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

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

I'm looking at that chart and if it were 1.4% there should be no perceptible difference between 2010 and 2013, in fact it should be flat. Also look beyond the selected endpoint of 2013 and projected spending clearly exceeds that percentage.

 

[Atreus21]

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

Okay, so how'd we get 5 trillion in additional debt? The economic downturn? Decreased revenue? Fine. So with reference to revenue, spending under Obama has gone extremely high. Is it so difficult to tailor your spending to your revenue stream?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

Uh, you don't have a point. There was a massive recession and financial crisis in the last year that there wasn't in the first several.

There was no reason that spending should have increased *at all* for the first six years of Bush's presidency, especially with the allegedly deficit-conscious Republicans controlling everything.

He blew the budget, period, on needless war and giveaways.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

So your support for Romney, is it tempered by campaigning for Democrats for House and Senate seats? Or vice versa, and you're supporting the reelection of the president, but gains in the house/senate for Republicans?

 

[PokerGuy]

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?

Remember all the threads where the dimlibs whine and complain about the "unprecedented" level of "obstructionism" and so forth? THAT is why spending has not exploded. I took the quote straight from your linked article.

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.

As I stated earlier, it's easy to put the numbers in such a way as to show whatever you want.

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.

So basically, the article you linked to says spending didn't explode because the GOP blocked it even though obummer wanted to spend more. That's like a bank robber not robbing a bank because security apprehended him, then saying he's not really a bad guy because he never actually robbed the bank. You're a funny guy

Also, as I pointed out, the biggest spending increase hasn't even begun to kick in yet.

 

[dank69]

Thank you. Notice how the 2009 spending (Bush's) was higher than 2010 (Obama's)? Notice how 2011 was only slightly higher than 2009. Notice how 2009 was a huge increase over 2008? Notice how the spending was higher in every single year of the Bush Presidency? Notice how every year of Bush's presidency the increases are more than the increase from 2009-2011?

 

[Atreus21]

There was no reason that spending should have increased *at all* for the first six years of Bush's presidency, especially with the allegedly deficit-conscious Republicans controlling everything.

Yeah, funding two wars is dirt cheap.

He blew the budget, period, on needless war and giveaways.

If Bush blew the budget, Obama took a nuclear missile to it. For that matter, I don't think he even had a budget.

 

[emptyshell]

Uh, you don't have a point. There was a massive recession and financial crisis in the last year that there wasn't in the first several.

There was no reason that spending should have increased *at all* for the first six years of Bush's presidency, especially with the allegedly deficit-conscious Republicans controlling everything.

He blew the budget, period, on needless war and giveaways.

My point was that the major increase in spending during Bush's term was during a Democrat controlled house. Which I provided evidence to back up those statements. You are now basically trying to change the subject. My point has been made.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm looking at that chart and if it were 1.4% there should be no perceptible difference between 2010 and 2013, in fact it should be flat. Also look beyond the selected endpoint of 2013 and projected spending clearly exceeds that percentage.

It's an annualized rate. Spending has increased at a greater than 1.4% rate the last few years, but it actually declined the year before that. You are also looking at projected numbers for future years, which is 1.) probably not a good idea and 2.) not what we're talking about.

My only point in this whole thread is that the 'spending explosion' that people claim happened under Obama is simply a continuation of policies already in place by his Republican predecessor.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As I stated earlier, it's easy to put the numbers in such a way as to show whatever you want.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

 

[cybrsage]

So our national debt is still continuing to go up - which is still a bad thing. Call me when Obama actually approves spending LESS or EQUAL to the amount the government takes in.

 

[fskimospy]

If Bush blew the budget, Obama took a nuclear missile to it. For that matter, I don't think he even had a budget.

What's strange is that this point is directly contradicted by the facts presented in this same thread. Obama's increase in spending over Bush averaged 1.4% per year. And what do you mean Obama didn't have a budget? That's ridiculous.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My point has been made.

If your point was that you know how to deceive people by taking statistics out of context, then I'll grant that.

 

[fskimospy]

My point was that the major increase in spending during Bush's term was during a Democrat controlled house. Which I provided evidence to back up those statements. You are now basically trying to change the subject. My point has been made.

Your evidence showed a 1.4% annualized increase in federal spending during Obama's budgets.

 

[PokerGuy]

So your support for Romney, is it tempered by campaigning for Democrats for House and Senate seats? Or vice versa, and you're supporting the reelection of the president, but gains in the house/senate for Republicans?

