Anyone have the "official" 2009/2010 budget comparisons

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

What Obama is actually doing is spending more to GIVE healthcare to people who don't have it. Which means those of us who work hard for a living and who made the right choices in life are going to have to pay more in taxes so help support the people who made bad choices.

You know I remember you talking in a previous thread about how you didn't have health insurance and didn't think it was a problem because you were healthy. As has been mentioned in other threads, we already pay for everyone's health care as it is, just like we always have and always will.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Year 2000 Budget = $1.8 Trillion
Year 2010 Budget Deficit = $1.8 Trillion

Yep, isn't that insane? I remember coming on here early in W's Presidency and posting in shock about a 2.2Trillion dollar budget. I really should look up that thread one of these days...


Edit - found it. It was 2.4 trillion.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1278154&arctab=yes

Check out some of the posts in that thread... And also all you libs who consistently try to claim I or others didn't complain "when Bush did it" can kindly STFU.

LOL the very first words to that post came from me...

"The republican party needs to resume (sic - I'm sure I meant return) to it's fiscally conservative roots. Or the Democrats need to quit with the pseudo-conservatist double-speak and get real or get out..."

Yah, I'm just now finding fiscal conservatism too :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Year 2000 Budget = $1.8 Trillion
Year 2010 Budget Deficit = $1.8 Trillion

Yep, isn't that insane? I remember coming on here early in W's Presidency and posting in shock about a 2.2Trillion dollar budget. I really should look up that thread one of these days...


Edit - found it. It was 2.4 trillion.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1278154&arctab=yes

Check out some of the posts in that thread... And also all you libs who consistently try to claim I or others didn't complain "when Bush did it" can kindly STFU.

LOL the very first words to that post came from me...

"The republican party needs to resume (sic - I'm sure I meant return) to it's fiscally conservative roots. Or the Democrats need to quit with the pseudo-conservatist double-speak and get real or get out..."

Yah, I'm just now finding fiscal conservatism too :roll:

Hmm..... crickets....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Which means those of us who work hard for a living and who made the right choices in life are going to have to pay more in taxes so help support the people who made bad choices.

Insurance salesman don't deserve their dollars anyway.

So now government is not only a charity, but an insurance company? 😕

Ofcourse it is... in the mind of a liberal/socialist.... not that any of them seem to be coming into this thread anymore...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY ~~~
Ofcourse it is... in the mind of a liberal/socialist.... not that any of them seem to be coming into this thread anymore...

Not to speak for others but I'm very tired of your Obtuse Bullshit and Johnie's never-ending propaganda and obfuscation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY ~~~
Ofcourse it is... in the mind of a liberal/socialist.... not that any of them seem to be coming into this thread anymore...

Not to speak for others but I'm very tired of your Obtuse Bullshit and Johnie's never-ending propaganda and obfuscation.

Then continue on ignoring reality if you think it's too "obtuse" for you.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY ~~~
Ofcourse it is... in the mind of a liberal/socialist.... not that any of them seem to be coming into this thread anymore...

Not to speak for others but I'm very tired of your Obtuse Bullshit and Johnie's never-ending propaganda and obfuscation.

Then continue on ignoring reality if you think it's too "obtuse" for you.

Yeah, CAD. Obtuse Bullshit meaning: 1) Lacking quickness of perception or intellect; and
2) Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity.

The OP starts a troll thread without a link and goes off on a rant against 'tax and spend' Democrats. A link to Fox, and opinion piece from the WSJ and a YouTube video are presented.

Johnnie files his typical obfuscation and you pat yourself on the back (for no reason) and accuse me of ignoring reality.

I believe I've summarized this thread quite well, thank you.

And I also have enough common sense and intellect to download the FY 2010 budget summary directly from the Whitehouse and am quite impressed with its honesty and truthfulness - something we have not seen from you or the Republican party over the last 8 years.

I'm not saying I like the budget but at least we have an administration that is being up front and honest with its citizens during the greatest economic crisis we may ever face. And that is r-e-a-l-i-t-y, CAD.

So keep on whining, trolling and patting yourself on the back. Now that's reality!

 

[DealMonkey]

Can anyone answer with any degree of honesty why they feel the Bush Administration kept the cost of the wars off the books? Did they really think the public was so naive that they would look at the Bush-era budget numbers and NOT add in the emergency spending measures that were passed each year? Or was it done to dodge proper oversight of military spending?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
It seems to me Obama & co. ARE living up to the "tax and spend" namesake, and making the wildly out of control spending of Bush look downright conservative.

