I wonder how the Obamites will blame this on Bush???

[AllieBaba]

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents - FOXNews.com

 

[Andrew2382]

easy

ahem


It's Bush's Fault





see how easy that was

 

[AllieBaba]

THat was easy.

 

[Andrew2382]

never doubt the brainwashed liberal

 

[beowolfe]

You people are simply a FN mazing....

 

[rightwinger]

I blame Bush

If he hadn't fucked up the economy so badly by starting two wars and cutting taxes to pay for them, Obama would have begun his Presidency with a stable economy

 

[Mike458877]

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents - FOXNews.com

It was getting a bit annoying listening to him, Biden, Pelosi, Frank, Reid and others pissing on and on about Bush, but now, I hope he keeps it up.

His crying is nearly historical, network news, talk show host after talk show host, Bush, Bush, Bush, Joe the Plumber, Betty the Baker, Sal the Pizza Maker, Suzie the Singer, you name it.

Between him being on TV more than any other president, his crying is a close second to making history for him!

Mike

 

[slackjawed]

I blame Bush

If he hadn't fucked up the economy so badly by starting two wars and cutting taxes to pay for them, Obama would have begun his Presidency with a stable economy

If Bsh hadn't screwed up so badly and had actually been a conservative, perhaps Mr. Obama wouldn't have been elected.......just sayin'

 

[rightwinger]

I blame Bush

If he hadn't fucked up the economy so badly by starting two wars and cutting taxes to pay for them, Obama would have begun his Presidency with a stable economy

If Bsh hadn't screwed up so badly and had actually been a conservative, perhaps Mr. Obama wouldn't have been elected.......just sayin'

Conservatives overwhelmingly elected the man.

Keep pushing the consevative agenda down the Republican Parties throat. Best way to ensure the GOP remains in exile

 

[slackjawed]

Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing. Bush was a progressive. Republicans are in 'exile' as you call it because they have let conservatives down.
Some of us don't fall into the 2 party disinformation system.
Both parties and those that blindly support them are bad for all of us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Two questions which need to be addressed, and will be if the OP is honest:
1) Didn't the fiscal year begin on October 1, 2008 and end on October 1, 2009?
2) Wasn't the budget in question signed by President Bush?

Just wondering.

 

[Wry Catcher]

still wondering, the two question remain pending.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing. Bush was a progressive. Republicans are in 'exile' as you call it because they have let conservatives down.
Some of us don't fall into the 2 party disinformation system.
Both parties and those that blindly support them are bad for all of us.

The extreme conservative rightwing consitutes around 26% of the population. Their stranglehold on policy has driven republican moderates out of the party. Bush may have started as a progressive, but he toed the conservative line. The unwillingness of the wignuts to compromise and appeal to political moderates will lead to the death of the once Grand Old Party

 

[slackjawed]

Two questions which need to be addressed, and will be if the OP is honest:
1) Didn't the fiscal year begin on October 1, 2008 and end on October 1, 2009?
2) Wasn't the budget in question signed by President Bush?

Just wondering.

I kept looking and searching for a little light on this. The budget that Obama presented is more than Bush's, but it is stated up front that his budget includes the war costs, Bush's budget did not.
In short the answer to both your questions is yes. the real answer is a bit more complicated, too complicated for a news bite from fox or any other news source to provide.
It appears that Obama's budget is indeed more 'transparant', I have to give him credit for that. The war costs should be included in the budget.
It does appear that there is a statement from Pres. Obama on the first page of his budget clearly laying the blame for all our economic woes on Bush. That doesn't sound right either. The congress actually has control over our budget for the most part.
Since Obama was in congress during the Bush presidency, I would think that some of that blame belongs to him and the other members of congress. A smaller amount of course, but some none the less.
The issue is more complex than that. It appears that despite Bush being out of office, there is some blame that should be attributed to him. The fact is that since Obama is currently in office, he deserves most of the credit/blame for his budget. It appears that the assertion by FOX in the op is not correct. Google searches on the subject find articles and blogs on both sides of this issue that are clearly at odds with each other.
personally, I think there is enough blame to go around for both Bush and Obama, as well as both houses of congress.
The other fact i found, in reading a summary of the past 19 years of presidential budgets, is that they always go up.

 

[slackjawed]

Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing. Bush was a progressive. Republicans are in 'exile' as you call it because they have let conservatives down.
Some of us don't fall into the 2 party disinformation system.
Both parties and those that blindly support them are bad for all of us.

