Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[kaz]

We (The taxpayers) are out $11 trillion dollars of the money that we loaned to GM and we will never get the money back.

you're funny real funny .. according to the cbo 700 billion was borrowed so you'r a bit off here I would say... 11 trillion, I'm still laughing ... do you republicans ever get anything right???

He meant 11 billion, dumb ass. Did you seriously not realize that?

you know when republicans talk its real hard to believe what they meant... when you challenge it you're always wrong in their eyes

The obvious is so far beyond the grasp of liberals

 

[kaz]

I said the tarp added to the debt, you are the idiot who thinks that if a dollar was paid back none of that debt counts

now this is price less ... so when every month I pay off my credit cards completely its still a debt... you are one dumb ****

No, you are arguing that if you send your credit card company a dollar, then you paid off the whole bill. Your standard was that if anything in TARP was paid back the whole thing doesn't count.

no I'm not ...I saying if you, as a company borrow money from the government and then you pay it off its no longer a debt to the government ...that's what I said and nothing else ...what you said here is pure non-sense ... you're saying when the car companies and the banks paid back their loans, that they didn't pay it back ... that's non-sense

Actually, that's exactly what you said. Then repeated. Here you go: "so you're saying none of the tarp money was paid back thats your position???"

 

[billyerock1991]

could you stay on topic which is Obama has spent less then any president to date ....not here to debate what you think dems are

The only post which is on topic to you is to laugh like Beevis and Butthead and say heh heh heh, yeah, heh heh heh, Republicans are stupid heh heh heh Obama spent less than anyone, and then you reply, heh heh heh, yeah, heh heh heh, he did heh heh heh.

Listening to liberals analyze an issue is very educational, the incredible insights you have.

can't stand it when you're wrong ... thats what I laugh ate you republican idiots here... when they are proven to be wrong like I proved you were ya just can't stand it heh heh heh heh heh heh

LOL, you say I'm a Republican then say I am the idiot. Republicans are just a shade off of you. When they are in power, they do the same things you do. Just a little more of some and a little less than other. I am an animal completely different from you both. What an idiot.

get those feet tapping

Dancing? W spent like a Democrat and Obama used the military like W. You are two peas in a pod. The two of you are driving down the same road just fighting over who gets to sit behind the steering wheel.

here's the difference dems raise taxes to pay for their bills republicans won't raise taxes to pay for their bill... thats why we are in a huge mess .... dems and republicans are nothing a like but you keep dancing

 

[kaz]

The only post which is on topic to you is to laugh like Beevis and Butthead and say heh heh heh, yeah, heh heh heh, Republicans are stupid heh heh heh Obama spent less than anyone, and then you reply, heh heh heh, yeah, heh heh heh, he did heh heh heh.

Listening to liberals analyze an issue is very educational, the incredible insights you have.

can't stand it when you're wrong ... thats what I laugh ate you republican idiots here... when they are proven to be wrong like I proved you were ya just can't stand it heh heh heh heh heh heh

LOL, you say I'm a Republican then say I am the idiot. Republicans are just a shade off of you. When they are in power, they do the same things you do. Just a little more of some and a little less than other. I am an animal completely different from you both. What an idiot.

get those feet tapping

Dancing? W spent like a Democrat and Obama used the military like W. You are two peas in a pod. The two of you are driving down the same road just fighting over who gets to sit behind the steering wheel.

here's the difference dems raise taxes to pay for their bills republicans won't raise taxes to pay for their bill... thats why we are in a huge mess .... dems and republicans are nothing a like but you keep dancing

You need to stop reading the marketing literature and pay attention to what you both actually do.

 

[bgr39]

so now you're tap dancing ... you said obama cause debt by passing tarp and the budget bill ... that implies that its a debt to the country... by you saying he passed these bills you were claiming they weren't paid back ...yes you emplied they weren't paid back ... along with the koolaid remark over me saying the got paid back you tired to push it wasn't paid back ... my answer to you, yes you claimed it wasn't paid back you claimed that it was a debt ... I clearly asked for what bill did obama sign into law that caused a debt and you listed the tarp bills ... the fac t that you lost that debt now you're tap dancing around what you impled

NONE of our debt has ever been paid back. Thats why it keeps growing. We are only paying the interest on the debt, nothing on the principal. AND, we are paying the interest using borrowed money.

