Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Obama spending binge never happened

The tax cuts were passed 6 and 4 years respectively BEFORE the Democrats took control of the House. Very much REPUBLICAN tax cuts. The revenue was cut by the Republicans.

But those are facts-MA don't need no stinkin' facts!

By the by, there is far too much personal characterization going on in this thread. As a reminder, the guidelines provide that personal attacks ajd cheap shots are not allowed. I don't think that I need to provide examples. It would be my preference that those who have so posted, and you know who you are, delete the offensive content. This is a public forum, and our reputation for decorum is suffering.

NWP~I think that rporter314 was replying to MA's quote and asking you(in your capacity as a moderator) to excuse him while he posted a rebuttal. Nevertheless, you are indeed correct. Please, I reiterate that we all put a lot more courteousness and civility into our posts. Leave the sarcastic personal remarks out of our posts, as required by the Reader Rant Guidelines. Thank you for everyone's prompt and immediate cooperation.

Scoutgal
Administrator

He "goes there" because the alternative would require thought, logic and a basic understanding of the facts...a trifecta which is unfathomable to him.

Goes there? Or lives there? B'lieve there's a difference.

Limbaugh goes there, Dittoheads live there. He goes to their neighborhoods to get his jollies and take their dough, just like a TeeVee Preacher. It's a great part of la comedie humaine.

'twas ever thus.

A look back...


snip


the above is from an article written by Bruce Bartlett back in October of 2009.

this is apparently irrelevant to conservatives as analysis like that would never enter the conversation

BTW the historical data for revenues and budgets can be DL from of all places the internet

i did a quick review and took a peak at some other stats involving GDP (apparently conservatives will go out of their way to find stats which will show large numbers but may or may not be misleading).

[the following is all just simple minded, making no assumptions about who did what where and when with no attempt at duplicity]
In Bush's first cycle the budget was raised 20%. For the whole set Bush's budgets were raised 55% over 8 years.

In Obama's cycle, he has raised his budgets 5.6%. Now I am strictly using 2010 as his first, since that is what he was left with. But for our conservative nit pickers suppose we begin some manipulation of data (yikes shades of climatology)
Lets assume for comparative sake and use Bush's 2009 requested budget which came in at $3.1T (as opposed to the $3.5T actual). Obama's cycle now becomes 22.6%.

But wait there is more. Conservatives like to compare spending to GDP, so for Obama we get 24%, which is historically high but for comparative values Pres Reagan was rated at 22% GDP. Of course it is a dishonest comparison but then it does speak to the use of stats by conservatives.

So conservatives may say, what about those deficits? well i thought about doing an analysis of Bush era budgets and saddle him with a recession for his whole term and some arbitrary stimulus package (he did make a weak response) and see how high the deficits would have been (Obama has been burdened with a trifecta of bad economic policies, 2 wars, tax cuts and recession for a whole cycle as opposed to Bush who only had to deal with the recession for a short period of time). That would have been a closer comparative analysis than what conservatives are now portraying. I didn't do that since we deal in historical facts not hypothesis.

No matter how I or anyone else has sliced this conundrum, no one has yet derived the conclusion Obama is a spendthrift i.e. 22% (adjusted for conservatives) v. 20% and Obama's 24% GDP v Reagan's 22% GDP.

Every conservative who has responded to Nutting has done so based on heritage Foundation's analysis from a guy who stated there was no recession while in the middle of a recession ... yikes there may be a credibility issue but you be the judge ... the facts are available, interpret as you will but please make it reasonable

It makes no difference when the tax cuts were enacted, as a matter of fact it worse still that after 6 years spending still hadn't been contained. The House voted for the 2001 tac suts 240 Yea, 154 Nay. The Senate voted 58 to 33, with 7 not voting (6 Dems). In 2003 the tax cuts were extended by a vote of 231 to 200 in the House and 50 to 50 in the senate.

For six years those tax cuts were in effect, yet Congress refused to live within the money available. So, I repeat, the money was already out of the budget, it was not available to be spent, it makes no difference who took the money away since it was actually returned to the taxpayers. Yet, with the utmost of sour grapes and jelousy of the free ride lost, all we have head about is the Bush tax cuts. I think GW for that money, I hope that Obama doubles up on tax cuts and put more money back into the economy, and not only to the unions who do his bidding.

The fact of the matter is Obama has accumulated $5T in new debt in 3.5 years. FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS! $5 to the 12th power. It assert that he has been fiscally responsible is such a bald faced lie it is impossible to take anything said about seriously. I am told that it isn't a budget defict, it is national debt? That is just a cute way to forget about last years overspending, like the kid in the high chair who pushes something over the side and thinks it just stopped existing. But eventually he thinks to look over and down and sees the bowl of Cherieos he just threw off the table and understands that what he did had consequences, even if he doesn't quite know what they are.

It is an adiction to spending other people's money and a rationalization that it doesn't matter because it happened last year. But, those really are the facts Scoutgal and you are smart enough to know that $5T over three years is out of control, especially for what the reurn on that investment has been.

"Obama spending binge never happened" is the name of this thread.

"Obama went on a spending binge" is a popular Conservative accusation.

You haven't presented any "facts" to the contrary.

Many other facts have been presented that spending binges did happen, such as during the GW Bush administration.

Many other facts have been presented by others demonstrating that the debt you are madly trying to pin on Obama (as though no one else exists, and as though no other dynamics are at work other than the government spending money) is caused by mostly by the Bush tax cuts (reduced revenue) and a very poor economy (more reduced revenue). Those tax cuts did not stimulate the economy, that's a fact.

Many other facts have been presented that demonstrate that a President can't really even go on a spending spree, without persuading Congress to put up the money. Compared to other Presidents, Obama hasn't really done much in the way of Congressional persuasion.

It has become painfully obvious that you are determined to finger President Obama for causing our economic troubles out of all reason, and you seem to be supporting the Big Lie that Obama went on a spending binge (the subject of this thread, in case you forgot). I believe that you consider such behaviour to be moral and acceptable, because "politics is a dirty game" (you have said so, in fact).

I will take this moment to point out that the dirt part of the game is perpetrated by the dirty bastards who think that it is an acceptable thing to do. I know some politicians who don't do that, Democrats and Republicans.

Why do you do it?