It's not difficult to find this information. I've discussed it repeatedly in this forum. You just don't like the facts:
- President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined "a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan."
- Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
- On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion."
- CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
- Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.
But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations,
Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.
It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion. — "
Obama’s Spending: 'Inferno' or Not?,"
FactCheck.org, Jun 4, 2012
>>what Obama did with his responsibility as President to reduce it?
Obummer cut $225 billion from TARP, as noted above, but more importantly he signed the ARRA, which helped lead us out of the morass the GOP placed us in by, as CBO calculates, adding five million jobs to the economy. Now if we can avoid sending more asses to Washington, …
This is the reactionary fiction that the GOP peddles. Democrats/liberals/progressives want to use gubmint to solve problems, like ending the Great Depression, winning the Second World War, and doing something about the unjust and dysfunctional consequences of the enslavement and persecution of millions of African-Americans. We don't want gubmint to be any larger than it needs to be, we don't want to spend money unwisely, and, as I've repeatedly noted in this community, we eliminate deficits and the resulting debt created by so-called conservatives, not the other way around.
View attachment 67196532
>>The tea Party was born out of opposition to too much spending and taxes.
I'd say it was founded out of ignorance and bigotry.
