The difference between Bush and Obama in government spending

[RetiredGySgt]

So we can all agree that both parties support wild out of control spending?


That'd be a great start.

6 trillion in 8 years versus 5 trillion in 4, I would suggest the dems and Obama are much more willing to spend out of Control.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So we can all agree that both parties support wild out of control spending?


That'd be a great start.

6 trillion in 8 years versus 5 trillion in 4, I would suggest the dems and Obama are much more willing to spend out of Control.

That wasn't the question.

You could make the same comparison to Reagan spending far more than Carter and Bush spending far more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, the next guy always outspends and expands gov't more than the one before him.

 

[Twin Fist]

after three years, they are now obama's wars

two wars which obama continued for the three years


whats your point?

Which compares the explosion in spending on TWO wars under Bush, how?

Are you dumb enough to think we can simply wind down both wars the INSTANT Obama took office? That point being said, I completely disagreed with Obama's "doubling down" on Afghanistan while he has been in office. The overriding point is that the OP was attempting to compare costs of a chef and parties against TRILLIONS of dollars Bush spent on his two unwinnable wars.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So we can all agree that both parties support wild out of control spending?


That'd be a great start.

6 trillion in 8 years versus 5 trillion in 4, I would suggest the dems and Obama are much more willing to spend out of Control.

That wasn't the question.

You could make the same comparison to Reagan spending far more than Carter and Bush spending far more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, the next guy always outspends and expands gov't more than the one before him.

Wrong, we were told 6 trillion in 8 years was SUPER bad. And that it was all the Presidents fault. SO Obama spending TWICE as fast should be TWICE as bad, but you lefties don't even care.

We were also told Gitmo was bad, until Obama approved it. That 2 wars were bad until Obama approved them and created 2 more. We were told recess appointments were bad until Obama made one illegally while Congress was still in session.

IS there any thing from Bush's Presidency that is still bad as Obama double downs on it all?

 

[Twin Fist]

6 trillion in 8 years versus 5 trillion in 4, I would suggest the dems and Obama are much more willing to spend out of Control.

That wasn't the question.

You could make the same comparison to Reagan spending far more than Carter and Bush spending far more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, the next guy always outspends and expands gov't more than the one before him.

Wrong, we were told 6 trillion in 8 years was SUPER bad. And that it was all the Presidents fault. SO Obama spending TWICE as fast should be TWICE as bad, but you lefties don't even care.

We were also told Gitmo was bad, until Obama approved it. That 2 wars were bad until Obama approved them and created 2 more. We were told recess appointments were bad until Obama made one illegally while Congress was still in session.

IS there any thing from Bush's Presidency that is still bad as Obama double downs on it all?

this


suck it lib-tards

 

[Dr.Drock]

6 trillion in 8 years versus 5 trillion in 4, I would suggest the dems and Obama are much more willing to spend out of Control.

That wasn't the question.

You could make the same comparison to Reagan spending far more than Carter and Bush spending far more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, the next guy always outspends and expands gov't more than the one before him.

Wrong, we were told 6 trillion in 8 years was SUPER bad. And that it was all the Presidents fault. SO Obama spending TWICE as fast should be TWICE as bad, but you lefties don't even care.

We were also told Gitmo was bad, until Obama approved it. That 2 wars were bad until Obama approved them and created 2 more. We were told recess appointments were bad until Obama made one illegally while Congress was still in session.

IS there any thing from Bush's Presidency that is still bad as Obama double downs on it all?

What is it that makes me a lefty?

Me speaking out against wasteful spending or me being against both parties for their liberal spending?

Odd that rather than speak out against big spending by republicans, you try to downplay it by bringing up democrats. How are you NOT a lefty?

 

[frazzledgear]

IF you realy believe what you posted, then you are simply:

1)stupid as a rock

2) high as a kite

if you are joking thats fine.

if you are serious? you need to be in a diaper, in a rubber room somewhere.

The sources are in my signature. Second and third link. See for yourself.

