Why does Obama believe he can spend like a drunkard?

[King]

How exactly did tax cuts and deregulation cause the recession? 

It caused deficit, which decreased the value of the dollar compared to foreign currency, which the hurt the returns of all the international deals that many of these large firms engaged in.

You have everything sooo backwards mecha. 

Backwards... what's the opposite of what I just said?

The actual situation is the opposite of what you said.

We had a surplus that grew the money value and caused good returns on economic deals.

And thus hurt the economy?

[pbrower2a]

Obama may have brought us the largest peace-time spending in both real and absolute terms, but that does not itself constitute "spending like a drunkard". If an alcoholic spends a huge amount of money in an alcohol rehab unit to free himself of alcoholism, then such spending may reflect consummate wisdom. Cutting one's risk of an alcohol-related death from accidents and liver damage is well worth the financial cost. The alcoholic must of course find a good substitute for the object that has been an intimate part of his life, and without a valid substitute (maybe such a hobby as painting or gardening) he might revert to boozing.

Dubya of course created the necessity that manifested itself in the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. The bail-outs of failing enterprises began when Dubya was President.  Anyone who trivializes the necessity need only look at this graph:

 

The jagged gray line was really nasty, and the jagged blue line that we now experience caught up (with more verbal accuracy, "caught down", even if that phrase is awkward) with the jagged gray line. The blue line suggested for a timethe possibility of a reprise of the 1929-1933 meltdown. We may have had the choice between spending promptly to re-stimulate the economy when such would be effective or waiting until such could be an abject failure with horrific consequences for the world. We seem to be following the less-dangerous jagged line of the 1973 Oil Crisis than the dangerous one of the meltdown of 1929-1932. If such results from the stimulus spending, then such is well worth it. Considering that the meltdown of 1929-1932 aided the rise of Adolf Hitler and other horrible consequences we may have acted with necessary, if counter-intuitive, wisdom.   

It's tempting to say "Screw the banks", but we had to protect foreign creditors. One cheats foreign creditors at consummate risks to oneself -- which means that one wears the rags for which one still owes money while one pays off the clothiers who supplied them on credit instead of buying new ones.   

[Sewer]

Bush was so good at spending.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Obama may have brought us the largest peace-time spending in both real and absolute terms, but that does not itself constitute "spending like a drunkard". If an alcoholic spends a huge amount of money in an alcohol rehab unit to free himself of alcoholism, then such spending may reflect consummate wisdom. Cutting one's risk of an alcohol-related death from accidents and liver damage is well worth the financial cost. The alcoholic must of course find a good substitute for the object that has been an intimate part of his life, and without a valid substitute (maybe such a hobby as painting or gardening) he might revert to boozing.

Dubya of course created the necessity that manifested itself in the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. The bail-outs of failing enterprises began when Dubya was President.  Anyone who trivializes the necessity need only look at this graph:

you're off topic, go and read the first post of this thread:

I'm not talking about the short-term bailouts/stimulus, but about the long-term budget.

He is attempting to greatly expand the size of government, which will lead to much higher spending and taxes, and on top of that, he wants to tax carbon fuels out of existence.

How can he grow the economy long-term while depleting real income?