Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

[Nbadan]

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5165/sworld.jpg
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-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-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]

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5165/sworld.jpg
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-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-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]

^:lmao :lmao

[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-cesca/the-truth-about-the-presi_1_b_1540698.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=052412&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=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%?

[Yonivore]

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.
Except for the past 3 years he's been spending without an approved budget.

[ElNono]

Except for the past 3 years he's been spending without an approved budget.

Without Congress passing the spending bills (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/politics/politics_congress-spending-plan_1_unemployment-benefits-payroll-spending-plan?_s=PM:POLITICS), there would be nothing to spend...

Again, the President can only propose a budget, and sign off on whatever spending bill he gets back.

[Ignignokt]

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

Except this wasnt it wasn't straight from the wall street journal it was from marketwatch blog

[CavsSuperFan]

These are false stats...This administration has spent more in 4 years than Bush JR did in eight years...Look it up & then post your apology for bearing false witness....:smokin

[George Gervin's Afro]

These are false stats...This administration has spent more in 4 years than Bush JR did in eight years...Look it up & then post your apology for bearing false witness....:smokin

or you could back up your claim or post your apology for making shit up..

of course the honest thing to do would be to also acknowledge the wreck of the prior 8 yrs but you would rather stick with bumper sticker slogans..

oh and Congress writes the check..

[TeyshaBlue]

oh and Congress writes the check..

Therefore, Barack Obama does not have the lowest spending record of any recent president?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Therefore, Barack Obama does not have the lowest spending record of any recent president?

yes

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

you jackasses realize that as the deficit gets more and more astronomical, it takes a much larger number to affect the percentages right?
Which imo is pretty relevant.

Bush inheriting national surpluses and turning them into record deficits is a lot worse than Obama taking out of control spending and just making it more out of control.

I still laugh at all the Republicans in this thread (m>s not being one of them and actually hating spending regardless of the political party) who weren't at all bothered by our national deficit from 2000-2008.

When Mitt Romney gets elected and our deficit continues to grow because of his fucktarded tax plan, the yonivores and wild cobras of the world will stop caring all over again.

[TeyshaBlue]

yes

Just performing a logic check. You passed.:lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

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?
Praise? No, but the people who voted for Bush and didn't care about the fact he was driving the car towards the cliff at 10 mph (when the guy before him left him a car that was actually driving away from the cliff) shouldn't complain so much about Obama continuing the fiscal policy of the president they continue to insist was a great president.

[boutons_deux]

Barry calling BULLSHIT on Gecko's debt LIE

"“Now, I know Gov. Romney came to Des Moines last week, warned about a ‘prairie fire of debt,’” Obama told a crowd gathered at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. “That’s what he said. But he left out some facts. His speech was more like a cow pie of distortion.”"

http://mobile.chicagotribune.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2178278&postId=2178278&postUserId=54&sessionToken=&catId=7570&curAbsIndex=1&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A54%26DFC%3Dcat1%252Ccat2% 252Ccat3%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%26DQ%3DsectionId%25 3A7570%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

[spursncowboys]

Which imo is pretty relevant.

Bush inheriting national surpluses and turning them into record deficits is a lot worse than Obama taking out of control spending and just making it more out of control.

I still laugh at all the Republicans in this thread (m>s not being one of them and actually hating spending regardless of the political party) who weren't at all bothered by our national deficit from 2000-2008.

When Mitt Romney gets elected and our deficit continues to grow because of his fucktarded tax plan, the yonivores and wild cobras of the world will stop caring all over again.
:lmao. the whole bush inherited a surplus argument. We're talking about national debt, not public debt. the national debt went up under clinton too.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

What exactly did bush do to turn that "surplus" into "record deficits"? Since it happened less than 9 months into his presidency, what policy did that?

[clambake]

since what happened?

[boutons_deux]

:lmao. the whole bush inherited a surplus argument. We're talking about national debt, not public debt. the national debt went up under clinton too.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

What exactly did bush do to turn that "surplus" into "record deficits"? Since it happened less than 9 months into his presidency, what policy did that?

http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/debt/US-national-debt-GDP.png

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[TeyshaBlue]

lol zfacts. lol GND%GDP.

