- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
He "feels" Keynesian economics were 'a part of it' but doesn't quote Keynes for support. I chose not to comment and just let it go.
You had it handed to you again. Why not just move on?
Once again the revised 2009 budget with an additional 400 billion was not signed by Bush. It was signed by Obama. The additional money from the stimulus in some cases added to the baseline budget numbers. Obama was all for the increases that occurred in the 2009 budget. I really wish liberals would stop trying to pretend they were not responsible for the increases when they wanted what was agreed to and would have went for more if they thought it would have passed. Its a farce.
“The additional money from the stimulus in some cases added to the baseline budget numbers. Obama was all for the increases that occurred in the 2009 budget."
When you shoved it out of the way when you QUOTED ME.:roll:“Thats a nice way of trying to move the goal posts. “
Moving the goal post?Whatta hoot you are. In post #151,where you quoted me, I was discussing Keynesian theory with fenton and you came barging in with this bull****.
Now you get on your ****ing rag and say
When you shoved it out of the way when you QUOTED ME.:roll:
Originally Posted by Whipsnade
In Obamas 2010 budget,( BO's first)spending was $3.46 trillion. In 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion. the 2009 budget is the Bush budget, with spending going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022
Just clearing some misconceptions up. I originally posted in this thread in post 151 and was quoting your post at 101. Wherein you claimed the following:
Its looks to me as though you are claiming that Obama has nothing to do with the 2009 budget, when that is not the case. Obama had his fingerprints all over the 2009 budget and the spending increases it entailed. He signed it, the dem congress wouldnt present the budget they bloated by an additional 400billion to Bush, they presented it to Obama when he came into office, combine that with the stimulus baseline spending changes and you have a big spender. Your statement undercuts that premise, as you both want the credit for the results of spending to go to Obama but the deficits that it entails to be put upon Bush.
If you are going to make a claim, and skip over the reasoning between the lines, dont get all nasty when it gets challenged.
OK,we can talk about the 2009 budget if you want.Whose budget was it?the first budget that can be blamed on BO, IMO, began in 2010 .WELL!...i had better revise that a bit.the first budget that can be blamed by most sane people on BO, began in 2010.
2010, BO's first, spending fell to $3.46 trillion,2011 spending shot up to $3.60 trillion,2012 begets $3.63 trillion in debt .that leads us up to the final budget of BO's first term. Where according to the CBO its projected to fall to $3.58 trillion. Classic case of making lemonade outta lemons if you ask me. Your thoughts.
Dont bait. Dont be a jerk. If you cant make your point without snide comments keep your mouth shut.by most sane people
Agree to disagree about the budget. Obama signed the 2009 budget, dems added $400B to the budget proviso that Bush sent to them. You can spin that, you can ignore it, but there it is.
View attachment 67140388
Sorry,even fact check disagrees with you.And i disagree with them on the amount that BO is responsible for in 2009.eace
< 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.>
FactCheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?
QUOTE OpportunityCost
Im sorry if Im skeptical about something ran by one of Obama's former employers, but I am.
Once again, the spending proposal submitted by Bush was $400billion less than the one signed by Obama.
In addition, some of the stimulus funding levels were made baseline adding further increases.
Appeals to authority do not change that.
Figured I would address this. They took the CBO numbers and then interpretted what they meant. Its a decent try but, its still an appeal to authority instead of looking at the mechanics of the budget resolutions. They proved what they wanted to prove. You are just buying what they wanted to prove. Thats been a frequent problem with FactCheck.Org--they have done it so often they pretty much arent a good source anymore.Yep,cant trust them CBO numbers.
Stop being asinine. Its boring.And your dancing around in your tutu is fun to look at.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?