PBS says obama economy better than when he took office

The $160 billion deficit in 2007 was "total budget" [/QUOTE]

Which when we discuss the budget is what we talk about. And if you want to add it the cost of the wars that takes it to $260B.

And of course we know the mess Obama and the Democrats made of it, two years later where did Obama and the Democrats take it? With the wars winding down?

 

War costs were in the total deficit numbers, not added on top of it

Just because they were not on budget is meaningless

There are off budget costs every year.

 

Which when we discuss the budget is what we talk about. And if you want to add it the cost of the wars that takes it to $260B.

And of course we know the mess Obama and the Democrats made of it, two years later where did Obama and the Democrats take it? With the wars winding down?[/QUOTE]

But that's not the case.

Just because it was "off budget", doesn't mean it was not taken into account for "total expenditures"

161 Billion is all that was over spent in 2007

 

Gingrich increased spending!!

 

The Fiscal Year for 2008 Was the last year GWB was fully responsible for or if you want to be technical, what the Congress allocated for.

Additionally, of the 700B$ TARP Money, half was left up to Obama, signed into law before he took office. Originally the TARP and profits were to be paid back, but used by the Administration as a slush fund for other programs (doubled down loss not counted, under Obama)...

Most important is that the 1.4T$ deficit was/is the foundation of a reduction in deficits since, which is only true ignoring the 2008 actual deficits////

Great Recession??? Why are you bring up Carter, that was childs play for Reagan and the people he chose to listen to....

 

Gotta give you a lot of credit for admitting a mistake !
But you are the best , your a devil dog.

 

And revenues!!!!!!!! And revenues FASTER than spending!!!!!! That is proper fiscal management.

 

Nope FY2007 was the last Bush/Republican budget. FY2008 was passed by a Democrat Congress including Obama who supported and voted for it, Bush's budget proposal was DOA. FY2009 was held up unitl after the election and written with Obama's spending priorities and wishes and he signed the omnibus spending bill into law in 2009.

 

But of the $3.518 trillion in Fiscal 2009 spending only $203 billion can be attributed to Obama. Therefore 94.2% of the fiscal year spending belongs to Bush as well as 94.2% of the $1.4 trillion deficit.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

 

Hogwash!

Bush signed the spending bills for fiscal 2008 and 2009 almost right up until the 2008 election. President Bush signed at the end of Sept 2008 the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. It combined a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush had signed full-year appropriations for the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and veterans programs, he had left the remainder of government agencies that need annual appropriations funded only through March 2009. Spending programs that require no yearly appropriations, including Social Security and Medicare, continued to operate during fiscal 2009 under the policies in effect under Bush, including an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009.
Bush owns the $1 trillion fiscal 2008 and the $1.4 trillion fiscal 2009 deficits.

 

Well DUH it was either that or a government shut down. The DEMOCRATS controlled Congress and the Bush budget submissions were DOA. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote those budgets and Obama supported and voted for them.

That was a continuing resolution, which Obama voted for, President OBAMA signed the omnibus spending bill in March of 2009 that was held up until after the elections.

"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.

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-, that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending."
http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 11, 2009
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009." This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-the-signing-of-HR-1105/

It is entirely laughable that you would assert Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority Congress passed Bush's budget proposals in both FY2008 and especially FY2009.

Those are DEMOCRAT deficits, of which Obama was part and parcel to and he owns the FY2009

 

Which when we discuss the budget is what we talk about. And if you want to add it the cost of the wars that takes it to $260B.

And of course we know the mess Obama and the Democrats made of it, two years later where did Obama and the Democrats take it? With the wars winding down?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

However, the "mess" was already made before the Dems took Congress in 2007:



And the spending and deficit was already 95% in when Obama took office:


The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... 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. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit


Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

- - - Updated - - -

They were not. The Bush administration did not include the war costs in the budget.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, revenues skyrocketed after the 1993 tax increase, even though conservatives told us the tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs.

 

Nope, the major spending bills were not in place and had been held up for him to sign.

"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.

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-, that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending."
http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/th...ting-spending/


Obama was fully involved in the FY2008 budget and even more so the FY2009 which HE signed into law with HIS and his fellow Democrats spending, not Bush's.

