Slowest spending (growth) in decades

[Gipper]

Sure, it's accurate. so's mine.

The one doesn't counter the other.

And if you really didn't post it to counter what I posted, why did you say, "Yes and our stoner friend believed it. Hahahaha...."?

Was that just your Pavlovian response?

I did take a moment to go back over your other posts, looking to see just what you had said. I found one other interesting parallel between Reagan and Obama: Both of them, or at least their supporters, seem to have a tendency to blame the previous administration for the problems they had, as witness your bringing up Carter. Interesting, isn't it, just how much alike the two really are?

Oh, I didn't vote for Reagan the second go around, for reasons I've already stated, and I don't intend to vote for a second Obama term, either.

and, just as an aside, you don't have to be a stoner to want the billions being spend on pot in this country to quit going to violent cartels and gangs. If you support the authoritarian drug war position, then you must support the gangs and cartels as well, correct?

The graph you posted in the OP is misinformation, but you go on believing silliness. As I stated, you believe it is accurate and that is funny.

Carter was a failure just like BO is. However, Reagan did not need to blame Jimma as he was successful in reviving the economy unlike your beloved BO who must demonize his predecessor and opponent because he is a failure, but then you think things are great...however that may change when the State of Kalifornia goes bankrupt all thanks to Liberalism and that lucrative teachers pension of yours disappears....but I digress....there are very few paralls between your Dear Leader and Reagan...so again, we disagree.

And you apparently think TRILLIONS spent on welfare is just fine, but the BILLIONS spent on the drug war is awful and must be resolved. See the disconnect? Didn't think so....

Sort of like blaming Reagan for spending too much and commending BO's spending.

 

[PLC1]

The graph you posted in the OP is misinformation, but you go on believing silliness. As I stated, you believe it is accurate and that is funny.

OK, then, post something that counters it.

Carter was a failure just like BO is. However, Reagan did not need to blame Jimma as he was successful in reviving the economy unlike your beloved BO who must demonize his predecessor and opponent because he is a failure, but then you think things are great...however that may change when the State of Kalifornia goes bankrupt all thanks to Liberalism and that lucrative teachers pension of yours disappears....but I digress....there are very few paralls between your Dear Leader and Reagan...so again, we disagree.

and yet, one of Reagan's staunch supporters who posts here under the name "Gipper" did blame Jimma.
But, sure, Reagan himself was above such nonsense.

And you apparently think TRILLIONS spent on welfare is just fine, but the BILLIONS spent on the drug war is awful and must be resolved. See the disconnect? Didn't think so....

Never have I supported the idea of TRILLIONS of anything spent on welfare. That one is from your liberal stereotype playbook, apparently.
and it's not the billions spent on the failed government program we call the "war on drugs" I decried, but the billions that go to the violent cartels and gangs as a result of that war.
Do you like expensive failed government programs? If so, then you must love the war on drugs.

Sort of like blaming Reagan for spending too much and commending BO's spending.

I never did that, either, I merely pointed out how similar the two presidents are/were.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, then, post something that counters it.

Big Rob already did that, in the very first reply.

 

[PLC1]

Big Rob already did that, in the very first reply.

What he posted did make sense, but the numbers don't bear his theory out very well.

From the original link:

In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

It seems the big jump came under Bush, then leveled out.

Now, if someone were to point out that it is the Congress that controls spending, then they might just have a point.

 

[Cruella]

It seems the big jump came under Bush, then leveled out.

Now, if someone were to point out that it is the Congress that controls spending, then they might just have a point.

Where was the jump under Bush? During the Republican congress or the Pelosi/Reid one?

 

[PLC1]

Where was the jump under Bush? During the Republican congress or the Pelosi/Reid one?

Now, you're making a valid point.

It is not the POTUS who passes the budget (if any gets passed at all), and passes spending bills, but the Congress. That's where we need to look to see who is the big spender.

and if you do look closely, you'll see that both parties are big spenders.

 

[Gipper]

What he posted did make sense, but the numbers don't bear his theory out very well.

From the original link:




It seems the big jump came under Bush, then leveled out.

Now, if someone were to point out that it is the Congress that controls spending, then they might just have a point.

Yeah spending leveled off under Big Ears....that is too funny.....if you really mean that, please consider obtaining an education.

That has to be the single most uninformed post EVER made here at the HOP.

Lets see if you can do the math....

The Progressive Bush leaves office with the national debt at around $11 Trillion....now the national debt is almost $16 Trillion. Did the national debt go up or down after Bush left office and by how much?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

 

[PLC1]

Yeah spending leveled off under Big Ears....that is too funny.....if you really mean that, please consider obtaining an education.

That has to be the single most uninformed post EVER made here at the HOP.

Lets see if you can do the math....

