The damage done by the New Partisans

[LoneLaugher]

I am a dude, dumbass. You are a clown.

You are a dumbass, dude. Take a look at your avatar.

Fuck off, sourpuss. You act like someone who has had something crawl up inside you and die.

Worry about yourself, dumbass.

Don't worry. ...

Nobody is worried about you, dumbass.

Oh! Zing! You are slaying me here! Mercy!!

 

[Papageorgio]

Sorry dude, I couldn't tell over the Internet, dumbass. You are wrong, you are a fucktard. Link it and find out dumbshit, are you unable to do simple tasks.

Like a typical nutter....you think someone else is waiting to do your work for you. You've not proven your claim. You made it up. Why not admit it?

Made up nothing and I don't have to prove a thing to the board clown.

Of course not. You never have to prove anything to anybody. It's easier to fool yourself that way.

I prove things all the time, you are a chicken shot that has already google it and didn't like the outcome. You are purely here for my entertainment, I only answer you when I want to hear you squawk back. You have been good so far.

chicken shit
googled

Nutters never post directly to people and then claim that they are directing others to keep posting back. They NEVER do that.

You think I googled something and didn't like the outcome? What did I google there, chief?

And the monkey responds on cue.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Like a typical nutter....you think someone else is waiting to do your work for you. You've not proven your claim. You made it up. Why not admit it?

Made up nothing and I don't have to prove a thing to the board clown.

Of course not. You never have to prove anything to anybody. It's easier to fool yourself that way.

I prove things all the time, you are a chicken shot that has already google it and didn't like the outcome. You are purely here for my entertainment, I only answer you when I want to hear you squawk back. You have been good so far.

chicken shit
googled

Nutters never post directly to people and then claim that they are directing others to keep posting back. They NEVER do that.

You think I googled something and didn't like the outcome? What did I google there, chief?

And the monkey responds on cue.

Look at you! You are like a little puppet. All Imhave to do is post something to you and you can't help but respond. Like my little toy! Weeeeee!

 

[Papageorgio]

There you go, the little monkey back on cue, that's why you responded to me first? Lol! No wonder I got some PMs about you being the boards joke. Want a banana monkey?

 

[Papageorgio]

Lol

 

[Bfgrn]

That's been discussed here many times since I've been here and no doubt much longer. That's only part of the picture, it wasn't just Reagan and national income went up. You have your head up your ass.

Yea, it WAS just Reagan. For 200 years; from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, through Great Depressions, two world wars and other crisis America had accumulated one trillion dollars of debt.

The fiscal government philosophy that spanned all those years was "if you spend it, pay for it". Pay for government expenditures by collecting tax revenue...

Enter Ronny Reagan...

When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent.

It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

PLEASE explain to me the conservative philosophy of having our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for what we spend? PLEASE explain how that is fiscal responsible and how liberal policies of paying for what we spend is irresponsible?

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

 

[The Rabbi]

That's been discussed here many times since I've been here and no doubt much longer. That's only part of the picture, it wasn't just Reagan and national income went up. You have your head up your ass.

Yea, it WAS just Reagan. For 200 years; from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, through Great Depressions, two world wars and other crisis America had accumulated one trillion dollars of debt.

The fiscal government philosophy that spanned all those years was "if you spend it, pay for it". Pay for government expenditures by collecting tax revenue...

Enter Ronny Reagan...

When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent.

It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

PLEASE explain to me the conservative philosophy of having our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for what we spend? PLEASE explain how that is fiscal responsible and how liberal policies of paying for what we spend is irresponsible?

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

 

[Iceweasel]

That's 10 years old. And yes the dims contributed mightily. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way. Well....not really.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's been discussed here many times since I've been here and no doubt much longer. That's only part of the picture, it wasn't just Reagan and national income went up. You have your head up your ass.

Yea, it WAS just Reagan. For 200 years; from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, through Great Depressions, two world wars and other crisis America had accumulated one trillion dollars of debt.

