Even if the graph is true, that means that Obama increased spending when his revenue was markedly decreasing.

gotta spend money to make money

Revenue has been increasing since the crisis.

Obama not doing enough to offset Bush's mess is the best you can honestly do.

This is how keynesian economics works. The problem is he didn't spend enough. If he had spent as much as Reagan did than maybe the numbers wouldn't be so ugly right now.

Its important to note that this is Bush's budget even though Obama added some stuff to it. As long as you add whatever Obama added to his column then it should be gravy. I don't see what the big hustle is here?

Oh I'm sorry, I missed the fact Obama had no authority over bush 2 months after inauguration.

Oh I'm sorry, I missed the part where every president revamped the last presidents budget.

Hmm so now Obamas increased spending is inertias fault. Keep going, this is fun.

Btw, what I think is especially hilarious is how Obama controls job creation, but not the budget he signs.

FYP.

No, it really isn't. I voted for Obama, have no axe to grind here. But folks are wrong here as I pointed out in other thread. Obama signed a budget 2 months after office--a budget passed by Dem House and Dem Senate. If he wasn't happy with it, his team could have been working it and delayed it until it was right (e.g., last year's budget was delayed until May or so because of disagreements in divided govt). And Obama rolled in on a wave of popularity with a "mandate" for change, so it isn't like he had no political capital if he wanted to slow spending growth (which he didn't, as shown by adding another $400B to it, then adding the stimulus on top of that). Just no way getting around the fact that FY09 should count far more against Obama than Bush, I'd say giving Obama 50% of the increase in FY09 Presidential Budget and also adding his own additions ($400B), would be fair (others have noted that stimulus already counted against him). When that is done, it drastically changes the chart. Yet I still prefer him to the alternatives, albeit with less enthusiasm than if the chart was closer to reality.

This is ridiculous. Obama increased spending is ldo. This chart just says he increased spending less than al the other dudes. (FACTOID) There are a myriad of problems with attributing the 2009 budget to Obama, most of which I'm sure have been touched on.

You must think its a great presidential strategy to come into office 4 months into a fiscal year without getting acclimated too veto the budget and nerf all of the existing budgets dramatically. So much for all of that uncertainty that Obama is ldo creating.

I was under the impression that the increase was the stimulus?!?

He wouldn't have to veto it. The Congress was run by his party, and he had massive political capital such that his party opposing him wasn't really a factor. All his team would have to do would be work what changes they wanted through Congress. Not trivial, but hardly impossible for a President newly elected with the type of massive momentum Obama came in on. It never would have gotten to a vote if his Administration really opposed it. As it is, there's a reason it took 2 months of continued resolutions to keep govt operating before it was passed for his signature--because it was being worked. Not just waiting in a glass box to be opened for signature two months later.

The ARRA is a separate bill which he signed in Feb. The budget is another bill (Omnibus Appropriations Act) signed in March. I believe that they are separate and the second bill doesn't include the ARRA appropriations. But will check...

Edit: Here's the text of the budget bill he signed in March 2009. I don't think it includes ARRA. Let me know if you find something contrary.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1105/text

Debt in billions and deficit/debt %

1970 371 4.6
1971 398 6.8
1972 427 6.8
1973 458 6.8
1974 475 3.6
1975 533 10.9
1976 620 14.0
1977 699 11.3
1978 772 9.5
1979 827 6.7
1980 908 8.9
1881 997 8.9
1982 1142 12.7
1983 1377 17.1
1984 1572 12.4
1985 1823 13.8
1986 2125 14.2
1987 2350 9.6
1988 2602 9.7
1989 2857 8.9
1990 3233 11.6
1991 3665 11.8
1992 4064 9.8
1993 4411 7.9
1994 4693 6.0
1995 4974 5.6
1996 5224 4.8
1997 5412 3.5
1998 5526 2.1
1999 5656 2.3
2000 5674 0.3
2001 5807 2.3
2002 6228 6.8
2003 6783 8.2
2004 7379 8.1
2005 7933 7.0
2006 8506 6.7
2007 9008 5.6
2008 10025 10.1
2009 11910 15.8
2010 13562 12.2
2011 14790 8.3
2012 16230 8.9 (est. 2/3 of fy done)

The first 4 months of fy 2009 Bush was in office as it begins October 1st 2008. The FY 2009 budget was signed by Bush. Obama froze SS payments and I think he froze government salaries, at least gave them a low raise. The teabaggers in the house stopped a lot of his spending and he did attempt pay-as-you-go.

The cuts can be far greater and Romney will probably be the 1st republican in a while to actually lower deficit. The democratic party is still the party of stimulus which will lead to depression. Romney is the man of austerity, which will lead to growth.

Most spending is controlled by congress.

http://blog.american.com/2012/05/the...ally-happened/

Depends on the spread.

b

No.

Not really.

So scientific of him to project 12' and 13' for him. (Rolls eyes)

-Note: Obv one of these charts has to be BS if they are using the same data. If the first chart didn't adjust for inflation and the second chart did it woudl go to reason that the second chart would look better not worst for Obama.

Who is most spending controlled by then?

Where were all the fiscal conservatives when Bush was throwing money down the drain?

And where did all the anti-war, pro-civil liberty lefties go now that Obama is prez?

HOORAY POLITICAL PARTIES!

Obviously Obama has no idea.

Another methodology problem that guy has is he is taking from 2009 and adding it to 2010 basically putting more then a years worth of spending in that year.

Romney must have negative idea then.

Bush's FY09 proposed budget was an atrocious 3T dollars. How much ended up spent?