gcomeau wrote: Yeah, we're really going to have to do this again aren't we?
Like I already told you once. Signing the bills in a certain year doesn't make the money they call to be spent get spent IN that budget year. The majority of the spending from those bills you just listed occurred in the NEXT fiscal year and that spending therefore goes on the NEXT fiscal year's budget. Not 2009's. As I already told you a small portion of those bills spending occurred in FY2009, and that spending increased the deficit a marginal amount for that year. But Bush had ALREADY run that deficit up well north of a Trillion dollars before Obama even set foot in the White House. What part of this are you having such difficulty following?
And you do also realize that a huge chunk of the debt for the next many years was not spending driven, but revenue driven due to the collapse of the economy.... right? And who was presiding over the economic collapse?
Yes well, if you weren't taunting people for falling into your "trap" when you don't know what you're talking about AND when you deleted the part of their post where they stated the thing you claimed they didn't know you wouldn't earn the condescension.
Once again you fail the test. I am not blaming Obama because he signed the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, I am blaming Obama because it was legislated and passed on his watch.
Had you simply looked at the facts, rather than once again parading talking points, you would have seen that this particular piece of legislation (HR 1105) was introduced by Obey on 2/23/2009.
My recollection is that the Dems controlled both the house and the senate and Obama was president on 2/23/2009 when the bill was introduced, and he signed it (on March 11, 2009) after the house and the senate passed it.
NOBODY is arguing he didn't sign stimulus, or that the Demorats were not responsible for pushing stimulus. So what the hell are you talking about? What argument do you even think you're having?
What is being pointed out is that that stimulus didn't create the giant upswing in the deficit. That happened first while the economy was imploding. (Which, if you're following along, is why we *needed* a Stimulus). The stimulus added some to it, but the big jump had already happened.
It is also a fact that the bill increased spending,
No kidding! It was a stimulus. Spending was the entire point.
So once again, these are FACTS that you conveniently fail to mention in your analysis and rebuttal.
No, what is a FACT is that you still clearly are either not reading my posts, not understanding the words in them, or deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
What the HELL do you think this means? "Like I already told you once. Signing the bills in a certain year doesn't make the money they call to be spent get spent IN that budget year. The majority of the spending from those bills you just listed occurred in the NEXT fiscal year and that spending therefore goes on the NEXT fiscal year's budget. Not 2009's. As I already told you a small portion of those bills spending occurred in FY2009, and that spending increased the deficit a marginal amount for that year. But Bush had ALREADY run that deficit up well north of a Trillion dollars before Obama even set foot in the White House. What part of this are you having such difficulty following?"
Do you see how many times I refer to the spending in those bills in there? I bolded them all just to help you find them. Does that give you the impression I "conveniently failed to mention" that those bills contained spending in my analysis and rebuttal? Does it?
Another FACT you fail to mention, is the CBO budget analysis of March of 2009 on the president's budget proposals, and I assume the impacts of the Omnibus budget because it does include "current law" - which included the impacts of Bush.
So the COB Baseline estimate vs CBO's estimate of the Obama Budgets vs actuals were:
2009 - $1.667T - $1.845T - $1.413T
2010 - $1.139T - $1.379T - $1.294T
2011 - $0.693T - $0.970T - $1.295T
2012 - $0.331T - $0.658T - $1.087T
2013 - $0.300T - $0.672T - $0.679T
2014 - $0.310T - $0.749T - $0.485T
2015 - $0.282T - $0.785T - $0.438T
2016 - $0.327T - $0.895T - $0.587T
A couple tips.
1. Links help. (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... budget.pdf
2. Label your tables so people know what you're talking about.
Column 1 there is the CBO baseline deficit estimate before enaction of Obama's updated budget items. Column 2 is the new deficit projections with those proposed changes enacted. Table 3 is the difference between them.
So while Obama did beat the CBO's estimate of his budgets in certain year, the deficits far exceeded those projected under Bush budgets and "current law" as of the March 2009 analysis. (Note that the CBO analysis of 2009 was done when the Dems held the majority in both houses.)
NO KIDDING. It was a stimulus.
You understand how stimulus works don't you? You trade short term increased deficits for increased economic activity, in exchange for the *long term* tradeoff of returning the economy to health sooner and making up the deficits in the future by bringing in increased revenue off the healthy economy once it's back on it's feet.
You DO understand that right?
But there is a further complication in that the House was taken over by the GOP in 2010 while the Senate Dems held the majority until 2014. Although the Sequester started in 2013.
So once again, the analysis turns to:
"How much is Bush to blame for the Obama run up in the debt?"
Sigh... we already covered this. And you didn't day a single thing that changed it. EVERYTHING you just said addressed deficits in the years after
the handoff to Obama, NOTHING you just said had a thing to do with the size of the deficit Obama got handed in the first damn place.
So we are STILL at this:
1. Bush handed Obama a deficit well north of a Trillion dollars.
2. Obama massively reduced the deficit from those levels.
And nothing you just said had a single thing to do with changing that reality.
(If you want a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of those numbers however, try reading up on how much the deficit projections were revised wore NOT because of Obama's stimulus, but because of the progressive revisions to the actual GDP contraction in the close of 2008 as the BEA kept getting additional data that showed how much worse economic collapse actually was than they thought it was in early 2009 based on still incomplete economic indicators. Here's a good starting point for you:https://bea.gov/faq/index.cfm?faq_id=1003