Why do democrats claim spending is down? ITS NOT

[ScienceRocks]

I think what the democrats mean is Bush didn't count the wars+I.O.U's and medicare into the budget. Obama added it into the budget when he became president-- so that's why the budget want through the roof???

What I think they're trying to say is Obama's cutting into that.

Right?

If that's what they're saying, then they are morons because the cost of Bush's wars and I.O.U.s were counted in his spending. It's a liberal myth that they weren't.

I wish to see some official data from the treasury from them on this.

 

[Redfish]

It just went up at a slower rate.

How the **** do you lefties twist that into spending going down?

In order for spending to go DOWN it would have to dip below the baseline.

Stop being such disenguinus hacks

If you conservatives got butt hurt about the spending during the Bush/GOP years, you'd have some credibility on the issue. You didn't, so you don't.

And don't bother telling me you did, because I don't believe you.

whether you believe it or not doen't matter, but there were very many conservatives and repbulblicans who were pissed about the spending during Bush's second term---when he had a democrat controlled congress BTW.

deficit spending has been a problem under all recent presidents, why not face reality rather than making every issue partisan?

 

[Redfish]

Prove those statements, Britpat. Rhetoric is becoming old-fashioned. Reality is the new black.

But anyway, the economy did grow, slightly. The debt was paid down by over $400B. That means that the DEFICIT has been reduced.

lets see now, obama ran the debt up from 9T to 17T in 4 years and now we see that it has been brought down to 16.6T and you call that progress?

1. I don't know when the debt was 17 trillion as of yet?
2. This is about the projected deficit and deficit of the past 4 years compared to now->yearly addition on the debt.

It is true that it want from 9.5-16 trillion in Obama's first term.

it hit 17T at the end of 2012, now its 16,6T. movement in the right direction, wanna bet what it will be at the end of 2013? my bet is 18T

 

[velvtacheeze]

It just went up at a slower rate.

How the **** do you lefties twist that into spending going down?

In order for spending to go DOWN it would have to dip below the baseline.

Stop being such disenguinus hacks

If you conservatives got butt hurt about the spending during the Bush/GOP years, you'd have some credibility on the issue. You didn't, so you don't.

And don't bother telling me you did, because I don't believe you.

Bush spent up the ass. No question about it. I don't think he has spent as much as Obama.

Yes, but if you're in the party of small government, you're supposed to cut spending, not brag about spending less than Democrats.

And he also spent it on fruitless nation building in Iraq. 10 billion a month, wasted. Down the drain forever. No wonder the GOP has lost two Presidential elections in a row.

 

[LoneLaugher]

lets see now, obama ran the debt up from 9T to 17T in 4 years and now we see that it has been brought down to 16.6T and you call that progress?

1. I don't know when the debt was 17 trillion as of yet?
2. This is about the projected deficit and deficit of the past 4 years compared to now->yearly addition on the debt.

It is true that it want from 9.5-16 trillion in Obama's first term.

it hit 17T at the end of 2012, now its 16,6T. movement in the right direction, wanna bet what it will be at the end of 2013? my bet is 18T

What are you basing that prediction on? Anything besides your woman's intuition? Why have you ignored my earlier post directed at your inaccuracy and simpleton logic?

 

[velvtacheeze]

It just went up at a slower rate.

How the **** do you lefties twist that into spending going down?

In order for spending to go DOWN it would have to dip below the baseline.

Stop being such disenguinus hacks

If you conservatives got butt hurt about the spending during the Bush/GOP years, you'd have some credibility on the issue. You didn't, so you don't.

And don't bother telling me you did, because I don't believe you.

whether you believe it or not doen't matter, but there were very many conservatives and repbulblicans who were pissed about the spending during Bush's second term---when he had a democrat controlled congress BTW.

deficit spending has been a problem under all recent presidents, why not face reality rather than making every issue partisan?

Bush's spending problem was more than the 2nd term. And only 2 years of his failed Presidency had a Dem congress.

One party supposedly supports less spending and smaller government, but doesn't demand this unless the other party is in power. The GOP's claims of fiscal responsibility are a national laughingstock, and conservtives only have themselves to blame for it.

 

[Redfish]

If you conservatives got butt hurt about the spending during the Bush/GOP years, you'd have some credibility on the issue. You didn't, so you don't.

And don't bother telling me you did, because I don't believe you.

whether you believe it or not doen't matter, but there were very many conservatives and repbulblicans who were pissed about the spending during Bush's second term---when he had a democrat controlled congress BTW.

deficit spending has been a problem under all recent presidents, why not face reality rather than making every issue partisan?

Bush's spending problem was more than the 2nd term. And only 2 years of his failed Presidency had a Dem congress.

One party supposedly supports less spending and smaller government, but doesn't demand this unless the other party is in power. The GOP's claims of fiscal responsibility are a national laughingstock, and conservtives only have themselves to blame for it.

you are correct, Bush was a disappointment in the area of budget control. Does that somehow excuse obama's total failure? does that excuse obama and the dems from not passing a budget bill for 5 years?

your continued attempts to blame bush for obama's failures is getting old and does not work.

face it, obama has been a disaster of a president in almost every way. He does take nice vacations and throw nice parties, gotta give him that.,

 

[velvtacheeze]

whether you believe it or not doen't matter, but there were very many conservatives and repbulblicans who were pissed about the spending during Bush's second term---when he had a democrat controlled congress BTW.

deficit spending has been a problem under all recent presidents, why not face reality rather than making every issue partisan?

Bush's spending problem was more than the 2nd term. And only 2 years of his failed Presidency had a Dem congress.

