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

[Doc Savage Fan]

My intent wasn't noble, I was just adhering to rational discourse. My best hopes that you can master that in the future for a better quality of thought, friend DSF. Best to stay away from the statistics until then though.

Agree...rationalization of numerous false attributions is hardly considered noble.

 

[Fern]

Why ask? The information is publicly available.

I've yet to see details/breakdowns published in any reasonably comprehensible format.

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.

As regards the Stimulus I am still of the opinion is was mostly just a huge piece of pork of little value. IMO, too many here assume all stimulus is equal. It certainly is not.

As regards spending initiated by previous administration, it is my understanding that any Congress is not bound by spending intiatives of a previous Congress. I.e., shut off the spigot.

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.

To the extent the Administration (congress really) doesn't change it, or at least try too, yes they are responsible even if a previously established policy.

To hold the position that we are stuck with previous spending initiatives means spending has only one trajectory: Up.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Agree...rationalization of numerous false attributions is hardly considered noble.

lol. Mea Culpa to falsely assuming you were making a logical point.

 

[Fern]

I never claimed that the stimulus wasn't being included in Obama's spending, nor did I demand that the stimulus all be counted in 2009. Are you having reading comprehension issues today?

You said that there was no large increase in government spending under Obama...I responded by pointing to the stimulus package as one example of significant increased spending. I don't know how to be any clearer.

I will concede that the spending was closer to $504B after taking out the tax cuts.

When discussing this matter with a Dem/liberal/progressive, I don't know why you forgo the tax aspect. They always argue such breaks are "spending".

The $504 bil figure is too low. It doesn't take into account things like later extentions of unemployment benefits etc that were done outside of the Stim bill.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Why would Bush somehow get a pass on his spending ....
-snip-

We're talking about Obama and his spending. Bush is out of office and has been for some time.

Fern

 

[Ketchup]

Uh, so far you've provided four links. It's just that none of them have supported your claims.

What can I say? I am at work and I suck at multitasking I blame the medication.

 

[fskimospy]

We're talking about Obama and his spending. Bush is out of office and has been for some time.

Fern

No, we're talking about Obama's spending as it compares to the benchmark rate left by his predecessor. Leaving him out would be utterly baffling and nonsensical.

 

[Matt1970]

No, we're talking about Obama's spending as it compares to the benchmark rate left by his predecessor. Leaving him out would be utterly baffling and nonsensical.

Ok, lets talk about it. Bush's deficits averaged 540 Billion till his last year in office. Obama is well over $1 Trillion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Ok, lets talk about it. Bush's deficits averaged 540 Billion till his last year in office. Obama is well over $1 Trillion.

Bush's deficits were incurred mostly during a time of good economic conditions, as a result of unnecessary tax giveaways, wars and social engineering.

Obama's deficits are due to the serious recession that he inherited from Bush.

Context -- it's handy.

 

[Matt1970]

Bush's deficits were incurred mostly during a time of good economic conditions, as a result of unnecessary tax giveaways, wars and social engineering.

Obama's deficits are due to the serious recession that he inherited from Bush.

Context -- it's handy.

Well, Obama was going to be the Knight in Shining Armor and promisied to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Promise after Promise right down the shitter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well, Obama was going to be the Knight in Shining Armor and promisied to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

A promise that was made at a time when the recession was estimated to bottom out at -3% GDP. It was actually -9% GDP.

Context -- it's handy.

 

[jackstar7]

Politifact on this story and graphic.

 

[Matt1970]

A promise that was made at a time when the recession was estimated to bottom out at -3% GDP. It was actually -9% GDP.

Context -- it's handy.

So it all boils down to the 10 million that lost their jobs. We have Deficit spending of 5 Trillion in the last 3 years all in the name of the recession. $5 Trillion = $500,000 per unemployed person. Your money at work. This is why deficit spending isn't working.

 

[dank69]

We're talking about Obama and his spending. Bush is out of office and has been for some time.

Fern

We're talking about federal spending growth over the past 60 years. Righties/conservatives can't handle the truth of that matter so they keep trying to change the subject like you are doing.

 

[dank69]

So it all boils down to the 10 million that lost their jobs. We have Deficit spending of 5 Trillion in the last 3 years all in the name of the recession. $5 Trillion = $500,000 per unemployed person. Your money at work. This is why deficit spending isn't working.

10 million? Is that all? :hmm:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So it all boils down to the 10 million that lost their jobs. We have Deficit spending of 5 Trillion in the last 3 years all in the name of the recession. $5 Trillion = $500,000 per unemployed person. Your money at work. This is why deficit spending isn't working.