The extreme conservative rightwing consitutes around 26% of the population. Their stranglehold on policy has driven republican moderates out of the party. Bush may have started as a progressive, but he toed the conservative line. The unwillingness of the wignuts to compromise and appeal to political moderates will lead to the death of the once Grand Old Party

Extreme anything isn't good either. I disagree that the 'extreme right-wing' has a stranglehold on anything, but then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
If the republican party (or the democratic party) dies, how is that bad.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both warned us about political parties becoming too powerful. I think we would be better off either with several parties, or with no parties. The two party system is simply one that does a disservice to freedom and free-thinking.

 

[Rozman]

The way I see it and I think a good amount of Americans see it the same way. Under Bush despite the attacks on 9-11-2001 then the two wars that followed we had a pretty good economy. the stock market was doing well and unemployment was low.

So what changed all that? The left will blame Bush,that works for them.
Isn't it curious that congress was taken over by the Libs around 2006,two years prior to the economy
crashing.....what has the economy done since? Who is in the WH now and who controls congress?

You can get back to me anytime on this,I'm easy to find on here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The way I see it and I think a good amount of Americans see it the same way. Under Bush despite the attacks on 9-11-2001 then the two wars that followed we had a pretty good economy. the stock market was doing well and unemployment was low.

So what changed all that? The left will blame Bush,that works for them.
Isn't it curious that congress was taken over by the Libs around 2006,two years prior to the economy
crashing.....what has the economy done since? Who is in the WH now and who controls congress?

You can get back to me anytime on this,I'm easy to find on here.

I'm sure you actually believe what you post, and that is sad. I could argue otherwise and post reasons to counter your conclusions, but facts rarely cause true believers to question their faith.

 

[code1211]

Two questions which need to be addressed, and will be if the OP is honest:
1) Didn't the fiscal year begin on October 1, 2008 and end on October 1, 2009?
2) Wasn't the budget in question signed by President Bush?

Just wondering.

In most years, that would be a correct assumption. However, the Pelosi led Congress would not approve a 12 month month budget for Bush and only approved a 6 month budget. The other half was debated after Obama took office, increased by about 5% and then passed and signed by O.

Obama's budget started almost as soon as his presidency, so this whole mess has about one month of Bush's budget driving it.

When was the pork and bribe bill passed? I think the whole fiscal debacle that will have reprecussions for decades belongs to O.

Even the TARP approved under Bush was structured so that fully half of the a750 or so billion was reserved to the discretion of O. Only 350 or so billion was allocated under the direction of Bush's people.

So... 350 billion for TARP, 750 billion for the pork and bribe bill, just about a full billion for the health care swindle and another "stimulus bill" under consideration. Obama so admires the third world countries that he wants to lead one.

 

[code1211]

Two questions which need to be addressed, and will be if the OP is honest:
1) Didn't the fiscal year begin on October 1, 2008 and end on October 1, 2009?
2) Wasn't the budget in question signed by President Bush?

Just wondering.

I kept looking and searching for a little light on this. The budget that Obama presented is more than Bush's, but it is stated up front that his budget includes the war costs, Bush's budget did not.
In short the answer to both your questions is yes. the real answer is a bit more complicated, too complicated for a news bite from fox or any other news source to provide.
It appears that Obama's budget is indeed more 'transparant', I have to give him credit for that. The war costs should be included in the budget.
It does appear that there is a statement from Pres. Obama on the first page of his budget clearly laying the blame for all our economic woes on Bush. That doesn't sound right either. The congress actually has control over our budget for the most part.
Since Obama was in congress during the Bush presidency, I would think that some of that blame belongs to him and the other members of congress. A smaller amount of course, but some none the less.
The issue is more complex than that. It appears that despite Bush being out of office, there is some blame that should be attributed to him. The fact is that since Obama is currently in office, he deserves most of the credit/blame for his budget. It appears that the assertion by FOX in the op is not correct. Google searches on the subject find articles and blogs on both sides of this issue that are clearly at odds with each other.
personally, I think there is enough blame to go around for both Bush and Obama, as well as both houses of congress.
The other fact i found, in reading a summary of the past 19 years of presidential budgets, is that they always go up.

Strictly speaking, the president can recomend spending, but the Congress actually controls the purse strings. The prez can veto the whole shibang or sign it. The fiscal restraint under Clinton was not the work of Clinton, but to his credit, he did not fight the work that was being done.

Obviously, under Clinton, releative to the tax revenues, spending went down. Relative peace around the world, increasing wealth around the world and generally a time of great hope and prosperity. There were revolutions in both conmunication and technology and sadly a rise in the types that embrace terror to tear down with no apparent need to build.

This heady buoyancy of good times combined with a threat from without lead us to an ill considered crusade against a phantom enemy. When the historians write of this period, probably in Chinese, the USA may be considered as important to this period as Carthage is considered important to the period of the time around the birth of Christ. A footnote.

McArthur may be looked at as our Hannibal.