But it would be helpful to see real numbers, I think I found 2009 which looks like about 3.3 trillion including Iraq/afghanistan.


edit: Actually, I'll go with "TAX, BORROW and SPEND" O&C verus " tax, Borrow and Spend" of B&C 🙂

Based on the numbers I'm seeing here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/...ra/Summary_Tables2.pdf

FY 2009 Total Outlays (in Billions of $): 3,938
FY 2010 Total Outlays (in Billions of $): 3,552

Am I reading that right? Is Obama's 2010 budget going to cost less than 2009?!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
It seems to me Obama & co. ARE living up to the "tax and spend" namesake, and making the wildly out of control spending of Bush look downright conservative.

But it would be helpful to see real numbers, I think I found 2009 which looks like about 3.3 trillion including Iraq/afghanistan.


edit: Actually, I'll go with "TAX, BORROW and SPEND" O&C verus " tax, Borrow and Spend" of B&C 🙂

Based on the numbers I'm seeing here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/...ra/Summary_Tables2.pdf

FY 2009 Total Outlays (in Billions of $): 3,938
FY 2010 Total Outlays (in Billions of $): 3,552

Am I reading that right? Is Obama's 2010 budget going to cost less than 2009?!

Part of his cut the deficit in half by 2013 program.

Some of those numbers look rather optimistic as well. 2010 he expects to see a return to 3.5% GDP growth.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
It seems to me Obama & co. ARE living up to the "tax and spend" namesake, and making the wildly out of control spending of Bush look downright conservative.

But it would be helpful to see real numbers, I think I found 2009 which looks like about 3.3 trillion including Iraq/afghanistan.


edit: Actually, I'll go with "TAX, BORROW and SPEND" O&C verus " tax, Borrow and Spend" of B&C 🙂

Based on the numbers I'm seeing here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/...ra/Summary_Tables2.pdf

FY 2009 Total Outlays (in Billions of $): 3,938
FY 2010 Total Outlays (in Billions of $): 3,552

Am I reading that right? Is Obama's 2010 budget going to cost less than 2009?!

Considering Obama just injected hundreds of billions into FY2009, why is that suprising?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Part of his cut the deficit in half by 2013 program.

Some of those numbers look rather optimistic as well. 2010 he expects to see a return to 3.5% GDP growth.

He needs that ridiculously rosy prediction (US average annual GDP is a lot less than 4% a year over the last 70 years) to get his deficit in half.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY ~~~
Ofcourse it is... in the mind of a liberal/socialist.... not that any of them seem to be coming into this thread anymore...

Not to speak for others but I'm very tired of your Obtuse Bullshit and Johnie's never-ending propaganda and obfuscation.

Then continue on ignoring reality if you think it's too "obtuse" for you.

Yeah, CAD. Obtuse Bullshit meaning: 1) Lacking quickness of perception or intellect; and
2) Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity.

The OP starts a troll thread without a link and goes off on a rant against 'tax and spend' Democrats. A link to Fox, and opinion piece from the WSJ and a YouTube video are presented.

Johnnie files his typical obfuscation and you pat yourself on the back (for no reason) and accuse me of ignoring reality.

I believe I've summarized this thread quite well, thank you.

And I also have enough common sense and intellect to download the FY 2010 budget summary directly from the Whitehouse and am quite impressed with its honesty and truthfulness - something we have not seen from you or the Republican party over the last 8 years.

I'm not saying I like the budget but at least we have an administration that is being up front and honest with its citizens during the greatest economic crisis we may ever face. And that is r-e-a-l-i-t-y, CAD.

So keep on whining, trolling and patting yourself on the back. Now that's reality!

That's a lot of effort to ignore the question in the OP. Bonus points for a Bush jab while you rant at CAD.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can anyone answer with any degree of honesty why they feel the Bush Administration kept the cost of the wars off the books? Did they really think the public was so naive that they would look at the Bush-era budget numbers and NOT add in the emergency spending measures that were passed each year? Or was it done to dodge proper oversight of military spending?

The numbers for the war are on the books.

They were not included in the original budgets, but they are included in year end figures.
example
Look at pages 54 and 55 and look at the 'National Defense' numbers.
In 2001 we spent $300 billion on defense by 2006 that number was up to $521 billion.
That increase is mainly caused by Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.