Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

[Nbadan]

The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" is very close to accurate. ~PolitiFact

On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, "Obama spending binge never happened." Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that -- contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president.

The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook that paired a line from Nutting’s column with a quote from Mitt Romney’s campaign website.

Under the heading, "Romney’s World," the Facebook post quoted a Romney Web page saying, "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." (That accurately quotes Romney.)

Immediately to the right, under the heading, "Real World," the Facebook post provided a retort using a caption from Nutting’s key chart: "Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." (The post cited the quotation to the Wall Street Journal; technically, Nutting writes for MarketWatch, which is an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal.)

Read more: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

Here are the numbers

President.....Fiscal year baseline.....Last fiscal year...Average percentage .................................................. ..........................increase per year
Carter....................1977.................... .1981.....................16.4
Nixon.....................1969.................... .1975.....................13.5
Johnson.................1964.....................1 969.....................11.0
George W. Bush......2001.....................2009........... ..........10.2
Reagan...................1981..................... 1989.......................8.6
Kennedy.................1961.....................1 964.......................7.1
George H.W. Bush...1989.....................1993.............. .........5.8
Clinton................... 1993.....................2001..................... ..4.0
Eisenhower..............1953.....................1 961.......................3.6
Obama....................2009..................... 2013.......................1.4

[mavs>spurs]

suck dick, bitch. if he gets back in office itll mark the downfall of america. book it homeboy.

[Wild Cobra]

The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" is very close to accurate. ~PolitiFact

Read more: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

Here are the numbers

President.....Fiscal year baseline.....Last fiscal year...Average percentage .................................................. ..........................increase per year
Carter....................1977.................... .1981.....................16.4
Nixon.....................1969.................... .1975.....................13.5
Johnson.................1964.....................1 969.....................11.0
George W. Bush......2001.....................2009........... ..........10.2
Reagan...................1981..................... 1989.......................8.6
Kennedy.................1961.....................1 964.......................7.1
George H.W. Bush...1989.....................1993.............. .........5.8
Clinton................... 1993.....................2001..................... ..4.0
Eisenhower..............1953.....................1 961.......................3.6
Obama....................2009..................... 2013.......................1.4

Have you considered how the spending looks when adjusted for inflation/deflation?

[TE]

Have you considered how the spending looks when adjusted for inflation/deflation?

Can you elaborate with graphs and analysis?

[Wild Cobra]

Can you elaborate with graphs and analysis?

Yes, but I'm not going to focus that much on this thread unless it gets more interesting.

[TE]

Yes, but I'm not going to focus that much on this thread unless it gets more interesting.

It'll get more interesting when you elaborate.


Go on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Have you considered how the spending looks when adjusted for inflation/deflation?

Now we are talking about derivatives. Its the rate of change from year to year not a comparison of an absolute.

[boutons_deux]

Have you considered how the spending looks when adjusted for inflation/deflation?

the chart is spending growth per year, percentage relative to preceding year, not absolute dollars, so inflation adjustment over 30+years isn't a factor.

In dollars, Obama's first budget was smaller that dubya's of the preceding year.

Of course, W. Gecko and the right-wing propaganda machine is spewing lies about Obama's spending, in concert with their austerity-pimping, deficit-hawking (which is almost entirely Repug policy deficit, not Obama's), and stimulus-killing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

suck dick, bitch. if he gets back in office itll mark the downfall of america. book it homeboy.

lol

[Yonivore]

Nutting should check his facts.

President Bush never saw a FY-2009 budget passed. The Democrats in Congress (That's right, they controlled Congress at the time) waited until Obama had been sworn in before passing an FY-2009 budget. Obama signed the Democrat authored budget bill on March 12, 2009.

President Bush has nothing to do with it.

The stimulus funds were piled on top of the regular FY-2009 appropriations; something else with which Bush (nor any Republican for that matter) had no involvement.

Even if the Democrat Congress had been inclined to work with President Bush on the spending measure -- which they weren't -- they appropriated over $400 Billion more in FY-2009 than President Bush had asked be appropriated.

Incidentally, Obama has been working without a budget ever since.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama has been working without a budget ever since."

The Repugs have been so willing to work with Obama and the Dems on EVERYTHING.

[Yonivore]

"Obama has been working without a budget ever since."

The Repugs have been so willing to work with Obama and the Dems on EVERYTHING.

Obama's own budget proposal was skunked in both houses of Congress this year. It's not just Republicans anymore...it appears the Democrats in Congress have seen what a profligate spender is this President. So much so, it even turns their stomachs.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama's own budget proposal was skunked in both houses of Congress this year. It's not just Republicans anymore...it appears the Democrats in Congress have seen what a profligate spender is this President. So much so, it even turns their stomachs.

except that wasn't his budget..which is now being reviewed by the CBO..

[coyotes_geek]

So Obama deserves praise because he's only driving towards the cliff 5mph faster than Bush did because Bush drove 10mph faster than the guy before him? Talk about lowering the fucking bar. This is the most fiscally irresponsible administration ever. The fact that Obama narrowly eeked out the award over Bush whereas Bush won it in a landslide over his predecessors is hardly something deserving of praise.

[Ignignokt]

This is further proof that polithacks and partisan douchebags lack commonsense.

It's so obvious that Nbadan and his legion of progressive useful idiots lack basic economics.

But don't worry about it, we have conservatives to protect us from the evil progressives from taking down our cuntreh!

Except, they are a bunch of incompetent idiots who boast that reason is secondary to faith.

Anyway here's the simple logic.


