The Obushma Spending Record

We saw earlier today here at Hit and Run the hideous lineaments of President George W. Bush's spending record. The Heritage Foundation's blog outlines the ways Obama is shaping up as more of the same, and then some. Lowlights:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Comments

[Lefiti]

Private-sector scandals and scams put government waste to shame.

[mike farmer]

Yes, government should ashamed of the part they play in private-sector scandals and scams.

[mike farmer]

should be ashamed

[KyleG]

fuck.

[Suki]

We saw earlier today here at Hit and Run the hideous lineaments of President George W. Bush's spending record.

The writer of that post said the same thing you are saying. However, the knowledgable commentators pointed out thet the president is no longer in control of spending, the Congress controls that.

As much as one may not like former President Bush, it would be proper to phrase things like this correctly. "The Bush era Congress spent like drunken sailors," or something like that.

Thank you to the commentators on the thread who pointed out the differences in fiscal issues pre and post budget acts of the 1970's (do I have the era right?).

[Suki]

Right here in this post, perhaps I can help you a bit.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

The Congress, during the Bush Administration, expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008.

President Obama would wish to add another $1 trillion.

See? Pretty easy.

[Josh]

Bush could be absolved from any responsibility had these budgets been passed over his veto. But he signed them, thus owns responsibility for this mess just like Congress does.

[pinko]

Maybe I missed something. That war of choice in 2003 that it likely to cost over a trillion when all is said and done. Did Heritage miss that? Or is it just other instances of their general douchebaggery that I am thinking of. Cause that one-trillion dollar war's a real bitch. Anti-poverty, education, roads and bridges, etc. We might see some of those benefits eventually. The war of choice, not so much.

[Suki]

Bush could be absolved from any responsibility had these budgets been passed over his veto. But he signed them, thus owns responsibility for this mess just like Congress does.

Just like all of the court convictions that he did not pardon?

[Anonymous]

Socialism and corporate control? I don't know, he has big ears. But Aldoph is articulate.

[Fluffy]

I think it's important to note that one reason Obama's spending orgy is so obscene is that Bush moved the goalposts.

His actions disarmed and discredited the GOP and conservatives in general on issues of spending and fiscal responsibility. Bush moved the spending debate and the deficit debate forcibly into the trillions.

Bush's series of bailouts and interventions also appear to have completely removed the brakes from the federal government's willingness to directly intervene in the private sector economy, and we are now lurching about, "pragmatically" considering some new extreme course of action literally every week. Since Bush was willing to consider nationalizing large sectors of the economy, that's now the new "conservative" - and so it's not really that surprising to see members of Congress openly considering crafting tax bills designed to effectively "proscribe" and expropriate named individuals.

After Bush, there is almost nothing that's beyond the federal government's contemplation. And this is what us "deranged" Bush haters warned you mofos of at the time.

[Fluffy]

Just like all of the court convictions that he did not pardon?

Right, because Bush's level of involvement in getting No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit is comparable to his level of involvement in your average federal court conviction.

There is literally no lunacy that you Bush fellators won't permit yourselves, is there?

[prolefeed]

However, the knowledgable commentators pointed out thet the president is no longer in control of spending, the Congress controls that.

Bullshit. The president can veto spending. It's harder to pass a spending bill with a 2/3 override in both chambers than 50.1% 0f the House and 60% of the Senate.

Bush almost never wielded the veto pen.

And, if you're someone like Ron Paul, you could refuse to spend money on veto-overriden stuff on the basis that it is unconstitutional. Now that would take guts, and probably get you impeached, but to say the president doesn't control spending is nonsense. They just don't WANT to do so.

[Anonymous]

So it should be that much easier to call socialists what they are, when they're that far left of big-government not-conservative Bush... not that there's anything wrong with that, since I don't want to be convicted of hate speech for being racist.

[Orange Line Special]

So, basically, what Reason is saying is that we're living in something approaching a one-party state. And, Reason is saying that they aren't willing to do much about it except whine, make stupid videos, and keep replaying those stupid videos over and over. And, Reason is implicitly saying that they don't even have what it takes to make this list.

Got it, thanks.

[Kolohe]

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

It's actually a little more as the heritage source I think uses fiscal years and thus disregards most of the first round of TARP and other things the Fed did to have an unprecedented balance sheet last fall. (Heritage figure is 5.8 trillion for the 2008 debt #; the treas website has 6.4 trillion for the end of the calender year and 5.8 tril for the FY)

And of course the whole calc disregards social security / medicare.

