Republicans lie about "explosion of spending" under Obama

[The T]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Fact. from 2001 to 2008 we added 6 trillion to the deficit.

Fact from 2009 to 2012 we will have added 6 trillion more to the deficit.

Now who controlled Congress and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011 and who still has not passed a budget since 2008?

Facts escape some...Actually you could say 2007 to 2011

 

[Outback]

It's no lie.

http://libertyworks.com/obama-proves-keynes-was-wrong/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Man, I love all these new posters!

you would, did you bring them over from thinkprogress?

Just FYI, I am not progressive. For example, I hate trade unions, I think they should be outlawed. And I supported going to war in Iraq.

But, unlike most Republicans, a am not going to declare war on arithmetic. The numbers tell a clear story -- Republicans had been lying about Obama's big government, and they are telling those lies primarily to their voters. They treat them as a bunch of idiots.

If it is true that the numbers support your position you should be able to find a simple chart that does not contradict your position. The fact that you cannot makes me wonder about you and your understanding of numbers.

 

[ilia25]

As anyone can see from your chart, your statement is ludicrous.

Why?

Didn't you learn how to read bar graphs in school? Do I look like a fifth grade teacher?

If you actually look at your chart you will see spending went down slightly in 2007, then went up again in 2008. Obama signed his first budget on 29 April 2009, all spending after that date has his name on it. We can also add in the $1 trillion dollar stimulus that was signed in January of 2009. That puts almost all of 2009 into Obama's column for spending, and there was a clear, and sharp, increase in 2009 over 2008.

And in 2010 the spending had declined. So over 3 years the growth was the same as before Obama took the office, hence no explosion in spending.

 

[The T]

no

During George Bush's term in office he increased the debt from about 5 trillion to 10 trillion up 100%.

During H.W. Bush's term in office he increased the debt 50%.

During Reagan term in office he pushed debt up 180%.

When Obama took office the national debt stood at about 10 trillion and will probably be 16 at end of his first term, up 60%. When you consider that most of this spending increase was due to the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession, he has done quite well at controlling spending as compared to recent Republican presidents.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Are you saying it is impossible for Congress to actually spend less if there is less money coming in? Can you show me that in the Constitution?

Don't you understand? THEY are elected precisely to spend our money...

/Sarcasm

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clearly, by your own cited chart, spending did go up. The fact that the spending went up during the recession, as well as the fact that we borrowed even more money than ever, adds to the fact that Obama spent WAY too much compared to how much revenue was coming in.

Except that the spending MUST go up during the recession for many important reasons. Some lose jobs, so the government has to pay the unemployment. Others become so poor that they have to rely on food stamps.

If you are serious about your suggestion that the government must cut its spending, why don't you tell us which department or program the government was supposed to kill? Should we stop paying for our military? Or stop sending the social security checks?

Another reason the government should INCREASE spending is because the reason we have a recession in the first place is that consumers reduce their expenditures. The economists call it "paradox of thrift" -- if everyone in the economy tries to save in order to reduce their indebtedness, everyone income falls so it becomes even harder to pay of the debt.

If Obama tried to reduce the government spending it would simply lead to an economic collapse.

Spending never has to go up. If you want to argue it should then feel free to present arguments that support your position. You should know that I personally have a new found appreciation of Keynes and his theories, so I can actually argue them intelligently, and point out why just increasing spending because there is a recession is a bad idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the past 30 years republicans have been the biggest spenders in the history of the USA. That is why they are known as liberal spenders and promoters of debt aka borrow and spend.

Case in point:

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

* Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

* Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

Even if we assume that tax cuts cost money your statement is a wrong

The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts for working Americans amounted to a "loss" of about $3 trillion over 10 years. If we focus solely on the portion of the cuts that went to people making more than $200,000 the "cost" was just over $600,000 over 10 years not $6 trillion over 7 years.

Is the rest of your math as accurate?

 

[ilia25]

It's no lie.

Obama's Economic Record Proves Keynes Was Wrong | Liberty Works |

Of course it's a lie -- Republicans tell fairy tales about exploding spending under Obama. Your chart shows the rise in spending at the beginning of the business cycle, compared to the previous smaller recessions.

 

[The T]

It's no lie.

Obama's Economic Record Proves Keynes Was Wrong | Liberty Works |

Of course it's a lie -- Republicans tell fairy tales about exploding spending under Obama. Your chart shows the rise in spending at the beginning of the business cycle, compared to the previous smaller recessions.

So WHY is this one larger, and WHY has it not abated as the FED tells us that we aren't going to really recover fully for at least 7 years, and WHY are they keeping interest rates LOW?

 

[ilia25]

no

During George Bush's term in office he increased the debt from about 5 trillion to 10 trillion up 100%.

During H.W. Bush's term in office he increased the debt 50%.

During Reagan term in office he pushed debt up 180%.

When Obama took office the national debt stood at about 10 trillion and will probably be 16 at end of his first term, up 60%. When you consider that most of this spending increase was due to the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession, he has done quite well at controlling spending as compared to recent Republican presidents.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Are you saying it is impossible for Congress to actually spend less if there is less money coming in? Can you show me that in the Constitution?

Of course it is possible! It is also possible for the Congress to change the Constitution in a way that will require every US citizen to kick your ass every time they see you.

Cutting spending during a recession will make it more severe, further depressing the government revenues and making the debt problem worse. But that concept obviously is far too complex for you to understand.

 

[ilia25]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Fact. from 2001 to 2008 we added 6 trillion to the deficit.

Fact from 2009 to 2012 we will have added 6 trillion more to the deficit.

Now who controlled Congress and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011 and who still has not passed a budget since 2008?

