Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Faun]

He must be, just becuz you say so.....

I didn't just say, I demonstrated.

You demonstrated the most nugatory gotcha point you could, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is that Obama has spent more money than anyone else on the planet. And that is not a CBO projection. That is fact.

Your meaningless opinion aside, you thought I didn't know what my point was. I not only said you were wrong -- I demonstrated you were wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't just say, I demonstrated.

You demonstrated the most nugatory gotcha point you could, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is that Obama has spent more money than anyone else on the planet. And that is not a CBO projection. That is fact.

Your meaningless opinion aside, you thought I didn't know what my point was. I not only said you were wrong -- I demonstrated you were wrong.

I actually didnt say you didnt. I said I doubted you did. Learn English.
But yet another nugatory off topic point from someone who cannot admit that Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the US.

 

[Faun]

You demonstrated the most nugatory gotcha point you could, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is that Obama has spent more money than anyone else on the planet. And that is not a CBO projection. That is fact.

Your meaningless opinion aside, you thought I didn't know what my point was. I not only said you were wrong -- I demonstrated you were wrong.

I actually didnt say you didnt. I said I doubted you did. Learn English.
But yet another nugatory off topic point from someone who cannot admit that Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the US.

Now you're the delegated liar for the nutty righties ... ?

I cannot admit Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the U.S.?

I don't speak Conservative, so perhaps you can translate Conservative to English so I can understand -- what did you think I meant when I said, "So what? Wasn't Bush when he was president? Wasn't Clinton when he was president? Wasn't Bush Sr. when he was president? You don't seem to understand that spending increases with every president."

Does that sound to you like I'm denying Obama is the biggest spender in U.S. history? I'm just pointing out, so what? Every president is while they're president.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your meaningless opinion aside, you thought I didn't know what my point was. I not only said you were wrong -- I demonstrated you were wrong.

I actually didnt say you didnt. I said I doubted you did. Learn English.
But yet another nugatory off topic point from someone who cannot admit that Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the US.

Now you're the delegated liar for the nutty righties ... ?

I cannot admit Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the U.S.?

I don't speak Conservative, so perhaps you can translate Conservative to English so I can understand -- what did you think I meant when I said, "So what? Wasn't Bush when he was president? Wasn't Clinton when he was president? Wasn't Bush Sr. when he was president? You don't seem to understand that spending increases with every president."

Does that sound to you like I'm denying Obama is the biggest spender in U.S. history? I'm just pointing out, so what? Every president is while they're president.

OK, so you admit Obama is the biggest deficit spender in history, bigger than Bush et al. He is also the biggest liar, having said he would cut the deficit in half.
Good, so now we know you think Obama is responsible for the deficit and the biggest liar. Welcome to the GOP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Accurately saying what has driven up the debt is not far left.

Obama drove up the debt?

Say it ain't so.

 

[TooTall]

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.

When you start at a $1.4 Trillion deficit, a $1.3 Trillion deficit is a decrease in FEDERAL SPENDING. The Deficit has decreased every year since 2009, but is still larger than Bush's highest deficit and was over $1 Trillon for 4 straight years. The reasons for the drop in the 2013 deficit is due to three things. The expiration of the cut in Social Security deductions (a raise in SS taxes on the least able to pay it) raising taxes on those in the upper incomes, and the sequester.

Obama is responsible for the first two, and demagogued the last one.

 

[The T]

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.

...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.

When you start at a $1.4 Trillion deficit, a $1.3 Trillion deficit is a decrease in FEDERAL SPENDING. The Deficit has decreased every year since 2009, but is still larger than Bush's highest deficit and was over $1 Trillon for 4 straight years. The reasons for the drop in the 2013 deficit is due to three things. The expiration of the cut in Social Security deductions (a raise in SS taxes on the least able to pay it) raising taxes on those in the upper incomes, and the sequester.

Obama is responsible for the first two, and demagogued the last one.

And the last one was his doing.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

So faun, the CBO is estimating that Odumas policies will place us 21 trillion in debt by 2016, so based on your style of argument, Oduma HAS run up more national debt than ALL other Presidents combined!!!

CBO you say???

Our debt was created by Republicans. If Obama spent nothing, the debt would continue to grow. He inherited an economy that was moribund.

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 12 years, and the White House for 8 years...we had ZERO job growth in the 2000's...

Obama and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 2 years. What did they do?

Obama and Democrats put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the ACA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.

the CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

"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.)

