The damage done by the New Partisans

[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.

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

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

 

[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.

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.
Feel free to point out anything in my post that is untrue.

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.
Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.
Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.
The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

How is it dishonest to point out that the bill was voted to pass by the majorities in both parties and passed by the president.
It certainly does not seem very honest demanding that it was a republican issue when both parties passed it. The whole Clinton spiel is nothing but smoke and mirrors as well.
Both parties have been complicit.

 

[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.

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

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

 

[gipper]

And yet millions of Americans think the two major parties are different.

 

[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.

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

 

[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.

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.
Feel free to point out anything in my post that is untrue.

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.
Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.
Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.
The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

How is it dishonest to point out that the bill was voted to pass by the majorities in both parties and passed by the president.
It certainly does not seem very honest demanding that it was a republican issue when both parties passed it. The whole Clinton spiel is nothing but smoke and mirrors as well.
Both parties have been complicit.

My post did not include all of those complicit because that was not my point. Does the word GENESIS have meaning to you?

 

[BlindBoo]

Ah......the cuteness of your play on words! You've never heard or read anyone blame George Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. You said that because you are conditioned to say ridiculous things. You got tired of people blaming a guy you supported for things that he fucked up.....so you created this meme. In this way, you can deflect all responsibility for voting for him. You get to cry about how he's been victimized.

What you are witnessing with Obama is much different. Just look at the numbers and the results. His terms in office have seen vast improvement in most economic indicators and modest improvement in the rest. You've fallen victim alright. Victim of your own inability to see truth.

Google "Bush caused Katrina" environmentalists blamed his policies and every other nutter blamed Bush.

The economy failure was predicted by many economist in the 90's, I was actually surprised it didn't entirely collapse after 9/11. This is rehashing pages and pages of posts on this site. What you are witnessing with Obama is a cycle in the economy, the economy naturally ends and flows.

I'm not a victim of anything, your nutter friend was crying because people blame Obama, just stating that nothing has changed from the last President and guess what, the next President, the same will happen. It's call life.

Find me a known Democrat....or any USMB lib who blames bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Let's go.......put up or shut up.

Oh....the economy ebbs and flows! It just happened to be bad while your guy was POTUS! I get it. What's wrong with Kansas? What happened to the economies of Arizona and Alabama between 2010 and 2014? Natural ebb and flow?

Didn't realize you don't know how to use google. Sheehan who ran for Democratic office blamed Bush for Katrina, .

The rest of your bullshit I have been saying for over 20 years. In the 90's people were mortgaging homes at 125% of their value, they would payoff cars and trucks and credit card debt, then go out and do it again and again. Companies that never made a profit with stocks selling over a $100 a share? You didn't think somewhere in all that mess someone wasn't going to lose? Give me a break. I saw it back then and watched it until 2008 and wondered when and how it would end. I am willing to bet we don't learn from it either.

Give us the quite of Sheehan blaming Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Thanks.

You forgot other environmental groups, but I know what I have read, if you want to be ignorant, I'm not stopping you, lord knows liberals love ignorance.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans say President Obama is more to blame for the botched executive branch response to Hurricane Katrina while just 28 percent blamed George W. Bush. A plurality of 44 percent said they were unsure who was more responsible, even though Hurricane Katrina occurred over three years before Obama entered the presidency when he was still a freshman Senator.

Poll Louisiana GOPers Unsure If Katrina Response Was Obama s Fault

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

 

[HUGGY]

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

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

Right. And to your last dying breath I'm certain you believe that. As usual I feel like I wasted time I will never get back having any discussions with you. There are worse on this board but time gone is time lost.

I try and learn several things each day. Maybe I will learn something as valuable as time this morning.

 

[HUGGY]

Google "Bush caused Katrina" environmentalists blamed his policies and every other nutter blamed Bush.

The economy failure was predicted by many economist in the 90's, I was actually surprised it didn't entirely collapse after 9/11. This is rehashing pages and pages of posts on this site. What you are witnessing with Obama is a cycle in the economy, the economy naturally ends and flows.

I'm not a victim of anything, your nutter friend was crying because people blame Obama, just stating that nothing has changed from the last President and guess what, the next President, the same will happen. It's call life.

