If people rise up in arms . . .

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Rob, I am aware of this of course but where do these numbers show up? It's real money and allot of it. ??

That's why he kept it off budget, they don't show up. Plus he also blew the surplus Bill left him, no sir Barack has a long way to go to outspend Dubya.

[piece-itpete]

If you go back to the previous year chart at this site:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

It says: "UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above."

You guys are blowing us out of the water spending wise.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

If you go back to the previous year chart at this site:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

It says: "UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above."

You guys are blowing us out of the water spending wise.

Pete

Pete, not sure if you are not understanding or being a partizan's GOPer.
Although the war is included it does not show up in the chart because it was paid for with emergency monies. This means that the emergency monies are gone and need to be replaced!

The emergency monies were not accumulated under him!
So your graph although accurate is very misleading.

It's as if your parents saved their money and you inherit it. Now you go out and buy all kinds of stuff and say, well I only borrowed $500 (billion). Although it is true that you only borrowed $500 you still need to pay back $1,200 (billion) or screw your kids out of their inheritance.

Feeling "entitled" as you do (Bush, not you personally) you don't worry about it and screw your kid, (Obama).

(I had to throw in that last line about entitlement, just had to.)

[piece-itpete]

Whoohoo, we're still screwing Obama

The CBO doesn't care what shinanigans the politicos do, it calculates money in and money out. For example, even though a 'surplus' was recorded in what 1999, 2000? the CBO shows our debt went UP. So yes indeed that spending is in there.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Whoohoo, we're still screwing Obama

The CBO doesn't care what shinanigans the politicos do, it calculates money in and money out. For example, even though a 'surplus' was recorded in what 1999, 2000? the CBO shows our debt went UP. So yes indeed that spending is in there.

Pete

Pete, your chart only shows the deficit.


By the way, Bush left an ongoing expense without increasing his revenues literally guaranteeing his replacement would show bigger deficits than he had even if monies to save the country were not needed.

The bottom line is this entire Obama is creating giant deficits is completely disingenuous.

[piece-itpete]

More money out than money in = deficit.

And dude, they immediately spent 870 Billion Dollars.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

More money out than money in = deficit.

And dude, they immediately spent 870 Billion Dollars.

Pete

Pete I love ya but I debunked your chart and you keep coming back for more.

870 spend was necessitated by what?

come on say it, (and be honest)

[piece-itpete]

Will someone please stop in here and explain how this chart works? It is accurate , at least the non projection part, as accurate as this countries' got.

The porkulous? It was absolutely neccessary, because just the thought of a Democrat President sent the market into a tailspin

See, fair and balanced lol.

Pete