 

[The Rabbi]

You're such an idiot. Despite having the facts repeated to you about a gazillion times you throw out the same old shit. Stagnant economy under Bush (when UE was about 5% and GDP growth was over 2%), recovery under Obama (when UE was over 8% and GDP growth was under 2) blah blah blah.
You dont ever get it.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're such an idiot. Despite having the facts repeated to you about a gazillion times you throw out the same old shit. Stagnant economy under Bush (when UE was about 5% and GDP growth was over 2%), recovery under Obama (when UE was over 8% and GDP growth was under 2) blah blah blah.
You dont ever get it.

REALLY pea brain?

HERE is what Bush handed over to Obama...

 

[Faun]

I actually didnt say you didnt. I said I doubted you did. Learn English.
But yet another nugatory off topic point from someone who cannot admit that Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the US.

Now you're the delegated liar for the nutty righties ... ?

I cannot admit Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the U.S.?

I don't speak Conservative, so perhaps you can translate Conservative to English so I can understand -- what did you think I meant when I said, "So what? Wasn't Bush when he was president? Wasn't Clinton when he was president? Wasn't Bush Sr. when he was president? You don't seem to understand that spending increases with every president."

Does that sound to you like I'm denying Obama is the biggest spender in U.S. history? I'm just pointing out, so what? Every president is while they're president.

OK, so you admit Obama is the biggest deficit spender in history, bigger than Bush et al. He is also the biggest liar, having said he would cut the deficit in half.
Good, so now we know you think Obama is responsible for the deficit and the biggest liar. Welcome to the GOP.

Sorry, but GOPers are knuckle-dragging, brain-dead, delusional morons. I don't qualify. Not to mention, unlike knuckle-dragging, brain-dead, delusional moronic GOPers, I understand that Obama is not responsible for every cent borrowed since 12 noon, January 20th, 2009.

 

[The Rabbi]

So who is responsible?
Oh yeah, George W Bush.

 

[zeke]

So who is responsible?
Oh yeah, George W Bush.

YOU are responsible for your OWN stupidity. You spend countless hours and thousands of posts and can't convince anyone other than the other brain dead idiots that, yep ole George Bush left the hated Obama a great performing economy with virtually no debt........and then the Congress approved trillions of Obama's spending plans and all this deficit is on Obama.

Yea, like I said, thousands of posts, hours of time, all to make yourself look stupid.
Why you do that? What happened to your common sense?

Hatred blinded you didn't it?

 

[OODA_Loop]

yep ole George Bush left the hated Obama a great performing economy with virtually no debt........and then the Congress approved trillions of Obama's spending plans and all this deficit is on Obama.

Yep. Bush's fault.

 

[zeke]

yep ole George Bush left the hated Obama a great performing economy with virtually no debt........and then the Congress approved trillions of Obama's spending plans and all this deficit is on Obama.

Yep. Bush's fault.

Hey hey, right on cue one of the aforementioned "brain dead" shows up to chime in with nothing of consequence.

You must not be as committed as some of the other brain dead. You only have 5 thousand posts of ignorance.

Do you still believe that Bush left office with a balanced budget, a thriving economy and no debt?

And that Obama convinced Congress to approve 17 trillion dollars of spending under his administration?

Hell you probably believe that the Great Recession started AFTER Obama was elected, don't cha?

But who knows what people like you believe. All I see is blind hatred of Obama.

 

[TooTall]

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










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.

When you start at a $1.4 Trillion deficit, a $1.3 Trillion deficit is a decrease in FEDERAL SPENDING. The Deficit has decreased every year since 2009, but is still larger than Bush's highest deficit and was over $1 Trillon for 4 straight years. The reasons for the drop in the 2013 deficit is due to three things. The expiration of the cut in Social Security deductions (a raise in SS taxes on the least able to pay it) raising taxes on those in the upper incomes, and the sequester.

Obama is responsible for the first two, and demagogued the last one.

And the last one was his doing.

He was for it before the Republicans passed it, then he was against it and demagogued it.

 

[TooTall]

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

******* liar, I never denied it existed...

The hell you didn't ...

"First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that." ~ LTCArmyRet​

... you were referencing a NYT article and I laughed at your use of a Liberal slanted news source, not actual government documents. I asked you if you had any real proof, not a ******* article. You just keep pretending that it was something that was squandered away as if it ever really existed.

