Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[freedombecki]

Just printed 85-billion in funny-money each month.

Them chickens is gonna come to roost.

Patience, hoppagrasses....

sh-h-h-h-h! Oops! Too late. The spending balloon just got popped, and the Obamabots can't handle the stale air in it. *sigh*

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

It would be refreshing to cut all the BS about ‘under Obama.’

 

[francoHFW]

Obama and the far left have not passed a fiscal year budget.

If they do then they feel they will have to own their spending, until they do (in their minds) it is still Bush's fault.

ANOTHER of 5k BS reasons that hater dupes BELIEVE for IGNORING Bush wrecking the world economy, and mindless Pubs obstructing a recovery...stupidest party EVER.

 

[Faun]

What? 6 trillion surplus? BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!! What are you smoking? Please show me anywhere we've even had even a 400 billion surplus. YOU CAN'T, because we never have. You really proved you lunacy here faun.

Your G-d given limitations aside ... of course I can prove my claim ...

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION

A NYT article that gives an ESTIMATE the never happened? You call that proof? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa! You are as misinformed as the dolt that wrote the article.

The U.S. has had only 5 years that we've had a surplus since 1958,.....1969, 1998-2001. The single largest year was 99 at 236 billion. I'm pretty sure that's not going to equate to a 6 trillion dollar surplus.

btw, estimates are not facts. try this site for a little more accurate data.......Historical Tables | The White House

My goodness, you rightards are relentless with your stupidity. That NY Times article is nothing but a vehicle to deliver a report by the CBO. Your misgivings about the NYTimes has nothing to do with it. And while I understand it was just an estimate (I even said it was projected from when I first brought it up) your sad reality is you have absolutely nothing to show their estimate is off. You even point out how the biggest single year budget surplus was 236 billion. That alone, over a ten year period, is 2.4 trillion. So even you [unwittingly] demonstrate half of what the CBO found. And then the part you left out, was the trend of those surpluses at that time indicated they were rising.

1998: $69b
1999: $126b
2000: $236b

Had that upwards trend continued and one can easily see how the CBO estimated a 10 year surplus of $6t. Of course, reality set in, in the form of a dot com bubble burst followed up by 8 years of Bush malfeasance, and that $6 trillion projected surplus turned into an $8 trillion deficit.

 

[Faun]

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

Art I Section 8. You fail. Again.

Failing would require the Constitution doesn't say what I claim ... yet there it is.

Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

As far as public roads and schools -- those have long been defined by the government as "general welfare."

 

[Faun]

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Note that YOU and OBAMA are all for decimating the US Military...

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

They couldn't, which is why the Congress is not limited to those enumerations. You made my point, even though you're too stupid to know it. But again, try to find a rightwing nut who espouses the Congress cannot spend a dime on anything beyond those enumerations who will agree they shouldn't be allowed to fund the air force since it's not among the list.

You can't. Why? Because such rightwing nuts are hypocrites who have no qualms with Congress spending money on things they want, even if it goes against their belief system.

By the way ... you're ******* insane. I said nothing negative about our military.

 

[Faun]

And therein lies the problem. Maybe your Constitution allows for that, but the U.S. Constitution does not.

First of all, "general welfare" is not one of the specific, 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. "General welfare" is simply mentioned as a reason why the federal government is being granted 18 specific, enumerated powers. But it is not a power itself

Second, when you take from 52% and use it to reward a specific group, that is not the "general welfare". That is punishing a larger group for the welfare of a smaller group. General means ALL or MOST (see definition below). And since 48% of the people (the parasite class) pay no federal taxes, you are punishing 52% to reward 48%. Those numbers are a far cry from ALL or MOST.

Now that I have educated you on the Constitution (no need to thank me, it has been my pleasure) and illustrates how even your misinterpretation of the Constitution doesn't hold up, would you like to try again?

gen·er·al (ˈjenərəl/)
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

My, my, you're ******* ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Watching you have a melt down because I own you like your party owned slaves in the 1800's is priceless.

Please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it states that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution?

Oops! Can't do it [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

That's because that power does not exist and never has. The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret laws as they apply to the Constitution (ie their Constitutionality) - not the Constitution itself.

Tell me, what does it feel like being my personal ***** on USMB?

I wouldn't know since I'm not actually a member of your delusions. Those delusions including the belief that the Constitution doesn't grant the U.S.S.C. the final arbitrator of determining the Constitutionality of our laws -- such determination, of course, requiring the ability to interpret the Constitution. Without such ability, would render them incapable of rendering any decision based on the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

A bit of a reading comprehension problem [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

See, I was responding to your post (which can still be seen above in this post right here) in which you cited Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan (highlighted and bolded above since you have a reading comprehension problem).

As anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading would have known, those three presidents you cited were the "all" I was referring to. I was not referring to all presidents in U.S. history (although Obama has surpassed them if you take first terms only - yep, that's right, Obama added more to the U.S. debt in his first term than all other presidents in U.S. history combined did).

Feel stupid now Fauny? You should...

Why on Earth would I feel stupid because an imbecile thinks he's clever? After all, at the end of the day, you're still nothing but an imbecile who thinks he's clever. But let's look at your exact words before you altered them ...

'And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined.

well, no, he hasn't.

Last 3 Republicans: 8.1t
Obama: 6.6t

And while I noticed even you realize your bullshit was bullshit, leading you to amend your initial statement by limiting it to their first term only, You are now mired in your sickness by comparing insignificant nominal figures as well as attempting to conceal the fact that Bush's first term was aided by the low deficit he inherited while Obama was drowned in the massive deficit and broken economy he inherited.

Carry on with your delusions ... they're all you have.

