Obama: Frugal or spendthrift?

If you wanted to know which recent president has spent most freely, and which most frugally, the most fair and accurate number to compare would probably be federal spending growth per capita, adjusted for inflation.

So economist Mark Thoma ran those numbers for every president since the Nixon-Ford administration, from the first quarter in which a president took office through his last, or in the case of Barack Obama, through his most recent.

Put in chart form, it looks like this:

6a00d83451b33869e2016763df2c09970b-800wi

– Jay Bookman

423 comments Add your comment

Kamchak - "Socialism" is just a code word for "fear," the monster under you bed ~ Kamchak

March 20th, 2012
6:29 pm

Oooohh, a chart!

getalife

March 20th, 2012
6:35 pm

w tied with reagan.

Fiscal cons.

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
6:36 pm

Those Republicans sure do like to spend taxpayer money. Republicans are the biggest redistributers of wealth! They take from the poor and give to the wealthiest. Egads. How do they live with themselves. Their lies. Their hypocrisy. If they still owned their souls, surely it would weigh on them. :lol:

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

March 20th, 2012
6:36 pm

but..but…but….. start the deflection.

Brosephus™

March 20th, 2012
6:38 pm

You lie!!!

Figured I’d get that out of the way early since your chart appears to bash conservatives. Then again, that’s all you know how to do, isn’t it Jay?

:)

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
6:38 pm

And yet here we are on the day that Obama in just over 3 years has added 4.93 trillion to the debt, eclipsing W’s 4.90 trillion. An historic and sad day at the same time. So when will we hit the 5 trillion in new debt under the O man? Next month?

B

O

O

M

!

Soothsayer

March 20th, 2012
6:38 pm

Paul

March 20th, 2012
6:39 pm

There’s an R v D pattern there.

Growth in spending. Another bit of data that refutes the popular mythology.

But you know, Jay, the diehards will focus on absolute numbers, devoid of context.

Anything else won’t fit into a sound bite.

josef

March 20th, 2012
6:39 pm

Oh, boy! A bar graph in blue… Yay!

But I don’t wish to appear ungrateful. Downstairs was getting on my nerves. So, Imam, as per the question earlier…what ya got for spectacular bipartisan buffoonery from the gold dome of the ilk of last year’s micro chip implant prohbition?

mona Lawrence

March 20th, 2012
6:40 pm

Enter your comments here Jay how does the word get out??? I saw this this morning. But I saw no response. It is very frustrating.

St Simons - we're on Island time

March 20th, 2012
6:42 pm

ah, the maths get em every time….

Brosephus™

March 20th, 2012
6:43 pm

And yet here we are on the day that Obama in just over 3 years has added 4.93 trillion to the debt, eclipsing W’s 4.90 trillion.

Can you point to the programs that have been implimented by the Obama administration that added that amount, or are you just laying blame on him because he’s the office holder at the time?

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
6:43 pm

Republicans naturally whine about the deficit while conveniently neglecting the fact that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Now he is just waiting for them to pay for themselves, like Republicans have assured us that they will. Be patient, Republicans.

saywhat?

March 20th, 2012
6:44 pm

Ignore that tall blue bar between Clinton and Obama’s short blue bars. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the current deficit. I repeat, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the current deficit. We mustn’t keep looking to the past, you know.

Don't Forget

March 20th, 2012
6:44 pm

Obviously we CANNOT afford another republican presidency right now.

josef

March 20th, 2012
6:44 pm

Hmmm…Democrat versus GOP spending of the national shekels….

I guess it’s cheaper to run a plantation than it is a corporate-banker enterprise… :-)

JamVet

March 20th, 2012
6:45 pm

St. Simons, as does the sciencery.

Man, am I tired of this fiscal conservatism…

Bernie

March 20th, 2012
6:47 pm

Jay, unfotunately if one were to listen to the out right lies and half truths of the Tea Partiers & Republicans and their supporters you would think President Obama is a MONSTER.

However, when the facts are clearly reviewed his actions prove to be more positive than negative by far.

other motives are certainly at play here……..