[minoa13]

Tilted the tax system to shift the burden to the Rich? Or reduced the rates on the rich, but the rich were so prosperous they paid more in absolute terms, but less in %. More prosperous doing what? oh yeah, inflating a credit bubble, taking commissions and bonuses, then when it collapsed, taking bailouts and bonuses)

[Lester Hunt]

Instead of McSame, we got O-same.

[Anonymous]

The "same" "meme" is insipid.

Sure, they're going to destroy the nation in the same way -- by creating a totalitarian utopia. Most voters desire a totalitarian utopia, you fucking idiot. We all know they're wrong. The difference between us and the oligarchy, so to speak, is that we think everybody else should have exactly what they want as individuals; they think they can use populism to destroy the dissenters.

Grow some testicles.

[Silentz]

Well, all this spending is going to lead us to utopia, right? No matter who does the spending, right? So what's it matter if we all have a pony? Who cares if we'll eventually have to pay for it? It's a pony!

All of this "He did it!" "No! He did it!" bullshit isn't going to get any of us anywhere. Lets all just agree that this absurd spending binge isn't going to solve anything, no matter who or when it started, because it doesn't really matter at all anymore. And just because someone started it, doesn't mean it's okay for it to continue. That's a ridiculous argument.

Adding to our debt in this manner can lead to nothing good.

[Never got to say this before]

Shut the fuck up, Lone Wacko.

[Lefiti]

My goodness, the level of discourse here is sooooo high.

[economist]

Welcome to the middle of the 16-year-assrape fest. We're sorry you missed the first half, but the real party starts in the second half. And, maybe if we get drunk enough, it can last twenty-four years. You brought lube, right?

[Lefiti]

I have nothing better to do than go online late at night and tell people that they are irrelevant and that they suck. I'm going to go get drunk and jerk off to Obama's inauguration speech now.

[scape]

Gore would have been worse.

[MlR]

Yes he can! (do exactly what Bush did, except moreso, while decrying it)

[TallDave]

Heh, I said we'd miss Bush's relatively tame expansion of gov't.

[Lefiti\'s Doctor]

It appears that poor Lefiti stimulated himself to death while watching his recording of Barack Obama's inauguration speech. We found his stash of methamphetamine and a stained Obama poster near his bed.

[economist]

TallDave,
Obama has not yet expanded the government as much as Bush did. But he's off to a roaring start, and I have no doubt that at the end your prediction will come true.

I hate it when TallDave is right.

[JB]

But, but changes we is cans believe in!

[Lefiti]

JB,
I challenge you to a troll war! May the best troll win!

[Brandybuck]

And this is what us "deranged" Bush haters warned you mofos of at the time.

Actually, what I remember most about the deranged Bush haters is that they would foam at the mouth about "nukular" and cowboy hats and crap like that. I didn't hear too much whining from the professional whiner class about expanding the government's role in education, prescription drugs, financial markets, etc. Yeah, you did manage to utter some indignations about the civil liberties, but I suspect most of it was a kneejerk reaction.

Obama has not yet expanded the government as much as Bush did.

Fucking idiots! The barbed cock of satan moves so slowly you can hardly feel the blood loss. Give the man-beast at least six months to get up to speed, and then fill out the lube requisition, if you have the strength.

[prolefeed]

Sure, they're going to destroy the nation in the same way -- by creating a totalitarian utopia.

That's "totalitarian dystopia". There's nothing "eu" about totalitarianism -- unless you're the one calling the shots.

[Anonymous]

I meant it's their vision is of "utopia," even though by definition utopia becomes dystopia by its impossible nature, which is recognized in the term's etymology and the very literature of its origin.

In fact, Leftists' use of the word itself betrays their impure motives. It's akin to criminalizing flatulance to protect unicorns: even if everyone were to agree that unicorns would be harmed by it if they were to exist, they don't exist. I hoped that was obvious, but I guess that's considered "lost knowledge" to academics.

[jtuf]

Ah, Demoratic leadership, just like Republican leadership but with 20% more of George Bush's policies.

[Nooge]

As long as the proles can fuck and eat all they want, they're not going to care.

