Federal spending under Obama has grown at the slowest pace since the 50's

[Fern]

Er, if someone is making $100k a year and decides to overspend at $150k a year, that's 50% overspending (well more in the long run, since they're borrowing and paying interest to do it). That someone overspent at a 50% level.

If next someone B comes along and with the same $100k a year overspends at $160k a year, that person has overspent 60%, but only 6% more than the first person.

Without reading the entire thread, is that what you all are talking about? Saying person B is doing a great job because they only spent 6% more than the first person would be very disingenuous. In reality they're even worse, and would only be doing a better job if they were less than 50% overspend. (all things being equal)

Chuck

Despite his assertions to the contrary, that's exactly what the OP is doing. (And I've read every post, not that that is necessary.)

And something to bear in mind: The federal government uses some very unusual accounting practices, and depending upon which fed agency's site you look at you will find different figures because they don't share the same accounting/budgeting practices.

But to the ponit at hand: Bush's spending had some unusual and temporary items, substantial ones.

The spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan peaked in 2008 and thereafter went down substantially. The TARP program hit the budget in 2009.

The question, therefore, is why after the reduction of spending on these programs is spending still so high?

The Stimulus is an obvious answer (although some of that was spent/accounted for in the 2009 budget and is thus wrongly being attritbuted to Bush).

But what else? Why hasn't spending dropped?

--------------------

In any case, we're looking at the wrong information. To see the effects of spending under the Obama admin you really need to look at estimates of future years' spending. The CBO does 10 yr forecasts and regardless of their reputation for accuracy, or lack thereof, that is where you find the effects of newly/recently enacted policy.

And TBH, we'll likely need the benefit of hindsight to truly understand the effect on spending by Obama (or policies enacted while he's in office). E.g., the spending attributed/estimated of Obamacare thrown around here and elsewhere is NET spending. I.e., it takes into account additional revenues etc and uses those to offset the cost thus presenting a lower amount. One large estimate of revenue used to offset the cost was that of requiring evey business to report their all their expenses on Form 1099. That has since been dropped.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So you are arguing that they were protesting Obama's deficit spending before Obama was sworn in?

No, I'm arguing that they were protesting Obama -- period.

I'm furthermore arguing -- for the Nth time -- that if the issue was really deficits as chucky2 said, they would have started these protests years earlier, when Bush ran up huge deficits for no reason.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh, right. Before he got into the office but after he got elected.

Another one that is arguing that the Tea Party originally started protesting about Obama's deficit spending before he was actually spending anything??? Seriously?

I understand what it is today but it started because of Bush and Paulson.

 

[Fern]

Per politifact, who I'm not a fan of - they say Obama inherited a deficit of $1.4 trillion and the deficit in his submitted 2013 budget is $901 billion.

So, he didn't cut in half; but he mostly did, and it's a lot better than the Republicans over the last few decades who have greatly increased it.

Utterly meaningless.

Budgets forecast revenues also. It's far too easy, and common place, to include unreasonably high estimates of additional revenue in an effort to arrive at favorable deficit numbers.

To make any point about fiscal reasonableness in a budget you'll have to demonstrate that his projected spending, itself, went down.

Fern

 

[dank69]

Despite his assertions to the contrary, that's exactly what the OP is doing. (And I've read every post, not that that is necessary.)

And something to bear in mind: The federal government uses some very unusual accounting practices, and depending upon which fed agency's site you look at you will find different figures because they don't share the same accounting/budgeting practices.

But to the ponit at hand: Bush's spending had some unusual and temporary items, substantial ones.

The spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan peaked in 2008 and thereafter went down substantially. The TARP program hit the budget in 2009.

The question, therefore, is why after the reduction of spending on these programs is spending still so high?

The Stimulus is an obvious answer (although some of that was spent/accounted for in the 2009 budget and is thus wrongly being attritbuted to Bush).

But what else? Why hasn't spending dropped?