Find me a known Democrat....or any USMB lib who blames bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Let's go.......put up or shut up.

Oh....the economy ebbs and flows! It just happened to be bad while your guy was POTUS! I get it. What's wrong with Kansas? What happened to the economies of Arizona and Alabama between 2010 and 2014? Natural ebb and flow?

Didn't realize you don't know how to use google. Sheehan who ran for Democratic office blamed Bush for Katrina, .

The rest of your bullshit I have been saying for over 20 years. In the 90's people were mortgaging homes at 125% of their value, they would payoff cars and trucks and credit card debt, then go out and do it again and again. Companies that never made a profit with stocks selling over a $100 a share? You didn't think somewhere in all that mess someone wasn't going to lose? Give me a break. I saw it back then and watched it until 2008 and wondered when and how it would end. I am willing to bet we don't learn from it either.

Give us the quite of Sheehan blaming Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Thanks.

You forgot other environmental groups, but I know what I have read, if you want to be ignorant, I'm not stopping you, lord knows liberals love ignorance.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans say President Obama is more to blame for the botched executive branch response to Hurricane Katrina while just 28 percent blamed George W. Bush. A plurality of 44 percent said they were unsure who was more responsible, even though Hurricane Katrina occurred over three years before Obama entered the presidency when he was still a freshman Senator.

Poll Louisiana GOPers Unsure If Katrina Response Was Obama s Fault

There is no stupid like Southern U S stupid. Appalachian hillbilly stupid comes real close

but they don't get the sun constantly beating down into their brains like in the poor South.

 

[BlindBoo]

Find me a known Democrat....or any USMB lib who blames bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Let's go.......put up or shut up.

Oh....the economy ebbs and flows! It just happened to be bad while your guy was POTUS! I get it. What's wrong with Kansas? What happened to the economies of Arizona and Alabama between 2010 and 2014? Natural ebb and flow?

Didn't realize you don't know how to use google. Sheehan who ran for Democratic office blamed Bush for Katrina, .

The rest of your bullshit I have been saying for over 20 years. In the 90's people were mortgaging homes at 125% of their value, they would payoff cars and trucks and credit card debt, then go out and do it again and again. Companies that never made a profit with stocks selling over a $100 a share? You didn't think somewhere in all that mess someone wasn't going to lose? Give me a break. I saw it back then and watched it until 2008 and wondered when and how it would end. I am willing to bet we don't learn from it either.

Give us the quite of Sheehan blaming Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Thanks.

You forgot other environmental groups, but I know what I have read, if you want to be ignorant, I'm not stopping you, lord knows liberals love ignorance.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans say President Obama is more to blame for the botched executive branch response to Hurricane Katrina while just 28 percent blamed George W. Bush. A plurality of 44 percent said they were unsure who was more responsible, even though Hurricane Katrina occurred over three years before Obama entered the presidency when he was still a freshman Senator.

Poll Louisiana GOPers Unsure If Katrina Response Was Obama s Fault

There is no stupid like Southern U S stupid. Appalachian hillbilly stupid comes real close

but they don't get the sun constantly beating down into their brains like in the poor South.

Funny clips. However since I was born in the deep south I couldn't disagree more. Stupid is everywhere.

 

[HUGGY]

Didn't realize you don't know how to use google. Sheehan who ran for Democratic office blamed Bush for Katrina, .

The rest of your bullshit I have been saying for over 20 years. In the 90's people were mortgaging homes at 125% of their value, they would payoff cars and trucks and credit card debt, then go out and do it again and again. Companies that never made a profit with stocks selling over a $100 a share? You didn't think somewhere in all that mess someone wasn't going to lose? Give me a break. I saw it back then and watched it until 2008 and wondered when and how it would end. I am willing to bet we don't learn from it either.

Give us the quite of Sheehan blaming Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Thanks.

You forgot other environmental groups, but I know what I have read, if you want to be ignorant, I'm not stopping you, lord knows liberals love ignorance.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans say President Obama is more to blame for the botched executive branch response to Hurricane Katrina while just 28 percent blamed George W. Bush. A plurality of 44 percent said they were unsure who was more responsible, even though Hurricane Katrina occurred over three years before Obama entered the presidency when he was still a freshman Senator.