William

March 20th, 2012
6:48 pm

Continued from downstairs, regarding Obama’s remarks in 2001:

“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf…”

“I never said that they did, sport. The “founding fathers” were ignorant of many things, so I don’t put too much credence in what they didn’t draft.”

Thank you so VERY MUCH for that candor. Remarkable. Let me ask you another question: do you believe that the meaning of a text resides in the intention of its author(s)?

“Last time I checked, it was the SCOTUS that makes the determination about constitutionality.
It that checks and balances thingie.”

The point I would like to make is that the Constitution is meaningless if we don’t follow it exactly, if we pick and choose what we want to follow. And we do not follow it, not by a long shot. We haven’t for a very long time. The very men involved in drafting and/or ratifying it were the ones who began subverting it. Hamilton is a good example. The Federalist’ argument against a Bill of Rights was that the Constitution enumerated only powers the federal government was to have; that anything not specified they could not do and the people could. A national bank (now the Federal Reserve) was (and still is )not specified by the Constitution. When Jefferson objected to what Hamilton was trying to do on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, Hamilton conceded he was right. But he replied that it doesn’t say a national bank can be established, but it doesn’t say it cannot either – thereby contradicting and undermining the very argument he made repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The US is now like the NBA: it has a rulebook that is only partially enforced.

The Supreme Court arrogated to itself the right to decide the constitutionality of laws in an 1803 ruling. This only happened because the threat of impeachment was effectively removed two years earlier by the Senate, who decided “high crimes and misdemeanors” could only be an indictable offense. After that, it has been a non-stop power grab by SCOTUS.

saywhat?

March 20th, 2012
6:48 pm

Bush and the Republicans mortgage the county’s future with tax cuts, bank deregulation, and 2 wars, then blame Obama for spending too much
when he has to pay to fix the mess they left AND make the mortgage payments.

Don't Forget

March 20th, 2012
6:48 pm

Thulsa, Bush had a surplus at the start. He had to blow that before he could blow the deficit out of the water like a real republican. :lol:

B
O
O
M

O
N

D
O
O
M

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 20th, 2012
6:49 pm

“What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
6:51 pm

Brocephus,

Stimulus just for starters. Then how about other wasteful projects such as wasteful and foolish “investment” in projects like Solyndra. Leave the money losing ventures like solyndra to venture capitalists to lose money on. Others? How about an expansion of Medicaid, perhaps also an expansion of the food stamp program seeing as how something like 1 in 6 Americsns is now on food stamps. Oh. I almost forgot. Another new program that is going to be quite expensive but hasn’t hit yet- Obamacare! Is that enough examples?

saywhat?

March 20th, 2012
6:54 pm

Let me ask you another question: do you believe that the meaning of a text resides in the intention of its author(s)?
___________________________________________________
Irrelevant question regarding the Constitution, unless you can communicate with the dead. Of course we also know that only conservatives are able to accurately discern the intentions of dead founding fathers.

getalife

March 20th, 2012
6:54 pm

I will never forget the gop rubber stamp congress wasting trillions on welfare for their friends.

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
6:54 pm

Don’t forget,

Sheesh. The way you guys bring up W I swear he must still be in office. I’m starting to wonder if he’s behind a secret curtain pulling levers and O is just a figurehead.

Also I need to remind you that the surplus which was a “projected” surplus that was never realized was brought about because Newt and the Rs in Congress forced Clinton into balancing the budget. Give credit where credit is due.

josef

March 20th, 2012
6:55 pm

St Simon’s

Sure GWB’s real name ain’t Pete? :-)

F. Sinkwich

March 20th, 2012
6:55 pm

“Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asked President Obama’s top energy official if he’d grade himself with an “A minus” on “controlling the cost of gasoline at the pump.” Chu responded by saying he’d give himself a better grade than that.”

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

By the way, Jay, how about a chart showing per capita spending, not growth in spending just for giggles.

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
6:57 pm

William,

You might as well be talking to a lamp post.

Jay

March 20th, 2012
6:57 pm

Obama made no major changes to the food stamp program, Thulsa. The growth in caseload was generated by rules already in place before he took office and a deep recession also already in place when he took office.