Aww [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - needed a new narrative since I had to explain how ignorant you were misinterpreting what was clearly written and which everyone else understood?

Obama is over $7 trillion now chief. He did that in his first term. All presidents in U.S. history combined did not even come close to that.

Furthermore, your ignorant ass is trying to compare 20 years of GOP presidency (8 Reagan, 4 Bush Sr., 8 Bush Jr.) to a mere 4 years of Obama. How sad is that?

My, my. Your ignorance knows no boundaries, does it? I wasn't the one who initiated the comparison of the amount of debt between Obama and those 3 Republicans.

That imbecile was you. I merely pointed out how bad your math is in that that you were wrong. Obama has not generated more than those 3 combined. And where do you get over $7 trillion in his first term? Shirley you don't speak of debt? So what are you talking about?

 

[Faun]

Their stooge has spent 7 trillion and they're denying it. Lol.

Great. Yet another right wing imbecile who doesn't understand the difference between debt and spending.

That is your argument?
It's not the debt created by your messiah?

No, that was not my argument. Does this mean I should categorize you with those other morons who don't know the difference between spending and debt?

Is there like a private school for the retarded where y'all graduate from?

With honors.

 

[Faun]

Are you republicans really going to run on no freeways, no public schools, no ssi and no birth control again?

You will be defeated!

Are you Dumbocrats really going to run on collapsing the nation again?

Like your policies did in the former U.S.S.R.? Like your policies did in Greece? Like your policies did in Spain? Like your policies did in France? Like your policies did in Cambodia? Like your policies did in Cuba? Like your policies did in Ethiopia?

As opposed to the Republican policies of the 1920's and 2000's ... both resulting in massive economic failures.

 

[Faun]

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

Seriously [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION], you exposing your astounding ignorance here

Defense is the responsibility of the federal government. Stating that they must spell out exactly which form that defense takes is absolutely as absurd and asinine as trying to make the claim that the 2nd Amendment must spell out which guns exactly are "legal"... :esua_doh:

But hey, if shutting down the Air Force is what it takes to make an asshat like you actually obey the Constitution, I'm on board chief!

Holy shit! I never suggested shutting down the air force.

Just how ******* retarded are you? You are the poster child for why inbreeding is frowned upon.

 

[Faun]

Why would you use a projected figure for something that happened over a decade ago? It isnt like the final number isn't known.
But looky here.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 we owed over $5.7T.
On Sep 30 of the same year whcih is the end of the federal fiscal year, we owed $5.8T.
So if there was a 6 Trillion dollar surplus it should have wiped off the debt, right? At least it should have made a dent in the debt, right?
But it didnt.
And by the next year teh debt was 6.2T.

So your post is a lie. You keep getting your ass handed to you. You really need to quit while you're in the deep hole.

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

Of course it's a lie. Who cares what the CBO estimated? We had the actual figures. And they were nowhere near the estimate.
The fact is that Obama has added more to the debt than Bush at this time. Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the US. In the history of the world.

Of course rightards don't care about CBO estimates (except for those predicting where we will be ten years after Obama) since they went from a $6 trillion surplus to an $8 trillion deficit during 8 years of Bush.

Did you think I thought you rightards would embrace the CBO's estimates prior to Obama?

Of course not.

Do you think I care?

Of course not.

 

[Faun]

Why would you use a projected figure for something that happened over a decade ago? It isnt like the final number isn't known.
But looky here.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 we owed over $5.7T.
On Sep 30 of the same year whcih is the end of the federal fiscal year, we owed $5.8T.
So if there was a 6 Trillion dollar surplus it should have wiped off the debt, right? At least it should have made a dent in the debt, right?
But it didnt.
And by the next year teh debt was 6.2T.

So your post is a lie. You keep getting your ass handed to you. You really need to quit while you're in the deep hole.

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

Funny, since everyone here is crushing you with facts from every side and your standing all alone, I'd say it's pretty obvious your the only imbecile...

Am I supposed to care what someone who exhibits delusions thinks?

Seriously??

 

[Kosh]

Obama and the far left have not passed a fiscal year budget.

If they do then they feel they will have to own their spending, until they do (in their minds) it is still Bush's fault.

ANOTHER of 5k BS reasons that hater dupes BELIEVE for IGNORING Bush wrecking the world economy, and mindless Pubs obstructing a recovery...stupidest party EVER.

Says the far left Obama Worshiper.

 

[Billy000]

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

Funny, since everyone here is crushing you with facts from every side and your standing all alone, I'd say it's pretty obvious your the only imbecile...

Am I supposed to care what someone who exhibits delusions thinks?

Seriously??

Seriously Faun these people are a brick wall of stupidity. They aren't content to learning anything outside of what they hear on Fox News. Thinking hurts.

 

[Kosh]

It is funny to watch all the far left posters speak about independent thinking, yet repeat the far left mantra and are closed off to any alternatives outside the DNC programming.

The bible thumpers are more open minded than anyone on the far left.

 

[Billy000]

It is funny to watch all the far left posters speak about independent thinking, yet repeat the far left mantra and are closed off to any alternatives outside the DNC programming.

The bible thumpers are more open minded than anyone on the far left.

What exactly being said is far left in your mind?

 

[francoHFW]

He's brainwashed with bs- forget any rationale...

 

[Bfgrn]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

 

[Kosh]

It is funny to watch all the far left posters speak about independent thinking, yet repeat the far left mantra and are closed off to any alternatives outside the DNC programming.

The bible thumpers are more open minded than anyone on the far left.

What exactly being said is far left in your mind?

Watching all the far left posters repeat the DNC mantra without question. So basically everyone of the far left posters and their posts.