I can also source just about any outlandish bullshit claim I want to make -seriously. That does not make it true. I've never seen such a bullshit attempt to pretend turning over control of two branches of government to Democrats really means they still aren't responsible for a ******* THING even years later. What a demented "reality" you occupy. Did you REALLY not notice how spending rose during Bush's second term? You know, when Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress? Are you SERIOUSLY insane enough to believe the only branch of government given the constitutional authority to set the budget for government doesn't really do it -and it's the President who does instead? Let me see -hmmm. ONE person in the Executive branch without the constitutional authority versus more than 500 with it in the other. Who do you really think not only has the only constitutional authority to determine spending -but is likely going to win that fight? No President fights the budget finally passed by Congress unless they believe they stand a chance of being backed up IN CONGRESS. Congress can bypass any Presidential veto with 2/3 vote -but they had already passed the budgets by more than that percentage in the first place. A veto would have been for nothing but MEANINGLESS, superficial appearances -which I know the left typically values over substance, but a President can't afford to waste him time on a fight he can't win! Bush was President but he was NOT in charge of spending -Democrats were. Bush did not veto their budget because the votes to back him and refuse to vote in favor of it again were not there. Once Democrats gained the upper hand in Congress, they did what they ALWAYS do when in power -they promptly ramped up spending and started funneling money to their own supporters. It is what Democrats ALWAYS do. Democrats put their own party's best interests before that of the nation -ALWAYS. Because in their mind they can't move on to do all those other wonderful "noble-y" things they pretend they do unless they cement their power and keep their base happy. This is such a set historical pattern now you have to be brain dead to ignore it. Of course those being paid off using taxpayer dollars are easier to cajole into voting for them AND be rewarded with another increase in their kickbacks, right? It is why that massive spending spree lying ass "stimulus" bill drafted by Democrats and signed by Obama -didn't work. The bulk of the money was funneled off to Democrat money laundering operations. Which in case you really didn't know it -doesn't stimulate the economy. Which is why Democrats and Obama apologists try to pretend it never was about that and it was really about SAVING jobs, not creating them -and now claim it was a raging success because it supposedly SAVED "X" number of jobs. Except that isn't an economic measure of any kind -because it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE. It can't be measured at all, NO ONE has measured that because it's impossible to do. So claiming X number of jobs were saved is nothing but a LIE. Something every honest economist has admitted -there is absolutely NO way to measure such a thing, no way to even ESTIMATE such a thing, no way to verify it, no way to back it up. Which is why NONE of them even try. Democrats just pulled a number out of their ASS and LIED. Again. A number that can't even be estimated, measured or verified whatsoever. And they know it is such a lying ass number because that number is totally different every time a Democrat opens their mouth. They can't even keep the lies about their lies straight! It is ALL just another bullshit, lying ass, phony claim by the left -who never run out of them either. Because one thing is absolutely true when it comes to liberals -they believe people in general are STUPID COWS who exist to be manipulated. Sadly, some are cows but the majority of people are not, even if initially duped, they catch on. And then the left gets someone to write bullshit articles about how "smart" people are actually liberals who believe it is the proper role of government to make life "fair" by making it more unfair for people deemed "too successful" and that government is supposed to "take care of" perfectly normal, healthy adults like they were children and tell them that only people who believe in smaller, less powerful government with less control over the individual and believe people are the best judges to run their own lives and not a ruling elite are the real dummies. And believe it or not, that bit of delicious irony actually SELLS among the useful idiots and cows of the left. LOL

Spending increased when Democrats got control of Congress under Bush -but it absolutely SKYROCKETED once Democrats got super majorities in both houses of Congress and Obama was elected. Democrats were running the entire show and didn't need even one Republican vote to ram through their out of control spending spree. Which they did. But you want to pretend that was BUSH? I find you liberal sheep to be such mindless ideologues -people who apparently just forgot they blamed Bush for the recession Clinton passed off to him and insisted the moment he took his oath HE was responsible for it all. There were liberals insisting the economy tanked for NO reason but a Republican was elected -so it was all Bush's fault even before being sworn in! By the end of JANUARY you liberal morons insisted Bush was to blame for the recession literally days after his inauguration. In spite of the fact Bush with advanced degrees/experience in economics and business RAN on a platform that a recession was IMMINENT and it was Democrats insisting everything was hunky dory so we should all elect the absolute one-college-dropped-out, one-college-flunked-out, only-accepted-into-college because his racist daddy was a Senator moron, sociopath and pathological liar Gore and not that "dummy" Bush. Don't remember that?

FYI -the Democrat super majorities in Congress and Obama spent $1 TRILLION in a single bill. Obamacare. A bill that was overwhelmingly opposed by both Americans and every Republican in office. Not even one Republican voted for it -and massive bills like that in which one party just rams through what they want in spite of public opinion and in spite of the fact it was entirely a one party MASSIVE spending spree guarantees it will be hated and despised by voters. Surprise, surprise apparently to the leftwing crackpots, but voters overwhelmingly want it repealed.