Couldn't be more meaningless.

[TeyshaBlue]

Using zfacts data tables, you can build a chart like this:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn150/HaoDaMao/TheTruthAboutDeficits.png

Every bit as meaningless as the first chart. :rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

the 2000-2008 Repug policies of cutting taxes and bogus war, coupled with 35-year VRWC successful push for financial deregulation caused the national debt increase, with reduced revenues from tax cuts and Banksters' Great Depression, plus $1T plus (just so far) wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Repugs/VRWC were initiators, the Dems were dickless permitters.

The current shithole the USA is now in and the World Champion USA wealth inequality are directly due to Repug/VRWC policies, not "free market" business cycle.

[Yonivore]

So, are there people that still believe Obama is the most frugal President since Eisenhower or did the laughter from all corners of the political and economic world finally convince them of Obama's pathetic lie.


http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MarketWatchObamaSpendingInfographic2.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"are there people that still believe Obama is the most frugal President since Eisenhower"

you're really an asshole.

Who said that other than you?

the 2 Repug botched wars, the the VRWC-facilitated Banksters Great Depression, the Repug tax cuts caused long-term reduction in revenues and increase in spending which Obama inherited and was almost powerless to stop or even reduce.

Meanwhile the sick-care industry continues fuck America in every orifice, while BigFood feeds American pathogenic crap, which is the biggest item in the budget: Medicare/Medicaid.

[Yonivore]

Who said that other than you?
Rex Nutting and Jay Carney...The Obama Campaign picked up the meme until it was proven to be a fabrication of EPIC proportions.

[boutons_deux]

You assholes' fantasy, and slander is that the US budget situation, spending/revenue, started from zero on 20 Jan 2009.

[ElNono]

TARP cost more than the stimulus, IIRC... but let's stick to talking points...

[ElNono]

:lmao. the whole bush inherited a surplus argument. We're talking about national debt, not public debt. the national debt went up under clinton too.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

What exactly did bush do to turn that "surplus" into "record deficits"? Since it happened less than 9 months into his presidency, what policy did that?

Well, for one, he took the public portion of the debt, which actually had a surplus, and used it to cut taxes (6 months into office), turning it effectively into a deficit.

But let's not forget that the surplus was not just on Clinton, but also on a Republican Congress that did what it needed to do to get there.

[Jacob1983]

http://files.sharenator.com/92_what_the_fuck_is_this_shit_RE_PwnzElite_has_dec lared_war_on_Grammar_Nazis_s306x227_173187_RE_Bron y_Gifs-s306x227-220794.jpg

[Galileo]

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5165/sworld.jpg
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-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-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

I thought the dems liked lots of spending?

:lmao

[Nbadan]

Same old misleading Yoni...blame the stimulus that has created millions of jobs..President Obama simply put Bush's wars ON BUDGET, along with Medicare Part D. THAT is why the spending was more.....

We currently owe 14 Trillion...

2 Trillion is from the Recession, etc.

4 Trillion is from Bush's policies, including his illegal wars

3 Trillion is from Bush's tax cuts

3.6 Trillion is from Social Security

1.4 Trillion is directly from Obama's policies...

Saying that President Obama spent more than Bush is a Republican lie that blames Obama for all of the debt. It's a smokescreen....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/23/988055/-10-Things-the-GOP-Doesnt-Want-You-to-Know-About-the-Debt

[Nbadan]

The cost of Policy changes...Bush versus Obama...

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-thumb-560x622-58477.gif

[Nbadan]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/debt_chart_wh2.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

We been over this in a previous post, and I already showed the actual CBO numbers that showed Obama spending a higher annual rate than bush.

Anyone remember what thread that's in?

[Jacob1983]

http://www.funpoliticalsurvey.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/picture-insanity-expecting-change-Obama-Romney.jpg

[bobbyjoe]

:lmao. the whole bush inherited a surplus argument. We're talking about national debt, not public debt. the national debt went up under clinton too.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

What exactly did bush do to turn that "surplus" into "record deficits"? Since it happened less than 9 months into his presidency, what policy did that?