Solyndra was a $500 million investment or roughly .000135 percent of the federal budget, and again the program under which the Solyndra loan was funded began under Bush.

So put in another quarter and try again.

Don't Forget

March 20th, 2012
6:58 pm

I’ll see your Solyndra and raise you and Enron.

St Simons - we're on Island time

March 20th, 2012
6:59 pm

mr AmVet sir – yes, and the fact that the debt grows so fast is final
irrefudiate-able proof that 1)trickle-down-jaysus is a lie, and 2) how
breathtakingly stupid the cons are for strangling revenue. Throw in the
AA rating hostage taking for the trifecta of fiscal irresponsibility.
Heckuva job, dingleberries.

Think about it.
If Amerka was metaphorically a woman – the cons would have her
around the neck choking her, dominating her by telling her how
she can & can’t get the health care she chooses, and spending
her money like a grifter & not replacing it with his own revenue.
If this “woman” was my client, I would be bound by the State of
New Somalia (Georgia) to report this action to mrsstsimons,
and with one signature, she would remove this sociopathic predator
from the general population.

josef

March 20th, 2012
7:00 pm

Gimme an “I”, gimme an “L”, gimme a “K”….what’s that spell…

William

March 20th, 2012
7:01 pm

“William: OK, so you want people to believe you are an intellectual.”

Did I say that? I don’t care what people believe I am, as they will believe what they will.

“How can we take you seriously when you use the worn canard of Nazi Germany having anything to do with science, logic and reasoning? This tells me you are firing with ammunition from more than a half century ago, and that your chamber is empty. Please reload with frights of the 21st century, there’s more than enough fear to spread around this time frame.”

My point is simple and dramatic: you seem to have a blinding “faith” in “science, logic and reasoning” that I think is unjustified. I didn’t allude to the Nazis to disparage you personally, but to show that the nation who, by all accounts, was more advanced technologically than any other at the time (largely because of “science, logic and reasoning”) was nonetheless murdering 6 million people on the sidelines. What? you don’t think it (people acting as bad as any religious zealots ever have using science and technology) ever happened before Germany in WWII or not since?

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:02 pm

I’ll see your Solyndra and raise you a trillion dollar Iraq war or an 85 billion dollar nationalization of AIG.

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

March 20th, 2012
7:02 pm

Doom posting more claims without substantiation….. why I am shocked! Its just kooky.

Joseph

March 20th, 2012
7:02 pm

LOL… I guess he pulled that chart and those ridiculous numbers out of thin air???? Its a fact that Barrack Obama has wasted trillions more tax dollars than any President in history!

F. Sinkwich

March 20th, 2012
7:03 pm

“…the program under which the Solyndra loan was funded began under Bush.”

So Bush approved the loan Jay, is that what you’re trying to say?

Every time someone brings up Solyndra you blame Bush for it, but waffle a little bit…

Who signed the loan agreement? With that info we can place the blame properly.

Thanks.

Meanwhile...

March 20th, 2012
7:03 pm

When President Barack Obama released his 2013 budget, it did not come close to fulfilling a deficit reduction promise he made in February 2009. “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office,” Obama said then. “This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

martin the calvinist

March 20th, 2012
7:04 pm

I could give a flying flip about spending as supposed to gdp when I see this total, we take in about 2.3-2.4 trillion in renenue and we are currently spending about 3.8-4.0 trillion a year. It is irresponsible! We have been building debt upon debt to a point where we are going to break as a nation. What’s so hard about only spending what we take in?

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:05 pm

I think William has no faith in science. :lol: Don’t feel bad, William. I don’t use faith as my reason to believe in science either.

Brosephus™

March 20th, 2012
7:05 pm

Doom

You might be at $1T or a bit over with that list. The ACA has not hit the books yet from a cost perspective, so how can it contribute to the debt? The truth of the matter is that the increase in the amount of debt is in relation to the loss of jobs which means a loss of revenue. There is no single cause or single person responsible for the amount that’s been added to the debt. Trying to lay blame on Obama is the equivalent of the “blame Bush” card.

William

March 20th, 2012
7:06 pm

“Irrelevant question regarding the Constitution, unless you can communicate with the dead. Of course we also know that only conservatives are able to accurately discern the intentions of dead founding fathers.”