We are borrowing money to pay the interest on money that we borrowed in previous years----------that is the height of fiscal stupidity.

you are talking out your ass again tarp was paid back... so that is one debt that was paid so your statement is wrong

not the same thing, some of the GM bailout was also paid back, but the people who bought US treasury notes were not paid anything on the principal, just interest. Our debt was not reduced when tarp was paid back or when GM bailout money was paid back.

The GM bail-out???
We (The taxpayers) are out $11 trillion dollars of the money that we loaned to GM and we will never get the money back.

you're funny real funny .. according to the cbo 700 billion was borrowed so you'r a bit off here I would say... 11 trillion, I'm still laughing ... do you republicans ever get anything right???

That was a typo, you know it was supose to be $11 BILLION.

 

[Andylusion]

and once again you're wrong ... with all of your disinformation here, trust me is the last thing I would say about you... your post its full of misquotes and misinformation ...

You have the right to remain ignorant and wrong.

you have said one right tghe here yet ... you take half truths then try to tap dance around the actual facts... none of what you have posted is anywhere near right... its all lies

You take half truths, then tap dance around no facts at all, none of what you posted even remotely is anywhere near almost anything like sort of right in any possible way.... its all lies.

Sound familiar?

 

[Paperman299]

... in no way did Obama cause the country to double by anything he has done... all the debt came from the bush administration

If I were a Federal Prosecutor, I would take that one statement from that jackass, and use it to have them committed, locked down and secured from ever being able to utter another word in public.

At some point this nonsense has got to stop. There is no right to profess falsity. PERIOD.

But I don't see any chance that any prosecutor is going to do so... So we'll just have to let nature take its course and deal with it once "OPEN SEASON" is declared on this lunatics.

denial is your best argument ... we asked you to show us one bill that obama signed into law that caused this huge debt ...

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget." I shouldn't be rude, though, it's a thoughtful post. At least we can agree that the histrionics over Obama doubling the debt lack some historical perspective.

First, the president actually puts the budget together. This has been the responsibility of that office for nearly a century, though Congress does tinker with it and add their own items. Not only that, the president has his own policy agenda which influences the budget. Or are we saying that Reagan's military spending belongs to the Democrats? It's just not reasonable to let Reagan off the hook for his deficits because of a few upticks in spending from Congress.

And as to his revenue, we expect tax revenue to rise, thanks to population growth and inflation. You're essentially giving Reagan credit for people making babies years earlier (although he would have been a movie star at that time, so maybe there's some rationale for that position). Adjusted for those factors, tax revenue per capita increased under Jimmy Carter by 24%. Under Reagan? Only 19%. And tax revenue per capita from 1992-2000, in that period you cite? It was 41% - during a stretch when tax rates went up.

 

[Andylusion]

If I were a Federal Prosecutor, I would take that one statement from that jackass, and use it to have them committed, locked down and secured from ever being able to utter another word in public.

At some point this nonsense has got to stop. There is no right to profess falsity. PERIOD.

But I don't see any chance that any prosecutor is going to do so... So we'll just have to let nature take its course and deal with it once "OPEN SEASON" is declared on this lunatics.

denial is your best argument ... we asked you to show us one bill that obama signed into law that caused this huge debt ...

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget." I shouldn't be rude, though, it's a thoughtful post. At least we can agree that the histrionics over Obama doubling the debt lack some historical perspective.

First, the president actually puts the budget together. This has been the responsibility of that office for nearly a century, though Congress does tinker with it and add their own items. Not only that, the president has his own policy agenda which influences the budget. Or are we saying that Reagan's military spending belongs to the Democrats? It's just not reasonable to let Reagan off the hook for his deficits because of a few upticks in spending from Congress.

And as to his revenue, we expect tax revenue to rise, thanks to population growth and inflation. You're essentially giving Reagan credit for people making babies years earlier (although he would have been a movie star at that time, so maybe there's some rationale for that position). Adjusted for those factors, tax revenue per capita increased under Jimmy Carter by 24%. Under Reagan? Only 19%. And tax revenue per capita from 1992-2000, in that period you cite? It was 41% - during a stretch when tax rates went up.

I just gave the numbers for the proposed budget as given by Reagan and the actual spending by Congress.