--------------------

In any case, we're looking at the wrong information. To see the effects of spending under the Obama admin you really need to look at estimates of future years' spending. The CBO does 10 yr forecasts and regardless of their reputation for accuracy, or lack thereof, that is where you find the effects of newly/recently enacted policy.

And TBH, we'll likely need the benefit of hindsight to truly understand the effect on spending by Obama (or policies enacted while he's in office). E.g., the spending attributed/estimated of Obamacare thrown around here and elsewhere is NET spending. I.e., it takes into account additional revenues etc and uses those to offset the cost thus presenting a lower amount. One large estimate of revenue used to offset the cost was that of requiring evey business to report their all their expenses on Form 1099. That has since been dropped.

Fern

Actually, he is not saying the pres is doing a great job. Yet another straw-man argument, surprise surprise. All he is saying is that this evidence counters the claim that Mr. Post Turtle has gone on a spending binge.

 

[Darwin333]

No, I'm arguing that they were protesting Obama -- period.

Then your argument is flat out wrong. Period.

BTW, what do you recall were they protesting about Obama before Obama took office?

I'm furthermore arguing -- for the Nth time -- that if the issue was really deficits as chucky2 said, they would have started these protests years earlier, when Bush ran up huge deficits for no reason.

Ahh, the good ole days of deficits that were "only" a few hundred billion. For the record, I despised the Bush deficits too. Especially the stupid shit that built in future deficits like Medicare Part D BUT they had the same "reason" then as the current deficits do now. To make the economy look better than it is.

 

[woolfe9999]

Despite his assertions to the contrary, that's exactly what the OP is doing. (And I've read every post, not that that is necessary.)

And something to bear in mind: The federal government uses some very unusual accounting practices, and depending upon which fed agency's site you look at you will find different figures because they don't share the same accounting/budgeting practices.

But to the ponit at hand: Bush's spending had some unusual and temporary items, substantial ones.

The spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan peaked in 2008 and thereafter went down substantially. The TARP program hit the budget in 2009.

The question, therefore, is why after the reduction of spending on these programs is spending still so high?

The Stimulus is an obvious answer (although some of that was spent/accounted for in the 2009 budget and is thus wrongly being attritbuted to Bush).

But what else? Why hasn't spending dropped?

Fern

Why ask? The information is publicly available. In addition to the stimulus, various forms of mandatory spending - those dictated by legislation passed before Obama was in office - increased due to the recession. This had already increased in 2009 which was the other reason, besides TARP, that the last Bush budget was so high. If it's fair to point out that a new piece of legislation sponsored by Obama will increase spending at some future time, then it's unfair to tag Obama with increases in mandatory spending based off past legislation, which spending spiked due to recession. Shall I assume that everyone wishing to now make the "Obamacare will increase future spending" argument is willing to admit that increases in mandatory spending during this term aren't really Obama spending? Sure they will.

The fact is, other than the stimulus, there isn't really much present discretionary spending that Obama has added. Practically none at all. We can argue about Obamacare's fiscal impact on the future, but this thread is about discrediting claims about Obama having gone on a spending spree, which claims were based on misleading charts and graphs purporting to show actual spending during Obama's term. And discredited they are.

Discussions about the future fiscal impact of Obamacare are legitimate and I suspect it will continue to be debated for some time to come, assuming the law isn't thrown out of course. However, doing it in this context is a lame attempt to salvage a discredited argument.

- wolf

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Bush 2/3. I knew he was a moron but really, that stupid?

 

[nobodyknows]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

Amazingly enough (read: predictably enough), federal spending has grown much faster under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. The whole idea that Obama has engaged in some 'spending binge' is as false as it's always been, but this chart really lays it out well

This puts into a graphic what I've been trying to tell people for several years now: this whole OMGOBAMA federal spending issue is a made up one that you fell for. What's even worse is that people think voting for Republicans would fix it, or at least improve the situation. Now I for one wish that Obama had VASTLY increased federal spending, and I'm very comfortable in attacking him for his failure to do so. What's sad about those on the right who are attacking Obama is that under his administration things been very much what you want, but you can't see past your political football team enough to be happy about it.

