Obama smallest Government spender since Eisenhower

[Matt1970]

Obama spending binge never happened

$16.6 Trillion is all in you imagination. If you think you are running a Trillion Dollar deficit, you may not be.

 

[soundforbjt]

Obama spending binge never happened

$16.6 Trillion is all in you imagination. If you think you are running a Trillion Dollar deficit, you may not be.

Link?

 

[nehalem256]

Wow, that article is about the biggest pile of $#!% I've seen in quite a while.

The measurement for who is the biggest spender is not based on spending, nor on gdp comparisons - it is based on how much the budget has changed since he took office.

Obama came in with an overly massive out of control budget due to the stimulus. He came into office with the largest budget ever, so he gets to continue running the largest budgets ever and takes credit for being the smallest government spender?

Only in the mind of a complete (f/t)ool.

Its another one of those technically true, but deeply misleading statistics.

Like using 1968 as the comparison point for minimum wage.

Or looking at the amount of debt by president without taking into account the context.

 

[Matt1970]

Link?

Sorry

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/20...and-presidential-budgets-fiscal-year-edition/

 

[sandorski]

Undeniable True Facts:

1) before Obama, no human in history ever had a Vacation
2) Dogs didn't exist, just Puppies
3) Cats didn't exist, just Kittens

 

[sandorski]

Obama spending binge never happened

$16.6 Trillion is all in you imagination. If you think you are running a Trillion Dollar deficit, you may not be.

Inherited a giant hole, from Dubyah.

 

[Matt1970]

Inherited a giant hole, from Dubyah.

Bush - 14 years of Presidency and counting.

 

[sandorski]

Bush - 14 years of Presidency and counting.

His shit stinks long after he left. Not just with the Deficit.

 

[tgferg67]

Obama spending binge never happened

$16.6 Trillion is all in you imagination. If you think you are running a Trillion Dollar deficit, you may not be.

Where is this chart from Faux News? Kind of deceptive to to use todays inflated dollar value and compare it yesteryear. For example there was this event called WW2 - I'm pretty sure the cost adjusted for in todays dollars would make the chart look alot different...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

His shit stinks long after he left. Not just with the Deficit.

The point of this thread isn't whether or not Obama's spending was actually necessary for the continued health of the economy. Either Obama continued spending at record rates of the end of the Bush presidency to fight the recession caused by Bush, or Obama spend less than any president since Eisenhower. You can't have it both ways.

EDIT: But granted, Matt1970's figure doesn't directly address the thread topic either.

 

[sandorski]

The point of this thread isn't whether or not Obama's spending was actually necessary for the continued health of the economy. Either Obama continued spending at record rates of the end of the Bush presidency to fight the recession caused by Bush, or Obama spend less than any president since Eisenhower. You can't have it both ways.

I think the article meant to discuss Expansion. Not just $ outlay. Fact is, Obama hasn't increased Spending much at all.

 

[Atreus21]

3-3-2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?


It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama.

contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com

NOTE: Some of the comments to this piece have gotten well out of control, involving threats and obscenity to other commenters and myself.

While I welcome and encourage comments from all points of view, obscene remarks are removed and not tolerated.

Uh, you're kinda late to the party dude. Pretty sure this is a repost, to say nothing of having been debunked already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

Excerpt:

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielm...hich-president-is-the-biggest-spender-of-all/

 

[SparkyJJO]

Inherited a giant hole, from Dubyah.

Please, we're 4 years past him. Enough of the pointing fingers and blame shifting. Fact still remains Obama & Co. put the backhoe aside and got out a friggin' excavator. Didn't even bother trying to throw a shovel full back in that debt hole. Don't think I'm defending Bush's spending binges, I'm not. But it is far past time to stop with the finger pointing. That's all he's done the last 4 years is "but but but BOOSH" and he and his lame Senate cannot even come up with a budget. No budget! How are you supposed to even think of managing money properly without one?

 

[sandorski]

Please, we're 4 years past him. Enough of the pointing fingers and blame shifting. Fact still remains Obama put the backhoe aside and got out a friggin' excavator. Didn't even bother trying to throw a shovel full back in that debt hole. Don't think I'm defending Bush's spending binges, I'm not. But it is far past time to stop with the finger pointing. That's all he's done the last 4 years is "but but but BOOSH" and he and his lame Senate cannot even come up with a budget. No budget! How are you supposed to even think of managing money properly without one?

Completely wrong.

 

[Matt1970]

Completely wrong.