First month's debit card balance: -20$


Second months's : -40$

Third months's: -70$

fourth month: -100$

5th month: -140$



If we look at the first graph, the second month saw the largest increase percentage wise in deficit spending. Spending grew by 50 percent even though only 20 dollars was added to the deficit in Joe blow's checking account.

here's the percentages in growth of deficit for each period.

1-2 month : 50%

2-3 month:57%

3-4 month: 42%

4-5 month 40%


even tho the last month cycle the largest spending in dollar amt came in at 40, it was percentage wise the least increase in spending. Why is this? because the percentage increase is measured up relatively to the last months billing statement... Nevermind, this board is too stupid to follow this. Let me make it simpler...

If Wild cobra ate his way to a gain of 40 lbs, his percentage in weight relative to his build grew 25 percent. But if Tpark added 60 lbs to his 300 lb frame logic would follow that msnbc, huffingtonpost, liberals, and the facebook sphere would have to applaud tpark for not being such a glutton like Wild Cobra because Tpark's fat grew only 20 percent.

Such logic is ridiculous.

[mavs>spurs]

^

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is further proof that polithacks and partisan douchebags lack commonsense.

It's so obvious that Nbadan and his legion of progressive useful idiots lack basic economics.But don't worry about it, we have conservatives to protect us from the evil progressives from taking down our cuntreh!

Except, they are a bunch of incompetent idiots who boast that reason is secondary to faith.

Anyway here's the simple logic.


First month's debit card balance: -20$


Second months's : -40$

Third months's: -70$

fourth month: -100$

5th month: -140$



If we look at the first graph, the second month saw the largest increase percentage wise in deficit spending. Spending grew by 50 percent even though only 20 dollars was added to the deficit in Joe blow's checking account.

here's the percentages in growth of deficit for each period.

1-2 month : 50%

2-3 month:57%

3-4 month: 42%

4-5 month 40%


even tho the last month cycle the largest spending in dollar amt came in at 40, it was percentage wise the least increase in spending. Why is this? because the percentage increase is measured up relatively to the last months billing statement... Nevermind, this board is too stupid to follow this. Let me make it simpler...

If Wild cobra ate his way to a gain of 40 lbs, his percentage in weight relative to his build grew 25 percent. But if Tpark added 60 lbs to his 300 lb frame logic would follow that msnbc, huffingtonpost, liberals, and the facebook sphere would have to applaud tpark for not being such a glutton like Wild Cobra because Tpark's fat grew only 20 percent.

Such logic is ridiculous.

Wall Street Journal..lol

[Ignignokt]

Wall Street Journal..lol

Cool Selective Pimping of the WSJ, bro

[George Gervin's Afro]

Cool Selective Pimping of the WSJ, bro

so the WSJ journal is run by a bunch of dumb liberals now..lol

[ElNono]

Agree with gtown about the cherry picked numbers.

That said, Congress is largely responsible for spending/deficit, much more so than the Executive. Debt-ceiling, appropriations, the budget, taxes, etc etc... is all voted on by Congress.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Agree with gtown about the cherry picked numbers.

That said, Congress is largely responsible for spending/deficit, much more so than the Executive. Debt-ceiling, appropriations, the budget, taxes, etc etc... is all voted on by Congress.

no, the president is SOLEY responsible

[z0sa]

That said, Congress is largely responsible for spending/deficit, much more so than the Executive. Debt-ceiling, appropriations, the budget, taxes, etc etc... is all voted on by Congress.

Yep.

[boutons_deux]

The Truth About the President and the Deficit

Arguably the biggest lie coming from the Republicans and the Romney campaign is that President Obama is a tax and spend liberal who's directly and personally responsible for record deficits and a crushing national debt.

Not only is Mitt Romney telling his supporters that President Obama continues to spend out of control, but additionally that the president is responsible for doubling the budget deficit since he took office. This is not a new attack. Republicans who blindly greenlit trillions in Bush-era spending have been engaged in this nonsense practically since the minute the president was inaugurated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...=Daily%20Brief

Lies, Lies, Lies. That's all the Repugs have, with Gecko the Liar-in-Chief.

[z0sa]

Lies, Lies, Lies.

As long as they're blue-tinted you have no problem with this policy.

[coyotes_geek]

Obama is definitely not a tax and spend liberal. He's a don't tax, but spend anyway, try to make everybody happy centrist in the mold of his mentor W.

[cantthinkofanything]

Wow! I had no idea! He's the bestist president EVER!

[mavs>spurs]

lmao not understanding math.....but teh percentages!!! this is why sheep should go to class and stop sucking off one party or another without grasp or reason

[mavs>spurs]

you jackasses realize that as the deficit gets more and more astronomical, it takes a much larger number to affect the percentages right?

[boutons_deux]

Europe proves, as has been proven repeatedly, that the pro-cyclical cuts deepen, lengthen depressions and austerity (except for the immune 1%).

The Repugs are hawking the deficit as smokescreen to crush the poor, young, sick, disabled, students, old, teacher unions and to weaken govt even more as the only protector against mega-corporate predations on humans, air, land, water.

[Wild Cobra]

the chart is spending growth per year, percentage relative to preceding year, not absolute dollars, so inflation adjustment over 30+years isn't a factor.

In dollars, Obama's first budget was smaller that dubya's of the preceding year.

Of course, W. Gecko and the right-wing propaganda machine is spewing lies about Obama's spending, in concert with their austerity-pimping, deficit-hawking (which is almost entirely Repug policy deficit, not Obama's), and stimulus-killing.

It matters.

If spending went up 6% and inflation was 4%, isn't that about the same as no inflation and spending going up 2%?