My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Jeffrey Sachs says runaway Medicare costs are a ‘myth’ | Main | Who arrested David Willoughby? »

May 17, 2012



The four years isn't even up yet. Don't sell Obama short. He can get it higher.


Bernanke and the Banks bundled up the toxic assets up in a special purpose vehicle and used it for collateral at the FED getting credits using the fake mark to fantasy price. It was a back door bailout, or reanimation of zombie banks who are still under capitalized and still gambling on their own accounts instead of providing honest services to the public after the government made them whole by robbing us, the same public.


Our debt is out of control, no doubt about that and both parties are at fault. However, what has Obama been able to do after his first year in office? Starting in Jan/Feb of 2010 after Ted Kennedy died he lost his filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The Republicans have filibustered a whopping 100 times or so. The most under any President in history. He hasn't been able to pass anything after 2009.

So we're really looking at 2009 as his contributions to the debt. In 2009, he passed the healthcare law which really hasn't gone into effect yet. He passed an $800 billion stimulus package because he inherited an economy 2nd worst only to the Depression. He spent the other half of TARP left by Bush which was about $400 billion I think. Don't quote me on that one.

My point is that the $4.5 trillion in debt occurred under Obama has been largely accumulated by policies already in place. Furthermore, the 2009 fiscal year was already put in place by Bush in October 1 2008. So in reality, Bush and Obama share fiscal responsibility for 2009.


We're still paying for the Iraq war. Just because we took our combat troops out doesn't mean we're done paying for it.

Since combat was funded by borrowed money, ie. deficit spending, we're paying huge interest costs. And lets not forgot all the money we need to take care of Veterans coming home from this war. It all costs money!

When its all said and done, the price tag for the Iraq War will be well above $1 trillion. We're probably looking at $2-$4 trillion and every President including Obama will have to pay for it.


met, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Obama is indeed responsible for this debt. Bush proposed a $3.1 trillion budget for 2009. The Democratic congress passed a $3.5 trillion budget and it was signed by Obama.

Obama passed the $800B stimulus in 2009.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senate never passed another budget and the spending is stuck at these obscene levels.

Obama has yearly deficits that are greater than the total cost of the Iraq war. Obama is spending money like a crack whore with a stolen credit card (Solyndra anybody?). 71% of the DOE grants and loans went to Obama cronies, bundlers and Democrat supporters. This "green energy" nonsense is nothing but corrupt government payoffs.


George, no president signs a budget. He proposes a budget and its debated and passed by Congress. Committees in Congress go back and forth on every spending bill in the budget until they come to agreement. Then they put forth one version of each bill to be voted on in both the House and Senate. If it passes, it reaches the President's desk and he chooses to sign it into law, veto it or allow it to be law without his signature meaning the bill didn't get his express approval.

Since the process never goes as planned, Congress passes Continuing Resolutions. What this does is authorize the various agencies involved to temporarily operate at current funding levels.

Bush's last budget was for Oct. 2008-Sept. 2009. In other words, Bush and Congress are largely responsible for fiscal year 2009. In fact, since 2009 Congress has been able to fund the government in large part due to the Continuing Resolutions measures I mentioned earlier.

George, you're right, our spending levels for the large part have been stuck at the 2009 levels. However, 2009 is credited to Bush NOT Obama. That's where you're confused.

Note: Obama's first budget was Oct. 2009-Sept. 2010. However, Congress in large part has been using the Continuing Resolutions measures to fund the government since 2009, Bush's last fiscal year.


1) You conveniently omitted Obama's stimulus spending in 2009 -- SPENDING CLEARLY NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSH.

2) You're arguing semantics. The bill which contained the budget was passed by our Democratic Congress and signed into law by Obama on March 11, 2009. You somehow think you can blame Bush for a budget bill passed by a Democratic Senate, passed by a Democratic House and signed by Democratic President Obama. That's just dishonest.


By the way, Bush's proposed budget for 2009 was $3.1T.
Federal spending over the course of Obama's presidency has been averaging $3.675T per year.