The fiscal government philosophy that spanned all those years was "if you spend it, pay for it". Pay for government expenditures by collecting tax revenue...

Enter Ronny Reagan...

When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent.

It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

PLEASE explain to me the conservative philosophy of having our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for what we spend? PLEASE explain how that is fiscal responsible and how liberal policies of paying for what we spend is irresponsible?

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

That's been discussed here many times since I've been here and no doubt much longer. That's only part of the picture, it wasn't just Reagan and national income went up. You have your head up your ass.

Yea, it WAS just Reagan. For 200 years; from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, through Great Depressions, two world wars and other crisis America had accumulated one trillion dollars of debt.

The fiscal government philosophy that spanned all those years was "if you spend it, pay for it". Pay for government expenditures by collecting tax revenue...

Enter Ronny Reagan...

When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent.

It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

PLEASE explain to me the conservative philosophy of having our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for what we spend? PLEASE explain how that is fiscal responsible and how liberal policies of paying for what we spend is irresponsible?

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

LOL!! Let's see just how stupid you are:
Can you explain the graph posted by you in that story?

 

[FA_Q2]

That's been discussed here many times since I've been here and no doubt much longer. That's only part of the picture, it wasn't just Reagan and national income went up. You have your head up your ass.

Yea, it WAS just Reagan. For 200 years; from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, through Great Depressions, two world wars and other crisis America had accumulated one trillion dollars of debt.

The fiscal government philosophy that spanned all those years was "if you spend it, pay for it". Pay for government expenditures by collecting tax revenue...

Enter Ronny Reagan...

When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent.

It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

PLEASE explain to me the conservative philosophy of having our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for what we spend? PLEASE explain how that is fiscal responsible and how liberal policies of paying for what we spend is irresponsible?

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yea, it WAS just Reagan. For 200 years; from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, through Great Depressions, two world wars and other crisis America had accumulated one trillion dollars of debt.

The fiscal government philosophy that spanned all those years was "if you spend it, pay for it". Pay for government expenditures by collecting tax revenue...

Enter Ronny Reagan...

When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent.

It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

PLEASE explain to me the conservative philosophy of having our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for what we spend? PLEASE explain how that is fiscal responsible and how liberal policies of paying for what we spend is irresponsible?

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.

Facts are "ignorant as hell"?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy. ref

 

[HUGGY]

.

Good piece by Dana Milbank: America s new cycle of partisan hatred - The Washington Post

A few points from it:

-- Up until the mid-1980s, the typical American held the view that partisans on the other side operated with good intentions. But that has changed in dramatic fashion, as a study published last year by Stanford and Princeton researchers demonstrates.


It has long been agreed that race is the deepest divide in American society. But that is no longer true, say Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood, the academics who led the study. Using a variety of social science methods (for example, having study participants review résumés of people that make both their race and party affiliation clear), they document that “the level of partisan animus in the American public exceeds racial hostility.”

-- This leads to a grim conclusion: The problem with politics isn’t Washington but the electorate. Members of Congress, most of whom come from safely gerrymandered districts, are behaving in a perfectly rational way when they avoid cooperation with the other party and instead try to build support within their own tribe.


Elected officials and professional partisans then reinforce the tribal tendency in the electorate with overheated rhetoric, perpetual campaigns, negative ads and increasingly partisan media outlets. “The individuals who hold more hostility are then given the green light to hold these more hostile positions,” Westwood explained.

So does he see a way out of this tribal cycle of hatred? “Sadly, no.”

Sadly, indeed.

.

The RWers have their dishonesty and hypocrisy in full swing as headed up by Rabbi.

Newt Gingrich spawned the lexicon of mindless hatred and disrespect of his political opposition as a congressman in 1979 right up to his brief stint as Speaker.

Newt has a lot of nerve going after Clinton for the "appearance of impropriety" whereas she hasn't done anything and the former congressman was in fact using children's charities to pad his campaign coffers and was caught red handed.

