I don't blame you for being ashamed to identity Coulter's POS screed. Only a crazy LYING bitch like her could claim that "By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed,..." And given the FACT that Dubya and 30 years of Reagan's 2 Santa Clause, laffer curve voodoo economics came CRASHING down, Dubya cannot receive too much blame.<quoted text>
Of course those points became talking points. Democrats wet their Depends in excitement any time they find something from a reputable (to them) source that props up their manchild President.
BUT; Obama didn't just come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. What he did was to immediately sign off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch's Nutting said that was Bush's spending.
Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) which were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money.
But on Jan. 12, 2009, you might recall that Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.
What a joke.
Politifact and FactCheck has measured and Factual responses...not BULLSH!T from Dubya's apologists.
From Factcheck: Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.
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.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest.In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.
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 if current spending is an “inferno,” it’s one that Bush (and Congress) is mostly responsible for starting. But it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out."