Obama just plain sucks. He is a damn disgrace.


Obama didn't come in and live with the Bush budget proposal. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point.

Obama also spent the remaining $200 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

Obama also signed the $40 billion child health care bill which extended coverage to immigrants.

Hey -- we just found out that Obamacare's going to cost triple the estimate. Let's blame it on Calvin Coolidge!


George, I'll address your points one by one:

1. I did not omit Obama's $800B stimulus package. I mentioned it in my first post.

2. George, "the bill that contained the budget...was signed into law by Obama." What the hell are you talking about? He signed a BILL! Not the ENTIRE BUDGET! The link you provided is for the 2009 federal budget. AGAIN, that was done under the previous Congress and Bush. The spending bill you are referring to is not the budget, it's a $410 billion spending bill Obama signed to avoid a government shut down. Bush avoided to sign it because he didn't need to sign it. Government still operated under previous funding levels. This signing was a result of the gridlock in Congress. If you read about it, you'll read that Obama didn't want to sign it but that he did to avoid a shut down. If Bush was President in March of 2009, he would have signed it too. No one wants a government shut down!

3. George, again, Bush is mostly responsible for the spending in 2009. Do you know how the budget process works? The budget is done the year before for the next year. So again, Bush is responsible for the $3.1 trillion budget that Congress passed in 2008 for fiscal year 2009. Obama is responsible for 2010.

Now, as I've mentioned before, the things Obama expressly did in 2009 to add to the debt was the following:

-$800 billion stimulus package
-$200 billion of TARP money

About $1 trillion or a bit more if you want to add a bill or 2.

4. "By the way, Bush's proposed budget for 2009 was $3.1T.
Federal spending over the course of Obama's presidency has been averaging $3.675T per year."
AGAIN, the 2009 fiscal year was done UNDER BUSH AND THE 2008 CONGRESS! His $3.1 trillion budget WAS PASSED AND APPROVED! What don't you undestand about that?! You really think Obama is responsible for the spending as soon as he steps in Office??!! Just like in 2001, Clinton was responsible for the 2001 fiscal year because it was approved in 2000 under Clinton. For the most part, Bush is not responsible for 2001. How many other ways do I need to explain this?

I can tell by what you are posting that you just copy and paste some of this stuff. I've seen the same "facts" on right wing blogs and websites. I don't trust any of that stuff, right or left!!

Our debt right now is about $15.6 trillion. When he took Office it was about $10.6. However, it is niave and foolish to blame all that debt on Obama when he's paying for things now that were first started under the previous administration. It's not just Bush, it's Congress as well.

Our debt will continue to increase until we reform entitlements and the military. It's as simple as that! We can go back and forth on this, but Obama really isn't the crazy spending liberal he's made out to be. And that's according to the CBO.


From wikipedia:
2009 Budget of the United States federal government:
$3.107 trillion (requested)
$3.518 trillion (enacted)

Bush requested $3.1T of spending; Obama and Democratic Congress gave us $3.5T of spending. YOU CAN'T BLAME THIS ON GEORGE BUSH! PERIOD.

met, do this simple exercise. Create a list of federal spending from 2001 (starting with Bush years) to present (Obama years), post it here and we will analyze it. Then, try to tell me that Obama (and company) aren't crazy spending liberals.

Not only is Obama a spending fiend, he is doing it at the worst time -- when revenue is down. Furthermore, his spending is wasteful (e.g. Solyndra) and corrupted (e.g. Solyndra).


"...the 2009 fiscal year was already put in place by Bush in October 1 2008. So in reality, Bush and Obama share fiscal responsibility for 2009."

Tell me again, when exactly did Bush put a $3.5T fiscal year in place? And give me a source for that.


"..The Republicans have filibustered a whopping 100 times or so. The most under any President in history. He hasn't been able to pass anything after 2009..."

You act as if Obama's hands are tied as if he is stuck at the higher spending levels. The Democratic Senate isn't even trying to pass a budget and you know it. They prefer to stick us with the higher spending levels. Obama has made zero real attempts to reduce spending; that is why he gets resistance from Republicans.

