pork barrel spending going to his donors, like his "Star Wars" pork barrel boondoggle. Obama was able to cut the pork in the military budget with his Obamaquester.