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

[Hobbes]

Anything is possible, but Romney isn't running on a platform of entitlements and spending like Obama did. Ya got what you voted for in 2008.

I already know what we have with Obama and I don't want any more of it... I'll take my chances with the other guy ESPECIALLY when you consider possible SCOTUS appointments and ditching restrictive and unpredictable insanity when it comes to regulatory issues.

I love how everyone keeps saying that the R and D are exactly the same but their solution is to vote for Obama... fawking LAWLing over here.

Well, I hadn't planned on marking through the arrow for either one to tell you the truth.
But now that I know how strongly you feel about it I think I will vote for O just to cancel your vote out.

Besides, Obama has a proven track record of reigning in the growth in government spending.

 

[RickN]

I love how the left says Bush's first year spending was NOT Clinton's doing, but Obama's first year was Bush's. Ye old double standard rides again. This is especially amazing as Bush's 2009 budget proposal was shot down by the Dem controlled congress and they waited until after Obama was sworn in to pass a budget.

 

[ignerntbend]

I love how the left says Bush's first year spending was NOT Clinton's doing, but Obama's first year was Bush's. Ye old double standard rides again. This is especially amazing as Bush's 2009 budget proposal was shot down by the Dem controlled congress and they waited until after Obama was sworn in to pass a budget.

Democrats disown Clinton's last fiscal year? Really? Where'd you hear that? I think you conjure an imaginary Democrat, and then put words in his mouth.
I think you're talking through your hat.

 

[RickN]

Democrats disown Clinton's last fiscal year? Really? Where'd you hear that? I think you conjure an imaginary Democrat, and then put words in his mouth.
I think you're talking through your hat.

You would be wrong again. You know that $236 billion surplus that the left claims Clinton left? That is only possible if you cut him off at the end of FY 2000 while Bush did not take office until Jan 2001.
David Axelrod made this claim in January 2010 and the left wing PolitiFact backed it up. They claimed that Clinton's spending ended the day Bush was sworn in. Of course PolitiFact is backing Obama and saying that Bush was responsible for the 2009 spending even though,
1) Obama was president for more than two-thirds of FY 2009;
2) the Democratic Congress never submitted a budget to President Bush for FY 2009, instead waiting until after Obama was inaugurated;
3) Obama signed the FY 2009 budget in March of 2009;
4) Obama and the Democratic Congress spent more than $400 billion more in FY 2009 than Bush had requested in his budget proposal, which was submitted in early 2008;
5) the stimulus bill, which ballooned FY 2009 spending, was, as we all know, enacted by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

 

[HMFIC]

No I didn't. I voted for McCain against a Democrat Congress.

So vote for someone with a rather similar political history...

I've never said that voting for Obama is a solution. LAWLing at lack of reading comprehension.

(speaking directly to Veg) LAWLing at the fact that you think I'm speaking directly to you. Just because I quote you in my reply doesn't necessarily mean that it's our own personal little conversation.

----- <-- (this part means I'm talking to someone else now)

Hobbes, I think that's a fine idea. Even better than voting just to teach the Republicans a lesson, maybe you'll give me what fer by canceling my vote. At least you'll be voting and I'm happy about that.

----- <-- (ditto, only now it's everyone)

I'd be interested to hear anyones viewpoint on why they WOULD vote for Obama? Do any Obama supporters have a clear, thought out plan on what he has brought or does bring to the table for America? Why would you affirmatively vote FOR him?

Because he's done such a great job with the economy?
Because gas prices are so low?
Because business is thriving?
Because he's been sooo instrumental in giving us more freedom?
Because taxes are so low?
Because all the wars are ended and troops are home?
Because he peronsally and single handedly killed Bin Laden?
Because you actually LIKE 15.6 TRILLION $$$ of debt?
Because he was the first to finally tell everyone to air up their tires?

Why?


I think it's funny that the anti-Romney camp will only use the "he's the same as Obama" argument. If that's your opinion, then why don't you just sit it out and stop campaining for Obama?

Ps. I'm not talking directly to you Veg or Hobbes.

 

[HMFIC]

Just the facts:

fact check: Obama’s thrifty spending claim uses some creative accounting

published may 27, 2012

associated press

may 23, 2012: President obama speaks to supporters at a campaign fundraiser in denver. (ap)

the white house is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, president obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the eisenhower years.

“federal spending since i took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” obama said at a campaign rally thursday in des moines, iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the wall street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before obama took office, making obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during obama’s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by marketwatch, a financial information and news service owned by dow jones & co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the wall street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants fannie mae and freddie mac.

The marketwatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that obama rammed through congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like social security, medicare and the medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?

First, there’s the troubled assets relief program, the official name for the wall street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from tarp in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and wall street firms repaid a net $110 billion in tarp funds in 2010, obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of tarp lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes obama’s spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does obama “cut” spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of fannie mae and freddie mac also makes obama’s record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the fannie-freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration’s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by obama.