The filibuster is not the problem; the spend-it-all-and-more mentality of Obama and the Democratic Senate is the problem.


George, it amazes me that you still don't understand the 2009 budget.

In 2008, Congress approved Bush's $3.1 trillion budget. The budget bill you mentioned was $410 billion that Obama signed in March of 2009. Hence, the $3.5 trillion budget for 2009 that was enacted. In other words, up to that point Obama had only added about $400 billion to 2009 before the stimulus and the rest of Tarp.

How much clearer do you want me to put it?

In the link at wikipedia that you reference and I do as well, at the bottom of the Total Spending heading it says:

"The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."

You notice that? THE FINAL SPENDING BILLS which consisted of the $410 billion we've been talking about.

Also, under the Deficit heading it says:

"The actual spending signed into law in the final bill was increased by over $400 billion."

What they are referencing here is the $410 spending bill Obama signed to avoid a government shutdown and to continue to fund the certain government agencies.

So in conclusion, bills signed by Obama added about $1.4-$1.5 trillion to federal spending for 2009. Bush is responsible for roughly $3.1 trillion of 2009.


lol George I'm not gonna sit here and go through every spending bill over the last 12 years. I have a business to run. Both parties spend like crazy and have members that should be in jail!

Don't give me this crap that the right doesn't spend. That's laughable! The Democrats cash and carry, the Republicans put it on the credit card.


Solyndra? Wasteful spending? You guys are incredible! This country spends trillions in 2 wars and you don't say a word. All that money!! Talk about a waste!! We'll be paying for these wars for decades!!

Back to Solyndra, you don't think every administartion invest in companies that don't work out?

Was this a bad decision? Absolutely! But this happens to every administartion. Sometimes their investments don't work.

Solyndra consisted of about 1% of the stimulus bill. Let's not make this out to be a crippling expenditure by this administration.


Regarding your last post, Obama has submitted a budget every year. Congress hasn't passed a budget because the D's and R's can't agree on anything. And when a bill passes with a majority vote the R's filibuster it. This is why this government is living off 2009 with all these continuing resolutiions. It's a disaster.

To say they aren't trying or don't want to pass a budget is ridiculous. Yeah..they wanna stick us with the higher spending levels...yeah, ok!

Obama has made zero real efforts to reduce spending? lol come on! Are you serious?! He's cut about 700,000 public sector jobs. What do you mean he hasn't tried to cut spending lol, that's laughable. And in the debt ceiling debates he offered 10-1 spending cuts to revenues. To say he hasn't tried just isn't accurate but I know..I know..I know everything is all the Democratic Senate's and Obama's fault.

Check out this article with a REAL Republican!!!

Frank Warner

The two wars cost a little over $1 trillion in total, and most of that war spending, including money for the 2007 "surge" in Iraq, was approved by a fully Democratic Congress.

So that leaves about $8 trillion in debt during the Bush-Obama years that has nothing to do with the wars. And what has all that debt solved? Nothing. It's taken us to the brink of disaster. We, and children yet unborn, will be paying off that $8 trillion, and the earlier $8 trillion in debt, and the other unfunded liabilities, for generations.

How many federal workers has Obama cut from the payrolls in the last three and a half years? None. He's added about 100,000 federal workers.

The president certainly hasn't offered $10 in spending cuts to every $1 increase in proposed taxes. His budgets have been so irresponsibly high and deceptively presented that even the Democratic Senate has voted them down.

The Democrats and Republicans share blame. The Republicans could cap the spending simply by not raising the debt ceiling. But every time they talk about leaving the debt ceiling where it is, the Democrats tell us it's the end of the world. Federal workers won't keep their pay at double the private sector and old people will lose Social Security, they cry.

Not wanting to lose the votes of millions of federal workers and millions more senior citizens, the Republicans give in and raise the debt ceiling again and again. And so we have ever-more-expensive programs running on ever-smaller amounts of real cash.