FYI -in spite of having super majorities in both houses of Congress -absolute Democrat controlled Congress REFUSED to pass a budget. And even now that the House has produced bipartisan budgets, the Democrat controlled Senate REFUSES to bring any House passed budget to the floor and VOTE ON IT. Any clue why? Really, do you not know why Democrats won't? Seriously? Come on, shake up that BB in your head and see if you can figure this one out as to why Senate Democrats REFUSE to fulfill their constitutional OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES by passing a yearly budget since Obama took office. Come on now -tell me you got this and you figured out, realize, understand why Senate Demcorats refuse to pass a budget even though once Democrats lost control of the House, the House is doing its constitutional duty and passing a budget. It took Republicans gaining control of the House to do get that body to do its constitutional duty but the Senate is still under Democrat control and it still refuses to even bring the BIPARTISAN HOUSE passed budget to the floor for a vote. COME ON BUDDY -why would ONLY Democrats -and for YEARS NOW - not want to see a budget passed as Congress is OBLIGATED to do every year? Hmm? Find your source to explain that one to you -because it is something you should know.

FYI -the facts are what they are:
Year/Spending total/Deficit/President
2007 / $2.7 trillion/ $161 billion / Bush
2008 / $2.9 trillion / $239 billion / Bush*
2009 / $3.1 trillion / $407 billion / Obama*
2010 / $3.55 trillion / $1.17 trillion / Obama*
2011 / $3.7 trillion / $1.6 trillion / Obama*

*- Democrat-controlled Congress

To a lot of people, liberals in particular, the word "trillion" is just a meaningless word that means "lots" -because no one has ever seen a trillion of anything and no one can count that high. There is no mental image of "trillion" because it is beyond our limited human brain to fully comprehend. But to put the deficit in better perspective under Bush when there were still enough Republicans in office to put some brakes on the Democrat wet dream spending spree under Bush and when there wasn't: if it were possible to continue counting nonstop, it would take 32 years to count to a billion. Unrealistic but within the realm of possible. It would take 32,000 years to count to a trillion. So the deficit for Bush's last year would have taken someone 7, 648 years to count it up. Under Obama most recent year, it would take 51,200 years to count it up. If you can't GRASP the significance of the difference in the first place because "billion" and "trillion" are just really nothing but meaningless "-illions" to you, then you can't begin to appreciate just how much spending really did skyrocket under ABSOLUTE Democrat control. And will still defend it like a mindless cow. Just as you did. Give us a good "MOOO" there, honey.

FYI -apparently a LOT of leftwing kooks aren't aware of this, but the Executive branch of government does not set spending. Congress does -and it is Congress that is ALWAYS ultimately responsible for out of control spending. THEY did it. They are the ONLY branch with the power to do it. It is part of the checks and balances -you know, in case a President decides to go nuts and pretend he is a dictator who gets to do whatever he wants and thinks he can appoint all sorts of people to powerful positions who cannot be held accountable by the people? Congress can refuse to allocate spending for his dictator plans or pay his mini-dictator helpers.

Democrats got control of both houses of Congress in 2006 when Bush was President. Bush was in no position to buck Congress and passed the budgets worked out between the parties in Congress with Democrats calling the majority of the shots since they were in control. No President wages a pointless fight with Congress when he lacks the backup IN Congress for it. There was no point in wasting time vetoing it because Congress had already shown it had the numbers to bypass any veto. Then Democrats were given SUPER MAJORITIES in both houses of Congress when Obama was elected. That meant Democrats didn't need to compromise on ANYTHING -and they didn't -because they didn't need a single Republican vote to ram down our throats anything they wanted. And did. Are you seriously suggesting that Republicans were still somehow responsible for what Democrats did and had already been doing -and even when Democrats were given absolute control? Even though Republicans were ENTIRELY STRIPPED OF ANY POWER IN BOTH BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT? Are you seriously that much of a total MORON? That even with super majorities Democrats were IMPOTENT to do anything about their OWN out of control spending spree and it was really Bush who never held enough power to influence the budget once Democrats got control of both houses of Congress who was still far more powerful than super majorities of Democrats in both houses of Congress and even years later? ROFLMAO! Yet with SUPER MAJORITIES, these people REFUSED to do their constitutional duty and pass a budget again. And YOU apparently can't figure out why that is and worse yet -apparently don't give a shit, even though voters DID AND DO and started stripping power from Democrats at midterm for their abuse of power and refusing to do their ******* JOBS. And voters will finish correcting that mistake this November.

