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

[HMFIC]

From the same CBS article:

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.​

I don't know about you guys, but if I ran a decifit in my house for a total of 4 years, I think I'd step down from the budget running and hand the checkbook to the wife. I wouldn't be talking about how I've decreased my deficit spending by a few percent.

 

[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).

OK so I did the quick rounded off math on it.

The last four years of Bush amounted to around 18.6 Trillion in revenues.

The four years of Obama counting estimated 2012 numbers is 18.1 Trillion in revenues.

So Obama has taken in a 1/2 a Trillion less in revenue during comparative 4 year runs. Not nearly enough to account for the massive increase in the debt and if you apply the exact same revenues that Bush had, Obama would have still ran a total deficit in four years of somewhere around 4.5 Trillion.

Here's the real problem though... it doesn't do us any good to compare him to Bush. Bush spent till he was blind too and I don't know ANYONE who liked it. His reckless spending is part of what allowed Obama to get elected on his "hope and change" platform.

What we need is fiscal conservatism and a way to get this economy firing on all 8 cylinders again. I personally don't believe Obama is the answer to that ESPECIALLY given his track record and his own projected budgets and promises. I'm willing to give Romney the chance ESPECIALLY given his success in the business world and his platform of fiscal responsability.

What other choice do we have?

 

[vvvvvvv]

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.

According to U.S. Treasury data, its not even possible in that scenario.

 

[vvvvvvv]

(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.

I hereby blame the watching of the F1 Monaco Grand Prix replay.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I personally don't believe Obama is the answer to that ESPECIALLY given his track record and his own projected budgets and promises. I'm willing to give Romney the chance ESPECIALLY given his success in the business world and his platform of fiscal responsability.

What other choice do we have?

Will Romney veto reckless budgets from the "conservative" House, or will he sign off on them - much like Reagan signed off on nearly every reckless spending bill that came across his desk?

 

[HMFIC]

I hereby blame the watching of the F1 Monaco Grand Prix replay.

That sounds like a much better way to spend time. I should have been doing the same.

Will Romney veto reckless budgets from the "conservative" House, or will he sign off on them - much like Reagan signed off on nearly every reckless spending bill that came across his desk?

Dunno. I sure hope that he'll do something different than the current path we're on though.

I guess it's up to us to hold whomever gets elected accountable and that goes for our Congressional Representatives as well. With my vote this November, that's exactly what I'm going to do. The VAST majority of them all need to find a new job screwing something else up.

 

[Hobbes]

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.

Well, in that case I changed my mind. I refuse to vote for either one for prez. I'll leave that arrow on the ballot alone and proceed to the next.
It's no fun messin wit ya if you won't play along.

 

[Hobbes]

OK, so let see if I have this straight. If Romney wins the election and the FY2013 budget has a lot of spending in it that's Romney's spending right?

Or are you two going to try and have it both ways by assigning 5 years of spending budgets, 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 to Obama who served 4 years?

 

[Hobbes]

BTW, you've both missed the obvious flaw in the OP.

The spending has leveled off because Obama can't spend any more. If he could he would, but he can't.

And that brings forth the obvious point that Obama hasn't spent a dime that wasn't appropriated by congress.
How much responsibility are you willing to assign to the HoR for passing a spending bill for FY2012 that's the largest ever?

Not much I bet.

 

[RickN]

OK, so let see if I have this straight. If Romney wins the election and the FY2013 budget has a lot of spending in it that's Romney's spending right?

Or are you two going to try and have it both ways by assigning 5 years of spending budgets, 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 to Obama who served 4 years?

If congress passes a 2013 budget and Obama signs it before Romney is sworn in or the 2013 spending bills are signed, then it is Obama's. If no budget is passed or no spending bills until Romney takes office then they are Romney's.

As for the House spending bill, has it been signed into law? But yes I do blame the Republicans for caving into the Dems and spending to much. They should have let the government shut down and brought it all to a head.