I side with:

peilthetraveler · Aug 26, 2012

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...2270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) â Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: âI will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.â

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an âinfernoâ of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our childrenâs future. Even Democrats seem to think itâs true.

But it didnât happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

â¢ In the 2009 fiscal year â the last of George W. Bushâs presidency â 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.

â¢ In fiscal 2010 â the first budget under Obama â spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

â¢ In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

â¢ In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Officeâs estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

â¢ Finally in fiscal 2013 â the final budget of Obamaâs term â spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOâs latest budget outlook.

Over Obamaâs four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Are you stupid enough to fall for that, or do you just think we are stupid enough to fall for it?

Bush added $4.3 billion to the debt in 8 years. Obama added $6 trillion in less than 4 years. There is NO denying that. You are playing with words to try to make it seem like Obama is a better president. And then on top of that you are using future projected numbers that are not even out yet. And then you are claiming its Bushs fiscal year 2009, when it was only a proposed budget that wasnt signed into effect until march 2009, and who was it signed into effect by? OBAMA! And you know what else about fiscal year 2009? When Bush proposed it, expected revenues were supposed to be $2.7 trillion but were only $2.1 trillion. Under bushes proposal 2009 was only supposed to be a deficit of $400 billion, but we came $600 billion under in revenues and dems added another $400 billion on top of Bushes proposed $400 billion deficit, so if you want to count 2009 as Bushes fault, you need to subtract $400 billion from the $3.52 billion number you gave us in fiscal year 2009 and put it under Obama, because Dems had complete control then.

AK Forty Seven · Aug 26, 2012

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Are you stupid enough to fall for that, or do you just think we are stupid enough to fall for it?

Bush added $4.3 billion to the debt in 8 years. Obama added $6 trillion in less than 4 years.

Bush started with a balanced budget,Obama started with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.Are you to stupid to realize that when you start with 1.2 trillion in deficits that you are going to add much more debt then if you had started with a balanced budget ?

Most of Obamas addition to the national debt is paying for polices Bush created and left, not from policies Obama created.Most Of Obamas debt is from paying for Bushes unfunded wars,Bushs increased defense budget from 300 billion to 700 billion,bushes unfunded tax cuts,all the federal employees from bushs homeland security departments,bushs unfunded medicare expansion etc.Obama did not create all those unfunded expenses ...Bush and republicans did and left democrats to pay for it

Obamas only new spending is his one time stimulus and Obamacare ,Those cost much less then all the expenses bush created and left

AK Forty Seven · Aug 26, 2012

Quote from peilthetraveler:

And then you are claiming its Bushs fiscal year 2009, when it was only a proposed budget that wasnt signed into effect until march 2009, and who was it signed into effect by? OBAMA! And you know what else about fiscal year 2009? When Bush proposed it, expected revenues were supposed to be $2.7 trillion but were only $2.1 trillion. Under bushes proposal 2009 was only supposed to be a deficit of $400 billion, but we came $600 billion under in revenues and dems added another $400 billion on top of Bushes proposed $400 billion deficit, so if you want to count 2009 as Bushes fault, you need to subtract $400 billion from the $3.52 billion number you gave us in fiscal year 2009 and put it under Obama, because Dems had complete control then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 â September 2009.

In case you missed it...

good ole boy · Aug 26, 2012

Quote from Lucrum:

Random answering aligns with Paul?

good ole boy · Aug 26, 2012

Quote from PiggyBank:

Here's me.

I don't think I am actually that close to RP because I know we have different stances on foreign policy. He was against the raid to kill OBL because it violated pakistan's sovereignty.. I could not care any less. But I wonder, if that raid did start a war with pakistan, would the libs on this site, so happy to give obama all the credit, defend the raid?

If it started a war with Pakistan? A meaningless hypothetical.

Speaking as a liberal, Obama gets credit for giving the go ahead. Since he authorized the operation, we must acknowleedge that he authoprized the operation. Its a tautological fact. However, this CIC order was at the tail end of a large multi year operation that had the contributions of 100s and perhaps 1000s of Americans. was the very tail. It's not that liberals were blowing Obama's horn over OBL, it's that conservatives were deeply chagrined that it happened on Abama's watch, so much so they were shedding tears for poor old OBL.

AK Forty Seven · Aug 26, 2012

Quote from good ole boy:

If it started a war with Pakistan? A meaningless hypothetical.

Speaking as a liberal, Obama gets credit for giving the go ahead. Since he authorized the operation, we must acknowleedge that he authoprized the operation. Its a tautological fact. However, this CIC order was at the tail end of a large multi year operation that had the contributions of 100s and perhaps 1000s of Americans. was the very tail. It's not that liberals were blowing Obama's horn over OBL, it's that conservatives were deeply chagrined that it happened on Abama's watch, so much so they were shedding tears for poor old OBL.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 27, 2012

Quote from LEAPup:

None of this shit really matters at this point. If we don't get Romney, turn out the lights on America.

It's already over, now we're just playing musical chairs, and that fact hasn't dawned on the masses YET.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 27, 2012

Quote from AK Forty Seven:
Bush left office losing 800,000 jobs a month,if Obama left office today he will leave with over 30 months of the country adding jobs

to the parasitic federal gubbermint, biggest transfer of taxpayer money to crony supporters since WPA etc etc etc

Lucrum · Aug 27, 2012

Quote from good ole boy:

Random answering aligns with Paul?

Objective intelligent pragmatism aligns with Paul. Not that you would know anything about that.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 27, 2012

Quote from good ole boy:

Random answering aligns with Paul?

Please learn how to spell "Rand".
I know it's a herculean task, but a libtard like you who's a good ole boy from ny should be able to do that.
Thanks