But hey, if you think THIS is as good as it gets under a President, and THIS is what being qualified to even do the damn job looks like by coming in and making everything by every measure even worse than it was -then you go ahead and vote for that pathetic, totally incompetent and still unqualified loser Obama. But I wouldn't hold my breath assuming everyone else is that stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

3 years into the worst Administration in human history and its still BOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

 

[merrill]

A general overview:


In end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

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

 

[Charles_Main]

From '00-08, Bush rose government spending to 3.2 trillion a year.

From '08-'11, the spending increased to 3.8 trillion a year. However, 3.2 trillion of that was still a result of Bush's policies. Which means Obama's contribution was only 800 billion extra per year. Not only that, but under Obama, spending began to decrease in 2011.

However, government spending is not the only thing that exploded the deficit. It was also a lack of government revenue which decreased significantly under Obama. That, I think, can be blamed on both Obama and Republicans. Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans for refusing to raise taxes.

You are smoking crack cocaine. Your including wars that are now over, You counting tarp, ETC.

It's this simple. Obama has increased annual reoccurring Discretionary spending by 26% Period.

 

[rdean]

Government spending is only one issue.

Obama will respectfully bow to an elder statesman as a sign of respect.

Bush mouth kissed Arab princes while skipping, playing with their "swords" and holding hands.

 

[frazzledgear]

A general overview:


In end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

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

1. Let's hold the proper branch of government responsible for the deficit because only one branch of government has the constitutional authority to set spending and while its fun to pretend a President is actually responsible for it -only Congress is. A President can submit his preferred budget but most Congresses toss it in the trash -just as a Democrat Congress with super majorities did to Obama's and didn't bother to pass one at all. (Also you do know the reason Democrats refused to pass a budget at all in spite of having super majorities in both houses of Congress, right? It took Republicans gaining control of the House to get it to start doing its constitutional duty again and it has passed a bipartisan budget -but the Senate is still controlled by Democrats who REFUSE to bring it to the floor at all for a vote. Or even discuss it. ANY clue why? Tell you know it.) Liberals insist a Democrat President gets credit for what a Republican Congress has done and then insists a a Republican President not even in office for YEARS is to blame for what a Democrat Congress has and still is doing! How can you keep a straight face and insist Bush is to blame for the fact Democrats with SUPER MAJORITIES in both houses of Congress refused to put any brakes on their wet dream spending spree? Do you really not understand what is meant by "super majority" and the power that represents? Because I'm pretty sure you understood it when that same Democrat super majority rammed Obamacare down our throats against the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and without a single Republican vote. Did you understand what that kind of power meant THEN? Oh, but not when it came to their SPENDING? Which SKYROCKETED? THAT was Bush? ROFLMAO! Get real -sorry, but no one with an IQ in the double digits or higher is buying that one.

A sitting President is either a willing abettor or a hostage to whatever Congress decides to do about spending. Once Democrats got control of both houses of Congress in Bush's second term -Bush was a hostage. Once Democrats got SUPER MAJORITIES in both houses of Congress and Obama won, Obama was a willing abettor. And worse -he didn't ever push Democrats to even propose or pass a budget at all. Tell me you know the reason Democrats refused to pass a budget after they gained super majorities and didn't need a single Republican vote to pass anything they wanted. With the guaranteed votes for it, WHY would Democrats refuse to do it? Hmm?

2. The facts are what they are:
Year/Spending total/Deficit/President
2007 / $2.7 trillion/ $161 billion / Bush
2008 / $2.9 trillion / $239 billion / Bush*
2009 / $3.1 trillion / $407 billion / Obama*
2010 / $3.55 trillion / $1.17 trillion / Obama*
2011 / $3.7 trillion / $1.6 trillion / Obama*

*- Democrat-controlled Congress Remember, it is CONGRESS responsible for spending and the deficit and a President is either a hostage to what they have done or an abettor. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, Bush was a hostage. Obama was an abettor.

