If you look at the context of the quote it is typical electioneering which everyone does do. He said after the victory in 2010 "“Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.” Obviously meaning the voters and volunteer who helped them win the victory in 2010 should work just as hard in 2012. In the same interview he said “, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.”
As for an equivalent statement from a Democrat, how about the time in september 2008 when the congress was trying to pass the emergency bailout and had a deal but Nancy Pelosi did a speech on the house floor that blew up the deal so the economy would get worse and Obama’s prospects for election would get better.
That the budget has increased 800 billion dollars in the last 3 years is not an article of faith but a plain fact. To deny that is to deny reality, but as a liberal you must be adept at that.
Intention-the topic of this thread that you just keep ignoring. Show me in that speech where she says her intention was to bring down the Bush administration.
No, as a liberal I attempt to *understand *what I’m talking about before bitching.
Bush’s 2009 budget was 3.3 trillion if you count the wars (which Bush did not, because he’s a Republican, and as such is more than willing to lie).
Bush’s last budget:
2009 3.3 Trillion (including the two wars)
Obama’s budgets were:
2010 3.6 Trillion
2011 3.8 Trillion
2012 3.7 Trillion
2013 3.8 Trillion
Another thing to consider about those numbers. Budgets increase every year. This happens as a matter of course because our population increases. Also, we have entitlements that are required to increase. Also, during a recession costs go up. Think about it, more money must be spent on unemployment insurance, and so on.
So, if you were being honest here, given the above information and given the information at my cite, don’t you think you’re fixating on something that doesn’t show what you think it shows?
You and your stupid liberal facts. <Adam Savage> I reject your reality and substitute my own! </AS>
This is yet another good example of how we try to engage conservatives with facts, evidence and logic. However those simply do not work in the face of intransigent denial of reality.
This bullshit about “hundreds of billions of dollars” will continue to be peddled as if it were gospel. It will be repeated by the core conservatives, and the WILL believe it. Facts will not move them.
I’m not sure how you can read that story and not laugh a little (or a lot). I suspect you know that your link is peddling BS but, since you seem to be pushing it so hard, maybe you don’t.
The 2009 budget, which included Bush’s stimulus, TARP, auto bailouts, etc. was signed in March of 2009 by Obama who, at the time, was complaining about the “imperfect” omnibus bill.
A lot of the total expenditures for 2009 were one time things such as Obama’s stimulus, Bush’s stimulus, TARP, auto bailouts, etc.
These “one-time” expenditures were never removed from the baseline budget. Do you understand the concept of baseline budgeting? If you did I doubt you would be peddling this nonsense.
Can you now understand how Obama has had the smallest percent increase in federal spending in 60 years?
puddlegum:
Is Obama really a big spender? Survey says no.
In fact, real government nondefense spending on goods and services is declining.
That the economy has managed to show signs of recovery when the folks that famously said “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” obstructed every attempt to do what every President needs to do to get out of a recession/depression (spend) is amazing.
But really, keep on blaming liberals…
So if you exclude transfer payments, and defense spending and include state and local spending then spending is going down. In a related matter if you measure me when I stand on a chair I am eight feet tall. That someone would have to torture the data that much to get your preferred answer is an admission to what everyone already knows. The budget has increased 800 billion dollars from a wildly inflated baseline. Spending is out of control.
Yes, I think I do. Even counting the stimulus as Obama’s the rates are right. Look at the cite.
Here’s a handy graph so that you can understand why the deficit is so high right now.
You’re welcome.
Of course, I understand if you don’t want data to get in the way of your Obama hatred. Feel free to shoot the messenger, or otherwise discount the information you see.
No.
ETA: to clarify, I do agree, if the two alternatives are (1) Obama does nothing, and (2) Obama did what he did.
I am unsure what Obama could have done differently which would have been a better result, other than maybe have a bigger stimulus package - something that Obama wanted and many economists said would have been preferable. However, something got in his way… And I think that “something” is relevant to this thread, actually, so there you go. 
Well, I admit I’m curious about options (3) and (4)…
I don’t think you do. The rates ARE correct even counting the stimulus as Obama’s. That’s the point. All of that one-time spending in 2009 is now considered the budget baseline. So, it is now like we are spending the stimulus, TARP, auto bailout etc. year-after-year but, since the budget baseline from 2009 was so much higher than normal, it appears that federal spending has not increased from 2009 to 2010.
To put it another way. Look at the difference between 2007 and 2008 budgets. The increase in spending reflects increases in annual spending for government agencies etc. If you compare 2008 and 2009, the difference is the increase in year-to year spending PLUS the extra money spent on all those “one time” programs. So, when you compare 2009 to 2010, all of those “one time” expenditures should be removed and the budget should actually decrease to somewhere around 2008 levels. Instead, the spending has stayed the same even though we are no longer financing TARP, auto bailouts or a stimulus package. In other words, all of those “one-time” expenditures just became part of the baseline budget. People like you see a small increase in year-to-year spending and forget that the starting number is already inflated.
Not the same thing at all.
They were trying to torpedo Bush with the war not the economy. They tried to pin the economy on Bush and laissez faire conspts in general but they weren’t trying to drive the economy into the ground to win an election.
What were the other alternatives?
I suppose Obama doing the honorable thing and killing himself is somewhere on the list.
Statements like this make me laugh
How, specifically, were the Democrats trying to drive the economy into the ground to win an election?
Note: I am not asking you to show us that they were merely pointing out that the economy was tanking, due in large part to the crappy de-regulation of the banking industry that had been championed by Republicans.
I am asking you to provide evidence that the Democrats were trying to drive the economy into the ground with their legislative actions.
For example, did they refuse to raise the debt limit unless the Republicans agreed to tax increases, thus leading to a downgrade in the countries credit rating?
Assumes facts not in evidence, i.e., that “lower-taxed” = “better.”
Does not exist.