Okay, now that we've established it is the two-year-old killthecat who is posting, let's review the undeniable facts:
1. The U.S. Senate has not even attempted to start a process of acting on a concurrent resolution on a budget ... for three years, now ... even though the U.S. House of Representatives has submitted its budget proposals. Therefore, the U.S. Senate is in violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - three times over.
2. I realize that the concept of a budget is too complex for you to understand, killthecat, but simply throwing some discretionary spending limits up against a wall to see if they stick is not even remotely close to creating a budget.
3. Federal spending most certainly has ballooned under Obama. Here are the annual federal surpluses (deficits) by year:
Bush
2001 - $128 billion
2002 - $(158 ) billion
2003 - $(378 ) billion
2004 - $(413) billion
2005 - $(318 ) billion
2006 - $(248 ) billion
2007 - $(161) billion
2008 - $(459) billion
Average = $(251) billion
Obama
2009 - $(1,413) billion
2010 - $(1,294) billion
2011 - $(1,300) billion
2012 - $(1,327) billion
Average = $(1,334) billion
You lazy, mental pygmies try to rely on annual percentage increases and decreases, but that's a worthless dodge ... and you know it. The amount of the annual shortfalls we are having to absorb is what is important, and besides, even if we stipulate that 2009 was abnormally high due to stimulus spending, the annual deficits should have dropped way back down in Obama's second and third years to levels closer to the average in Bush's presidency. But no, you don't want any sunlight on that ... no, you just artificially pump up your baseline to the abnormal 2009 year and then disingenuously crow about how the percentage change in succeeding deficits are declining from that sky-high level. 
Good grief, killthecat ... you truly are juvenile.
| 