Are you serious? By golly, you are not doing your liberal friends much good now. So I guess a Will should be treated similarly? We should just throw up our hands and say that what it means is irrelevant because the person who drafted it is deceased? Please tell me you were joking.

St Simons - we're on Island time

March 20th, 2012
7:06 pm

josef – hell yes, Little Nero w/a Cowboy Hat is Pete!

and he owes us a lot more than 5 bucks.

God Bless America....

March 20th, 2012
7:07 pm

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:07 pm

And right on que, Joseph and his “facts”. Let’s see, I know he left them here somewhere. Are they here. No. There. No. Somewhere. No.

Vinny

March 20th, 2012
7:07 pm

At least the Republicans have something to show for it.

All Obumbles gave us was more debt, higher unemployment, A RECORD NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS – A RECORD, Higher gas prices, and it just goes on and on and on…

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:09 pm

If Republicans are so worried about the rate at which the extended Bush tax cuts are reducing the deficit, then they need to come up with a big enough tax cut to eliminate the deficit in the time frame they desire. So, Republicans. How big must the tax cuts be in order to cut that debt and deficit within your desired time frame. Give us a number.

No Chart

March 20th, 2012
7:09 pm

During Bush’s 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It’s also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much.

Brosephus™

March 20th, 2012
7:10 pm

We have been building debt upon debt to a point where we are going to break as a nation. What’s so hard about only spending what we take in?

What’s so hard is that one political party is constantly trying to cut the amount we take in. At what point does that pose a serious threat to our national security if you’re constantly cutting income and trying to match the spending with income?

Don't Forget

March 20th, 2012
7:10 pm

Gee, after all these years we find out the problem with nazi germany was science and technology, huh.

Soothsayer

March 20th, 2012
7:10 pm

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
7:10 pm

F. Sinkwich,

I think you’re onto something. There may be a hidden stat in there that gives a skewed picture. Nevertheless the rate of growth graph he is using apparently doesn’t tell the full story.

Very strange because here is a fantastic site that you can look at all kind of stats from way back on all kinds of govt stats on a per capital basis. For example I looked up 2008 W’s last year and if I’m looking at it correctly total govt spending was $9800 per capita and total debt per capita was $32,900. In 2012 total spending per capita is $12,083 and total debt per capital is over $52,000. That’s a pretty significant increase in both assuming I’m looking at it correctly.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2008USdn_13ds1n#usgs302

Poor Boy from Alabama

March 20th, 2012
7:11 pm

JB.

Mark Thoma really twisted himself into a pretzel to come up with that chart. Let’s give him an “A+” for effort.

Your question was whether President Obama is a “spendthrift”.

Let’s start with the definition of “spendthrift”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spendthrift

“a person who spends improvidently or wastefully”

If we can agree on that definition, I would respectfully submit that the context for President Obama’s spending is as important as the amounts.

One can reasonably argue that the economy needed a jolt of stimulus to turn things around during the depths of “The Great Recession”.

So far, so good. I may not have liked the way the money was spent, but that’s why we have elections.

Now that the national debt is equal to GDP, however, trillion dollar deficits are a major hazard to the nation’s future. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit this year will equal $1.3 trillion and the president’s proposed 2013 budget will add almost another trillion dollars to the national debt, with high deficits through 2022.

The CBO goes on to say:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43083

“In all, between 2013 and 2022, deficits would total $6.4 trillion (or 3.2 percent of total GDP projected for that period), $3.5 trillion more than the cumulative deficit in CBO’s baseline.”

“Federal debt held by the public would increase from $10.1 trillion (68 percent of GDP) at the end of 2011 to $15.2 trillion (77 percent of GDP) at the end of 2017 and then to $18.8 trillion (76 percent of GDP) at the end of 2022. Under the assumptions of CBO’s current-law baseline, debt held by the public would increase more slowly, ending 2022 at $15.1 trillion; as a percentage of GDP, however, such debt would decline to 61 percent by the end of 2022.”

