Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hahahahahaahahahaha so the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" that passed with 0 republicans in the house and only a few republicans in the senate and signed by Obama shouldn't be counted as Obama spending??
ARRA of 2009 had very little spending that occured IN 2009, so I don't see what your point is here. Other than to display your complete lack of understanding of how spending at the federal level works. Not to mention that nearly 45% of the ARRA of 2009 was TAX CUTS
this is just deception out of desperation to avoid dealing with reality. Obama drastically raised spending in his first year in order to "stimulate" the economy and that spending never went back down. he turned stimulus spending into the new budget baseline. like I posted (and you conveniently ignore) the democrats passed the American recovery and investment act of 2009 with almost no republicans whatsoever and Obama signed it. that's his bill, 2009 is his spending, not bush's.
but seriously, how obsessed are libs with George w bush? the guy hasn't been president for almost 5 years now. the fact remains that we need to deal with the budget deficit at some point instead of kicking the can down the road every time the discussion comes up.
Specifically identify what Obama policies raised spending in 2009, and how much those policies raised spending by IN 2009.
Specifically identify what Obama policies raised spending in 2009, and how much those policies raised spending by IN 2009.
My guess is that you can't.
do you realize that you say little things as if they are facts and you provide absolutely no detail or support for your claims? i bet you felt you were giving facts and figures in your last posts because liberals think whatever they say are "facts" and everyone that disagrees with them are saying opinions with no supporting proof. on top of that, you have the nerve to ask for more support from me after giving you the numbers and details you asked for.
so you ask for more from me without giving anything to begin with.
because im such a nice guy and you continue to refuse to provide any support for your claims, ill throw in something else:
"Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent to $3.2 trillion in 2009, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy."
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 10-23-2013 at 08:47 AM..
do you realize that you say little things as if they are facts and you provide absolutely no detail or support for your claims? i bet you felt you were giving facts and figures in your last posts because liberals think whatever they say are "facts" and everyone that disagrees with them are saying opinions with no supporting proof. on top of that, you have the nerve to ask for more support from me after giving you the numbers and details you asked for.
so you ask for more from me without giving anything to begin with.
because im such a nice guy and you continue to refuse to provide any support for your claims, ill throw in something else:
"Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent to $3.2 trillion in 2009, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy."
in 2009, ARRA of 2009 added $108B in spending there buddy. As expected, you didn't answer the question with a number.
now, one question you have to ask is that if much of the rest of it was bailouts and stimulus by Bush which included TARP (which I believe has been mostly paid back) and Fannie and Freddie, why hasn't the spending returned to 2008 levels? is the stimulus spending permanent? did Obama replace stimulus spending with other spending that is now permanently baked into the budget? more research is needed.
now, one question you have to ask is that if much of the rest of it was bailouts and stimulus by Bush which included TARP (which I believe has been mostly paid back) and Fannie and Freddie, why hasn't the spending returned to 2008 levels? is the stimulus spending permanent? did Obama replace stimulus spending with other spending that is now permanently baked into the budget? more research is needed.
spending increases every year for a variety of reasons. one very big reason is that 10,000 people per day are turning 65 and hopping on medicare and social security. also, defense spending increases every year as well. these are things set in motion many years back, before GWB even. laws are often back-loaded for spending, so that it doesn't have an immediate impact. and, simply the demographics of our country lead one to realize that spending on certain things is only going to be increasing for next 20 years.
but now that we've established that 2009 spending was largely not Obama's policies, we can move on.
spending increases every year for a variety of reasons. one very big reason is that 10,000 people per day are turning 65 and hopping on medicare and social security. also, defense spending increases every year as well. these are things set in motion many years back, before GWB even. laws are often back-loaded for spending, so that it doesn't have an immediate impact. and, simply the demographics of our country lead one to realize that spending on certain things is only going to be increasing for next 20 years.
but now that we've established that 2009 spending was largely not Obama's policies, we can move on.
thats how you are explaining away the hundreds of billions of dollars that the federal government has increased spending by since 2008 due to multiple stimulus programs that the spending never went down from? yes, you are right that spending goes up for various reasons. but you wouldnt expect it to go up as much as the stimulus programs. there has to be more to it, Obama's budgets for 2010 and on should be lower than they are. it looks to me like obama raised spending levels to keep the budget as high as the stimulus spending raised it.
In Nj, repub political opponents are simply window dressing to make elections appear to be valid contests of honest discussion and factual consideration by an electorate who is incapable of critical thinking.
An electorate who has to be told, 'we have to pass it to see what is in it', a childlike mentality who fails to see a pattern of continual deterioration under dem control.
Booker beat no one, he was the annointed one, we did not need an election and could have saved the taxpayers money.
In Nj, repub political opponents are simply window dressing to make elections appear to be valid contests of honest discussion and factual consideration by an electorate who is incapable of critical thinking.
An electorate who has to be told, 'we have to pass it to see what is in it', a childlike mentality who fails to see a pattern of continual deterioration under dem control.
Booker beat no one, he was the annointed one, we did not need an election and could have saved the taxpayers money.
You're right. Lonegan is no one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
