Economy added 255,000 jobs in July

lol at RW nutjobs trying to make the economy look worse than it is...

 

They dont speak for me and I don't speak for them and the writer makes the same "mistake" as you trying to pretend Presidents control budgets and 2008 and 2009 budgets were Republican budgets. They of course were not they were Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi budgets both fully supported and voted for by Senator Obama with the 2009 purposely held up to add even more spending for him to sign.

Fully understand those were two horrible budgets you are desperate to divest from the Democrats and in particular Obama with you trying to pretend he was not a Senator nor had a role at all in those budgets butbthe historical record as I post is quite clear with the Democrats BRAGGING about cutting Bush out of the process.

So which is it you oppose the deficit reduction from sequester or you credit Obama with it?

 

Thanks, but I'll take the finding of Cato, Marketwatch, Forbes, Factcheck, and Politifact over your unsupported and partisan blather.

Others can decide for themselves.

 

2009 when it was either a continuing resolution or shut down the government and I know how you supported other shutdowns.......NOT. 2008 He was able to limit their inceases but 2009 the Democrats bragged about not having to deal with that again and held the budget up untilled after Obama became President doctor and passed it after he was sworn and he signed the budget bill.

 

What did they find those were Republican budgets? Well then the are just as mistaken as you. Are yih seruohlsy claiming the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007 and then proceeded to pass Republican budgets. What utter nonsense. Are you denying the Democrats force a continuing resolution in 2008 for 2009? That after Obama was elected they, the Democrats AND the president-elect then came up with the additional spending they added in too ofbtheir already bloated spending?

Here lets remind you of the historical record.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

 

Your source:

Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008. CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.” I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

LOL

 

Less than 2% GDP growth Obamanomics has had us on the edge of another recession (less than 1%) for the last 8 years......and Democrats are proud of that.

 

Gee, I wonder why.

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Guess we should have done it more like when Reagan and Bush were in office.

 

Yes the Democrats wanted even MORE spending but Bush was able to stop at least some of it for FY2008 but was then cut out completely for FY2009, the Democrats then passed their own bill which President Obama signed into law and then they passed their HUGE $800B stimulus plan on top of that. Bush in fact tried to CUT $200B which the Democrats rejected out of hand.

Just admit to the facts as the Democrats bragged about them.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

"Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Those were Democra budgets that shot the deficit from the last Republican $161B to their WHOPPING $1,400B and then they kept that spending at over $1,000B for the next four years.

 

$31 billion dollars isn't spit the bucket.

Deficits are not caused by spending alone, which I'm sure that all but our most misinformed members understand.

 

Why did you leave out the Democrat increases from the last Republican budget in 2007 through the two Democrat budgets in 2008 and 2009?

How much was that increase? Try 29% in just two years compared to your seven year periods. But you see it is dishonest to compare just the increase during those timeframes because of when the increases occurred. Under the Republicans it was a slow increase in spending while the Democrats front loaded it on the front end.

Let's compare the consecutive periods

Republican spending 2003-2007 - $ 12,308,433.00
Democrat spending 2008 - 2012 - $ 17,097,486.00

Democrats spent 40% over their 5 year period.

And the resulting deficits

Republican - -$ 1,517,540.00
Democrats - -$ 5,552,170.00

A 265% higher total deficits.

 

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

 

Point where I "blamed entirely" Obama. Why do you insist only Presidents have to do with budgets?

How when he was cut out entirely from the budget process?

So what, the Democrats had already passed huge spending increases and passed even more after Obama moved over to the White House, and I could care less about inherently wrong CBO forecast. I deal with results.

The rest has been thoroughly debunked in the past and your lack of response to what I actually posted, an honest view of the results, is noted.

Deal with Democrat and Republican policies and stop trying to pretend the Democrats did not control the budget process until Obama moved his office to the White House.

 

You haven't "thoroughly debunked" Cato, Forbes, Market Watch, Politicfact or Factcheck at all. Your own source says Bush didn't sign the bill because of a disagreement amounting to $19 billion. All but a couple hundred billion of the spending in FY 2009 was already locked into to the federal budget before Obama took office.

I'll take the detailed analysis of Cato, Forbes, Market Watch, Politicfact or Factcheck over your baseless say so.

Others can decide for themselves.

 

Obama Debt

07/08/2016 - 19,386,088,037,398.99
09/30/2009 - 11,909,829,003,511.75
Increase - 7,476,259,033.887.24

Reagan Debt

09/29/1989 - 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1981 - 997,855,000,000.00
Increase - 1,859,575,960,187

Bush Debt

09/30/2009 - 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06
Increase - 6,102,365,591,311.69


https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Under Reagan the country went into debt 1.8 trillion more by the end of his 2 terms and the economy flourished. They spent a lot more under Bush and the economy crashed. We are currently spending even more than under Bush and the economy is at an average of less than 2% growth since Obama was elected. It should be clear that more spending DOES NOT equate to economic growth, it's what the money is spent ON!

It's NOT how much they spend, it's WHAT they spend it on. Even with the slowing of spending, Obama spent over 300% more than Reagan. Where's the results?

 

Of course if you adjusted for inflation Reagan's debt would be $5 trillion in today's dollars, and $2+ trillion of Obama's debt is interest on the debt Reagan and Bush passed on to him.

 

Why would you adjust it? All the debt are relative to the cost of everything at the time, so it's not a valid comparison.

 

As you well know, the only honest way to compare the two time periods is to use constant dollars since as you point out the cost of everything is different at the respective times.