Uh huh

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Why can't you just provide the link like everyone else does? It's really easy.

there were links imbedded throughout ...

like I told you before Ib's link is the link those #'s I posted came from

why dont you just pay attention?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

look at the chart dumbass, see 09 ... notice the color of the bar for 09? ... 95% of the bar is red .. doesnt red represent republican spending?

exactly what Ive been saying, thank you.


obviously since you posted facts from the same link I used for two days, youre an Obamanite and a left wing partisan hack

ask COF and CM, just they'll tell you

Look at the chart, dumb-ass. See '09, notice that Odumbo appended that budget with even greater spending! CBJ7, your dumb-ass argued Odumbo DIDN'T increase spending because there was no budget. Also note that the spending stayed high: even though there was no budget. Furthermore, the chart shows that the spending remained higher under Odumbo despite the offset of Bush's TARP money being RETURNED to the government during Odumbo's term, dumb-ass!!!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Look at the chart, dumb-ass. See '09, notice that Odumbo appended that budget with even greater spending! CBJ7, your dumb-ass argued Odumbo DIDN'T increase spending because there was no budget. Also note that the spending stayed high: even though there was no budget. Furthermore, the chart shows that the spending remained higher under Odumbo despite the offset of Bush's TARP money being RETURNED to the government during Odumbo's term, dumb-ass!!!

no wiggle room IB, swim in your own slobber ... I did nothing or said nothing you mentioned .. I simply posted the numbers and every stupid shit rightwinger on the board started making excuses and calling me this or that .. the numbers I originally posted came from the same link you posted. The chart from that link clearly shows red out spent blue 95-1 in 90.

there you have it, you Blind partisan Obamanite hack

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

no wiggle room IB, swim in your own slobber ... I did nothing or said nothing you mentioned .. I simply posted the numbers and every stupid shit rightwinger on the board started making excuses and calling me this or that .. the numbers I originally posted came from the same link you posted. The chart from that link clearly shows red out spent blue 95-1 in 90.

'90???

Why don't you swim in your on spew, CBJ7. You lied when you blamed all of the 2009 expenditures on Bush and attributed none of it to Odumbo here:

Originally Posted by CJ7

the 2009 budget was passed in 2008 by Bush ... $3 Trillion dollars to be exact

civics 101

care to guess who had that in his pocket before he was sworn in?

“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.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/oba...nferno-or-not/

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. . . .
President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
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. [The Congressional Quarterly] 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.
If you trust CQ’s reporting, and I do, then this is damning. Democrats in Congress purposely held off on pushing bloated appropriations bills because they knew President Bush would not sign the bill and Republicans in the Senate would block consideration of it. You have to remember that the Senate went from 51-49 Democrat control under President Bush’s last year to 59-41 in the early days of President Obama. On April 28, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat to give the Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The House had a similar conversion from a 233-202 Democrat majority to 257-178 Democrat majority. Democrats were banking on a big enough majorities in the Senate and House that they could pass the bloated spending bill and they got it.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/...ting-spending/

Originally Posted by CJ7

I did nothing or said nothing you mentioned .. I simply posted the numbers and every stupid shit rightwinger on the board started making excuses and calling me this or that ..

And once again you are a liar, CBJ7, because in your ignorant post (below) you claimed the Dim Congress couldn't be blamed for the excessive spending since Odumbo took office:

Originally Posted by CJ7

pretty much removes the responsibliity for all the excessive spending youa nd your fellow morons give the dem congress doesnt it?

like I said, the president doesnt pass a budget, congress does.

civics 101

Denny Crane

“. . . Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion . . . it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/oba...nferno-or-not/

[CJ7]

look ate the chart you posted dumbass ..

look at the date the fiscal year starts, look at the spending record Bush had between the start of the fiscal year (09) up to the time he left office ..

then look at the turd in your face ... you have your head up your ass

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

look ate the chart you posted dumbass ..

look at the date the fiscal year starts, look at the spending record Bush had between the start of the fiscal year (09) up to the time he left office ..

then look at the turd in your face ... you have your head up your ass

Hey dumb-ass, look at the chart and read the accompanying text. Odumbo and the Dim Congress spent even more than Bush allocated in the 2009 budget; yet, your dumb-ass argues they weren't in the least bit responsible for 2009 spending, 2010 spending or 2011 spending. BTW, dumb-ass, Odumbo was in the 2008 Senate.

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. . . .
President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
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. [The Congressional Quarterly] 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.
If you trust CQ’s reporting, and I do, then this is damning. Democrats in Congress purposely held off on pushing bloated appropriations bills because they knew President Bush would not sign the bill and Republicans in the Senate would block consideration of it. You have to remember that the Senate went from 51-49 Democrat control under President Bush’s last year to 59-41 in the early days of President Obama. On April 28, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat to give the Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The House had a similar conversion from a 233-202 Democrat majority to 257-178 Democrat majority. Democrats were banking on a big enough majorities in the Senate and House that they could pass the bloated spending bill and they got it.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/...ting-spending/

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hey dumb-ass, look at the chart and read the accompanying text. Odumbo and the Dim Congress spent even more than Bush allocated in the 2009 budget; yet, your dumb-ass argues they weren't in the least bit responsible for 2009 spending, 2010 spending or 2011 spending. Dumb-ass.

Heritage vs CBO ?

really?

The End.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Heritage vs CBO ?

really?

