Looks at dollars spend. It's a 2 trillion dollar increase in actual spending. When leveled for inflation it's the biggest increase of all presidents combined. When taken at face value it's still the biggest single increase in presidential history. Excluding WWII.
Looks at dollars spend. It's a 2 trillion dollar increase in actual spending. When leveled for inflation it's the biggest increase of all presidents combined. When taken at face value it's still the biggest single increase in presidential history. Excluding WWII.
So why did federal spending increase at a lower rate while the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress than it did with a Republican House? Additionally, other presidents have frequently had oppositional congresses, yet spending still increased at a far faster rate.
Outside of all that, I'm betting if I use the search function I can find you complaining about Obama's spending binge. Are you prepared to admit that for whatever reason, that it never happened?
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,109
- 32,468
- 136
Still waiting for you to link to a single spending bill that the GOP blocked during Obama's tenure.
No, it is not a 2 trillion dollar increase in actual spending. You seriously don't know how to use your own links. From the very site you linked:
Federal spending in 2009 (Bush budget): $3.52 trillion
2010 (Obama's first budget): $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.6 trillion
2012 (estimate): $3.8 trillion
That is from your own link. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding.
I completely understand. Those are the raw spending numbers vs. growth differential numbers. Obama has spent more in raw numbers. But in comparison to how much spending has increased during each admin, he's not that bad.
I'm not sure who should really take that credit though. Obama's certainly tried to spend lots more but was blocked by the GOP. Although that just proves that the GOP is only against government spending when it's Democratic initiatives. When one of their own is in office then they spend at a record setting pace.
He's not factoring in inflation. I think he's only working with nominal numbers...
You either aren't comprehending this site, the numbers on it, or you are just making shit up.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2010_US_total
Total spending for 2010 5.9 trillion.
It doesn't matter what numbers he is working with, it's false. There is literally no way you can look at the budget numbers and come to that conclusion.
He either can't read his own link or he doesn't understand what he's reading.
That's a reasonable way to view this. Good to see someone taking a balanced approach.
It is definitely true that Obama would have spent more if he had gotten his way. It is also true that, given the economic situation he was dealing with, he's been far more responsible than Bush Jr. was with what he inherited.
It's also worth pointing out that many economists believe that spending *should* have been higher to help break us out of recession. And that much of the reason for the high deficits is decreased revenues due to tax cuts and loss of income because of the recession itself.
You are the one that isn't understanding the numbers. You are way off and I'm pretty sure no one here is going to be able to convince you otherwise.
lol, you definitely can't comprehend your own site. That number is federal, state, and local combined. In case you hadn't heard, Obama is in control of the FEDERAL government's budget, not those of state and local governments. That's why your website has a handy 'federal' tab for spending. It's also why my OP said 'federal spending under Obama'.
Once you click that you will see that the numbers are exactly what I was telling you.
xBiffx
Diamond Member
- Aug 22, 2011
- 8,232
- 2
- 0
I understand how Obama has spent less, dollar for dollar than other Presidents but what I don't understand is how this is some sort of excuse for where we are right now. How is this supposed to be a defense for Obama?
If I spent 90K last year and now I only spend 60K this year, eskimo would have you believe that I did a better job this year. Problem is, my salary was 85K last year and now its dropped to 45K. Somehow, I (as others I assume) fail to see how this is a plus seeing is how I have way overspent my means.
But hey, I managed to spend 30K less this year than last year, way to go!!!
If I spent 90K last year and now I only spend 60K this year, eskimo would have you believe that I did a better job this year. Problem is, my salary was 85K last year and now its dropped to 45K. Somehow, I (as others I assume) fail to see how this is a plus seeing is how I have way overspent my means.
But hey, I managed to spend 30K less this year than last year, way to go!!!
a777pilot
Diamond Member
- Apr 26, 2011
- 4,261
- 21
- 81
FYI......I'm still laughing.
I'm still observing that both sides are very respectfully arguing their points, and people are politely pointing out errors that others have made in their calculations. You seem to be contributing nothing, except perhaps attempting to bait people into reacting to your posts. (trolling.) -Admin DrPizza
I'm still observing that both sides are very respectfully arguing their points, and people are politely pointing out errors that others have made in their calculations. You seem to be contributing nothing, except perhaps attempting to bait people into reacting to your posts. (trolling.) -Admin DrPizza
Last edited by a moderator:
jackstar7
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2009
- 11,679
- 1,944
- 126
I have no doubt that people inclined to vote for Republicans will find a way to rationalize doing so regardless of my little post on the subject. The simple fact remains that spending on average has increased much faster under Republican presidents than Democratic ones. Obama in particular has grown federal spending at a very low rate compared to other presidents.
Outside of all of that, what would be nice is if people could at least acknowledge that Obama has not engaged in the spending spree that so many Republicans claim. You can still not vote for him of course, and you can always think that we need to cut the deficit due to decreased revenues, etc. At least in that case you would be accurately describing reality.
You are aware that states and local governments get money from the Federal Government? I'm guessing you aren't aware of this. This is Federal money spent. This doesn't include revenue generated at the state and local level. It does include Federal money spent at the state and local level.
Negative. Federal aid to state and local governments is counted under federal expenditures.
Feel free to admit you were wrong whenever.
His point was that Federal spending is lowest under Obama than any other president since WWII. Which is factually incorrect no matter what numbers you use.
If you use total Federal spending it gets even worse. If you include the Federal debt then it gets even worse.
He and the article are factually incorrect.
I thought you just said it was bad to have all those of the same party? Now its good when its your team?
It's Federal spending. It's revenue generated and spent at the Federal level. This is very simple and you can't seem to comprehend it at it's simplest level. You are choosing to exclude and include whatever you want to validate your incorrect point. You have to include ALL money spent and generated at the Federal level.
That was not my point, and the article and I are perfectly factually correct unless you are declaring the OMB's numbers to be wrong.
Incidentally, the website that you linked to uses OMB numbers as well so be careful!
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,109
- 32,468
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter