Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[PredFan]

Let me 'splain something to you lefty morons:

Congress has the purse strings, not the President.

The "cut in the rate of spending increase", because that's wht it truely is, is the result of the House putting the brakes on obama.

"Lefty Morons"

Oops! Pardon the redundancy.

 

[Brain357]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

Let us not forget that spending fell under Clinton because Republicans, in a historic election, swept Congress, and began pushing a balanced budget that eventually resulted in a billion dollar surplus that Clinton always get credit for.

Clinton worked with a Republican controlled congress and passed many conservative policies--welfare reform and DOMA among them.

It doesn't however change the numbers on the graph. Clinton found a way to get it done. Republicans either didn't want to control spending or were unable to. Either way I'm no longer blindly voting Republican in hope of them being conservative. The record is against them and talk is cheap.

 

[Bfgrn]

OK, I see. Bush was responsible for the debt increases when he was in office, Bush is responsible for the debt increases when obama is in office, so I guess Bush was also responsible for the debt increases when Clinton was in office.

Bush is responsible for every penney of the debt, obama and clinton are not responsible for anything, ever. Are you a total lunatic? do you really believe the bullshit that you post?

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Well, I think we all agree that deficit spending is a substantial problem--which itself is an improvement. The Bush administration was reckless in their spending, and didn't take firm enough actions in the lead up to the mortgage catastrophe. Though, the Bush administration did push for more oversight and regulations over Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats lambasted those attempts, labeling them 'a political lynching'.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjoW_IXos4]Senate Committee Hearings on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 2004 - YouTube[/ame]


This is the issue that motivated me to join and become active in the Tea Party, and I'm all for those on the left or right that believe spending and debt is too high and needs to be addressed.

But this administration can't even get enough Democrat votes to pass their own budget. How many votes did it garner again?

Herein lies your problem...Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the mortgage catastrophe. Private lender were. Fannie and Freddie lost huge market share leading up to the peak of the bubble.

Did the Bush administration push for more oversight and regulations before or after his push of an 'Ownership Society'? Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[Londoner]

Clinton worked with a Republican controlled congress and passed many conservative policies--welfare reform and DOMA among them.

And Newt worked with Bill on raising revenue by 4 measly percentage points - and the economy boomed.

And Tip worked with Reagan.

Under the old system of relative bipartisanship, especially during the great centrism of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, the government actually worked for more Americans.

However, the Reagan Revolution unleashed a very powerful movement of Revanchism, which, in true McCarthyite fashion, successfully convinced Conservative Americans that their country had been stolen by the other side (which was an evil force bent on destroying this great nation).

How did they sell their story to so many Americans? Let me explain.

The Reagan Revolution created a powerful network of think tanks, lobbying groups, political action committees, publishing groups, radio stations, print/electronic news sites, and a well-known television station. This overlapping set of institutions provided huge financial incentives to anyone willing to convince fellow Americans that the left was an anti-American menace that needed to be 100% expunged from the political process.

Therefore, by the time this new conservative movement reached its zenith under Bush 43, it was powerful enough to destroy almost any politician that crossed the aisle and worked with the Democrats.

Today, any Republican politician in the House or Senate who works with Democrats (even on bills first proposed by Republicans) faces a primary challenge by groups led by the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and a massive group of well-funded corporate bidders who collect under strategically benign labels like "tea party" and "freedom".

On the other hand, if someone on the left crosses the aisle, that is, if a person like Joe Lieberman actually campaigns for the Republican nominee for president, he gets rewarded by Obama by being able to keep his chairmanships and committee assignments in the Senate. Also, the "blue dog" Democrats who killed Obama's public option will face zero primary challenges.

Again, Reagan and Tip worked together; and Clinton/Gingrich worked together - and their partnership yielded great results for the American people. Today, however, if a member of the right works with the left, he gets destroyed. The right is fighting a civil war against the left. Many decent conservative Americans, seduced by the movement's transparent appeal to patriotism, religion and family values, believe that Obama is a greater threat to this nation then Al Qaeda. It is their job to make sure that unlike Reagan and Tip or Bill and Newt, the Obama government is brought to a standstill by any means necessary. Why? Because the concentrated wealth that now runs the Republican Party has convinced Conservative Americans that working with the left is treasonous.

Game over.

 

[Erand7899]

Can you think of ANY reasons deficits were high? Does the name Bush ring a bell? Oh, I know, as soon as Obama took over it was his fault for the previous 8 years.

Do you also believe professional wrestling is real?

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, he was handed a country that was in two wars, had a huge deficit, and a slowing economy. I don't recall any other president having to deal with so many issues. Bush was handed a country in very good shape and created problems.

Your memory is deficient, grasshopper. Bush was not handed an economy in good shape. The economy was flat when he took over, and went into recession three months later.

Nor, did Bush need $trillion deficits to handle those two wars or the two recessions that we successfully recovered from.

 

[Political Junky]

Yes, it has nothing to do with any legislation passed during the two years the Democrats controlled all of Congress, nothing.

Everything is perpetually Bush's fault. This president simply cannot take responsibility for a damn thing.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, he was handed a country that was in two wars, had a huge deficit, and a slowing economy. I don't recall any other president having to deal with so many issues. Bush was handed a country in very good shape and created problems.

Your memory is deficient, grasshopper. Bush was not handed an economy in good shape. The economy was flat when he took over, and went into recession three months later.

Nor, did Bush need $trillion deficits to handle those two wars or the two recessions that we successfully recovered from.