Taken together, tarp and the takeover of fannie and freddie combine to give obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.

There’s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following october. The marketwatch analysis assigned 2009 to former president george w. Bush, though it gave obama responsibility that year for a $140 million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every cabinet agency except defense, veterans affairs and homeland security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which obama is wholly responsible.

As other critics have noted, including former congressional budget office director douglas holtz-eakin, the marketwatch analysis also incorporates cbo’s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:

&#8211;$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next january.

&#8211;cuts in medicare payments to physicians.

&#8211;the expiration of refundable tax cuts that are “scored” as spending in federal ledgers.

Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it’s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is obama’s request for 2013.

“you can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,” said holtz-eakin, a gop economist and president of the american action forum, a free market think tank.

So how does obama measure up?

If one assumes that tarp and the takeover of fannie and freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations - an approach taken by holtz-eakin - you get the following picture:

&#8211;a 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to obama.

&#8211;a 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of republicans retaking control of the house and their budget and debt deal last summer with obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by obama and

read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-uses-some-creative-accounting/#ixzz1w4okg52n

 

[HMFIC]

The irony in this original article too is that the author would have us believe that Obama is a thrifty President when nothing could be futher from the truth. It's not only misleading, it's blatently deceitful.

So far, Obama has NEVER had a yearly deficit under a trillion dollars.

Think about that for a while... spending more than a TRILLION DOLLARS MORE than you take in yearly... It's mind blowing and if for no other reason, should be why we kick him out of office.

For the people who want to compare that to Bush, even though he did also overspend like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailors), he still never had a yearly deficit more than 438 billion and that was while the cash drawer was left open to fund two wars.

The idea that just because the growth of spending has slowed down (yes... SLOWED, not stopped... Obama is STILL deficit spending), doesn't mean Obama isn't spending TONS more than we're bringing in. He's still adding even MORE to the already record and astronomical National Debt of $15.3 TRILLION dollars.

Wake up people... wake up.

 

[inactive]

The irony in this original article too is that the author would have us believe that Obama is a thrifty President when nothing could be futher from the truth. It's not only misleading, it's blatently deceitful.

So far, Obama has NEVER had a yearly deficit under a trillion dollars.

Think about that for a while... spending more than a TRILLION DOLLARS MORE than you take in yearly... It's mind blowing and if for no other reason, should be why we kick him out of office.

For the people who want to compare that to Bush, even though he did also overspend like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailors), he still never had a yearly deficit more than 438 billion and that was while the cash drawer was left open to fund two wars.

The idea that just because the growth of spending has slowed down (yes... SLOWED, not stopped... Obama is STILL deficit spending), doesn't mean Obama isn't spending TONS more than we're bringing in. He's still adding even MORE to the already record and astronomical National Debt of $15.3 TRILLION dollars.

Wake up people... wake up.

What would the deficit be if our collections were the same in 2009-2012 as they were from 2001-2008?

I'm not trolling, it's a legitimate question. I am too lazy/busy at work to delineate the answer. I'd still be high, certainly higher that what you are I want to see (I ain't a fan of Obama nor am I mentioning this in defense of him); but I bet it wouldn't be that much different that Bush (which I'm not decrying as bad or praising as good - just speculating how it would compare).

 

[HMFIC]

What would the deficit be if our collections were the same in 2009-2012 as they were from 2001-2008?

I'm not trolling, it's a legitimate question. I am too lazy/busy at work to delineate the answer. I'd still be high, certainly higher that what you are I want to see (I ain't a fan of Obama nor am I mentioning this in defense of him); but I bet it wouldn't be that much different that Bush (which I'm not decrying as bad or praising as good - just speculating how it would compare).

Good, thoughtful question. I'll check into it.

 

[HMFIC]

Here's the quick answer:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue_chart

It basically shows revenues were down significantly in 2009 but in 2010 and 2011 have come back to Bush levels.

No matter which way you stack it, there is no reason for us having 15.3 TRILLION $ of debt other than the deficit spending. Bush left us with national debt of around 10 Trillion after raising it 4.8 TRILLION over 8 years. Obama has increased it ANOTHER 4.9 TRILLION in just 3... Even if you give him the extra 1.1 trillion in 2009 and write off that year, he's still overspent faster than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!

1997 2.9
1998 3.1
1999 3.3
2000 3.6
2001 3.5
2002 3.2
2003 3.4
2004 3.8
2005 4.2
2006 4.6
2007 5.1
2008 4.7
2009 3.6
2010 4.7 estimated
2011 4.8 projected
2012 5.0 projected

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services. That hasn't happened since WWII and that was only for one year in 1946. The scariest part is that with Obama's projected budjects and administration, he will keep and increase those deficits until we're so far into the red, 100% will look like pennies.

From CBS:

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/