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

[cybrsage]

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.

This.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

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.

People confuse stimulus spending with increasing the size of the government unfortunately.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I'm not choosing to include or exclude anything. I'm talking about all federal expenditures, counting all money spent at the federal level. You are including all money spent by federal, state, and local governments combined. This is an illogical thing to do when discussing a president's spending because he does not control state and local expenditures.

You appear to believe that federal money spent on aiding states is not being counted as part of federal expenditures. This is false.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

FYI......I'm still laughing.

Pointing at your opponent and giggling is a well known way to win a debate.

 

[xBiffx]

People confuse stimulus spending with increasing the size of the government unfortunately.

Some also confuse deficit spending with non deficit spending. Spending overall means nothing unless you factor in your income. If you spend alot but make alot fine, if you spend a lot but make a little, that is where the problem arises. Spending within your means is the first key out of debt.

 

[emptyshell]

I'm not choosing to include or exclude anything. I'm talking about all federal expenditures, counting all money spent at the federal level. You are including all money spent by federal, state, and local governments combined. This is an illogical thing to do when discussing a president's spending because he does not control state and local expenditures.

You appear to believe that federal money spent on aiding states is not being counted as part of federal expenditures. This is false.

Is this money spent at the Federal level? Yes. Are you excluding it to try and validate an incorrect and misleading statement? Yes.

That money is generated and SPENT at the Federal level. Which is why it is included in the Total Federal Spending.

 

[dank69]

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.

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.

Quoted in line for the lulz.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Spending overall means nothing unless you factor in your income.

And the GOP has made it impossible to boost income, due to their religious-dogma-like opposition to any and all tax increases.

 

[fskimospy]

Is this money spent at the Federal level? Yes. Are you excluding it to try and validate an incorrect and misleading statement? Yes.

That money is generated and SPENT at the Federal level. Which is why it is included in the Total Federal Spending.

This is simply factually incorrect. No, the state and local expenditures are not spent at the federal level. Total government expenditures for 2011 at the federal level were $3.6 trillion. Total government spending at the state and local level were $3.1 trillion. Those are not state expenditures at the federal level, in fact that is an illogical statement.

You simply didn't understand how to read the very website you linked. What exactly aren't you getting here?

 

[dank69]

This is simply factually incorrect. No, the state and local expenditures are not spent at the federal level. Total government expenditures for 2011 at the federal level were $3.6 trillion. Total government spending at the state and local level were $3.1 trillion. Those are not state expenditures at the federal level, in fact that is an illogical statement.

You simply didn't understand how to read the very website you linked. What exactly aren't you getting here?

At least his username is fitting.

 

[xBiffx]

And the GOP has made it impossible to boost income, due to their religious-dogma-like opposition to any and all tax increases.

Does that work with your employer? When you start spending too much, do you just go to your boss and demand a raise to cover the extra spending? I think not. Most probably adjust spending according to their income.

Go ahead and blame republicans all you want for opposing tax increases but you still wouldn't have debt problems if spending was adjusted accordingly. Basically, spending is 99.9% of the problem here and not the amount of revenue coming in. If $2.5T is not enough revenue, you are doing it wrong.

 

[emptyshell]

This is simply factually incorrect. No, the state and local expenditures are not spent at the federal level. Total government expenditures for 2011 at the federal level were $3.6 trillion. Total government spending at the state and local level were $3.1 trillion. Those are not state expenditures at the federal level, in fact that is an illogical statement.

You simply didn't understand how to read the very website you linked. What exactly aren't you getting here?

That revenue is generated at the Federal level. It's then given (spent) to the States in aide. It's spent at the Federal level which is why it's included. You can't generate money at the Federal level. Include it in yearly revenue and then just pretend it was never there. Which is exactly what you're doing.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2010USrn

 

[Genx87]

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.

Obama maintained an overinflated budget. While I think the republicans painting of the picture isnt true and would not pass the truthiness test. And they certainly are full of shit when it comes to cutting a budget. I think the fact he continued to spend at that overinflated level says he had every intention of spending that kind of money anyways. And because Bush blew out his budget in his last year due to a crisis is a technicality that makes Obama's rate increase look good by comparison.

And to that I ask who cares? The fact is his budgets are well beyond our means to pay for them and running up deficits the likes we havent seen since a world war.

 

[emptyshell]

You seem to have the false notion that this includes state and local revenue. That is on the site as well but not on that tab.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2010USrn

Let's try this again.

On the page you linked... see the words...

Total Government Spending
Expenditure GDP – CHARTS – Deficit Debt

Just below that you'll see tabs labeled "Total", "Federal", etc.


Click the one that says "Federal".

 

[fskimospy]

That revenue is generated at the Federal level. It's then given (spent) to the States in aide. It's spent at the Federal level which is why it's included. You can't generate money at the Federal level. Include it in yearly revenue and then just pretend it was never there. Which is exactly what you're doing.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2010USrn

I'm not sure what else to tell you other than what you are saying is factually wrong.

Federal aid to states is counted in federal expenditures. This is in fact one of the reasons why total spending is lower than the sum of the 'federal' and 'state and local' tabs. It is not counted twice. The 'total' is combining federal, state, and local expenditures. State and local expenditures primarily come from state property, income, and sales taxes. None of this revenue is federally generated, and states do not contribute to federal expenditures from their budgets (generally).

I seriously don't understand what you aren't getting about this. Total spending is not total federal spending, it is total spending at all levels of government. That's why there are different tabs for each type of expenditure.