If you proposed a budget for your household, and everyone agrees to it, and then your wife blows an extra thousand dollars you don't have on clothes.... would it be fair to you for me to say "Well it's Paperman's fault. He made the budget after all....."??

Of course that is completely wrong. You would be furious if someone blamed you, and rightly so.

If Congress had completely adopted the Reagan budget, and followed it to the letter, and we had as much debt at the end of the 80s, as we did, then I'd be in your boat. But obviously, since the congress was over spending every single budget, we would not have had the deficits we did.

I'm sorry, but these are the facts. Saying it was Reagan's fault congress blew the budget, when they refused to follow Reagan's budget, is like saying it's AA's fault an alcoholic didn't recover when he refused to follow the 12-steps.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If I were a Federal Prosecutor, I would take that one statement from that jackass, and use it to have them committed, locked down and secured from ever being able to utter another word in public.

At some point this nonsense has got to stop. There is no right to profess falsity. PERIOD.

But I don't see any chance that any prosecutor is going to do so... So we'll just have to let nature take its course and deal with it once "OPEN SEASON" is declared on this lunatics.

denial is your best argument ... we asked you to show us one bill that obama signed into law that caused this huge debt ...

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget."

Yes... Because Reagan had a compliant, Republican Congress. Right? LOL!

The simple truth is that the Ideological Left has been ON THE RECORD and determined to spend the US into bankruptcy since the 60s.

The Great Society set that into stone and we're within a couple of years of watching you people "succeed".

But... My guess is that if THEY were the ones that were going to BE HERE and take the ass beating that YOU PEOPLE are going to take, for their having been so committed, they'd have 'gone another way'.

It turns out that in some conditions, Progressivism only puts off the Revolution. In Europe, for example, it worked perfectly.

But, sadly for you idiots, this is not Europe and instead, you have to account to Americans and that is going to be a very short discussion, indeed, when the time comes.

 

[Paperman299]

denial is your best argument ... we asked you to show us one bill that obama signed into law that caused this huge debt ...

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget." I shouldn't be rude, though, it's a thoughtful post. At least we can agree that the histrionics over Obama doubling the debt lack some historical perspective.

First, the president actually puts the budget together. This has been the responsibility of that office for nearly a century, though Congress does tinker with it and add their own items. Not only that, the president has his own policy agenda which influences the budget. Or are we saying that Reagan's military spending belongs to the Democrats? It's just not reasonable to let Reagan off the hook for his deficits because of a few upticks in spending from Congress.

And as to his revenue, we expect tax revenue to rise, thanks to population growth and inflation. You're essentially giving Reagan credit for people making babies years earlier (although he would have been a movie star at that time, so maybe there's some rationale for that position). Adjusted for those factors, tax revenue per capita increased under Jimmy Carter by 24%. Under Reagan? Only 19%. And tax revenue per capita from 1992-2000, in that period you cite? It was 41% - during a stretch when tax rates went up.

I just gave the numbers for the proposed budget as given by Reagan and the actual spending by Congress.

If you proposed a budget for your household, and everyone agrees to it, and then your wife blows an extra thousand dollars you don't have on clothes.... would it be fair to you for me to say "Well it's Paperman's fault. He made the budget after all....."??

Of course that is completely wrong. You would be furious if someone blamed you, and rightly so.

If Congress had completely adopted the Reagan budget, and followed it to the letter, and we had as much debt at the end of the 80s, as we did, then I'd be in your boat. But obviously, since the congress was over spending every single budget, we would not have had the deficits we did.

I'm sorry, but these are the facts. Saying it was Reagan's fault congress blew the budget, when they refused to follow Reagan's budget, is like saying it's AA's fault an alcoholic didn't recover when he refused to follow the 12-steps.

SOUNDS LIKE MY WIFE ALRIGHT LOL seriously though...Am I to understand that this means you are letting Obama off the hook for today's spending?

Nonetheless, I see no evidence these small upticks were trampling over Reagan's fiscal conservatism. Let's revisit Reagan's military spending:

About 10.15% increased military spending per year. I probably don't need to remind you that military sending is a huge fraction of our overall budget. So I have a very hard time picturing a spendthrift Reagan, helplessly watching the deficit increase almost from the first year of his presidency because he's losing the budget battle year after year to an uncontrollably big-spending, uh...Republican Senate.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that Reagan dramatically slashed taxes, and this was a huge blow to revenue. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf (Page 16)

So to try to throw those deficits on the Democrats in the House (and at the end, Democrats in the Senate) is just not realistic.