CBO only talks about debt held by the public and doesn’t include the money owed to the trust funds for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

CBO also doesn’t talk about the current value of the underfunding for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Many estimate that at above $40 trillion.

It’s one thing to spend money when you’re swimming in cash and you don’t have much debt. It’s quite another to spend borrowed money to the point that you’re deeply in debt and at risk financially. The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is on the record as saying that our debt levels are a risk to national security:

http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?id=360

“The single biggest threat to national security is the national debt, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday, underscoring the importance of good fiscal stewardship and a need to stimulate economic growth. ”

I’m just a poor boy from Alabama, but I think the budget the president has proposed, as analyzed by the CBO is “improvident” to say the least. By my reckoning, that makes President Obama a spendthrift.

William

March 20th, 2012
7:11 pm

“So put in another quarter and try again.”

Why don’t you tell us how one should not infer from Obama’s words quoted above that he is suggesting that the “redistribution of wealth” is constitutional (or should be made so de facto by a fiat from the SCOTUS)?

Jay

March 20th, 2012
7:11 pm

No Sinkwich, Bush did not approve the Solyndra loan.

But I refer you again to the chart above. The Solyndra money is included in the Obama spending. So tell me: who has raised per capita spending fastest, and who has raised it more slowly?

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:11 pm

Well, ifin we all knows exactly what the constitution means then what does we needs Supremes for. Can they sing? Baby love oh baby love…

LUCIFER

March 20th, 2012
7:12 pm

In context, William, science, logic and reasoning have to be tempered with compassion and love for one’s fellow man. But then again, that’s only logical. Nuff said.

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
7:12 pm

Sooth,

Rather than watching a biased video I will just take your word for it. Its W’s fault.

Midori

March 20th, 2012
7:13 pm

At least the Republicans have something to show for it.

and wer’e STILL trying to dig our way out of it.

you want to brag about THAT??

JKL2

March 20th, 2012
7:16 pm

I’ll take your chart and raise you one video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVH_nLIhwk

Jay

March 20th, 2012
7:17 pm

If Obama had cut hundreds of billion of dollars of federal spending to match collapsing federal revenues as a result of the recession, as some of you economic geniuses seem to advocate, unemployment today would be 25 or 30 percent and many of you would be in breadlines.

William

March 20th, 2012
7:18 pm

“In context, William, science, logic and reasoning have to be tempered with compassion and love for one’s fellow man. But then again, that’s only logical. Nuff said.”

EXACTLY. And the same applies to religion as well. Do you get my point now?

josef

March 20th, 2012
7:19 pm

St Simon’s

Where are my keys, Pete? I can’t drive the car without them. And while you’re at it, bring the five dollars.

Don't Forget

March 20th, 2012
7:19 pm

Obama’s numbers would be MUCH better if he had a housing bubble to prop up his numbers like Bush did.

William

March 20th, 2012
7:20 pm

“Well, ifin we all knows exactly what the constitution means then what does we needs Supremes for. Can they sing? Baby love oh baby love…”

Wow…you sound like a member of the medieval Catholic church. You can’t possibly understand the Bible for yourself, so the priests will explain it to you. Can I have a wafer, please?

St Simons - we're on Island time

March 20th, 2012
7:21 pm

waitaminute, the cons are not going to be able to see that next-to-last
bar on the graph, due to that amnesia timewarp machine developed
at Area 51, that was last used in 2009, secretly beamed in their heads
through the AM radio band.

hey, where’s that chips-in-the-head bill when you need it?

Paul

March 20th, 2012
7:22 pm

F. Sinkwich

“Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asked President Obama’s top energy official if he’d grade himself with an “A minus” on “controlling the cost of gasoline at the pump.”

Rep Issa’s the richest member of Congress, a Republican, yet he thinks it’s the responsibility of the Executive to control the cost of gasoline? Not only that, he thinks the Executive can significantly control the price of gasoline?!!

Sinkwich, your Party’s overcome with what conservatives call ” liberal ideology.”

Sinkwich

““…the program under which the Solyndra loan was funded began under Bush.”

So Bush approved the loan Jay, is that what you’re trying to say?”

Since Jay doesn’t respond to every post, I’ll note the topic is the growth of federal spending per person.

Solyndra was part of an overall program of loan guarantees that included such things as the before-mentioned $8 billion + guarantees for a couple of nuclear plants. So it’s the size of the loan guarantee program, not the individual guarantees, that’s at issue.

josef

March 20th, 2012
7:22 pm

Don’t forget

“Gee, after all these years we find out the problem with nazi germany was science and technology, huh.”

It was.

barking frog

March 20th, 2012
7:23 pm

Does the Congress get
any kudos for holding
back the spending ?

josef

March 20th, 2012
7:24 pm

St Simon’s
@ 7:21

:-)

LUCIFER

March 20th, 2012
7:25 pm

William: I find the bible devoid of science and logic. Maybe some reasonable parables, but nothing more. My motto is: IN GOD WE RUST!

They BOTH suck

March 20th, 2012
7:25 pm

“unemployment today would be 25 or 30 percent and many of you would be in breadlines.”

According to what gets posted here, I thought we were already at those percentages………

To the right leaning bloggers…. figured I would throw you a bone

Lord Help Us

March 20th, 2012
7:25 pm

I’m sure some of the McCain/Palin magic pixiedust would have turned things around much quicker…why we’d probably be back to surpluses already, unemployment back below 5%…

F. Sinkwich

March 20th, 2012
7:25 pm

“No Sinkwich, Bush did not approve the Solyndra loan.”

Then who did?

“But I refer you again to the chart above. The Solyndra money is included in the Obama spending. So tell me: who has raised per capita spending fastest, and who has raised it more slowly?”

I think we need more than just one chart to prove relative stewardship of our precious tax dollars. Take a look at Mr. Doom’s link showing per capita total spending.

St Simons - we're on Island time

March 20th, 2012
7:26 pm

“as some of you economic geniuses seem to advocate…”

aw, don’t discourage them. Its tax season, mon, & they keep a roomful
of accountants in stitches. Really, can we get a breathing machine
down here? Do they do Christmas parties?

JamVet

March 20th, 2012
7:26 pm

At least the Republicans have something to show for it.

Indeed.

Four thousand, two hundred and fifty two flagged draped coffins that came home to Dover AFB courtesy of President Regime Change…

William

March 20th, 2012
7:26 pm

“William, You might as well be talking to a lamp post.”

I might be better off, for then I would not have some expectation of an intelligent response.

Thulsa Doom

March 20th, 2012
7:26 pm

Solyndra was not approved under W Jay. It began under W but the final approval came under O. Put a dollar in the machine Jay.

Soothsayer

March 20th, 2012
7:26 pm

Paul

March 20th, 2012
7:26 pm

“All Obumbles gave us”

Vinny, you new here or back after a long absence? Either way, you’ll begin with at least a fraction of credibility if you can demonstrate you at least know the President’s name and how to spell it.

No Chart

“That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. ”

Yes, it is. It’s also an absolute sum. It’s not the growth in spending per person, which is the topic.

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:28 pm

If Obama had cut hundreds of billion of dollars of federal spending to match collapsing federal revenues as a result of the recession, as some of you economic geniuses seem to advocate, unemployment today would be 25 or 30 percent and many of you would be in breadlines.

That’s what makes them geniuses, Jay. I mean, after all, who else would dare to think so far out of the box as to come up with the brilliant idea of increasing suffering in order to make one forget about how bad things are already. It’s genius, I tells ya. The kind that only a Republican could come up with although I bet they had to have help. Probably from the Heritage Club for Boy Toys. :roll:

Brosephus™

March 20th, 2012
7:29 pm

St Simons

While it’s not the chip bill, your neighbors to the south have a doozy that’s been suggested by a member of the majority party…

http://shine.yahoo.com/anderson-cooper/8216-little-couple-8217-jen-38-bill-address-172400493.html

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

March 20th, 2012
7:29 pm

Jay: No Sinkwich, Bush did not approve the Solyndra loan

Doom: Solyndra was not approved under W Jay. It began under W but the final approval came under O. Put a dollar in the machine Jay

Knee jerk responses by Doom sure don’t show ability to comprehend simple posts much less Doom’s unsupported kook lies.