There's a lot of cowardice and incompetence going on in Washington. When the house of cards comes tumbling down, you can be sure both parties will pretend they did everything they could to prevent the catastrophe. They didn't.


We may disagree about certain things, who's to blame etc., but I totally agree and have too mentioned that both parties spend like crazy and are both to blame. If you or I spent like this for a business we'd either be fired or put in jail for such imcompetence and corruption.

Alan Simpson says it best, the D's need to cut their sacred entitlements and the R's need to cut their military budget and be willing to raise revenues.

We have to compromise to get this done or this country won't move forward.


Our military budget is 20% of our total federal budget. If our federal government only had one department, it would be defense.

We need radical reductions in the size, scope and cost of the federal government.


This "green energy" nonsense is nothing but corrupt government payoffs...


The total cost of both wars, more sepcifically the Iraq War alone, will cost us more than $1 trillion. We're looking at $2-$4 trillion as we continue to pay for this for decades.

Financial Cost of the Iraq War

Since Obama took office in January 2009, overall government employment has decreased by about 500,000 workers. However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, federal employment increased by about 38,000 workers. But if you include the Post Office, its increased by about 140,000 workers. But overall government employment has decreased since Obama took Office.

Since January 2009, Government employees have decreased by about 500,000

I misspoke about 10 to 1, cuts to revenues. That was an ongoing joke on the left. I was wrong about that. Obama proposed 3 to 1, cuts to revenues.

Debt-Ceiling Crisis

In regards to passing Obama's budgets, there is a lot more than meets the eye. However, technically, Congress has not passed a budget the last couple years. Congress is more to blame than a President when this occurs. Obama's budgets have been about $500-$700 billion more than Bush's last budget of $3.1 trillion. You can only really say Obama's proposed budgets are iiresponsible if you also say that about Bush's budgets. His last budget was the first 3 trillion budget ever. Now, is it Bush's exclusive fault? No, the President is only one man, the Congress has the majority of blame since in reality, they run the country.

Obama's budgets

Regarding the debt-ceiling debates, the Republicans did the same thing when they had the power in the White House and in Congress. I'm not sure those people who say not increasing our debt ceiling is dangerous are totally insane or wrong. Our credit rating was lowered so this entire process did have an effect.

In resposne to "Federal workers won't keep their pay at double the private sector and old people will lose Social Security, they cry."

The public sector is not paid double more than the private sector. They are paid more, but the main reason is because employees in the public sector have more education, hence, the more pay.

Both sides are wrong!

We have to look at the beasts of the budget ie. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Defense Budget. All need to undergo massive cuts and reforms.


met, there is so much rationalization in your links, I don't know where to start. But let's go back and look at the budgets as I requested you do. You didn't have time for that because you "have a business to run" but you had time to pull out everything else.

Bush 2001: $1.9T spent
Bush 2002: $2.0T spent
Bush 2003: $2.1T spent
Bush 2004: $2.2T spent
Bush 2005: $2.5T spent
Bush 2006: $2.7T spent
Bush 2007: $2.8T spent
Bush 2008: $3T spent

Bush requests a $3.1T budget.
Obama 2008: $3.5T spent.
Obama takes one step into the White House and the federal government instantly costs $400B more per year.

Obama 2010: $3.7T spent. The extra $400B per year wasn't enough; he needs and extra $600B per year.

Obama 2011: $3.8T spent (ooh, it must have been that nasty fillibuster that made him do it).

Obama 2012: $3.8T to be spent.
2012: Obama requests 3.7T; is spending 3.8T

2013: 3.8T

Now, take these numbers and plot them.
What do you see?
Answer: the numbers jump up significantly as soon as Obama takes office.

Obama is a spend-a-holic. Period.

Obama did not cut 700,000 jobs; he added 100,000. You can't give Obama credit for cutting state and local jobs; he operates at the federal level; remember? Next, you will start giving credit to Obama for states with a balanced budget.

Many of your other post rely on similar rationalizations.


President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)