Poll Louisiana GOPers Unsure If Katrina Response Was Obama s Fault

There is no stupid like Southern U S stupid. Appalachian hillbilly stupid comes real close

but they don't get the sun constantly beating down into their brains like in the poor South.

Funny clips. However since I was born in the deep south I couldn't disagree more. Stupid is everywhere.

True. There is something to the heat and humidity effecting in the South that inhibits brain activity though. I stayed a while in Virginia when I was flying and 5 years in South Florida as well. The people that live in the Bahamas are also a fairly good gauge of the I Q's of the native Caribbean folks. I spent some time in South America and Mexico also. Colombians as a whole are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs. The residents of hot climates that can afford A/C seem to be 20-30 I Q points higher. Personally my brain doesn't function at a high level in high heat and humidity.

That said there are plenty of relatively good people that are not terribly sharp. Just because your brain limits your ability to process information doesn't mean you act like the videos I provided. It does account for the disappointing results of elections in the hotter regions.

Even the belief in God and the bible is different in the South. You will hear "That is the way it always was" etc..where in cooler regions they at least attempt to rationalize their choices.

I hope you don't take this information as anything but my honest personal observations. I don't want you to start rioting and burning down buildings over this opinion.

 

[Papageorgio]

I never said it wasn't true, you left out many facts, I filled in for you.

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

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

Right. And to your last dying breath I'm certain you believe that. As usual I feel like I wasted time I will never get back having any discussions with you. There are worse on this board but time gone is time lost.

I try and learn several things each day. Maybe I will learn something as valuable as time this morning.

So 90 Senators did not vote for this bill?

Thanks for wasting all the USMB members time for posting one sided stories.

 

[HUGGY]

The republicans almost literally castrated Clinton with him providing the scalpel in the name of Monica Lewinski.

Clinton did as much if not more internal damage to the country than Bush, He was a tool for the corporations and signed many bills that harmed and eventually ruined the worlds economy among other things. Clinton admitted one of his worst mistakes was allowing the consolidation of the media allowing the wealthiest owners such as Rupert Murdoch among others to closely control the message to America.

Obviously being a republican I didn't vote for Bill. I also didn't vote for the republicans that did the dirty work behind the scenes.

The information I provided peels back the BS and points out the genesis of how the financial world was tipped on it's head allowing devious ways of committing fraud. Yes Clinton signed the bills but he did not produce them. They had Billy's dick in a vice. He was a victim being held hostage to his own shabby morals. Refusing to see that doesn't surprise me in you. He was the crazy father willing to pay any rand-some to make his hostage takers stop. Ya..pathetic. He disgusts me. So does your dishonesty.

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

Right. And to your last dying breath I'm certain you believe that. As usual I feel like I wasted time I will never get back having any discussions with you. There are worse on this board but time gone is time lost.

I try and learn several things each day. Maybe I will learn something as valuable as time this morning.

So 90 Senators did not vote for this bill?

Thanks for wasting all the USMB members time for posting one sided stories.

90 Senators did not craft and sponsor the legislation. My post was not a "side". it was just the facts of how the bill came into being.. AKA it's genesis. You adding on the route it took along the way to implementation does not further my description of it's conception. You and people like you are willing...no...obsessed with finding democrats to blame for everything that ever happened. I don't care. I'm not a democrat and I do believe those that spawned that evil piece of legislation should get recognition. Blame all you want...the dems didn't write the bill.

 

[Papageorgio]

What is dishonest? What are the lies Huggy? The Senate 90-8 passed the bill, it was bipartisan, 35 democratic senators voted FOR the bill. We were sold out by the politicians, party didn't matter.

Again point out my dishonesty, just saying it was doesn't make it so.

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

Right. And to your last dying breath I'm certain you believe that. As usual I feel like I wasted time I will never get back having any discussions with you. There are worse on this board but time gone is time lost.

I try and learn several things each day. Maybe I will learn something as valuable as time this morning.

So 90 Senators did not vote for this bill?

Thanks for wasting all the USMB members time for posting one sided stories.