No, there is no conceivable scenario where the GOP will have full control of congress and the white house, so there's no reason to temper anything. The best outcome is to have Romney in the WH with a GOP house and senate, but the dems having a strong enough voice in each to block stuff when needed. That's not going to happen though.

 

[a777pilot]

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.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh this morning and I haven't stopped laughing since I read your post.

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

 

[Atreus21]

What's strange is that this point is directly contradicted by the facts presented in this same thread. Obama's increase in spending over Bush averaged 1.4% per year. And what do you mean Obama didn't have a budget? That's ridiculous.

The facts presented in this same thread fail to paint the whole picture. If Obama has dropped spending, where'd all the debt come from?

The response from the left, so far, is that it's because of decreased revenue resulting from the economic downturn and tax cuts, and that's fine. It's true that Obama has spent less. But with reference to his revenue stream, he's spent far more.

 

[fskimospy]

No, there is no conceivable scenario where the GOP will have full control of congress and the white house, so there's no reason to temper anything. The best outcome is to have Romney in the WH with a GOP house and senate, but the dems having a strong enough voice in each to block stuff when needed. That's not going to happen though.

Many of the policies that the GOP wish to enact can be passed through budget reconciliation. A simple majority in the Senate will work for quite a bit of it. You should start campaigning for Democratic Senate candidates immediately.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, there is no conceivable scenario where the GOP will have full control of congress and the white house, so there's no reason to temper anything.

Um, what?

There is virtually no chance of the GOP losing the House, and at least a 50/50 chance of them taking control of the Senate.

So if Romney wins, yes, they could easily have control of everything. It is in fact the main reason I won't vote for him -- I remember what happened the last time.

 

[PokerGuy]

Your evidence showed a 1.4% annualized increase in federal spending during Obama's budgets.

Thanks to the 'obstructionism' by the gop. Should we laud obummer because the spending didn't explode, when in fact he tried to spend more but was prevented from doing so by the gop?

 

[dank69]

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.

Notice in the chart above that spending was ~$2T in 2002, Bush's first budget year? Notice that it was ~$3.5T in 2009, Bush's last budget year? that's a spending increase of ~1.5T during his terms. Notice that the budget for 2011 is ~$3.6T. That's an increase of ~$0.1T for two years of Obama Presidency. Notice how your numbers are bullshit?

 

[jackstar7]

No, there is no conceivable scenario where the GOP will have full control of congress and the white house, so there's no reason to temper anything. The best outcome is to have Romney in the WH with a GOP house and senate, but the dems having a strong enough voice in each to block stuff when needed. That's not going to happen though.

I'm sorry... the BEST outcome is a repeat of the exact conditions that previously led to explosive increases in spending?

 

[fskimospy]

The facts presented in this same thread fail to paint the whole picture. If Obama has dropped spending, where'd all the debt come from?

The response from the left, so far, is that it's because of decreased revenue resulting from the economic downturn and tax cuts, and that's fine. It's true that Obama has spent less. But with reference to his revenue stream, he's spent far more.

Obama didn't drop spending, he increased it at roughly a 1.4% annualized rate. The debt came principally from reduced revenues due to the recession and policies that were already in place. What you're basically asking is why Obama didn't dramatically cut federal spending and remove the social safety net during an economic catastrophe. I hope that answer would be self evident.

 

[PokerGuy]

Um, what?

There is virtually no chance of the GOP losing the House, and at least a 50/50 chance of them taking control of the Senate.

So if Romney wins, yes, they could easily have control of everything. It is in fact the main reason I won't vote for him -- I remember what happened the last time.

The GOP will not gain control of the senate, because obummer will get help push voting numbers much higher than usual (just like 2008), and the dims will hold the senate. Even if they didn't, they would have 50 or at worst, 49 senate seats, plenty to block anything they wanted in the senate.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm sorry... the BEST outcome is a repeat of the exact conditions that previously led to explosive increases in spending?

The GOP is working very hard to forget that 2001-2009 ever happened.

The universe just suddenly snapped into existence with Obama responsible for all debt and everything bad associated with the government.

The GOP will not gain control of the senate, because obummer will get help push voting numbers much higher than usual (just like 2008), and the dims will hold the senate.

This is utter gibberish based on absolutely no evidence. Try reading some polls.