Wow, if a graph says it's so, then it must be the truth.

 

[fskimospy]

Despite his assertions to the contrary, that's exactly what the OP is doing. (And I've read every post, not that that is necessary.)

And something to bear in mind: The federal government uses some very unusual accounting practices, and depending upon which fed agency's site you look at you will find different figures because they don't share the same accounting/budgeting practices.

But to the ponit at hand: Bush's spending had some unusual and temporary items, substantial ones.

The spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan peaked in 2008 and thereafter went down substantially. The TARP program hit the budget in 2009.

The question therefore, is why after the reduction of spending on these programs is spending still so high?

The Stimulus is an obvious answer (although some of that was spent/accounted for in the 2009 budget and is thus wrongly being attritbuted to Bush).

But what else? Why hasn't spending dropped?

--------------------

In any case, we're looking at the wrong information. To see the effects of spending under the Obama admin you really need to look at estimates of future years' spending. The CBO does 10 yr forecasts and regardless of their reputation for accuracy, or lack thereof, that is where you find the effects of newly/recently enacted policy.

And TBH, we'll likely need the benefit of hindsight to truly understand the effect on spending by Obama (or policies enacted while he's in office). E.g., the spending attributed/estimated of Obamacare thrown around here and elsewhere is NET spending. I.e., it takes into account additional revenues etc and uses those to offset the cost thus presenting a lower amount. One large estimate of revenue used to offset the cost was that of requiring evey business to report their all their expenses on Form 1099. That has since been dropped.

Fern

If you read every post in this thread and got from it that I was trying to say Obama is doing a great job because federal spending hasn't gone up a lot, you have serious reading comprehension problems. You frequently have these issues when given the chance to look at an issue through an ultra right wing lens I've noticed. It's particularly bad in this case as I've said repeatedly that I condemn obama for his lack of spending. I wish we had a spending explosion under him. If we had, we would probably be long done with this recession. Instead, we got a taste of the failure of austerity.

The point of this thread was to show how utterly divorced from reality that criticism of Obama is. Even though I was prepared for some tap dancing, I'm impressed at just how far you guys are willing to go to hold on to your fictions. You know in your gut that Obama is some huge spender, now you just have to figure out why.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you read every post in this thread and got from it that I was trying to say Obama is doing a great job because federal spending hasn't gone up a lot, you have serious reading comprehension problems. You frequently have these issues when given the chance to look at an issue through an ultra right wing lens I've noticed. It's particularly bad in this case as I've said repeatedly that I condemn obama for his lack of spending. I wish we had a spending explosion under him. If we had, we would probably be long done with this recession. Instead, we got a taste of the failure of austerity.

The point of this thread was to show how utterly divorced from reality that criticism of Obama is. Even though I was prepared for some tap dancing, I'm impressed at just how far you guys are willing to go to hold on to your fictions. You know in your gut that Obama is some huge spender, now you just have to figure out why.

Our conservative friends do not know it but they are no different than common cult members, brainwashed and enslaved by propaganda. They need a 12 step deprogramming process to get free. If they were to see how deep in the weeds their minds are they would go crazy in an instant. This is why they will not see and why they can only do so in steps. The modern conservative movement has become deeply insane and the pain of knowing it in one thread is just too great.

Remember, these are the irresponsibly insane folk who think of themselves as the embodiment of responsibility. You can't expect a tin horned god to suddenly notice he's the devil. The conservative brain defect is a defense mechanism that saved their lives as children at the cost of their sanity. No matter how disgusting they have become, they really deserve only love.

 

[Matt1970]

The only way for those numbers to be true is to take the very last Bush budget and compare it with Obama's budgets. Very deceitful by anyone’s standards.

 

[Matt1970]

Our conservative friends do not know it but they are no different than common cult members, brainwashed and enslaved by propaganda. They need a 12 step deprogramming process to get free. If they were to see how deep in the weeds their minds are they would go crazy in an instant. This is why they will not see and why they can only do so in steps. The modern conservative movement has become deeply insane and the pain of knowing it in one thread is just too great.