They were doing the skyrocketing before it went into effect and that growth slowed afterwards but got back on track after Gingrich and Kasich force Clinton to sign tax rate cuts. Even Clinton admitted he raised taxes too much as he was getting criticized for slowing the recovery with his tax increase.

 

thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll trust these sources over your opinions. Others can decide for themselves.


The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... 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. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit


Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

LOL, is that like how the economy was already recovering when Obama took office?

Year - Revenues - % chng
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4%
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7%

Yep, look at how that revenue growth slowed.

Only in Bluesguy world.

 

What I wrote is absolutely true and never been refuted.

Year - Tax Rev. - % GDP
1981 599.3 18.7% <- Reagan takes office. Cuts taxes.
1982 617.8 18.5%
1983 600.6 16.5%
1984 666.4 16.5%
1985 734.0 16.9%
1986 769.2 16.8%
1987 854.3 17.5%
1988 909.2 17.3%
1989 991.1 17.5%
1990 1,032.0 17.3%
1991 1,055.0 17.1%
1992 1,091.2 16.7%
1993 1,154.3 16.8% <-Clinton takes office. Raises taxes.
1994 1,258.6 17.2%
1995 1,351.8 17.6%
1996 1,453.1 17.9%
1997 1,579.2 18.3%
1998 1,721.7 18.9%
1999 1,827.5 18.9%
2000 2,025.2 19.7%
2001 1,991.1 18.7% <-Bush takes office. Cuts taxes.
2002 1,853.1 16.9%
2003 1,782.3 15.5%
2004 1,880.1 15.3%
2005 2,153.6 16.4%
2006 2,406.9 17.4%
2007 2,568.0 17.7%
2008 2,524.0 17.1%
2009 2,105.0 14.6% <- GR tax cuts
2010 2,162.7 14.5%
2011 2,303.5 14.8%
2012 2,450.2 15.1%
2013 2,775.1 16.5% <-Obama tax increase.

 

False, as I've proved to you many times, capital gains tax revenues fell drastically for comparable capital gain realizations.

Year - Realized C/G - Tax rev.
1996 $260,696 $66,396 [Cap gains tax rate 28%]
2002 $268,615 $49,122 [Cap gains tax rate 20%]
2009 $263,460 $36,686 [Cap gains tax rate 15%]
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

We can see cap gains tax revenues dropping when the tax rates are lowered for equivalent levels of realized gains.

Only in Bluesguy world. Everyone else can see how revenue growth skyrocketed after the Clinton tax increase.

As one would expect.

Revenues tanked by hundreds of billions of dollars with the Bush tax cuts and never recovered.

Year - Revenues - % GDP
2000 2,025.2 19.7%
2001 1,991.1 18.7% <-Bush tax cuts
2002 1,853.1 16.9%
2003 1,782.3 15.5%
2004 1,880.1 15.3%
2005 2,153.6 16.4%
2006 2,406.9 17.4%
2007 2,568.0 17.7%
2008 2,524.0 17.1%
2009 2,105.0 14.6%

 

They were.

TOTAL EXPENDATURES includes off budget spending

the 161 Billion deficit is it................there is no imaginary other set of books

 

FY's end in Oct. before the calendar year. 2007 then ended on Sept 30, 2006. FY 2009 ended Sept. 30 2008 and GWB was still in office. From my post and I didn't write it...Your thinking is for FY 2009 and basically correct on the process.

 

During the George W. Bush presidency those costs were financed through supplemental spending that was not part of the appropriations process. In short, the funding was kept off the books.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-afghanistan/2012/05/16/gIQAT4UaUU_blog.html

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., doesn't like the way the Bush administration is paying for the Iraq war. Neither does Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. Granted, the two don't agree on much. But they do agree that funding the war piecemeal and off the books -- through "emergency" supplemental spending bills -- is a phony way of doing business. ... The Bush administration, with Congress's cooperation, has insisted on paying for the Iraq war through supplemental spending bills. The funding is not included in the president's annual budgets or, in most cases, in the congressional budget resolutions, and it is considered separately from the regular appropriations bills. The money is not counted in the budget deficit estimates that the administration routinely releases. Nor is it counted against any budget caps that Congress has set for itself to abide by throughout the year.
http://www.govexec.com/management/2...mental-funding-draws-bipartisan-attack/21644/

Of the nearly $700 billion Congress has approved for GWOT activities--including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--since 2001, 90 percent have come from &#8220;off budget&#8221; supplemental emergency spending bills.
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/weekly-wastebasket/article/war-spending-games

The Bush wars were, until Obama took office, funded through "emergency" supplemental bills that kept the cost out of the regular budgets -- and deficits.

