First, the FY 09 budget was bush's. CBO profected over a $1 tril deficit before Obama even took office. Obama signed the last piece of the budget that year when the year was already half over. The major sepnding was signed by bush.<quoted text>
Any comment? Why yes, joe - the same comment I posted last time I had to pull your pants down around your ankles over this ridiculously lame post of yours -
You're lying with statistics (that is, the Obobo Truth Squad propaganda ministry you're dutifully shilling for is).
Here's the truth (again):
Federal sending was rock-steady under 20% of GDP until FY2009, when it exploded to OVER 25% of GDP, AND HAS REMAINED THERE THRUOUT OBOBO THE INCOMPETENT'S TERM.
Yes Bush properly is accountable for 4 months of that FY2009 spend - AND OBOBO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE REST OF IT - and more importantly he's 100% accountable for doing NOTHING to bring federal spending back down to a sustainable level of 18% of GDP or less. In fact, he's INCREASING federal spending as % of GDP in 2012!
So your cries of 'ALL HAIL OBOBO' for 'holding federal spending steady' during his term are ABSURD - that's like praising Capt. Joseph Smith for holding the flooding on the Titanic steady until she sank after hitting the iceberg.
Here's a more thorough fact-based debunking of the whole bullshyte 'Obobo is a fiscal hawk' meme:
And, as usual, Krauthammer tells it like it really is:
"That is what makes it whopper of the year," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer says of a report that federal spending, under the Obama administration, has risen at the lowest pace in 60 years. "This is an unbelievable distortion of the truth. If you compare it to what was spent in the Bush years, particularly if you take out the emergency spending that the two administrations agreed on in the end -- the bailouts -- then you have an 8% increase, which is historic. You had it in 2009 alone, increases in the agencies of 20% and 50% in some of the agencies. Historically high and Obama increased it year after year."
"So what he is talking about really is a false impression. There was no intention ever by any administration of repeating the bailouts that you have to have in September, October, and November of 2008 and then the beginning of 2009. And if you count it in it's deliberately distorting the facts. And I'm not sure if there is anybody who believes it because it's so obvious, If an administration starts with the largest stimulus spending bill in galactic history, it obviously is not cost-cutting administration," he said.
So take this lie and stuff it, joe - don't make me pull your pants down a THIRD time.
In a down economic cycle it normal for spending to go up and for revenues to fall. Go back and show us the last time that was not true. It happened under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and bush. The economy has not recovered so spending is still high and revenues are still down. What tax increases do you support to restore revenues to 18 - 19% of GDP? Until you identify that, why should anyone cut spending?
The last time spending was cut, the Republicans passed tax cuts making it a zero sum game. No more cuts until taxes are increased.