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

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

"Don't confuse us with facts, we've made up our minds."

 

[dank69]

Tax and spend Democrat!

 

[emptyshell]

That is either a complete lie or some major fact bending. The federal spending under Obama has gone up more than all other presidents combined. Go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ and you can do the math yourself.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'll go ahead and quote the pertinent section for ya:

Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations. By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him.

In other words, it's only by the grace of having a GOP house that spending has not exploded.

Also, the biggest explosion in spending (obamacare) has yet to kick in.

Nice try though.

 

[jackstar7]

Following PokerGuy's point, it's worth noting the jump when Republicans controlled the house with a Republican president not so long ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is either a complete lie or some major fact bending. The federal spending under Obama has gone up more than all other presidents combined. Go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ and you can do the math yourself.

The difference is between spending ON the federal government and spending BY the federal government. The less partisan get the difference.

 

[dank69]

I'll go ahead and quote the pertinent section for ya:



In other words, it's only by the grace of having a GOP house that spending has not exploded.

Also, the biggest explosion in spending (obamacare) has yet to kick in.

Nice try though.

Why didn't this magical GOP House block spending increases during the Reagan and Bush I and II years? How did they manage to block spending during 2009-2010 when Dems controlled the House? What spending bills did the GOP block, specifically?

 

[fskimospy]

That is either a complete lie or some major fact bending. The federal spending under Obama has gone up more than all other presidents combined. Go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ and you can do the math yourself.

Uhmmm, no. It most certainly has not gone up more than all other presidents combined. I don't know how you would possibly believe such a hilariously inaccurate falsehood. It's even better that you do so while declaring my figures to be a 'complete lie'.

By far the best part though is that your link uses the exact same figures as mine does, and they perfectly line up with my OP. Thanks for the good morning laugh.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why didn't this magical GOP House block spending increases during the Reagan and Bush I and II years? How did they manage to block spending during 2009-2010 when Dems controlled the House? What spending bills did the GOP block, specifically?

Please explain how the federal government spent both less and more money at the same time.

 

[PokerGuy]

That is either a complete lie or some major fact bending. The federal spending under Obama has gone up more than all other presidents combined. Go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ and you can do the math yourself.

As with all these numbers, they can be easily stated in such a way as to "prove" whatever point you want. What funds are included/excluded from comparison and all that jazz.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In other words, it's only by the grace of having a GOP house that spending has not exploded.

Funny. The GOP controlled the House and Senate from 2000 to 2006, with a Republican president, and spending exploded.

 

[dank69]

Please explain how the federal government spent both less and more money at the same time.

Please explain why you don't understand the difference between spending and growing spending.

 

[emptyshell]

Why didn't this magical GOP House block spending increases during the Reagan and Bush I and II years? How did they manage to block spending during 2009-2010 when Dems controlled the House? What spending bills did the GOP block, specifically?

It was a Democrat house during the Bush spending increasing actually.

Uhmmm, no. It most certainly has not gone up more than all other presidents combined. I don't know how you would possibly believe such a hilariously inaccurate falsehood. It's even better that you do so while declaring my figures to be a 'complete lie'.

By far the best part though is that your link uses the exact same figures as mine does, and they perfectly line up with my OP. Thanks for the good morning laugh.

Negative. The link I provided shows an increase between 2008 and current to exceed all previous years combined.

 

[PokerGuy]

Following PokerGuy's point, it's worth noting the jump when Republicans controlled the house with a Republican president not so long ago.

Actually, yes, I agree, it illustrates that point that having one party in control is a horrible thing, then there really are no checks on spending.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll go ahead and quote the pertinent section for ya:

In other words, it's only by the grace of having a GOP house that spending has not exploded.

Also, the biggest explosion in spending (obamacare) has yet to kick in.

Nice try though.

This is a good one too! The first part I like is how you neglect to realize that other presidents have had both Republican and Democratic congresses, yet their overall spending growth was much higher. Every president deals with the same issue, why is Obama's spending so much lower? Secondly, you don't seem to notice that while under the Democratic congress for his first two years Obama's federal spending growth was actually lower than under the Republican one.

By far my favorite part however is that the reasons for it are totally irrelevant. How many times have I read on here about Obama's spending binge? Countless times. The spending binge that, for whatever reason, was entirely fictitious. I know these facts are deeply uncomfortable to you. I have no doubt however that you will vote for the GOP in the fall and explain a good part of that due to wanting to get rid of Obama's spending binge. You will forget you ever read this.

 

[fskimospy]

Negative. The link I provided shows an increase between 2008 and current to exceed all previous years combined.

Negative. You need to learn how to read your own links. (also, the 2009 budget was Bush's.)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Please explain why you don't understand the difference between spending and growing spending.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It was a Democrat house during the Bush spending increasing actually.

False. The Democrats did not regain control of the House until 2007.

 

[PokerGuy]

Funny. The GOP controlled the House and Senate from 2000 to 2006, with a Republican president, and spending exploded.

See post #15.

 

[Atreus21]

So uh, where'd the 5 trillion in additional debt come from?

 

[fskimospy]

All these charts and everything are using the exact same figures as my OP. I'm not sure how people aren't getting this.

 

[fskimospy]

So uh, where'd the 5 trillion in additional debt come from?

We've discussed this before actually. So are you saying that you are disputing the OMB's numbers? If so, on what basis?

EDIT: I'm not sure if people read the link, but basically under Bush's last year you had a large increase in federal spending due to the recession. Under Obama spending has basically stayed almost exactly at that level.

 

[emptyshell]

False. The Democrats did not regain control of the House until 2007.

The Spending increase for the first 7 years of Bush's Presidency was approx 1 trillion. It was over 1 trillion for the last year. Thanks for helping make my point.

 

[Genx87]

The question I have in all of this is why are one time deals like the bank bailout and stimulus money that ballooned the budget still in the current budget? Bush and subsequently Obama both ballooned the budget and held it in place after the fact. These were supposed to be one time shots in the arm of the economy. Not a permanent expansion of the federal budget.

So people can play with the numbers all they want. Having an inflated budget then keeping it at that level or higher doesnt make you fiscally sound.