The Progressive Bush leaves office with the national debt at around $11 Trillion....now the national debt is almost $16 Trillion. Did the national debt go up or down after Bush left office and by how much?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Apples and oranges, Gip, apples and oranges.
Cruella has it right, btw. Check out her response.

 

[Gipper]

Apples and oranges, Gip, apples and oranges.
Cruella has it right, btw. Check out her response.

Duh!

So, adding $5 trillion to the national debt (more than any other president in history) means that Big Ears spent LESS than Bush. Do you fail to see how absurd your opinion is?

 

[PLC1]

Duh!

So, adding $5 trillion to the national debt (more than any other president in history) means that Big Ears spent LESS than Bush. Do you fail to see how absurd your opinion is?

Do you fail to see what I've been posting?

I really don't care how big the president's ears are.
It is the congress that passes spending bills.

and overall spending is not going up. The debt is growing due to an imbalance between revenues and spending, which is related to the depress... I mean recession.

Federal spending went from 1.7 teradollars during the last year of the Clinton Administration to roughly double that during the last year of the Bush administration. That is way too much, particularly when a large share of it is borrowed.

Does that mean Bush is the problem? Think hard, now, and go back and read the third sentence in this post.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Inflation.

 

[GenSeneca]

Now, you're making a valid point.

It is not the POTUS who passes the budget (if any gets passed at all), and passes spending bills, but the Congress. That's where we need to look to see who is the big spender.

and if you do look closely, you'll see that both parties are big spenders.

The President could veto the continuing resolutions that allow spending to remain at all time highs but chooses not to. Additionally, his office puts forward a budget every year (they all go down in flames) and the Democrat controlled Congress has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years.

Three questions for you....

What point are you trying to make regarding the levels of spending growth under Obama?

Do you consider President Obama to be fiscally conservative?

Do you consider reductions in the projected growth of government a spending "cut"?

 

[GenSeneca]

What he posted did make sense, but the numbers don't bear his theory out very well.
...
It seems the big jump came under Bush, then leveled out.

What part of BASELINE BUDGETING are you not able to comprehend? The "theory" is fact, Bush massively raised spending - increasing the baseline - Obama took over with massive spending already in place (which he promised to cut it in half) and still increased spending levels beyond what Bush had done.

Let's put this another way... You and your wife have a budget. Your combined income is $1000 a week and she's in charge of the budget. She raises spending from $1000 a week to $2000 a week, so you lecture her about her reckless spending and take over the budget. Once you're in charge of the budget, you begin spending $2200 a week. When someone points out that your spending levels are even more reckless than those of your wife (whom you chided for being fiscally irresponsible), you point to the fact that spending under her increased by 100% but you only increased spending by 10% and use that to paint yourself as being more fiscally responsible than your wife.

Only a total F-ing moron would agree that you are the more fiscally responsible of the two.

 

[PLC1]

The President could veto the continuing resolutions that allow spending to remain at all time highs but chooses not to. Additionally, his office puts forward a budget every year (they all go down in flames) and the Democrat controlled Congress has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years.

Correct. Neither Obama nor his predecessor did this, however. In fact, I don't remember any president doing so.

Three questions for you....

What point are you trying to make regarding the levels of spending growth under Obama?

That the stereotype of the spendthrift Democratic/conservative Republican president is just wrong.

Do you consider President Obama to be fiscally conservative?

No, of course not.
In fact, I don't remember any president who was fiscally conservative, not in my lifetime at least.

Do you consider reductions in the projected growth of government a spending "cut"?

No.

Partisan Republicans, of which there are several on this board (not including you in that) seem to want to blame all of the ills of the country on having a Democrat in the White House. You hear about the "Obama recession", the "Obama deficit", and so on. There is a lot of blame to go around, and simply replacing the POTUS is not going to fix anything.

For one thing, a lot of the problems really are the result of policies that were in place during the Bush Administration and before, and pointing that out is not "blaming Bush for Obama's failing". For another, there is a good reason why Congress' approval rating, according to the news I was just watching at noon at least, is currently 11%.
It had been 12% last I heard.

How they continue to fool that many people is a mystery.

It's not that I'm a huge Obama supporter. It's just that I don't expect to see any great improvement if and when Romney is elected. Our government is dysfunctional.

 

[GenSeneca]

Our government is dysfunctional.

Yes it is, but according to you we need more "Bi-Partisanship and Compromise" to fix the problem... Yet you seem to totally ignore the fact that it was bipartisanship and compromise that created this spending inferno in the first place and have further failed to explain how 'more of the same' is going to lead to efficacious results.

With Romney in the Executive and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives can drag that group of losers to the finish line of fiscal sanity. Dems think higher taxes and more spending is the solution, their Keynesian philosophy is ruinous and must be defeated, compromising with them is insane.