LOL, now you are going back to net costs?!?! So then not only should Obama not have had to spend 100 billion the next year, an extra 80 billion should have come in, that transaction alone leaves a 180 billion gap in the next years spending..... The deficit the next year should have been 180 billion dollars lower just based on that transaction.
Were you not paying attention in 2010? He didn't really make a choice there, 42 Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster ALL legislation (yes ALL, not just those relating to Bush tax cuts) until an extension was passed. Here is a review of what happened. http://www.opencongress.org/article...ster-Dem-Tax-Cut-Plan-Compromise-Now-Imminent Except those are temporary and were actually targeted stimulus during high unemployment. It's only funny because you are not paying attention. The left was 'demagoguing' the fact that Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy disproportionately which is why the Democrats argued for extending the cuts for the middle class while letting the other parts expire. Talking about spending orgies, I can list atleast three big spending items under Bush along with increase in discretionary spending. Under Obama, there is the stimulus with discretionary spending declining steadily. Can you list the other big spending items under Obama.
First, I wasn't talking about the 'gap' in outlays, the gap of 150 billion dollars between two fiscal years wasn't significant enough to lower the spending levels since mandatory spending in other areas increased. (the details are there in the CBO PDF I posted) Second, I was talking about what Obama should have said while taking credit for the auto bailouts, in the same way Bush can take credit for the fact that the financial institution bailouts that happened under him were completely paid back with a profit.
How are tax cuts attributed as spending in the first place? It was certainly not me who was making that point, you simply assumed it out of nowhere. Also, if you want to look at policies that's causing the debt to explode, here is a good start. Simply color coding Congress control without looking at the legislation itself is deceptive since there is significant lag between passing a law and it's budgetary impact. (A good example is Medicare Part D which was passed in 2003 but went into effect in 2006) Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases. Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent. Legislative drivers can be further broken down using CBO cost estimates for six high-profile laws enacted over the last 10 years as well as the cost of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 1. The 2001/2003 tax cuts (Republican President + Republican Congress) 2. The overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; (Republican President + Republican Congress for Iraq War, Both Parties for Afghanistan war) 3. Medicare Part D (Republican President + Republican Congress) 4. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)(Republican President + Both Parties in Congress) 5. The 2009 stimulus (Democratic President + Democratic Congress) 6. The December 2010 tax legislation. (Democratic President + Both Parties in Congress) The excess growth in publicly-held federal debt beyond 2001 expectations has been the result of a variety of factors. However, new legislation enacted since January 2001 has been responsible for two-thirds of the debt growth. In the new legislation, roughly three dollars of new spending has been enacted for every two dollars in tax cuts between 2001 and 2011. No single policy or piece of legislation, however, is overwhelmingly responsible for the $12.7 trillion shift in CBOâs debt projections for 2011 that occurred between January 2001 and March 2011. Full Report http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...ic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf
200 billion dollars in spending that never should have happened the next year because it was a 1 time TARP payment is not significant?!?! On 3.5 trillion in spending?!?!?! Really???This is starting to become very clear now..... Its no wonder you think that Obama is a fiscal conservative, with comments like that.... in and of itself, that represents a 6% increase in spending, couple that with Stimulus.Omnibus, and Obama jacked up spending by 12%. Thats a tsunami, it is not insignificant.
Not 200, it's 150 billion. And the reason '150 billion' didn't make a dent in the spending levels (as I have said again and again) is because mandatory spending in others areas increased significantly because of the recession. If it wasn't for the recession, that 150 billion decrease would have made a dent on the FY 2010 deficit. Regarding the stimulus - 1/3rd of the stimulus was tax cuts which won't show up on spending charts anyway. Omnibus bill added 31 billion to the FY 09 deficit and if you look at the 2010 budget figures, it added less to the deficit then a Bush's FY 2008 budget baseline would have (before any temporary spending). Compared to Bush (and Reagan), Obama is indeed a fiscal conservative.
Jan. 12, 2009, 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. 200 billion in TARP +31 Omnibus, +140 Stimulus = 370 Billion dollars on a 3.5 trillion dollar deficit, thats a 10.5% increase, I was wrong to say 12%, its only 10.5% he increased it by.
This is a joke right??? I will readily concede the fact that Bush and Reagan spent money, Bush was the biggest ass hole this country has ever seen, and in close second is Obama..... you really have to be seriously be delusional to think that Obama came in and acted as a fiscal conservative......
That's why I said COMPARED to Bush and Reagan he is a fiscal conservative, by himself Obama is not a fiscal Conservative. Also, as I have asked you earlier, I can list some really big spending items under Bush, what big spending items has Obama signed that are increasing the debt and deficit. There is the stimulus but what else? Comparing Obama to Bush who signed multiple budget busting bills is kind of disingenuous. Infact, without a recession that he inherited, there won't have been any big increases in spending if one simply looks at his fiscal record.