" In 1997, Gingrich was ultimately slapped with a $300,000 fine by the House ethics committee for his "reckless" or "intentional" use of nonprofits for partisan political ends"

Newt Gingrich s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained Mother Jones

Funny Gingrich doesn't harbor at least an equal hatred for his fellow republicans because it was they that had had enough of his fraudulent activities and gave him the boot as Speaker.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.

Facts are "ignorant as hell"?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy. ref

You dont understand his point, do you?
The budget was bloated due to the Democrat-induced recession in 2009. But once spending on recession-related matters went away the budget was still above where it had been pre-recession.
Obama is the biggest spender in history. By the time he's done he will have spent more money than every other president combined.
This isnt working out quite like you wanted, is it, Sparky?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Good piece by Dana Milbank: America s new cycle of partisan hatred - The Washington Post

A few points from it:

-- Up until the mid-1980s, the typical American held the view that partisans on the other side operated with good intentions. But that has changed in dramatic fashion, as a study published last year by Stanford and Princeton researchers demonstrates.


It has long been agreed that race is the deepest divide in American society. But that is no longer true, say Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood, the academics who led the study. Using a variety of social science methods (for example, having study participants review résumés of people that make both their race and party affiliation clear), they document that “the level of partisan animus in the American public exceeds racial hostility.”

-- This leads to a grim conclusion: The problem with politics isn’t Washington but the electorate. Members of Congress, most of whom come from safely gerrymandered districts, are behaving in a perfectly rational way when they avoid cooperation with the other party and instead try to build support within their own tribe.


Elected officials and professional partisans then reinforce the tribal tendency in the electorate with overheated rhetoric, perpetual campaigns, negative ads and increasingly partisan media outlets. “The individuals who hold more hostility are then given the green light to hold these more hostile positions,” Westwood explained.

So does he see a way out of this tribal cycle of hatred? “Sadly, no.”

Sadly, indeed.

.

The RWers have their dishonesty and hypocrisy in full swing as headed up by Rabbi.

Newt Gingrich spawned the lexicon of mindless hatred and disrespect of his political opposition as a congressman in 1979 right up to his brief stint as Speaker.

Newt has a lot of nerve going after Clinton for the "appearance of impropriety" whereas she hasn't done anything and the former congressman was in fact using children's charities to pad his campaign coffers and was caught red handed.

" In 1997, Gingrich was ultimately slapped with a $300,000 fine by the House ethics committee for his "reckless" or "intentional" use of nonprofits for partisan political ends"

Newt Gingrich s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained Mother Jones

Funny Gingrich doesn't harbor at least an equal hatred for his fellow republicans because it was they that had had enough of his fraudulent activities and gave him the boot as Speaker.

Good illustration of the OP, thanks.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.

Facts are "ignorant as hell"?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy. ref

You dont understand his point, do you?
The budget was bloated due to the Democrat-induced recession in 2009. But once spending on recession-related matters went away the budget was still above where it had been pre-recession.
Obama is the biggest spender in history. By the time he's done he will have spent more money than every other president combined.
This isnt working out quite like you wanted, is it, Sparky?

Democrat induced recession? REALLY?? Republicans are the party of Wall Street banksters, and deregulation; the causes of the recession. But your handlers are forbidden from revealing the truth to you. They would have you believe selling homes to lower income families caused the world economy to crash. Even though NONE of the mass foreclosures were in lower income neighborhoods.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's what I don't understand. I can buy that the government's 'borrow and spend' began in earnest during the Reagan administration. What I don't understand is how you get from that to blaming conservative philosophy for it and claiming liberal policy is to pay for what we spend. Clearly all of the governments prior to Reagan were not liberal, so the long policy of paying for what government spends would have to have been followed by more than one party or political philosophy. The debt has not gotten smaller since Reagan, so clearly the borrow and spend philosophy has continued no matter which party holds power.