To a lot of people, liberals in particular, the word "trillion" is just a meaningless word that means "lots" -because no one has ever seen a trillion of anything and no one can count that high. There is no mental image of "trillion" because it is beyond our limited human brain to fully comprehend. But to put the deficit in better perspective under Bush when there were still enough Republicans in office to put some brakes on the Democrat wet dream spending spree under Bush and when there wasn't: if it were possible to continue counting nonstop, it would take 32 years to count to a billion. Unrealistic but within the realm of possible. It would take 32,000 years to count to a trillion. So the deficit for Bush's last year would have taken someone 7, 648 years to count it up. Under Obama most recent year, it would take 51,200 years to count it up. If you can't GRASP the significance of the difference in the first place because "billion" and "trillion" are just really nothing but meaningless "-illions" to you, then you can't begin to appreciate just how much spending really did skyrocket under ABSOLUTE Democrat control. And will still defend it like a mindless cow. Just as you did. Give us a good "MOOO" there, honey.

Pretending Bush is responsible for the skyrocketing deficit incurred by the SUPER MAJORITY control of Democrats with Obama in the White House is a MASSIVE LIE only dumb shits who WANT to believe it can buy into. If you don't know why it is -then no one should give any of your opinions any respect.

Finally reading another absolute MORON go on about "Bush tax cuts for the rich" is really sad. I hate to break the bad news to you because this is a favorite liberal lie -but that tax cut had no negative impact on government revenue. The problem is NOT that we aren't paying enough taxes. 2001 is the last year Congress spent less than it took in -and the rate of increase in their spending skyrocketed when they got super majority control of both houses of Congress. Just keeping it real here. Liberals never bother to think about the fact that government actually collects more revenue by having more people employed which more than offsets a small tax rate reduction. They would really rather see a more punitive tax rate even if it means much higher and resistant unemployment. Which is why unemployment under Bush average less than half of what it has been under this one.

There was a 2% across-the-board tax rate reduction. ACROSS THE BOARD -meaning every income earner in the nation was treated in the IDENTICAL way by our government. It was SPECIFICALLY done in order to stimulate the economy -which in case you didn't know this, it really DID. And a hell of a lot better than Obama funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to his RICH SUPPORTERS and Democrat MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATIONS! Only in the world of a dumb ass liberal, unless the rich are specifically EXCLUDED, then it must mean it was done FOR the rich, right? Do you have any clue how ******* stupid you sound? We had a recession and the ENTIRE point of the ACROSS THE BOARD tax rate reduction was to stimulate the economy. That tax rate reduction impacted everyone's pocketbook the EXACT SAME WAY -everyone kept 2% more of their OWN MONEY. Not someone else's money -only THEIR OWN. That is how an ACROSS THE BOARD tax rate reduction works -everyone keeps the identical percent more of THEIR OWN MONEY. Only a ******* moron would be against not keeping more of YOUR OWN MONEY. But liberals don't even pretend they consider those at the top to be fellow citizens with any kind of right to expect government to treat them the same as others. To liberals, those at the top are there to be parasited with nonstop demands that government force their veins open wider. And we saw in Greece what happens when their victims are finally bled dry and the money all gone. Riots, vandalizing and torching private and public property -apparently in the really stupid liberal belief that throwing violent temper tantrums will magically create money and new victims to bleed. But oh sure, its conservatives who believe in smaller, less powerful government and believe people should be encouraged to both succeed and be responsible, productive citizens instead of parasites who are actually the stupid ones -just keep telling yourself that.

It was not set up to be perverted and used as an opportunity to redistribute the wealth -because that would have nullified the stimulative effect ENTIRELY. Now I know liberals wouldn't have minded that at all -because then they would have moved straight into bitching about how the recession didn't get better under Bush. Like it having no effect on the recession would have been totally unrelated to doing something SO ******* STUPID as changing it to another redistribution of the wealth instead! So sure, let's say someone who earned among the highest incomes in the country that year -Oprah -kept another $200,000 of her OWN money -let's keep that one in mind because it is HER money FIRST at ALL TIMES - not money that belongs to someone else first. And that same 2% tax rate reduction means someone in the bottom bracket was kept another $150 of their own money. The liberal looks at that and says UNFAIR!! UNFAIR! Without bothering to mention the person keeping $200,000 more of HER OWN MONEY -still paid more than 14 times in taxes what the person on the bottom even earned. A 2% ACROSS THE BOARD TAX RATE reduction isn't a tax cut for the rich any more than it is a tax cut for the poor. It was an income tax rate reduction for everyone by the identical percent. The entire tax code and every single tax bracket shifted down by 2%. It means EVERYONE who earned an income at all kept 2% more of THEIR OWN MONEY. Not the money of someone else. And it is really that last part that really pissed off liberals -that it wasn't about confiscating money from those who earned it in order to fork it over to those who didn't.