Feel free to admit you were wrong at any time.

 

[emptyshell]

I'm not sure what else to tell you other than what you are saying is factually wrong.

Federal aid to states is counted in federal expenditures. This is in fact one of the reasons why total spending is lower than the sum of the 'federal' and 'state and local' tabs. It is not counted twice. The 'total' is combining federal, state, and local expenditures. State and local expenditures primarily come from state property, income, and sales taxes. None of this revenue is federally generated, and states do not contribute to federal expenditures from their budgets (generally).

I seriously don't understand what you aren't getting about this. Total spending is not total federal spending, it is total spending at all levels of government. That's why there are different tabs for each type of expenditure.

Feel free to admit you were wrong at any time.

You seem to not understand revenue. Until you do this is pointless because you have no idea what is happening in this conversation. That money is given to the States. It didn't have to be. It could have been spent elsewhere or not spent at all. You are COMPLETELY ignoring that fact by pretending that it's the States money to begin with.

 

[dank69]

That revenue is generated at the Federal level. It's then given (spent) to the States in aide. It's spent at the Federal level which is why it's included. You can't generate money at the Federal level. Include it in yearly revenue and then just pretend it was never there. Which is exactly what you're doing.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2010USrn

This is the kind of blatent trolling that needs to be banworthy if the mods really ever want to get this forum under control.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama maintained an overinflated budget. While I think the republicans painting of the picture isnt true and would not pass the truthiness test. And they certainly are full of shit when it comes to cutting a budget. I think the fact he continued to spend at that overinflated level says he had every intention of spending that kind of money anyways. And because Bush blew out his budget in his last year due to a crisis is a technicality that makes Obama's rate increase look good by comparison.

And to that I ask who cares? The fact is his budgets are well beyond our means to pay for them and running up deficits the likes we havent seen since a world war.

You realize that most of those 'overinflated' expenditures came from already enacted laws that have been on the books for generations, right? I hardly think that allowing already enacted law to operate as intended shows an intention for creating new laws to spend at the same rate. (not to mention that it probably wouldn't have happened through Congress anyway)

I also don't view it as a technicality, Bush's budgets led to increased spending due to similar circumstances that Obama has been in his whole presidency. He simply hasn't enacted many new expenditures outside of the stimulus.

 

[emptyshell]

State and local expenditures primarily come from state property, income, and sales taxes.

That is State generated revenue WHICH THE SITE CLEARLY STATE IS NOT INCLUDED

 

[emptyshell]

This is the kind of blatent trolling that needs to be banworthy if the mods really ever want to get this forum under control.

OMG there are facts coming in here! Quick get rid of them. Typically liberal.

 

[jackstar7]

That is State generated revenue WHICH THE SITE CLEARLY STATE IS NOT INCLUDED

Your posting in this thread is analogous to a trainwreck.

Revenue isn't counted in the spending numbers? Really, Capt. Obvious?

 

[fskimospy]

You seem to not understand revenue. Until you do this is pointless because you have no idea what is happening in this conversation. That money is given to the States. It didn't have to be. It could have been spent elsewhere or not spent at all. You are COMPLETELY ignoring that fact by pretending that it's the States money to begin with.

First of all, this thread is about spending, not revenue. Secondly, and for the last time, FEDERAL EXPENDITURES INCLUDE MONEY GIVEN TO STATES. The states also raise their own revenues and enact their own spending. This is why your website has multiple tabs.

Federal spending for 2011 was right around $3.5 trillion. It was not ~$6 trillion. This is an indisputable fact. When you say this, you are saying something false. I'm not sure if this is due to a genuine lack of understanding, personal pride, or just a desire to troll this forum. Either way, I'd like you to stop.

 

[fskimospy]

That is State generated revenue WHICH THE SITE CLEARLY STATE IS NOT INCLUDED

No, it doesn't say that. Regardless, that is revenues and not expenditures.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Bush sank himself when he pulled the incredible mistake of Iraq. It seems that everyone likes to spend, it's a matter of on what. If he hadn't been that stupid then the numbers would have been different, but "could" and "did" are different things.

Also the solution of spending one's way out of a recession is rather simplistic since the results are dependent on the nature of the economy at the time. I believe that spending doesn't address the core problems of unemployment and stagnant wages, which I attribute to outsourcing and the drive to downsize further. That's driven by costs and the disconnect between what is beneficial to the boardroom and to the nation. Throwing money into the economy will most likely mean that it will be spent overseas, increasing automation at a time when replacing people with machines is not helpful, and even if it did help it would be temporary while the problem as I see it now is virtually institutionalized.

Better than spending (although well thought out targeted spending I do not disagree with) would be to change the business climate with intelligent regulation to make boards more accountable in fact rather than theory to a larger number of shareholders, not just the members of the "old boy club" who are fund investors which are part of the unaccountable class who determine company policy and their own compensation packages at the expense of the employed (or under or unemployed). To encourage a climate where money is spent domestically an environment of accountability needs to be fostered. Note I said intelligent. The simplistic idea of taxing the top bracket does nothing to provide to motivation for long term well paying domestic jobs, indeed it feels good, but is in fact harmful. If taxed to they have less money, they'll squeeze more out of their remaining workers to compensate. I don't see that as very useful.

The ultimate solution is to work to have government facilitate an economy where the private sector finds it in their best interest to provide good jobs, which solves a great many problems, not least of which are recessions.