 

[Paperman299]

denial is your best argument ... we asked you to show us one bill that obama signed into law that caused this huge debt ...

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget."

Yes... Because Reagan had a compliant, Republican Congress. Right? LOL!

The simple truth is that the Ideological Left has been ON THE RECORD and determined to spend the US into bankruptcy since the 60s.

The Great Society set that into stone and we're within a couple of years of watching you people "succeed".

But... My guess is that if THEY were the ones that were going to BE HERE and take the ass beating that YOU PEOPLE are going to take, for their having been so committed, they'd have 'gone another way'.

It turns out that in some conditions, Progressivism only puts off the Revolution. In Europe, for example, it worked perfectly.

But, sadly for you idiots, this is not Europe and instead, you have to account to Americans and that is going to be a very short discussion, indeed, when the time comes.

Do this: Lesson Percentage Word Problems discount

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget."

Yes... Because Reagan had a compliant, Republican Congress. Right? LOL!

The simple truth is that the Ideological Left has been ON THE RECORD and determined to spend the US into bankruptcy since the 60s.

The Great Society set that into stone and we're within a couple of years of watching you people "succeed".

But... My guess is that if THEY were the ones that were going to BE HERE and take the ass beating that YOU PEOPLE are going to take, for their having been so committed, they'd have 'gone another way'.

It turns out that in some conditions, Progressivism only puts off the Revolution. In Europe, for example, it worked perfectly.

But, sadly for you idiots, this is not Europe and instead, you have to account to Americans and that is going to be a very short discussion, indeed, when the time comes.

Do this: Lesson Percentage Word Problems discount

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Andylusion]

obamaScare... massive government takeover of 1/6th of the US Economy... ADDING TRILLIONS IN OPERATING EXPENSES to the US Federal government... He signed that.

Which it should be noted was passed EXCLUSIVELY BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... without so much as a single vote from a singe Republican, including our own in-house socialists. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, with ONE obama signature. Are you telling me that no one has bothered to mention THAT 900lb Gorilla sitting there in the middle of the room?

However, NONE of that is relevant to the discussion of obama and his spending.

FACT: obama has spent MORE MONEY IN DEFICIT , creating more federal debt, than EVERY PRESIDENT WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM...

He has spend more money in SIX YEARS in DEFICIT than the US SPENT FIGHTING EVERY WAR IN THE 20th CENTURY, including WW1, WW2, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE First GULF WAR AND THE DECADES LONG US GWOT, TO PRESENT.

And that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Yet there the idiots are tryin' to DEBATE IT.

And THIS despite obama comin' to power claiming that 150 billion a year in Average Bush annual deficits was IMMORAL!

Reagan spent triple in deficit what every president before him spent. And that was while significantly raising the deficit, not reducing it. You can't ignore this point just because you don't understand percentages.

No, I agree with that.

Here's my problem.... who in government controls how much is spent? Congress. Do you not understand this? Congress controls the budget. Not the president.

You do understand that Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in the tax revenues of the 1980s, to double, even while tax rates were cut in half.... right?

So Reagan's tax policy wasn't the problem.

The problem was over spending. In 1982, Reagan and the Congress (both Republican and Democrat), agreed to close tax deductions, thereby increasing tax revenue, while at the same time, they agreed to cut spending.

The problem is, spending increased, when they said they would cut spending.

If you take a look at Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, and compare them to actual spending, the Democrats in Congress over-spent Reagan's budget every single time.

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY1986 - Charts

You can punch around, and look at the Estimated Budget given by Ronald Reagan, and the Actual spending done by Congress.


Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress.

1986 - $973B - $990B
1987 - $994B - $1,004B
1988 - $1,024B - $1,064B
1989 - $1,094B - $1,143B
1990 - $1,151B - $1,253B

I wish I could get the 81 through 85 proposed budgets, and compare them to the actual spending, but clearly you can see the pattern. The congress over spent the Reagan proposed budget year after year after year.

Compare that to the 90s.

1994 - $1,515B - $1,461B
1995 - $1,518B - $1,515B
1996 - $1,612B - $1,560B
1997 - $1,635B - $1,601B
1998 - $1,687B - $1,652B
1999 - $1,733B - $1,701B

See the pattern? Congress.... Not Bill Clinton.... Congress under cut Bill Clinton's budget year over year. Just as Congress, not Reagan, over spent Reagan's budget year over year.