Odd isn't it that the GOP doesn't trot Bush, Jr. out at conventions etc.? Instead they always pay tribute to Reagan.

 

[hunarcy]

Stupid people believe that the President determines spending. The FACT is that spending is down because, once again, the Republicans control the House, where spending bills orginate.

Read the Constitution next time.

 

[FA_Q2]

Most of this tripe makes the same error, they use Bush’s last year as a baseline of all Obama’s year even though Bush’s last year was a HUGE spike in spending. Much of that due to a recession and trying to buy our way out by paying for the banks errors. That is bullshit. 2009 represented a WHOPPING 18% increase in government spending and yet you are all using that as the baseline for Obama’s continued spending habits. That is asinine. We did not need a continued 18% spending increase nor would that even remotely be considered the baseline that spending in his administration be compared against.

You are using an anomaly to justify continued insanity.

 

[francoHFW]

A) That 18% rise in spending is the rise in welfare and UE caused by the Bush meltdown, and the stimulus needed to avert a depression.

B) The Dems did not have control of congress for two years, actually less than 6 months, and between Kennedy being out and being out of session, much less than that. Another Pub whopper that has about 75%+ of the USA duped, thanks to our cowardly media..

 

[g5000]

Obama has spent less than Bush, and his deficits are smaller.

Did you even look at your own chart?!?

You are mathematically illiterate.

 

[Nova78]

Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

Yea, and shit does not stink either , dipshit ..........

 

[RKMBrown]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

LIES

The dot.com boom and the conservative led congress brought the deficits down not Clinton. The dot.com bust and the democrat led congress brought the deficits up not Bush.

Obama... he's just a dirt bag good for nothing looser who's sole goal in life is to get revenge for his father and mother by destroying this country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

LIES

The dot.com boom and the conservative led congress brought the deficits down not Clinton. The dot.com bust and the democrat led congress brought the deficits up not Bush.

Obama... he's just a dirt bag good for nothing looser who's sole goal in life is to get revenge for his father and mother by destroying this country.

Where do you get these ideas?

 

[Redfish]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

LIES

The dot.com boom and the conservative led congress brought the deficits down not Clinton. The dot.com bust and the democrat led congress brought the deficits up not Bush.

Obama... he's just a dirt bag good for nothing looser who's sole goal in life is to get revenge for his father and mother by destroying this country.

Where do you get these ideas?

probably from watching and paying attention to what has happened and what is happening.

 

[Brain357]

This pretty much shows what I have been talking about. Reagan starts it, Bush continues it, Clinton brings it down, the second Bush makes it worse again... I have no interest in defending Obama. You can't look at this chart and say Republicans don't spend.

LIES

The dot.com boom and the conservative led congress brought the deficits down not Clinton. The dot.com bust and the democrat led congress brought the deficits up not Bush.

Obama... he's just a dirt bag good for nothing looser who's sole goal in life is to get revenge for his father and mother by destroying this country.

Right, it's just some coincidence that spending has been high for republican presidents the last 40 years.

You just keep voting for big government spending then.

 

[Brain357]

LIES

The dot.com boom and the conservative led congress brought the deficits down not Clinton. The dot.com bust and the democrat led congress brought the deficits up not Bush.

Obama... he's just a dirt bag good for nothing looser who's sole goal in life is to get revenge for his father and mother by destroying this country.

Where do you get these ideas?

probably from watching and paying attention to what has happened and what is happening.

And ignoring republican spending apparently.

 

[Redfish]

Where do you get these ideas?

probably from watching and paying attention to what has happened and what is happening.

And ignoring republican spending apparently.

OK, lets see now. the national debt was around 9T when obama took office, today it is around 17T. almost doubled in less than 5 years. all previous presidents created a debt of 9T and now under obama it has gone up to 17T.

yes, GOP presidents have engaged in deficit spending, but obama has created an entire new definition of deficit spending.

this is an undeniable FACT. spin as you wish, obama is the worst president in history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Revenues fell almost a trillion dollars over that time period.

 

[Brain357]

probably from watching and paying attention to what has happened and what is happening.

And ignoring republican spending apparently.

OK, lets see now. the national debt was around 9T when obama took office, today it is around 17T. almost doubled in less than 5 years. all previous presidents created a debt of 9T and now under obama it has gone up to 17T.

yes, GOP presidents have engaged in deficit spending, but obama has created an entire new definition of deficit spending.

this is an undeniable FACT. spin as you wish, obama is the worst president in history.

Bush was handed a balanced budget and made a disaster of it. Obama was handed 2 wars, slow economy, and huge deficits. Bush was supposed to be small government conservative. What a joke. Liberals at least don't run on small gov.

 

[Redfish]

Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is so transparent. During the two years Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, before the Tea Party ensured electoral defeats for this administration in 2011, there were month after month of record breaking deficits.

Revenues fell almost a trillion dollars over that time period.

yes, when unemployment is high, government revenue decreases. when the economy is in recession, government revenue decreases. there is a cause and effect relationship and obama's policies have caused the deficits to increase.

this is not really very complicated, want the debt to decrease? reduce taxes on businesses and individuals, put that money into the economy where it will create jobs and generate tax revenue in excess of what was being created by high taxation.

It worked when Kennedy did it and it worked when Reagan did it and it worked when Clinton and Bush did it.

But not chairman maobama, he is determined to destroy evil businesses and evil successful people and make everyone EQUALLY miserable-------its called socialism.