If you want to blame Reagan for changing how the government paid for things, fine. Whether that is accurate or not, at least I can see how the evidence leads you to that conclusion. To place the blame solely on conservatives when all governments since have continued that style of governance, though, seems ridiculous.

It is really pretty simple.

First, conservatives vehemently defend Ronald Reagan, but refuse to acknowledge Reagan switched our government from tax and spend to borrow and spend. And of course they refuse to own the debt those tax cuts produced.

Second, debt does not get 'zeroed out' with each new administration. You need to understand the difference between 'debt' and 'deficits'.



"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Are you still blathering about this? There hadnt been a balanced budget since JFK was in office. ANd if Reagan was bad witha billion dollar deficit, what does that say about Obama and a trillion dollar deficit?

And there hasn't been a smaller government spender in the White House since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower Would You Believe It s Barack Obama - Forbes

This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.

Facts are "ignorant as hell"?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy. ref

No, facts are not ignorant. You assertion that the yardstick with which to measure expenditures should be based on a single year that was bloated by 30% because of a bailout program is supremely ignorant. That is where you draw your incorrect assertions, using a yardstick that is broken and you know it.

 

[HUGGY]

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999
sponsored by the republicans of the same names is widely regarded as the opening of Pandora's Box which lead the financial, Insurance and investment companies to merge and compete for the most "inventive" ways to package and sell so-called commodities such as the infamous derivatives. This legislation was forced into being because of the pressure applied by the largest proposed bank,investment house and insurance merger up til that time. This act was not responsible for ALL of the conditions that were the crisis but as it butchered the safety features of Glass Steagall it created the tools that were used to play hide and seek with the shaky mortgages that had not previously been available to the financial sector under the rules of Glass–Steagall Act.

The above pics are the culprits. All republicans.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999
sponsored by the republicans of the same names is widely regarded as the opening of Pandora's Box which lead the financial, Insurance and investment companies to merge and compete for the most "inventive" ways to package and sell so-called commodities such as the infamous derivatives. This legislation was forced into being because of the pressure applied by the largest proposed bank,investment house and insurance merger up til that time. This act was not responsible for ALL of the conditions that were the crisis but as it butchered the safety features of Glass Steagall it created the tools that were used to play hide and seek with the shaky mortgages that had not previously been available to the financial sector under the rules of Glass–Steagall Act.

The above pics are the culprits. All republicans.

Wasn't it Clinton that signed the bill, instead of vetoing it? Then it would have required 66 votes to pass and the GOP didn't have the votes. Oh wait, the bill passed the House 362- 57 and the Senate 90-8 and then went to the Democratic President. Now my memory says there were 55 Republicans in the Senate at the time and 45 Democrats. So, it looks like the majority of both parties and the President liked the bill.

Funny how history is different than what you were telling us.

 

[HUGGY]

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999
sponsored by the republicans of the same names is widely regarded as the opening of Pandora's Box which lead the financial, Insurance and investment companies to merge and compete for the most "inventive" ways to package and sell so-called commodities such as the infamous derivatives. This legislation was forced into being because of the pressure applied by the largest proposed bank,investment house and insurance merger up til that time. This act was not responsible for ALL of the conditions that were the crisis but as it butchered the safety features of Glass Steagall it created the tools that were used to play hide and seek with the shaky mortgages that had not previously been available to the financial sector under the rules of Glass–Steagall Act.

The above pics are the culprits. All republicans.

Wasn't it Clinton that signed the bill, instead of vetoing it? Then it would have required 66 votes to pass and the GOP didn't have the votes. Oh wait, the bill passed the House 362- 57 and the Senate 90-8 and then went to the Democratic President. Now my memory says there were 55 Republicans in the Senate at the time and 45 Democrats. So, it looks like the majority of both parties and the President liked the bill.

Funny how history is different than what you were telling us.

Feel free to point out anything in my post that is untrue.