This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.
Facts are "ignorant as hell"?
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.
Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.
Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government
chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid
'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a
discretionary fiscal policy.
ref