One party supposedly supports less spending and smaller government, but doesn't demand this unless the other party is in power. The GOP's claims of fiscal responsibility are a national laughingstock, and conservtives only have themselves to blame for it.

you are correct, Bush was a disappointment in the area of budget control. Does that somehow excuse obama's total failure? does that excuse obama and the dems from not passing a budget bill for 5 years?

your continued attempts to blame bush for obama's failures is getting old and does not work.

face it, obama has been a disaster of a president in almost every way. He does take nice vacations and throw nice parties, gotta give him that.,

I"m a liberal and a Democrat. Why would I be against spending? I'm not. I'm against GOP hypocrisy.

I have no problem with Democrats spending. They're Democrats, after all, it's what they support. I have a problem with the GOP spending away like crazy when they are in power. They are not supposed to do that. But they did anyway, and their rank & file not only didn't complain about it, but supported it because it was on stupid national building projects like the failed Iraq War.

As for blaming Bush, it's still his fault. His Presidency was a such a flop & failure that memories of it have kept the GOP out of the WH two elections in a row, and might just work again in 2016. Conservatives know this too, that's why Bush didn't speak at the convention.

Trying to pretend that the Bush Presidency never happened is the right tactic for the GOP to take, but it's not liberals' fault that the tactic doesn't work. It's the fault of conservatives.

 

[blastoff]

It just went up at a slower rate.

How the **** do you lefties twist that into spending going down?

In order for spending to go DOWN it would have to dip below the baseline.

Stop being such disenguinus hacks

It's kind of like when FICA returned to its normal rate and righties claimed that Obama raised taxes.

If spending has been projected to got up by X and instead in goes up X-Y, that is a downturn. If you don't understand basic math, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting.

Hey, thanks. I think I'm getting it.

So when the right slows the rate of spending one year vs. the previous year's, it's not really the "spending cuts" the lefties accuse them of and wet their pants over. Can't possibly be a spending cut when more money is being spent than the previous year, but of course the low information voters disregard such information.

 

[Katzndogz]

Spending isn't down. Revenues are up. They are up because the Fed is pumping billions of dollars into the economy propping it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Adjusted for inflation (which I realize is a concept most conservatives don't understand)

spending peaked in 2009.

As a percent of GDP (which I realize is another concept most conservatives don't understand)

spending peaked in 2009.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[PredFan]

Let me explain something to you lefty morons:

The Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
If there is a slowing in the rate of increase, it's because the House has put the brakes on obama.

 

[PredFan]

Let me explain something to you lefty morons:

The Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
If there is a slowing in the rate of increase, it's because the House has put the brakes on obama.

Oops!

"Lefty Morons"

Pardon the redundancy.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
If there is a slowing in the rate of increase, it's because the House has put the brakes on obama.

The CBO last week:

For the 2014–2023 period, CBO now projects a cumulative deficit that is $618 billion less than it projected in February. That reduction results mostly from lower projections of spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the public debt.

The reductions in CBO’s projections of spending for Medicare and Medicaid continue a recent trend. During the past several years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than it did historically and more slowly than CBO had projected. As a result, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had estimated in March 2010. In response to the observed slowdown, CBO has made a series of downward adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicare and Medicaid. From the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, CBO has lowered its estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 for technical reasons by about $225 billion—in particular, by $138 billion for Medicare and by $89 billion for Medicaid—or by roughly 15 percent for each program. Those reductions mostly reflect the slower growth in the programs’ spending in recent years.

Who are we crediting (er, blaming?) for reforming health care, Medicare, and Medicaid? Maybe the nickname of that package will help me remember--what is it again? CongressCare?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me explain something to you lefty morons:

The Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
If there is a slowing in the rate of increase, it's because the House has put the brakes on obama.

Spending peaked in 2009. It is not a slowing of the rate of increase.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Let me explain something to you lefty morons:

The Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
If there is a slowing in the rate of increase, it's because the House has put the brakes on obama.

Say what? Via what legislation have they accomplished this feat?

 

[Redfish]

Bush's spending problem was more than the 2nd term. And only 2 years of his failed Presidency had a Dem congress.

One party supposedly supports less spending and smaller government, but doesn't demand this unless the other party is in power. The GOP's claims of fiscal responsibility are a national laughingstock, and conservtives only have themselves to blame for it.

you are correct, Bush was a disappointment in the area of budget control. Does that somehow excuse obama's total failure? does that excuse obama and the dems from not passing a budget bill for 5 years?

your continued attempts to blame bush for obama's failures is getting old and does not work.

face it, obama has been a disaster of a president in almost every way. He does take nice vacations and throw nice parties, gotta give him that.,

I"m a liberal and a Democrat. Why would I be against spending? I'm not. I'm against GOP hypocrisy.

I have no problem with Democrats spending. They're Democrats, after all, it's what they support. I have a problem with the GOP spending away like crazy when they are in power. They are not supposed to do that. But they did anyway, and their rank & file not only didn't complain about it, but supported it because it was on stupid national building projects like the failed Iraq War.

As for blaming Bush, it's still his fault. His Presidency was a such a flop & failure that memories of it have kept the GOP out of the WH two elections in a row, and might just work again in 2016. Conservatives know this too, that's why Bush didn't speak at the convention.

Trying to pretend that the Bush Presidency never happened is the right tactic for the GOP to take, but it's not liberals' fault that the tactic doesn't work. It's the fault of conservatives.

Got it ! I understand. If there is a democrat president in the year 2020 you will still be blaming bush. We all understand your disengenuousness.

It really makes you look stupid, but we understand