Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[Brain357]

No one said these guys were conservative. At best they were slightly more conservative than the alternative. Al Gore... cmon

I think we probably would have been better off with Gore... If he had learned anything from Clinton he would have been better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Spending peaked in 2009. That would be FY 2009, which started Oct 1st, 2008.

Since then, 4 years of lower spending than the year Obama took office.

That has not been accomplished since the winding down of WWII.

 

[RKMBrown]

Spending peaked in 2009. That would be FY 2009, which started Oct 1st, 2008.

Since then, 4 years of lower spending than the year Obama took office.

That has not been accomplished since the winding down of WWII.

Lies. Show me one year where spending was less than the prior year. Cmon show it.

 

[Brain357]

Ron Paul was the only conservative running for president. Look at how the Republican party treated him.

 

[Redfish]

Spending peaked in 2009. That would be FY 2009, which started Oct 1st, 2008.

Since then, 4 years of lower spending than the year Obama took office.

That has not been accomplished since the winding down of WWII.

I guess you think that if you repeat a lie often enough it somehow becomes true.

But, show us one year since 08 when annual spending has been less than the previous year.

you do know the meaning of the word "lower" don't you?

we will be waiting.

 

[Redfish]

Ron Paul was the only conservative running for president. Look at how the Republican party treated him.

kinda like the dems treated Hillary in 08. Damn, it was her turn, she paid her dues, stuck by bubba, and the party dumped her for the inexperienced black guy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ron Paul was the only conservative running for president. Look at how the Republican party treated him.

kinda like the dems treated Hillary in 08. Damn, it was her turn, she paid her dues, stuck by bubba, and the party dumped her for the inexperienced black guy.

Are there turns? Cool.

 

[Sallow]

thats the way its supposed to work---checks and balances----trade offs and compromises.

sometimes things work and sometimes they don't.

would you prefer a dictatorship?

So you admit that Bush was not "irrelevent" once the Dems took control of Congress in 2007.
Thank you.

I never said he was. I was taking issue with your allegation that he went into Iraq and Afghanistan totally on his own and spent the money totally on his own.

When the truth is that both parties in congress supported and funded that idiocy and continue to do so today.

we are sending our kids over to those hellholes to get blown up for NOTHING. It is ******* lunacy, almost as bad as Kennedy and Johnson in fricken viet nam.

You seen to have left out Eisenhower and Nixon.

 

[Brain357]

Ron Paul was the only conservative running for president. Look at how the Republican party treated him.

kinda like the dems treated Hillary in 08. Damn, it was her turn, she paid her dues, stuck by bubba, and the party dumped her for the inexperienced black guy.

I don't recall Hillary being mocked and treated like she was crazy.

 

[Political Junky]

Ron Paul was the only conservative running for president. Look at how the Republican party treated him.

kinda like the dems treated Hillary in 08. Damn, it was her turn, she paid her dues, stuck by bubba, and the party dumped her for the inexperienced black guy.

Are there turns? Cool.

The cons have their turn, as in Nixon, Dole, and McCain.

 

[AmazonTania]

I'm sure this chart wishes it was 1% annualized.

Federal Expenditures went from $3230.6 Billion when Obama first went into office, to $3771.6 Billion in Q4. That's a 16% increase in 4 years at an annualized rate of 4% per year.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FGEXPND.txt

Is it still lower than the other President's? I don't know. I've have to do more calculations to see, but someone somewhere is not being entirely truthful so far.

 

[hunarcy]

Bullshit! Bush had veto power and the GOP had filibuster power!

As an example, in 2007 the Dems wanted to raise the minimum wage, Bush threatened a veto if he didn't get more tax cuts. The Dems tried to pass it without Bush's tax cuts but failed to get the 60 votes to beat the GOP filibuster. Since they could not get the 60 votes to beat a GOP filibuster they would not have the 67 votes to beat a Bush veto. So Bush got the tax cuts he demanded as the price for raising the minimum wage. Bush and the GOP controled everything that happened in 2007 and 2008.

You are a dogged little idealogue. I'm amused to see you acknowledge that it was the filibuster power IN CONGRESS that mattered, even as you direct your ire at the President whose veto power can be overridden BY CONGRESS. The President, whether it is Bush or Obama or any other, can suggest and ask and beg, but it's the Legislative power that matters. NOTHING you posted rebutts that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is Bush getting credit for 2009 since your graph says 2009 reassigned to obama.
OH and by the way we have had two bridges to fall in as many months. What happen too those funds to be used in repairing roads and bridges?

 

[hunarcy]

I made no such allegation! I replied to the poster who said that Bush was irrelevent after the Dems took over in 2007, a common claim of the Right to absolve Bush of any blame for anything that happened fron Jan 2007 on.

And, in doing so, you mischaracterize my position, which was not intended as a defense of Bush. My position is that Presidents can call for, ask for, and in fact beg for a tax rate or a policy or a type of spending, but it is the Legislative Branch that actually impliments that policy and has the credit or blame for its success. The President cannot spend money unless it's authorized by Congress. The President cannot borrow money unless instructed by Congress to do so. Although the President can issue an Executive Order, it actually can be nullified by Congressional Legislation. Your focus on the President blinds you to what is actually happening around you.

 

[hunarcy]

The power of the president to veto is far greater than the power of Congress to override a veto.

The hurdle to override a veto can be very daunting, but it is possible. And, if a veto is overridden, the President is obligated to implement the law.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[boilermaker55]

Hell, then refute the lies. Or is your post a lie. Hmmmm?

This misleading shit is still out there?

Figures. Anything to take the pressure off of IRS-gate, Benghazi-gate and AP-gate, right?

BTW....Do you know how long it took for liberals to realize how badly Carter gutted the military and left us practically defenseless? Gee...I wonder where that spending came from to return us to a Superpower status?

 

[boilermaker55]

Same to you, refute the lies. Or is your post a lie? Hmmm?

Stupid people keep posting the same stupid lies.

 

[FA_Q2]

Same to you, refute the lies. Or is your post a lie? Hmmm?

Stupid people keep posting the same stupid lies.

Outright lies, period.
Historical Tables | The White House
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,457,079
2011 3,603,059
2012 3,537,127
2013 estimate 3,684,947
2014 estimate 3,777,807
2015 estimate 3,908,157
2016 estimate 4,089,836

Spending did decrease in 2010 but that is the ONLY year that is below 2009 and the increases are projected into the future with no real changes. This is WITH full sequestration by the way. Boy did that make a dent – oh wait…

Then there is the UTTER BULLSHIT that 2009 was somehow a norm during the Bush years. The reality is that 09 was a fluke when the government went into overdrive on spending. Bush’s previous largest spending year? 2008 at 2982544 over half a trillion less than 09 and Bush spent like it was going out of style. Now, Obama TRIES to claim that he does not spend like a drunken sailor because he uses ‘09 as a baseline when much of that spending should have been temporary and represented an astounding 18% increase in spending.

It is complete bullshit and trotting out his spending record as anything but huge is a lie through omission of the real facts.

 

[healthmyths]

The below chart shows differently i.e. spending has continually increased..
Nearly doubling in spending from 2002 when spending was $2 trillion to
2013 when spending is nearly $4 trillion...

Government Spending Chart: United States 2000-2018 - Federal State Local Data