You are the one that won't even acknowledge the existence of a gov report that projected a 21 Trillion dollar debt by 2016. You ignore it and point to another one that shows only a projected 18t debt. You don't know which one will come to fruition, do you? No. You just pick and choose whatever reports shines the best light on your boy oduma, don't you.

You're still lying. I never denied the existence of a projected $21t debt by 2016. I said that estimate was updated to now reflect an $18t debt.

You're in complete lie mode now. Going from one to the next.

I would like to see who made that $18t debt by 2016 prediction. The debt is presently more than $17t.

 

[TooTall]

yep ole George Bush left the hated Obama a great performing economy with virtually no debt........and then the Congress approved trillions of Obama's spending plans and all this deficit is on Obama.

Yep. Bush's fault.

Hey hey, right on cue one of the aforementioned "brain dead" shows up to chime in with nothing of consequence.

You must not be as committed as some of the other brain dead. You only have 5 thousand posts of ignorance.

Do you still believe that Bush left office with a balanced budget, a thriving economy and no debt?

And that Obama convinced Congress to approve 17 trillion dollars of spending under his administration?

Hell you probably believe that the Great Recession started AFTER Obama was elected, don't cha?

But who knows what people like you believe. All I see is blind hatred of Obama.

I believe that Obama owes Bush a great big thank you for handing him the TARP spending for the following reason.

In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch.

Now, tell me about the trillion dollar stimulus bill that Obama got his Democrat Congress to pass to fund shovel ready jobs that didn't exist and green energy companies that went broke.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

A few points starting with Conservative hypocrisy. I see Conservatives all the time cite CBO projections about the debt under Obama. Clearly, they take those estimates seriously enough when it suits them ... however, point out how we once had a projected surplus of $6t until Bush turned it into a projected deficit of $8t, and we see the sort of meltdown that armyret displayed today.

That point morphed into the point that armyret is completely nuts and lies. So I used that CBO budget report to demonstrate; as he first denied the report existed, then challenged me to produce it after I already had, then lied and said the number the NYTimes reported on wasn't in the CBO report, then said he couldn't find a projected surplus greater than $2.6 trillion even though I told him exactly where to find it, then exhibited abject ignorance of math and rounding, finally, he resorted to lying about what I had said earlier.

Quite frankly, I got far more use out of citing that figure than I first thought.

So as I said, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I know exactly what my points are for referencing that CBO report.

******* liar, I never denied it existed...

The hell you didn't ...

"First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that." ~ LTCArmyRet​

... you were referencing a NYT article and I laughed at your use of a Liberal slanted news source, not actual government documents. I asked you if you had any real proof, not a ******* article. You just keep pretending that it was something that was squandered away as if it ever really existed.

You are the one that won't even acknowledge the existence of a gov report that projected a 21 Trillion dollar debt by 2016. You ignore it and point to another one that shows only a projected 18t debt. You don't know which one will come to fruition, do you? No. You just pick and choose whatever reports shines the best light on your boy oduma, don't you.

You're still lying. I never denied the existence of a projected $21t debt by 2016. I said that estimate was updated to now reflect an $18t debt.

You're in complete lie mode now. Going from one to the next.

Wow, you still can't read can you, I stated is doesn't say 6trillion, never said it didnt' exist moron. And you were using the article as your "proof", proving that you listen to MSM BS instead of finding out and ACKNOWLEDGING REALITY.

I'm not denying the 18t debt estimate, i'm just using your example of picking and choosing which report I like. YOU are the one that brought up a 2001 report about a 6t surplus that we all KNOW didn't happen and wanted to pass it off as gospel, pathetic. Then when it thrown back at you, you begin the typical liberal bs dance of deflect and spin, deflect and spin, deflect and spin.

So what is your deflection and spin on the 7 trillion dollars of additional debt your boy has made happen?

 

[The Rabbi]

So who is responsible?
Oh yeah, George W Bush.

YOU are responsible for your OWN stupidity. You spend countless hours and thousands of posts and can't convince anyone other than the other brain dead idiots that, yep ole George Bush left the hated Obama a great performing economy with virtually no debt........and then the Congress approved trillions of Obama's spending plans and all this deficit is on Obama.

Yea, like I said, thousands of posts, hours of time, all to make yourself look stupid.
Why you do that? What happened to your common sense?

Hatred blinded you didn't it?

It's Zeke, toothless stumpbroke of USMB interjecting his own version of events because he's too ignorant to know the truth and too dumb to care.
No one said Bush left a great performing economy, Zeke. But Obama's recovery has been worse than Bush's recession.