90 Senators did not craft and sponsor the legislation. My post was not a "side". it was just the facts of how the bill came into being.. AKA it's genesis. You adding on the route it took along the way to implementation does not further my description of it's conception. You and people like you are willing...no...obsessed with finding democrats to blame for everything that ever happened. I don't care. I'm not a democrat and I do believe those that spawned that evil piece of legislation should get recognition. Blame all you want...the dems didn't write the bill.

I didn't say they crafted anything, sorry your reading comprehension sucks.

Just like many bills, you vote for it, I hold you accountable for it.

 

[HUGGY]

I provided the truth to the genesis of the legislation that led to the abuses and finally to the largest financial disaster in human history. I didn't need to lay out the whole process because that would be putting the cart before the horse. The legislation was born out of corporate greed and it's influence on the named republican representatives.

Most people do not link what appeared as a stupid hounding of Clinton over his sexual blunders. Numerous elected representatives from both parties have committed sexual deviations from what their constituents and the general public would accept. Obviously the REAL reason that Clinton was pursued with such venom and energy was to put him in a position of weakness where he would be forced to sign legislation into law which under better political circumstances he would have vetoed. Of course there is a little speculation there but I don't believe in co-incidence. The argument I am presenting has nothing to do with Clinton's participation which any person with half a brain could deduct was coerced.

Your dishonesty is in attempting to muddy the waters I have made clear in why, how and by whom exactly the financial disaster came into being. Clinton's signature was just a step along the way after the republicans had put him in a situation where he could not refuse to co-operate. If there had been equal or even bi-partisan sponsorship of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 I would have presented it as such.

Modern republicans are masters at diversion, stalling and refusal to accept any responsibility in the harm they have brought to this nation. You are just walking in their footsteps.

I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

Right. And to your last dying breath I'm certain you believe that. As usual I feel like I wasted time I will never get back having any discussions with you. There are worse on this board but time gone is time lost.

I try and learn several things each day. Maybe I will learn something as valuable as time this morning.

So 90 Senators did not vote for this bill?

Thanks for wasting all the USMB members time for posting one sided stories.

90 Senators did not craft and sponsor the legislation. My post was not a "side". it was just the facts of how the bill came into being.. AKA it's genesis. You adding on the route it took along the way to implementation does not further my description of it's conception. You and people like you are willing...no...obsessed with finding democrats to blame for everything that ever happened. I don't care. I'm not a democrat and I do believe those that spawned that evil piece of legislation should get recognition. Blame all you want...the dems didn't write the bill.

I didn't say they crafted anything, sorry your reading comprehension sucks.

Just like many bills, you vote for it, I hold you accountable for it.

Loyalty is one thing. The lengths you will go to avoiding accepting responsibility isn't as brave as you probably imagine. Just because you don't directly blame Obama for the financial crisis as most of your fellow RW apologists do does not make you much less crazy. It just means you are slightly less of a robot for the Koch's. You are incapable of conducting an honest clean discussion.

Too much was on the line. Duh! The clock was ticking down and the big money boys pulled out all the stops when the bill actually made it to the floor for a vote. They already knew they had Clinton. How they got all the votes does not interest me. It happened. Why the legislation was drafted is what matters.

Who cleaned off the the knife as the murder was being executed is irrelevant. The heavy lifting in this plot to overthrow the rules of the financial institutions regulated by our government happened long before Clinton signed it into law.

You can stop your repetitive babbling. This thing was a child of the republicans. That is the true history.

I'm done arguing with a sycophant.

 

[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

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.

I didn't make the assertion "that the yardstick with which to measure expenditures should be based on a single year that was bloated"....YOU DID.

The "yardstick" is the annual growth in spending of administrations for the last 35 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I didn't make the assertion "that the yardstick with which to measure expenditures should be based on a single year that was bloated"....YOU DID.

The "yardstick" is the annual growth in spending of administrations for the last 35 years.

In your mind, what does this chart demonstrate?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I didn't make the assertion "that the yardstick with which to measure expenditures should be based on a single year that was bloated"....YOU DID.

The "yardstick" is the annual growth in spending of administrations for the last 35 years.

In your mind, what does this chart demonstrate?

Are these words too big for you?

Annualized growth of federal spending