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

[jackstar7]

You should start a thread about that topic if it's something you want to discuss.

 

[QuantumPion]

I'm just impressed at the level to which the extreme right is totally losing it's shit over this. They are even more desperate to cling to their fictions than I thought. I mean look at the sheer quantity of totally bullshit excuses people have tried to trot out. Blaming Bush's 2009 budget on Obama, blaming Obama for the underestimated costs of Medicaid, etc. Blaming Obama because Bush deliberately left out funding for his own wars, etc, etc.

This is no longer rational thinking, this is people slamming their heads into their desks so that they don't have to accept uncomfortable new thoughts.

I don't know what to say about this, except that you must be literally insane. You are trying to simultaneously argue that 1) Obama's stimulus spending saved the economy and 2) Obama didn't increase any spending, it was Bush, and that spending is bad for the economy. It's like a perfect example of doublethink - believing your own deliberate lies.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't know what to say about this, except that you must be literally insane.

Or perhaps he only appears insane because you don't understand what he's saying.

Consider the possibility that it makes sense for the government to spend money during recessions and to not spend money when growth is good. Economists do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://blog.american.com/

 

[woolfe9999]

I've noticed this too. It's weird, many conservative people believe that Republicans are elected because the country wants them to do Republican-y, conservative things. Then when Democrats win elections they think that.... the country is mad that the Republicans weren't conservative enough and so they are going to elect the Democrats to act like conservative Republicans instead. There's no concept that anyone could elect a party to do anything other than be conservative.

The Republicans can't campaign on an actual fiscal conservative platform because doing what they claim they want to do would be enormously unpopular. You will hear Mitt Romney talk about the need to cut spending constantly during this election. When asked specifically what he will cut, he will mention small, useless things like PBS funding or Planned Parenthood. He will make absolutely no effort to talk about the ACTUAL cuts that he will have to make in order to follow through on his plans, because if he did so he would lose. If he somehow wins, I predict 4 (or 8) years of unrelenting defense of Romney, followed by the declaration that he wasn't a 'true' conservative and that this time we need to elect a real conservative to get the country back on track.

Yup, and to be specific, the Limbaugh led cry since the 90's has been over "pork barrel spending" and "earmarks." These people don't realize how they've been suckered by all of this. 20 years of complaining about something that amounts to like 2% of spending, AND it's spending the GOP has continuously engaged in as much as dems. They do it because it curries them favor in their own districts. Yet people don't even understand that it's practically irrelevant anyway.

 

[WackyDan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?hpid=z3

 

[jackstar7]

I don't know what to say about this, except that you must be literally insane. You are trying to simultaneously argue that 1) Obama's stimulus spending saved the economy and 2) Obama didn't increase any spending, it was Bush, and that spending is bad for the economy. It's like a perfect example of doublethink - believing your own deliberate lies.

Hey! It's me! Context!

We used to be friends, but you never call anymore...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

http://blog.american.com/

Thank you for posting your source.

Now, if we take the numbers over all of Clinton's years, they average out to 7825. Do the same for Bush's, and it comes to 10108.

This means that Bush increased spending by 29% over Clinton, and Obama increased spending by roughly 26% over Bush.

And Bush did this during a time of economic growth, while during Obama's term, a lot of mandatory spending was required due to a deep recession.

So where was the screaming from Republicans during the Bush years? Oh right, there wasn't any. They participated in blowing out the budget.

They only started (pretending) to care about spending when the black Muslim Kenyan got in office.

 

[Craig234]

Or perhaps he only appears insane because you don't understand what he's saying.

Consider the possibility that it makes sense for the government to spend money during recessions and to not spend money when growth is good. Economists do.

It's Keynesian economics - and why JFK pushed a big tax cut in good times, *fighting Republicans to get it.* (Only 48 Republicans in the House finally voted for it.)

Republicans demand Obama cut spending NOW, knowing full well that plays to their base, and if Obama did, it'd crush the economy and help Republicans defeat him in 2012.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know what to say about this, except that you must be literally insane. You are trying to simultaneously argue that 1) Obama's stimulus spending saved the economy and 2) Obama didn't increase any spending, it was Bush, and that spending is bad for the economy. It's like a perfect example of doublethink - believing your own deliberate lies.

Let's review for you.

Good economists - not Republican operatives - said 'you should have a huge stimulus'.

Republicans successfully fought this, abusing the filibuster.

Obama did get a 'small stimulus', which did help. It's that simple.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know what to say about this, except that you must be literally insane. You are trying to simultaneously argue that 1) Obama's stimulus spending saved the economy and 2) Obama didn't increase any spending, it was Bush, and that spending is bad for the economy. It's like a perfect example of doublethink - believing your own deliberate lies.

I don't know what to say about this, except that you must have literally no understanding of English.

1.) I believe Obama's stimulus was a good thing.

2.) I have never said that spending is inherently bad for the economy. (that's what you think, remember? not me.)

3.) I believe that Obama did not significantly increase federal spending over Bush.

4.) I believe it would have been better if Obama had increased spending a lot more.

None of this is particularly complicated stuff, and I've said it so many times on here it's not even funny.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thank you for posting your source.

Now, if we take the numbers over all of Clinton's years, they average out to 7825. Do the same for Bush's, and it comes to 10108.

This means that Bush increased spending by 29% over Clinton, and Obama increased spending by roughly 26% over Bush.

And Bush did this during a time of economic growth, while during Obama's term, a lot of mandatory spending was required due to a deep recession.

So where was the screaming from Republicans during the Bush years? Oh right, there wasn't any. They participated in blowing out the budget.