If you want to stimulate the economy in order to relieve a recession -then you don't nullify your ability to do so by changing it to a policy of redistribution of the wealth which will actually make it WORSE!

In addition if you REALLY want to demand government start discriminating against its own citizens based on their income -then perhaps YOU can explain why Democrats refuse to reform the tax code and set a tax rate and code just for small businesses instead of forcing them to be taxed under the individual tax rate. Every attempt by Republicans to create a separate and less punitive tax code just for small businesses is immediately shot down by Democrats -every time. Maybe you can explain that one. Nah, I know you can't so I'll clue ya in why Democrats bend over backwards forcing small businesses to pay much higher tax rates than corporations and refuse to create a separate tax rate and code just for small businesses. It's because of the high percentage that pay the highest tax bracket. That way any attempt by Republicans to give small businesses a tax break in order to stimulate the economy, relieve an economic downturn and high unemployment -lets DUMB ASS liberals such as yourself insist it was really a tax break just for the rich.

Small businesses create more than 85% of all new jobs yet the average small business is operating near the edge and is likely to go out of business within five years. They are highly unlikely to have a high enough profit margin to be able to withstand an economic downturn for very long. The small business owner with a successful small business on average failed three times before. It is hard to succeed, it is even harder to pick yourself up after each failure and try again and these are traits we WANT to encourage -yet they on average pay a much higher tax rate than corporations, making it more difficult for a small business to even make a profit than any major corporation. And do NOT suggest we raise corporate tax rates. The US has THE highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD, making doing business just about anywhere BUT the US more inviting. We have one of the WORST anti-business tax codes in the world for both small businesses and corporations. And then dumb ass liberals ***** about how corporations move their headquarters and jobs to other countries like they really just can't see any connection there and will demand even more anti-business punitive tax rates. Wow, I would really have to work at being that dumb.

 

[grunt11b]

From '00-08, Bush rose government spending to 3.2 trillion a year.

From '08-'11, the spending increased to 3.8 trillion a year. However, 3.2 trillion of that was still a result of Bush's policies. Which means Obama's contribution was only 800 billion extra per year. Not only that, but under Obama, spending began to decrease in 2011.

However, government spending is not the only thing that exploded the deficit. It was also a lack of government revenue which decreased significantly under Obama. That, I think, can be blamed on both Obama and Republicans. Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans for refusing to raise taxes.

Bush spent 4 trillion in 8 years, obama spent over 5 trillion in less than three years. Besides, you dont spend more money and blame it on policies, if policies are bad you end the policies and stop funding them. There is no excuse for obamas reckless spending. None that will sway voters anyways. Republicans promised not to raise taxes, at least they are keeping there promise, unlike all the promises that came from the democrats in 2006 and 2008 that never came to fruition.

 

[grunt11b]

obama gives more lavish parties paid for on the taxpayer's dime. How much did the Halloween bash cost? Johnny Depp didn't fly in from France to be part of the fun. Bush never had a special pizza chef flown in from Chicago once a week for family pizza night.

It's surprising that democrats don't much mind the sound of flushing tax money down the toilet.

Which compares the explosion in spending on TWO wars under Bush, how?

Wars congress authorized, unlike the action in Libya that Obama stuck his nose in.

 

[healthmyths]

From '00-08, Bush rose government spending to 3.2 trillion a year.

From '08-'11, the spending increased to 3.8 trillion a year. However, 3.2 trillion of that was still a result of Bush's policies. Which means Obama's contribution was only 800 billion extra per year. Not only that, but under Obama, spending began to decrease in 2011.

However, government spending is not the only thing that exploded the deficit. It was also a lack of government revenue which decreased significantly under Obama. That, I think, can be blamed on both Obama and Republicans. Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans for refusing to raise taxes.

Bush spent 4 trillion in 8 years, obama spent over 5 trillion in less than three years. Besides, you dont spend more money and blame it on policies, if policies are bad you end the policies and stop funding them. There is no excuse for obamas reckless spending. None that will sway voters anyways. Republicans promised not to raise taxes, at least they are keeping there promise, unlike all the promises that came from the democrats in 2006 and 2008 that never came to fruition.