[Episiarch]

Heh, I said we'd miss Bush's relatively tame expansion of gov't.

"Relatively tame"?!? Are you fucking serious? Just because Obama is set to expand it even more doesn't reduce how much Bush did it. Nice try, Dave. This is like saying getting raped by 3 guys is relatively tame compared to being raped by 6.

How people like you can defend Bush is so beyond my understanding that you might as well be an alien.

[R C Dean]

I think it's important to note that one reason Obama's spending orgy is so obscene is that Bush moved the goalposts.

More performance art from Obamatrons desperately seeking to displace blame and shame onto Bush. Good stuff, Fluffy. I look forward to more mental contortions. Bush-blame is a rapidly depreciating asset, though - better use it while you can.

[ed]

But they inherited it!

[TofuSushi]

Thi is shameful, blaming the Bush failures on Obama. Ed is right, Obama inherited these problems and now has to clean up the mess with more money.

At least the right people are in charge now.

[idiotface]

RC Dean and Tall Dave, are you kidding?

I will repeat the programs ($$$) which Bush initiated: No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit, TARP, Airline and Insurance Company bailouts (post 9/11) and the initial economic stimulus. Not to mention the justified, but easily questionable TSA, Dept of Homeland Security and the Iraq war. What part of big spender don't you understand?

[Tony]

If Republicans had any concept of how to manage a budget the current government wouldn't have to be spending so much money to rescue the country from financial collapse.

[James Ard]

I get it that TofuSushi is a joe spoofer, but who is Tony spoofing?

[Hugh Jass]

Let's see if I have this correct: it's wrong to point out that Obama inherited an economy in meltdown. But Clinton was to blame for 9/11, right?

[R C Dean]

What part of big spender don't you understand?

I understand it just fine, and despise Bush and Republican Congress's accordingly.

I also understand just fine that Obama has already increased, in just a few months, baseline spending commitments almost as much as Bush did in eight years. Of course, I count most of the "stimulus" bill as a baseline spending commitment. Because it is.

[g4m3th30ry]

@fluffy -

Brandybuck beat me to it - but you seem to be the deranged one as your post seems to blame Obama's massive spending bills on Bush. Now that's deranged.

@minoa13 -

During the Bush tax cuts, the percentage of total money the highest income earners paid increased. Meaning, and I can't find the numbers right now - but it was something like the top 1% paid 28% of all taxes before Bush, but paid 30% of all taxes after Bush.

So their burden increased.

Simply because you don't believe something does not mean it's not true.

[zoltan]

Fluffy didn't say Obama's massive spending bills were Bush's fault. S/he was saying Bush's financial idiocy will result in and has resulted in the next president acting like the next drunken sailor with the purse strings. Bush moronically spent our country in the ground with a trillion-dollar war and a symbiotic relationship with Congress (you give me money for killing brown people and I'll let you have all the farm, housing, education, healthcare, and whatever else bullshit that you want). That is truly the evil beast Bush created and that Obama is running with. Though now he doesn't even have to haggle anymore, since everyone is used to Congress spending like idiots for the last eight years with the President looking away heroically. Thanks, Bush. Thanks, Obama. You assholes have ruined and will continue to ruin this country with your inane spending and lack of responsibility.

But I forgot that all the Bush fellators like RC Dean, John, TallDave, etc. think if you criticize him for something it's automatically BDS. I mean, with his dick in your mouth and your hands on his asscheeks, it's difficult to get a grip on anything else.

[Anonymous]

Bush's financial idiocy

Of course, Obama's just being dragged by the nose by the Democrat-stuffed Congress.

[J.P.]

My "Impeach Obama" sticker just joined my "Impeach Bush" sticker on the bumper.

What are the odds we get two bumbling idiots in a row? And, what are the odds we get a nymphomaniac followed by two bumbling idiots...

[Greg]

Change you can believe in!

[RobZ]

What I can't understand is what sort of moron would report numbers from the Heritage Foundation as if they were a reliable source.

[Fascist Nation]

Thanks for pulling together that A-B list. I am sick of Republicans wanting to bash Obama -- who deserves it -- but want to ignore or defend not just Bush, but twelve years of Republican control of the purse strings, including six under Bush. Add no win wars to the debt and well, it isn't pretty, but somebody gets the blame. All you mothers!

[will]

Clearly, our only choice is the lamp post tango and suicide.