The Republican's lie is not about the size of deficit. It is about an "explosion in spending" being the cause of deficits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

During George Bush's term in office he increased the debt from about 5 trillion to 10 trillion up 100%.

During H.W. Bush's term in office he increased the debt 50%.

During Reagan term in office he pushed debt up 180%.

When Obama took office the national debt stood at about 10 trillion and will probably be 16 at end of his first term, up 60%. When you consider that most of this spending increase was due to the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession, he has done quite well at controlling spending as compared to recent Republican presidents.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Are you saying it is impossible for Congress to actually spend less if there is less money coming in? Can you show me that in the Constitution?

Of course it is possible! It is also possible for the Congress to change the Constitution in a way that will require every US citizen to kick your ass every time they see you.

Cutting spending during a recession will make it more severe, further depressing the government revenues and making the debt problem worse. But that concept obviously is far too complex for you to understand.

Congress cannot change the Constitution. Given that you are unaware of that simple fact I shall attribute the rest of your post to ignorance rather than accuse you of lying.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Fact. from 2001 to 2008 we added 6 trillion to the deficit.

Fact from 2009 to 2012 we will have added 6 trillion more to the deficit.

Now who controlled Congress and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011 and who still has not passed a budget since 2008?

The Republican's lie is not about the size of deficit. It is about an "explosion in spending" being the cause of deficits.

LOL. Obama Fluffers say the darndest things

 

[The T]

Fact. from 2001 to 2008 we added 6 trillion to the deficit.

Fact from 2009 to 2012 we will have added 6 trillion more to the deficit.

Now who controlled Congress and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011 and who still has not passed a budget since 2008?

The Republican's lie is not about the size of deficit. It is about an "explosion in spending" being the cause of deficits.

LOL. Obama Fluffers say the darndest things

No shit...and the poster admitted it without knowing it.

 

[The T]

During George Bush's term in office he increased the debt from about 5 trillion to 10 trillion up 100%.

During H.W. Bush's term in office he increased the debt 50%.

During Reagan term in office he pushed debt up 180%.

When Obama took office the national debt stood at about 10 trillion and will probably be 16 at end of his first term, up 60%. When you consider that most of this spending increase was due to the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession, he has done quite well at controlling spending as compared to recent Republican presidents.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Are you saying it is impossible for Congress to actually spend less if there is less money coming in? Can you show me that in the Constitution?

Of course it is possible! It is also possible for the Congress to change the Constitution in a way that will require every US citizen to kick your ass every time they see you.

Cutting spending during a recession will make it more severe, further depressing the government revenues and making the debt problem worse. But that concept obviously is far too complex for you to understand.

Change it HOW? By what process?

 

[Meister]

Our ******* spending was too ******* massive and too linked to borrowing and deficits BEFORE the One became President.

Wrong. The deficits and excessive borrowing came from Bush's tax cuts.

The ONE just jacked it up faster than others.

No, he didn't.

intentionally misleading "chart"

What could be misleading about it? It's just numbers, which you could have looked up on your own.

You are denying the obvious facts for a simple reason -- because otherwise you would have to admit that you have voted for a bunch of lying bastards. That you brain was so fucked up by the right wing propaganda that you cheer when the bastards rob you.

No it didn't, the huge deficits came from spending, not the tax breaks...sheesh.

 

[The T]

Our ******* spending was too ******* massive and too linked to borrowing and deficits BEFORE the One became President.

Wrong. The deficits and excessive borrowing came from Bush's tax cuts.



No, he didn't.

intentionally misleading "chart"

What could be misleading about it? It's just numbers, which you could have looked up on your own.

You are denying the obvious facts for a simple reason -- because otherwise you would have to admit that you have voted for a bunch of lying bastards. That you brain was so fucked up by the right wing propaganda that you cheer when the bastards rob you.

No it didn't, the huge deficits came from spending, not the tax breaks...sheesh.

Just like any household or business that spends too much.

*Astounding*

 

[ilia25]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Read it again ...an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money ....that is called DEFICIT spending. Deficit SPENDING has EXPLODED under Obama. Sorry, Daniels was right.

What you call a "deficit spending" becomes what everyone else calls simply "deficit" the moment you try to put a number on it. So if Daniels weren't trying to trick his voters, you included, he should have said "an unprecedented explosion of deficit". He didn't for two reasons:
1) He would be widely ridiculed for blaming the deficits on Obama -- falling tax revenues were not his fault.
2) He was hoping that most people would understand "explosion of spending, with borrowed money" just as the phrase suggests -- a huge jump in spending, financed by more debt. Which is not at all what really happened.

In other words, he intentionally misled his audience, which means lying to the people. And some of them are more than happy to put up with. God knows why -- may be they just need someone to victimize them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Read it again ...an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money ....that is called DEFICIT spending. Deficit SPENDING has EXPLODED under Obama. Sorry, Daniels was right.

What you call a "deficit spending" becomes what everyone else calls simply "deficit" the moment you try to put a number on it. So if Daniels weren't trying to trick his voters, you included, he should have said "an unprecedented explosion of deficit". He didn't for two reasons:
1) He would be widely ridiculed for blaming the deficits on Obama -- falling tax revenues were not his fault.
2) He was hoping that most people would understand "explosion of spending, with borrowed money" just as the phrase suggests -- a huge jump in spending, financed by more debt. Which is not at all what really happened.

In other words, he intentionally misled his audience, which means lying to the people. And some of them are more than happy to put up with. God knows why -- may be they just need someone to victimize them.

True, but spending more than money than the government took in is.

 

[ilia25]

the huge deficits came from spending, not the tax breaks...sheesh.

Um, I don't remember mentioning the tax breaks. There was a big fall in tax revenues when the recession started -- many businesses took a loss, many people lost their job and stopped paying income taxes. That fall in revenues has been the cause of the deficits.