Bush's budgets to date.


1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

14 Years and counting.

 

[nehalem256]

Bush's budgets to date.


1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

14 Years and counting.

Apparently according to the Democrats Bush became the shadow President after Clinton was found not guilty in his impeachment trial. :biggrin:

 

[sandorski]

Bush's budgets to date.


1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

14 Years and counting.

Carry on then...

 

[SparkyJJO]

Completely wrong.

Please take a look at the handy little pie chart above, and look at the official numbers, and try again. That debt number sure is getting far, far bigger dude.

Or continue to stick your head in the sand. Not like you really need to care much anyway, since you don't even live here.

 

[sandorski]

Please take a look at the handy little pie chart above, and look at the official numbers, and try again. That debt number sure is getting far, far bigger dude.

Or continue to stick your head in the sand. Not like you really need to care much anyway, since you don't even live here.

The chart above is BS. Sorry.

 

[thraashman]

The problem with conservatives is that they seem to believe that when a new President takes office, that all spending enacted by previous administrations just resets to zero. So the new President becomes responsible for all spending as if it were new. Or at least that's what they believe when their guy runs up the tab and then walks out on it.

So question for the P&N conservatives. If you're out to dinner with a friend. And that friend order a steak, an appetizer, a decadent dessert, and multiple bottles of wine running the table's tab up, then he leaves before paying; would you consider yourself at fault for how much you spent at dinner when the bill comes? You don't actually need to answer, I'm just pointing out how fucking stupid you all are.

I continually am amazed at how incredibly stupid conservatives in P&N manage to be.

 

[dmcowen674]

Bush's budgets to date.


1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

14 Years and counting.

Sometimes damage done by one person is permanent and irreversible.

The downfall of the U.S. lies squarely on Bush and the Republicans heads.

 

[cubby1223]

The problem with conservatives is that they seem to believe that when a new President takes office, that all spending enacted by previous administrations just resets to zero. So the new President becomes responsible for all spending as if it were new. Or at least that's what they believe when their guy runs up the tab and then walks out on it.

So question for the P&N conservatives. If you're out to dinner with a friend. And that friend order a steak, an appetizer, a decadent dessert, and multiple bottles of wine running the table's tab up, then he leaves before paying; would you consider yourself at fault for how much you spent at dinner when the bill comes? You don't actually need to answer, I'm just pointing out how fucking stupid you all are.

I continually am amazed at how incredibly stupid conservatives in P&N manage to be.

What if the waiter questions such an extravagant dinner purchase feeling that your friend does not look like he has a lot of money with him, and you, the kind hearted liberal you are, upset with this representative of a profit-driven restaurant in front of you, pull the waiter aside and explain to him that it is his job to provide your friend anything he orders?

No, I must just be the braindead conservative here. Barack Obama never organized lawsuits against banks who refused to hand out mortgages to high risk individuals.



What if your friend when ordering his meal, warns you that the wording on the menu doesn't read normal? You kindly reassure your friend that the restaurant provides a valuable service and that a trusted friend of yours works here and always tells you the restaurant is doing well. Then when receiving the bill for your friend's dinner you scream "Oh Crap! What the hell is all this?"

Naw, Congressional Democrats never blocked attempts to investigate the accounting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the pursuit of the politically beneficial affordable housing. I must be making this all up, one of them conservative delusions.

 

[Genx87]

Holy god this article again? Leave it up to Dave to post an article from last may that we have already covered several times.

 

[Pacemaker]

Sorry

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/20...and-presidential-budgets-fiscal-year-edition/

I don't normally post, but did you even read the article?

Above your graph it says:
US Debt Accumulation by President: Based on time each President is in office (Erroneous Calendar Year)

Above another graph that shows Obama in a much more favorable light it says:
U.S. Debt Accumulation by President: Based on time each President’s submitted budget (Accurate Fiscal Year)

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't normally post, but did you even read the article?

Above your graph it says:
US Debt Accumulation by President: Based on time each President is in office (Erroneous Calendar Year)

Above another graph that shows Obama in a much more favorable light it says:
U.S. Debt Accumulation by President: Based on time each President’s submitted budget (Accurate Fiscal Year)

Indeed, and it presents a much more honest representation of where our debt came from:

Matt either doesn't understand the difference, or was being willfully dishonest. Certainly the Obama-era deficits are high and continue to dig us deeper into debt, but it's pure partisan hackery to pretend our current federal debt is mostly his creation. Reagan and Bush-43 were also big spenders. There's plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle.