The Socialist Senator from Oklahoma?

[aaydrian 479]

I see your point but what the 'other guys' (btw I love that movie) appear to want is to pretend that Bush never happened and pretend that Obama's communist pudgy fingers blew up government spending. They'd like to believe that Obama increased it from 18%-24% but considering the hand he was dealt (25%), Obama hasn't added much on gov spending. I'm open to hear what Patriot has to say, maybe he can change my outlook on things.

PS. Saw rare footage of Baby Bush the other day, looks like he took a tumble in my dryer.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There wasn't that much of a spending increase in 2009 that Obama signed into law. I know that we often look at the stimulus that Obama signed and like to pretend that that $800BN was all spending and that is was all spent in 2009. That's not what happened. That $800BN was spread over a couple of years and about 2/3 of it was not actually increased spending but reduced revenue - i.e. tax cuts. Yes, Republicans opposed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts in 2009 and actually oppose tax cuts ever since. They still oppose tax cuts today which is why they won't pass the tax cuts that Senate passed in the House. But back to the issue at hand. At most, Obama added $200BN of spending in FY 2009. The rest of the huge spending increase from previous years was already done. It was not Obama that did it.

Federal spending was 2TN in FY 2002. That was W's first full fiscal year in office. What he left for the next guy was federal spending of $3.3TN in FY 2009. That's over a 50% increase in federal spending in 8 years. Federal spending in 2012 was about $3.6TN - that's a rather modest increase over the last 3 years.

Tax cuts are not spending. Tax cuts can reduce revenues, or can actually increase revenues, but they are not spending. You can throw away that canard.

Bush was in office for only 3-1/2 months of FY2009. With the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in control of the Democrats, 2/3's of 2009 spending belongs to Obama, at a minimum.

And then there was Obama's Senate record, where he either didn't vote because he was away from the Senate at the time, or voted for, all those spending increases.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9490/barack-obama-ii#.UMJzMYP_qEw

Edited December 7, 2012 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Tax cuts are not spending. Tax cuts can reduce revenues, or can actually increase revenues, but they are not spending. You can throw away that canard.

Okay, so I will not hear this stupid "Obama's $1TN stimulus spending hasn't worked" argument from you. If tax cuts aren't spending - and you're right, btw, they aren't - then the 2009 stimulus package actually amounted to roughly $350BN worth of spending. The other $450BN were tax cuts not spending. Tax cuts the Republicans opposed, by the way. Republicans hate tax cuts.