They only started (pretending) to care about spending when the black Muslim Kenyan got in office.

That was my point. Thank you for admitting to the obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for posting your source.

Now, if we take the numbers over all of Clinton's years, they average out to 7825. Do the same for Bush's, and it comes to 10108.

This means that Bush increased spending by 29% over Clinton, and Obama increased spending by roughly 26% over Bush.

And Bush did this during a time of economic growth, while during Obama's term, a lot of mandatory spending was required due to a deep recession.

So where was the screaming from Republicans during the Bush years? Oh right, there wasn't any. They participated in blowing out the budget.

They only started (pretending) to care about spending when the black Muslim Kenyan got in office.

You aren't getting it, he's trying to use numbers from before the recession to bring down other averages so that his point appears less horrible. If you just include budgets during times of similar economic circumstances of course his point evaporates completely, but he's relying on nobody noticing that so that he can cling to his delusions.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You aren't getting it, he's trying to use numbers from before the recession to bring down other averages so that his point appears less horrible. If you just include budgets during times of similar economic circumstances of course his point evaporates completely, but he's relying on nobody noticing that so that he can cling to his delusions.

Well, yes, I made the point about the differences in economic circumstances. He chose to ignore that and cherry-pick one point out context, but there's nothing I can do about someone who's more interesting in "winning" an argument than in discussing an issue reasonably.

 

[First]

http://blog.american.com/

lol, you're still posting bro?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well, yes, I made the point about the differences in economic circumstances. He chose to ignore that and cherry-pick one point out context, but there's nothing I can do about someone who's more interesting in "winning" an argument than in discussing an issue reasonably.

Out of context? Did you or did you not say "Obama increased spending by roughly 26% over Bush"?

And do you really expect me to believe that you want to discuss this subject reasonably after making a comment like this?

They only started (pretending) to care about spending when the black Muslim Kenyan got in office.

Reasonable not found. Get real.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Out of context? Did you or did you not say "Obama increased spending by roughly 26% over Bush"?

Yes -- which was less than Bush increased it over Clinton, and for far better reasons.

You're ignoring that what Bush did was far worse than what Obama did, and for less justification.

That seems pretty consistent with what I said before -- Republicans only claim to care about debt when there's a Democrat in the White House.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol, you're still posting bro?

You know when people start saying "bro" or "u mad bro" I can't help but think of all the 12 year olds spewing their idiocity in WoW trade chat...totally oblivious to the vacuum between their ears.

 

[First]

You know when people start saying "bro" or "u mad bro" I can't help but think of all the 12 year olds spewing their idiocity in WoW trade chat...totally oblivious to the vacuum between their ears.

Don't tase me, bro.

But seriously, your infographics don't dispute shit from the OP.

 

[werepossum]

"The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans."

It's actually worse that that. Nutting attributes everything up until October 2009 to Bush. Bills that Bush refused to sign, the second half of TARP that Bush said (right or wrong) was not needed, even Stimulus Rex that was conceived and passed entirely on Obama's watch, all these he considers Bush spending. That's right, Obama single-handedly saved the country if not the world - but with Bush's spending.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes -- which was less than Bush increased it over Clinton, and for far better reasons.

You're ignoring that what Bush did was far worse than what Obama did, and for less justification.

That seems pretty consistent with what I said before -- Republicans only claim to care about debt when there's a Democrat in the White House.

FYI, this thread is about Obama's spending compared to Bush's. Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination...I'm not ignoring this fact...it's just not germaine to the thread topic or the point I'm trying to make.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that spending has significantly increased under Obama. I'm glad to finally see someone here from the Left that agrees to the blatantly obvious.

I agree that Republicans were way too lax on Bush's spending. However, they're evolving and there's a growing number who are very concerned with fiscal responsibility regardless of which party holds office. We'll just have to wait and see how that goes if Romney gets elected.

 

[Genx87]

How much of that difference between Bush's proposed 3.1 trillion and the 3.5 trillion dollar budget Obama signed for FY 09 is on Bush? There is a 400 billion dollar gap. I totally forgot Obama actually signed the FY 09 budget in March 2009. Before that it was a series of appropriation bills in the interim until the budget was fully passed.

 

[mrCide]

This is so embarrassing..

 

[fskimospy]

How much of that difference between Bush's proposed 3.1 trillion and the 3.5 trillion dollar budget Obama signed for FY 09 is on Bush? There is a 400 billion dollar gap. I totally forgot Obama actually signed the FY 09 budget in March 2009. Before that it was a series of appropriation bills in the interim until the budget was fully passed.

It is basically all unforseen increases in mandatory spending for medicaid and other social safety net programs (because the recession was so much worse than they thought), along with Obama funding the Iraq/Afghanistan wars through the end of the year because Bush only funded them for the first 6 months.

 

[fskimospy]

It's actually worse that that. Nutting attributes everything up until October 2009 to Bush. Bills that Bush refused to sign, the second half of TARP that Bush said (right or wrong) was not needed, even Stimulus Rex that was conceived and passed entirely on Obama's watch, all these he considers Bush spending. That's right, Obama single-handedly saved the country if not the world - but with Bush's spending.

This is simply factually incorrect on several levels. Bush most certainly did not say the second half of TARP was not necessary, and even if he did he signed the original bill and BOTH halves of it were authorized for disbursement during his administration. As for 'bills that Bush refused to sign', exactly what bills are you referring to and what was their cost? Finally, it is clear that you have not read either the article or this thread. It is made explicitly clear in the charts, the article, and my posts that Obama's stimulus spending in 2009 was assigned to his later totals, not Bush's.

In order to say what it's 'actually worse than', you should probably read the article first.