And whether you like it or not, the congress for most of Reagan's 2 terms, were Democrat, and for most of Clinton's two terms, were Republican.

The only thing the president can do, is propose a budget. Congress ultimately, is who determines what is spent.

Fact is, Clinton up till about 97, or 98, never even proposed a balanced budget. If you look at the budgets he proposed from 1993 to 1996, he had no intention of ever having anything less than $200B deficits for the next 20 years. If not for Congress cutting his bloated budgets, we never would have even gotten close to a balanced budget.

Incredibly, as soon as Reagan is brought up, here comes a conservative to tell me "presidents don't own the budget." I shouldn't be rude, though, it's a thoughtful post. At least we can agree that the histrionics over Obama doubling the debt lack some historical perspective.

First, the president actually puts the budget together. This has been the responsibility of that office for nearly a century, though Congress does tinker with it and add their own items. Not only that, the president has his own policy agenda which influences the budget. Or are we saying that Reagan's military spending belongs to the Democrats? It's just not reasonable to let Reagan off the hook for his deficits because of a few upticks in spending from Congress.

And as to his revenue, we expect tax revenue to rise, thanks to population growth and inflation. You're essentially giving Reagan credit for people making babies years earlier (although he would have been a movie star at that time, so maybe there's some rationale for that position). Adjusted for those factors, tax revenue per capita increased under Jimmy Carter by 24%. Under Reagan? Only 19%. And tax revenue per capita from 1992-2000, in that period you cite? It was 41% - during a stretch when tax rates went up.

I just gave the numbers for the proposed budget as given by Reagan and the actual spending by Congress.

If you proposed a budget for your household, and everyone agrees to it, and then your wife blows an extra thousand dollars you don't have on clothes.... would it be fair to you for me to say "Well it's Paperman's fault. He made the budget after all....."??

Of course that is completely wrong. You would be furious if someone blamed you, and rightly so.

If Congress had completely adopted the Reagan budget, and followed it to the letter, and we had as much debt at the end of the 80s, as we did, then I'd be in your boat. But obviously, since the congress was over spending every single budget, we would not have had the deficits we did.

I'm sorry, but these are the facts. Saying it was Reagan's fault congress blew the budget, when they refused to follow Reagan's budget, is like saying it's AA's fault an alcoholic didn't recover when he refused to follow the 12-steps.

SOUNDS LIKE MY WIFE ALRIGHT LOL seriously though...Am I to understand that this means you are letting Obama off the hook for today's spending?

Nonetheless, I see no evidence these small upticks were trampling over Reagan's fiscal conservatism. Let's revisit Reagan's military spending:

About 10.15% increased military spending per year. I probably don't need to remind you that military sending is a huge fraction of our overall budget. So I have a very hard time picturing a spendthrift Reagan, helplessly watching the deficit increase almost from the first year of his presidency because he's losing the budget battle year after year to an uncontrollably big-spending, uh...Republican Senate.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that Reagan dramatically slashed taxes, and this was a huge blow to revenue. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf (Page 16)

So to try to throw those deficits on the Democrats in the House (and at the end, Democrats in the Senate) is just not realistic.

Obama directly voted for the bailouts. Further, Obama was in favor of pushing sub-prime lending, which caused this entire problem.

So from that perspective, yes I do blame him for that.

But let's get back to the Federal budget.

Again.....
US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY2009 - Charts
Year - Federal Budget - Actual Spending by Congress. (T = Trillion)

2010 - $3.6T - $3.4T
2011 - $3.8T - $3.6T
2012 - $3.7T - $3.5T
2013 - $3.8T - $3.4T
2014 - $3.8T - $3.5T

Congress has under cut the Obama budget since 2009.

A rough calculation of the numbers, suggests that of Congress had spent as much money as Obama requested, the result would have been that we would currently be more than $1.3 Trillion dollars more in debt than we are.

I would also venture to guess that the claim Obama has increased spending less than any recent president would also be false, if Congress had let him spend as much as he wanted.

If Obama had cut the budget drastically, and congress had over spent his budget year over year, then yes I would absolutely blame congress, and praised Obama for being fiscally responsible. But, that isn't the case.