Remember, these are the irresponsibly insane folk who think of themselves as the embodiment of responsibility. You can't expect a tin horned god to suddenly notice he's the devil. The conservative brain defect is a defense mechanism that saved their lives as children at the cost of their sanity. No matter how disgusting they have become, they really deserve only love.

Ever heard of coming up with new shit? cult members, brainwashed and enslaved by propaganda, crazy, insane folk, conservative brain defect

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Ever heard of coming up with new shit? cult members, brainwashed and enslaved by propaganda, crazy, insane folk, conservative brain defect

The truly sad thing is he right though. I used to be one of you but I went out and got educated on the facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Another one that is arguing that the Tea Party originally started protesting about Obama's deficit spending before he was actually spending anything??? Seriously?

I understand what it is today but it started because of Bush and Paulson.

The Tea Party is generally accepted to have started as a major force following rick santelli's rant in February 2009.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The Tea Party is a bunch of right wing zealots that have no grip on reality anymore, if ever.

 

[fskimospy]

The only way for those numbers to be true is to take the very last Bush budget and compare it with Obama's budgets. Very deceitful by anyone’s standards.

Yeah because Bush's last budget naturally increased due to a major economic downturn, one that was totally gone when Obama took over.

Keep rationalizing. It beats admitting you were taken in by a lie.

 

[sportage]

They all love to spend money. The difference is what they spend it on. GW spent on starting wars. Democrats spent on social programs.
Don't fool yourself... Romney has his spending list all neatly typed with yellow highlights.
Romney will spend. The question is on what and how much. And how he justifies it.
And why his spending and increased debt will no longer be an issue.
Anyone actually believe Romney and a republican congress would not raise the debt ceiling just as every other president has?
I suspect Romney's spending wish list will spend far more than Obama's list, or Reagan's list for that matter.
And Romney will probably lower the unemployment rate down to 6%, after starting his wars and initiating the draft.

 

[xBiffx]

The Tea Party is generally accepted to have started as a major force following rick santelli's rant in February 2009.

The Tea Party is a bunch of right wing zealots that have no grip on reality anymore, if ever.

Oh really? Funny how your Obama was for it before he was against it. Yet again.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ve-The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-First-Tea-Partier

I know though, its just Breitbart nonsense. I just find it funny that the two of you seem have the Tea Party all figured out. Obama the right wing zealot.

 

[Phokus]

Politifact rated the claim about Obama's spending vs. other presidents 'mostly true'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-gets-it-right-about-obamas-record-sp/

 

[fskimospy]

Oh really? Funny how your Obama was for it before he was against it. Yet again.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ve-The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-First-Tea-Partier

I know though, its just Breitbart nonsense. I just find it funny that the two of you seem have the Tea Party all figured out. Obama the right wing zealot.

I was unaware that dressing in a revolutionary war costume made you a tea party person. I thought the primary requirement for that was wanting the government out of your Medicare.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Politifact rated the claim about Obama's spending vs. other presidents 'mostly true'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-gets-it-right-about-obamas-record-sp/

"The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans."

 

[dank69]

Oh really? Funny how your Obama was for it before he was against it. Yet again.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ve-The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-First-Tea-Partier

I know though, its just Breitbart nonsense. I just find it funny that the two of you seem have the Tea Party all figured out. Obama the right wing zealot.

WTF is this? Anyone who ever donned a revolutionary war costume on the 4th of July is a Tea Party member now?

 

[xBiffx]

I was unaware that dressing in a revolutionary war costume made you a tea party person. I thought the primary requirement for that was wanting the government out of your Medicare.

Really? All I seem to here is they are a bunch of worthless right wingers that like to play dress up and bring racist signage with them. That they have no real platform worth noting. Interesting, so now they matter and are more than that? I never thought so but oh well.

 

[dank69]

"The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans."

Right, and the only spending they stopped was additional spending to help us out of the recession which is why the recovery is so slow. Thanks GOP!