 

Not my opinion, historical facts from Congressional Quaterly.

You sources not only have their opinions wrong they are based a specious assertions.

The historical fact is the Democrat congress delayed the FY2009 budget until Obama won the election and until he was in office to sign the bill. The spending that was continued to do so was Democrat spending fully supported and voted for by Obama. They own it. Obama didn't ride into town in Jan. 2009 as Bush did Jan. 2001, he was part and parcel and vote in support of the FY2008 bill and the continuing resolution and spending increases forced on Bush in the three minor bills that were passed. He was then President elect as the Democrats put together the formal omnibus bill with his priorities and the spending increases Bush refused to sign and HE SIGNED IT INTO LAW.

As much as you want to wash his hands of it, history shows different.

What is amusing is how you support such government spending as a way to get the economy going then try to fallacious wash his hands of it.

The job losses had already bottomed out and the recession ended in June. Are you denying that?

Year - Revenues - % chng
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8%
1994 1,258.6 9.0% <- Clinton tax increase goes into effect
1995 1,351.8 7.4% and we see the results. He raised the tax rate and revenue growth slowed, he bent the curve down
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% <- Gingrich tax rate cuts go into effect and went on to double digit

Yep the curve bent down instead of going on to double digit as happened after the tax rate cuts.

 

so what

they are still counted in the same year end deficit.

there is off budget spending an revenue every year

there is only one total of expenditure and revenue every year

You are wrong on this one. Just admit it.

 

I'm not sure how the 700B$ TARP money was charged, since it was basically for loans and to be paid back to the treasury, but half was left to the discretion of the new President, when the elections were over. What I am sure of is that half was spent (allocated) by Obama and then as paid back re spent under his programs, Additionally the near trillion dollars spent on "Stimulus Programs" was in part spent in FY 2009 and then Congress did add 400/500 in pork spending before it was signed. Running the numbers, I'd suggest most that differential between requested and actual deficit was by Congress and/or the executive.

Bush was in charge 3 1/2 months of FY 2009, mostly as a total lame duck and Obama for 8 1/2 months with a totally agreeable Congress.....

 

It's not "my" hands, that contradict your opinion, it's folks like Forbes, Cato, Market watch, Politifact, and Factcheck.

The deficit was already projected to hit $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office. Within weeks it was increased to $1.9 trillion. It was impossible for Obama to have signed any bills that affected that projection before he took office.

Furthermore, your own source states:

CQ estimated that the final spending bill &#8220;provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills&#8221; which is &#8220;about $19 billion more than Bush sought.&#8221;

Thus, the appropriations bills Obama signed only added $19 billion to FY2009 spending. Not even spit in the bucket in $3.5 trillion in outlays, and certainly not enough to change the conclusion of Forbes, Cato, Market Watch, Factcheck and Politifact that the vast bulk of FY2009 spending and deficits was already locked into place before Obama took office.

What is amusing is how you support such government spending as a way to get the economy going then try to fallacious wash his hands of it.

Of course I deny it. That ranks up there with the most ridiculous things you've written, and you've written a lot of ridiculous things. Like the economy was already "recovering" when Obama took office.

Job losses had far from "bottomed out". 7-800,000 jobs were being lost every month when Obama took office, and over the course of 2009 job losses numbered in the millions.

You're saying revenues increased 9.0% the year Clinton's tax increase went into effect, up from a 5.8% increase the year before, and to you that is a slowing of growth?

Only in Bluesguy world.

 

I've cited three independent sources proving you're wrong. You've offered nothing but baseless blather.

I know which I find more persuasive. Others can decide for themselves.

 

Please prove how much of the Stimulus bill was spent in FY 2009, and that Congress added $400-500 billion in spending after Bush left office before the Stimulus was signed.

Thanks.