The End.

You are the ignorant jackass, CBJ7. The Factcheck article, the Congressional Quarterly and the Heritage article establish that Odumbo and the Dim Congress larded up the 2009 budget after Odumbo was sworn into to office. CBJ7, your Kool-aid drinking glasses are so "tinted" you'd rather swear to a bald-face lie than admit the truth.

Our own analysis leads us to conclude that Obama deserves responsibility for somewhat more fiscal 2009 spending . . . we conclude that Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for as much as 38 percent.

• $2 billion for children’s health insurance. On Feb. 4, Obama signed a bill expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program, covering millions of additional children (a Democratic bill Bush had vetoed in the previous Congress). “CBO estimates that the act will increase mandatory outlays by $2 billion in 2009,” CBO later stated (page 5).
• $114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).
• $32 billion of the “omnibus” spending bill Obama signed on March 11, 2009, to keep the agencies that Bush had not fully funded running through the remainder of the fiscal year. The $410 billion measure included $32 billion more than had been spent the previous year, according to a floor statement by Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top-ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. (See page H2790 in the Congressional Record.) “An 8 percent—or a $32 billion—increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable,” he declared.
  A case can be made that Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for the entire $32 billion increase. The $410 billion was only $20 billion more than Bush had requested, according to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the appropriations chairman. (See page H2800.) And CBO later figured the increase amounted to only $9 billion over what it was projecting on the assumption that the levels Bush approved for the first part of the year would be extended for the entire year (page 5).
  But it was Obama who signed the bill, so we assign responsibility for the full annual increase to him, not Bush.
• $2 billion for deposit insurance. The “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act” that Obama signed May 20 had among its many provisions some changes to the federal program that insures bank deposits. CBO later estimated that would increase fiscal 2009 outlays by $2 billion (page 54).
• $31 billion in “supplemental” spending for the military and other purposes. Obama pushed for and signed on June 24 another spending measure. The press dubbed it a “war funding” bill, but it actually contained $26 billion for non-defense measures (including funding for flu vaccine against the H1N1 virus, and for the International Monetary Fund) in addition to $80 billion for the military.
  Only a portion of the total $106 billion it authorized would actually be spent during the remaining three months of fiscal 2009, however. Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, stated on June 18: “The conference report includes $105.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2009, which will result in outlays in 2009 of $30.5 billion.” (See page S6776.)
  Here again, a case can be made that Obama isn’t responsible for the entire $31 billion. Economist Mitchell argues that $25 billion in military spending should be assigned to Bush, because “Bush surely would have asked for at least that much extra spending.” But he didn’t. So rather than speculate, we’ll assign it all to Obama, who asked for it.
• $2 billion in additional “Cash for Clunkers” funding. Obama signed this measure Aug. 7, providing “emergency supplemental” funding for a stimulus program that offered $3,500 to $4,500 to car owners who traded in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy. Nearly all was spent in fiscal 2009. (See page 959.)
• $20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts. At one point the government had paid out nearly $80 billion to support the automakers. But some of this was Bush’s doing, and much has been repaid and will be in the future.
  Here’s how we arrived at our $20 billion figure for Obama:
  By the time Obama took office, Bush already had loaned nearly $21 billion to the two automakers from funds appropriated originally for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and had committed the government to lend $4 billion more. But Bush left decisions on further aid to Obama, who poured in additional billions.
  By the end of the fiscal year, the Treasury had made approximately $76 billion in loans and equity investments to GM, Chrysler and their respective financing entities (some had already been repaid). But for budget accounting purposes, not all of this was counted as federal spending under the TARP law. That’s because the government stood to receive loan repayments with interest, and held nearly 61 percent of the stock of the reorganized General Motors. What was counted as spending was — in rough terms — the difference between the estimated future value of those assets to taxpayers and their initial cost.
  Treasury put the net cost of the GM and Chrysler support during fiscal 2009 at $45 billion (see page 110, the “Total subsidy cost” line under the heading “AIFP,” for Automotive Industry Financing Program). That’s the amount officially booked as a federal outlay for fiscal 2009.
  We assume — we think reasonably — that the $25 billion committed under Bush would have been lost had Obama done nothing. So we subtract the full amount of Bush’s commitment from the net total of $45 billion that Treasury initially estimated for fiscal 2009.
  For the record, the ultimate total cost of the auto bailout is now estimated to be lower than initially expected. It is put at $21 billion by the Treasury Department (see page 5) and and only $19 billion by CBO (see Table 3). But those lowered estimates don’t affect what was booked as spending in fiscal 2009.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/oba...nferno-or-not/

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are the ignorant jackass, CBJ7. The Factcheck article, the Congressional Quarterly and the Heritage article establish that Odumbo and the Dim Congress larded up the 2009 budget after Odumbo was sworn into to office. CBJ7, your Kool-aid drinking glasses are so "tinted" you'd rather swear to a bald-face lie than admit the truth.

never said it didnt

once again look at the total money spent on the chart YOU posted ... red outweighs blue almost 100%.

facts are facts

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

never said it didnt

once again look at the total money spent on the chart YOU posted ... red outweighs blue almost 100%.

facts are facts

As noted, in posts #79 and #83 above, you are a liar CBJ7. You alleged Odumbo and the Dim Congress had nothing to do with the increased spending in 2009 and weren't responsible for the exorbitant spending in 2010 and 2011.