Sorry, that's not how it works. We didn't take the money and spend it specifically on unemployed people.

The debt is a result of a number of interrelated factors, including reduced tax income, increased benefit expenditures, and moves made to keep the economy from getting even worse than it did.

You want to oversimplify matters to fit in with your talk radio / Fox News talking points and confirm your predisposed conclusion, that this is all Obama's fault. Have fun.

Take a look at the UK sometime. They embarked on a program of austerity a year or two ago and it hasn't worked out too well.

 

[Matt1970]

10 million? Is that all? :hmm:

The worst estimations put it at 15. Hell, lets use 20 million, that means we only spent $250,000 per unemployed person.

 

[Matt1970]

Sorry, that's not how it works. We didn't take the money and spend it specifically on unemployed people.
.

You are right, the government always has a better way to spend it......

 

[dank69]

The worst estimations put it at 15. Hell, lets use 20 million, that means we only spent $250,000 per unemployed person.

I'd prefer to start with a real number before I explain to you why you are wrong.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You are right, the government always has a better way to spend it......

Another person more interested in ranting than reasoning.

Next...

PS Still waiting for a list of programs that any of you complainers would actually cut from the budget.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Politifact on this story and graphic.

This is unpossible. I mean just look at him:

 

[Matt1970]

I'd prefer to start with a real number before I explain to you why you are wrong.

Pick your number, use it to divide into $5 Trillion = Government Fails.

 

[Anarchist420]

Obama's deficits have been way too high considering how high inflation and how low the interest rate have been during his time in office. The Fed needs to raise the treasury rate to 10%.

 

[woolfe9999]

Semantics. Yes, I will readily agree that ~36% of ARRA was comprised of tax cuts and was not technically spending...even though it directly affected our deficit by decreasing revenues. So, I guess if we're going to split hairs about such things, I stand corrected and will revise my statement to say "$504B of stimulus spending didn't exist?" Despite your diversion, my point stands regarding Eskimospy's contention that there was no large increase in government spending under Obama.

However, for the sake of clarity, please note that Eskimospy made a claim that I said that ARRA spending wasn't accounted for in the charts he presented. This is a lie. And this point stands as well.

It isn't "hair splitting" because the entire point of the thread is that Obama didn't go on the "spending spree" that conservatives have been accusing him of. The deficit is affected by a number of factors, including diminished tax revenue due to recession, as well as any tax cuts that are put in place. Yet "tax cuts" are hardly the point of any conservative criticism of Obama. Conservatives *favor* tax cuts, remember? That's why they keep accusing him of a "spending spree," while at the same time pointing to the high deficit, and failing to point out these other factors. They have also been quite content to misleadingly label the entire stimulus package as spending because they know damn well how hypocritical it sounds for them to criticize him for expanding the deficit by way of tax cuts.

What you're doing here is repeating many of these falsehoods, including the largest of them all - putting the 2009 budget on Obama's watch instead of Bush's. This is the horseshit we've been hearing for years now.

The truth is that he is not the "big spender" they have made him out to be. His recession spending is little different than his republican predecessor, and truth be told, there would have been little difference under McCain. Anyone in that office was going to be saddled with the same economic conditions. The higher spending wasn't avoidable under the circumstances without making disastrously stupid decisions that would have led to a far worse economic outcome. Even the republicans know this and they know they wouldn't have done any different, in spite of the lies they keep telling. What spending would they have cut? Take a look at Romney's actual specific proposals. Nothing, that's what. He'll cut a lot from the budget...by cutting nothing in particular.

2012 is going to be yet another year of the GOP running on a false platform of fiscal conservation, and another year of people being suckered by it.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

We're talking about federal spending growth over the past 60 years. Righties/conservatives can't handle the truth of that matter so they keep trying to change the subject like you are doing.

Oh, I know what we're talking about. And I'm still saying the benchmark is BS.

You could as easily, as many would argue mnore appropriately, go back 60 years ago, let's round off to 1950, and compare each administration's spending to 1950. But now would how make the Obama admin look?

And I'm still saying this is a bit of a strawman. Aside from debt/deficits, people complain, or are concerned, about the amount of spending. But this line of argument has been carefully crafted as the growth in spending. Then pick Bush's number as a benchmark to come up with the 1.4% number.

And I read this forum almost every day. I haven't seen any proliferation of threads complining about Obama's growth in spending. It's a made-up bogeyman for purposes of spinning this 'math' into something important.

IMO, all that's been demonstrated is that spending went up substantially during the Bush admin. Well, thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Heck, this was a huge campaign topic in the 2006 elections with the Dems promising the stop the deficits if they won Congress. Well, we know how that worked out.

Fern