It's the spending, stupid.

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:57:12


The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.  

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by xyzz » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:47:43



Quote:
> The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> Doug

Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:53:43


Quote:


> > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > Doug

> Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
> Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

Is matching W's legacy something Obama really wants to do?

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by xyzz » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:57:16

On Apr 10, 12:53?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

Quote:




> > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > Doug

> > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
> > Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

> Is matching W's legacy something Obama really wants to do?

Apparently, it is. Sigh.
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:35


Quote:
> On Apr 10, 12:53?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"





> > > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > > Doug

> > > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
> > > Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

> > Is matching W's legacy something Obama really wants to do?

> Apparently, it is. Sigh.

he's got several years left.....
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:50

Quote:



> > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

Yes, as did the $2.73T, except there was a lot more of it in 2007.

Quote:

> Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

Obumble hasn't been responsible for any budget.  In FY 2008, spending was $2.98T, what's your point?  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
BTW, Obama was inaugurated 1/20/2009.

I'm not necessarily blaming Obama for the spending.  But he clearly deserves every bit of blame he can get for blaming anything other than excessive spending for the fiscal mess.  

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by the_andrew_sm.. » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:15:31


Quote:


> > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > Doug

> Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
> Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

There comes a point where some might say, "I voted for a terrible
candidate. Hopefully, I won't try to defend/deflect but will instead
note what now seems obvious and vote differently next time."
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Futbol Pha » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:40:41

Quote:




> > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > Doug

> > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

> > Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

> There comes a point where some might say, "I voted for a terrible

> candidate. Hopefully, I won't try to defend/deflect but will instead

> note what now seems obvious and vote differently next time."

But I never voted for Bush.
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:43:58



Quote:
>Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

The United States Senate career of Barack Obama began on January 4,
2005 and ended on November 16, 2008.

Hugh

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by dre » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:57:37


Quote:



> > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

> Yes, as did the $2.73T, except there was a lot more of it in 2007.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not included in the annual budget until FY2010.
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Kyle T. Jone » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:15:19


Quote:



>>> The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

>>> Doug

>> Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
>> Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

> There comes a point where some might say, "I voted for a terrible
> candidate. Hopefully, I won't try to defend/deflect but will instead
> note what now seems obvious and vote differently next time."

Yep.  Happened for many folks sometime in 2007.

Even the die-hard conservatives admit we're recovering - just not as
fast as they'd like - which is inherently better than falling deeper

it too we'll pay for these wars later abyss.

Cheers.

--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Eric Ramo » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:22:55


Quote:




> > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > Doug

> > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?
> > Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

> There comes a point where some might say, "I voted for a terrible
> candidate. Hopefully, I won't try to defend/deflect but will instead
> note what now seems obvious and vote differently next time."

let's face it. They're all terrible. They're all crooks. The "next"
candidate won't be any better, Republican or Democrat.
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:30:36

Quote:





> > > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

> > Yes, as did the $2.73T, except there was a lot more of it in 2007.

> The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not included in the annual budget until FY2010.

The $2.73T number is total federal spending, both on and off budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (Table 1.1)

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:33:24

Quote:





> >>> The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> >>> Doug

> >> Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

> >> Is Obama responsible for the FY 08 budget?

> > There comes a point where some might say, "I voted for a terrible

> > candidate. Hopefully, I won't try to defend/deflect but will instead

> > note what now seems obvious and vote differently next time."

> Yep.  Happened for many folks sometime in 2007.

> Even the die-hard conservatives admit we're recovering - just not as

> fast as they'd like - which is inherently better than falling deeper


> it too we'll pay for these wars later abyss.

Yeah, rsfck those three decades of prosperity.

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by dre » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:54:29


Quote:





> > > > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

> > > Yes, as did the $2.73T, except there was a lot more of it in 2007.

> > The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not included in the annual budget until FY2010.

> The $2.73T number is total federal spending, both on and off budget.

> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (Table 1.1)

That is incorrect, and nothing at the above website corroborates your claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/04/usa.elanaschor

Quote:
> The $3.1 trillion budget would increase US military spending for the 11th straight year while slicing about $200bn from the social security and Medicare programs that aid older Americans. The budget deficit under Bush's proposal would balloon to $410bn this year - more than twice as much as 2007 - before achieving balance in 2012.
> That claim of a balanced budget hinges on only $70bn in spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, an estimate that even White House aides acknowledge they will exceed during the next fiscal year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Eme...

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the federal budget, which are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[6] Starting in the fiscal year 2010, however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were categorized as "overseas contingency operations", and the budget is included in the federal budget.