Why are both conservatives/liberals totally ignoring the EVENTS that caused:
1) $8 Trillion in LOSSES which in turn cause $267 billion a year in tax loss write offs!
2) Dot.com costs $5 trillion in losses starting with tax revenue decline in 2002!
3) 9/11 ANYONE Remember that??? $2 trillion in economic losses added to $5 trillion!
4) Worst hurricanes in history added $1 trillion to the $7 trillion -- $ 8 trillion which
according to IRS tax payers CAN Reduce their taxes by $267 billion for the next 30 years!

So WHY don't both liberals/conservatives FIRST recognize THAT major cause?
Dot.com/9/11/worst hurricanes ALL created Losses which whether covered or not by insurance CREATED loss carry forwards..

NOW the hypocrisy of Obama is HE takes an average of $100,000 a year in tax loss carryforwards! YET he decries "tax cuts for the wealthy"!

START with him and ask him why he is a hypocrite!

Then once WE all agree.. $267 billion a year in TAX losses ADDED to the growing deficits we have to ask.. WHO was responsible for encouraging, CHEERLEADING the
prolongation of the Iraq war that cost another $600 billion?

And don't give that stupid response 'we shouldn't have been involved"..IDIOTS..
do know what the 1991 CEASE FIRE required? Saddam's compliance ! He didn't and therefore the resumption in Iraq!
BUT with traitors calling our troops "civilian killers" and our troops "terrorists--Kerry"
and Murtha "troops are murderers" and the MSM/Democrats constantly criticising daily our involvement.. geez you think the Terrorists were not encouraged by those words?

So $600 billion for the new Dept. of Homeland Security over 6 years and Iraq at $600 billion right there $1.2 trillion plus 6 years at $267 billion or $1.5 trillion in tax write offs.. I'm going to shout to both liberals/conservatives!!!

THAT'S $2.7 TRILLION THAT NONE OF YOU SEEM TO RECOGNIZE!

 

[healthmyths]

So PLEASE until you all conservatives/liberals alike completely UNDERSTAND AND take into account that nearly $2.7 Trillion in added expenses AND LOSS of Tax revenue was directly related to
1) dot.com losses 2) 9/11 Terrorists attacking - like Pearl Harbor?? 3) Worst hurricanes in history...

THOSE EVENTS all caused this $2.7 trillion in added expenses and LOST TAX REVENUE!

All of your other arguments, comments are for nothing until that is agreed upon because it is that $2.7 Trillion in losses that gave rise to your false premises!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The difference between Bush and Obama in government spending?

Bu$h
WIN$!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From '00-08, Bush rose government spending to 3.2 trillion a year.

From '08-'11, the spending increased to 3.8 trillion a year. However, 3.2 trillion of that was still a result of Bush's policies. Which means Obama's contribution was only 800 billion extra per year. Not only that, but under Obama, spending began to decrease in 2011.

However, government spending is not the only thing that exploded the deficit. It was also a lack of government revenue which decreased significantly under Obama. That, I think, can be blamed on both Obama and Republicans. Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans for refusing to raise taxes.

Did anything oh say $8 trillion in REAL property, stock market losses occur due to :
1) Dot.com BUST.. $5 trillion loss!
2) Geez didn't 9/11 occur $2 trillion losses
3) And of course EVERYONE should know that the WORST hurricane SEASONS!! in history occurred that caused $1 trillion in LOSSES!

Bu$h
WIN$!!!!

 

[frazzledgear]

ole Billybob thinks we should give ALL our money to the Obama Guberment cause they know what to do with it better than we do.

Yeah, Steph, that's it.

When you say stuff like the problem is a lack of government revenue, it means you clearly lack the critical thinking skills to even be able to identify the real problem. You seriously believe the problem is that you just don't pay enough taxes -start having your employer take a bigger chunk of your paycheck and send it to DC.

Sorry but an under taxed population is not the problem but your handlers applaud your ability to parrot their bullshit.

Why don't you try wracking your brains to see if you can figure out why Congressional Democrats have refused to do their Constitutional duty since Obama took office and pass a budget. It took Republicans gaining control of the House before the House did its job. But the Senate, still under Democrat control refused to bring it to the floor and do their ******* job.

There is a reason Dems refuse. I'll even give you a clue-it is a political one. Any idea why Democrats and only Congressional Democrats refuse to do their job and expect the people to just STFU and accept it?