Yep, so your opinion
is that the CBO's estimate of the economic recovery (we are projecting; we have to use some
assumption,) is wrong.
Now there are a few points here:
1) a great deal of Obama's spending is ICU spending on the basket case left by Bush, but also
2) You legitimately point out that Obama's spending does not stop at ONLY fixing the mess he inherited. He is targeting other issues besides
cleaning up Bush's mess. This is what you legitimately call "Obama's spending."
3) As to the CBO vs. White House estimates, the outside estimate is doubling the debt over 10 years -- not quite the same as "he already done doubled the debt!" -- and that would be exactly the Bush track record, in terms of order of magnitude. Of course since he'd be pulling the trick on Bush's 10T, Obama's total bill -- including Bush clean-ups -- would be even higher than Bush's. I hear you on that count.
Let's look at the White House's projections and reasoning. Here's part of the budget narrative for '10:
In Chart 12-5, the administration directly addresses the CBO estimates vs. the administration estimates:
The Obama estimate for growth for the 5 years after a recession is an annualized rate of 3.8%.
The CBO estimate is 3.7%.
The historical average is 4.2%.
I am sure you will find much fault throughout this document, however your assumption and the CBO's assumption of a weak recovery -- even over five years -- seem somewhat at odds with historical experience. Typically the depth of a recession correlates with the strength of the recovery that follows. The WH acknowledges this, and shoots low anyway. CBO shoots lower.
Is this an article of faith, since it is at odds with historical experience?