William

March 20th, 2012
7:29 pm

“William: I find the bible devoid of science and logic. Maybe some reasonable parables, but nothing more. My motto is: IN GOD WE RUST!”

That is fine. Believe what you will. But to equate religion with religion (rather than murderous religious zealots) is wrong.

Paul

March 20th, 2012
7:30 pm

Sinkwich

I like Jay’s 7:11 better than the last half of my 7:22.

It’s succinct.

Jay

March 20th, 2012
7:30 pm

I already said that Thulsa. I also pointed out that Solyndra was .000135 percent of the federal budget, and that even with that astounding additional .000135 percent increase, spending growth under Obama has been much lower than under every other GOP president since the Nixon administration.

I further pointed out that the increase in food stamps that you cited was caused entirely by factors that had nothing to do with Obama.

What else you got?

William

March 20th, 2012
7:30 pm

Correction: That is fine. Believe what you will. But to equate religion with evil (rather than murderous religious zealots) is wrong.

Paul

March 20th, 2012
7:31 pm

St Simons

That’s as cool as Brosephus’s Jedi Mind Trick explanation -

martin the calvinist

March 20th, 2012
7:32 pm

Brosephus, while you say you have one party trying to undercut revenue, you have another party that has no problem spending period, in fact, i’d argue they are trying to undercut the US by continuing to spend, spend, spend. Both parties are particularly guilty of spending so I’m trying to take sides, but again, we already take in 2.3 to 2.4 trillion, isn’t that enough revenue to run a country? tell me why we need to spend more than that?

William

March 20th, 2012
7:33 pm

“What else you got?”

Stop hitting what you think are softballs, Jay and conveniently pretending you didn’t see my post on Obama’s speech in 2001. When when liberals stop avoiding uncomfortable discussions?

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:34 pm

Equating religion with evil is not necessary for religion defines evil. Anyway, the Bible tells me so.

TaxPayer

March 20th, 2012
7:35 pm

When when liberals stop avoiding uncomfortable discussions?

When insurance starts covering Preparation H.

josef

March 20th, 2012
7:36 pm

BROSEPHUS

You mean the dwarf tossers have a lobby?

Paul

March 20th, 2012
7:36 pm

William

I forgot. Just which of Pres Obama’s proposals have Speaker Boehner or Senator McConnell endorsed? They couldn’t even agree among themselves on a reduction plan, which is why we’re staring at sequestration.

Hi MIdori!!!!!!
:-) :-) :-)

F. Sinkwich

March 20th, 2012
7:37 pm

“Four thousand, two hundred and fifty two flagged draped coffins that came home to Dover AFB courtesy of President Regime Change…”

LBJ’s score was 68,000.

But you lib ilks just luv you some Johnson, war on poverty and all…

ragnar danneskjold

March 20th, 2012
7:37 pm

“the most fair and accurate number to compare would probably be federal spending growth per capita, adjusted for inflation.” What a silly argument. No, the most fair and accurate number would be “non-military” federal spending per capita, adjusted for inflation. Not “growth.” That adjusts for wars, and let’s you know who is really wasteful. Nobody compares to Obama if you do it honestly.

Soothsayer

March 20th, 2012
7:37 pm

It’s all simple, really. Obama inherited an economy running $250,000,000,000.00 budget surpluses per year. He recklessly turned that budget surplus into massive deficit by spending on needless wars, ridiculous tax cuts for the richest Americans, unfunded Medicare Part D drug give-aways, and more.

And, that, friends, is why Obama is responsible for the massive budget deficits the Country now experiences. I told you, it’s really simple! It’s Obama’s fault!

Jay

March 20th, 2012
7:38 pm

I saw the post, William.

I guess I just missed the amazing significance of some obscure speech 11 years ago that basically repeated what we have known since at least the New Deal.

Jay

March 20th, 2012
7:40 pm

Really Rags? So in your world spending on military adventures doesn’t really count in the deficit and debt?

Interesting. So I guess that explains why Bush felt he could fight two wars, one of them a war of choice, while also cutting taxes, the only wartime tax cuts ever enacted in U.S. history.