Bush launched 2 mammoth-sized Wars that an aggregate all-in price tag w/ interest of $1.5 trillion. One of these was completely avoidable, if not flat out fraudulent and the Country stayed in these wars way longer than was budgeted. Bush was the man solely behind that decision.

Bush also increased domestic spending with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. These extra expenditures were financed with tax-cuts. To deny Bush blew up deficits is asinine and completely dishonest.

All this said, Obama has actually been worse. The initial post is full of typical partisan SPIN. The initial graph uses 2009's $1 trillion deficit as the baseline for The Kenyan's spending. However, 2009 included TARP spending of several hundred billion! That should have been a one-time expenditure, not something to be used to justify future imprudent levels of spending.

This doesn't even mention that when deficits are at a $1 trillion level, the need to slash them is much greater than it was through at least the first 4-5 years of the Bush Presidency, when the deficits were much more modest and manageable. Obama passed on solid bi-partisan ideas like Simpson-Bowles that could have helped significantly. All he does is rant about raising taxes on the 1%, which hardly even brings in much money.

Also, this graph doesn't include Obamacare at all since that wouldn't kick in for a couple years. However, you'd see deficits grow even further when that happens and he will have beeen the culprit. So the reality is he's taken actions such as the $1 trillion stimulus and Obamacare which will have negative effects on deficits and debt.

Any conservative who thinks Bush's debt/deficit record was acceptable is a naive homer and ditto for any liberal who thinks "at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush". Both have been just God-awful leaders. Probably the 2 worst Presidents of all time...

[bobbyjoe]

Well, for one, he took the public portion of the debt, which actually had a surplus, and used it to cut taxes (6 months into office), turning it effectively into a deficit.

But let's not forget that the surplus was not just on Clinton, but also on a Republican Congress that did what it needed to do to get there.

Very true... Both parties were far different back then.

A big part of the reason the Clinton Presidency had the lowest rate of growth in spending is that defense spending and welfare spending were both slashed. Tax rates were also increased to 39.6% at the top end.

Could you imagine the Democrats of today cutting any social spending? No, see Obamacare, unemployment benefits for 2 years, etc. They can't even sign off on raising the SS eligibility age for FUTURE retirees.

Or the Republicans of today signing off on cuts to any existing military spending, much less an acceptance that we are too tapped out and can't even rationally think about NEW Wars like Iran, North Korea, etc? Even mention this concept and you are some sort of unpatriotic "weak-kneed liberal".

The day the Democrats accept that you can't solve everyone's problems with social spending and the day the Republican's realize you can't spend without limit on the military and War is the day you truly solve the debt problem.

[spursncowboys]

Bush launched 2 mammoth-sized Wars that an aggregate all-in price tag w/ interest of $1.5 trillion. One of these was completely avoidable, if not flat out fraudulent and the Country stayed in these wars way longer than was budgeted. Bush was the man solely behind that decision.

Bush also increased domestic spending with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. These extra expenditures were financed with tax-cuts. To deny Bush blew up deficits is asinine and completely dishonest.

All this said, Obama has actually been worse. The initial post is full of typical partisan SPIN. The initial graph uses 2009's $1 trillion deficit as the baseline for The Kenyan's spending. However, 2009 included TARP spending of several hundred billion! That should have been a one-time expenditure, not something to be used to justify future imprudent levels of spending.

This doesn't even mention that when deficits are at a $1 trillion level, the need to slash them is much greater than it was through at least the first 4-5 years of the Bush Presidency, when the deficits were much more modest and manageable. Obama passed on solid bi-partisan ideas like Simpson-Bowles that could have helped significantly. All he does is rant about raising taxes on the 1%, which hardly even brings in much money.

Also, this graph doesn't include Obamacare at all since that wouldn't kick in for a couple years. However, you'd see deficits grow even further when that happens and he will have beeen the culprit. So the reality is he's taken actions such as the $1 trillion stimulus and Obamacare which will have negative effects on deficits and debt.

Any conservative who thinks Bush's debt/deficit record was acceptable is a naive homer and ditto for any liberal who thinks "at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush". Both have been just God-awful leaders. Probably the 2 worst Presidents of all time...
the wars weren't even started. 9-11 didn't even happen before the surplus vanished. Due to the shrinking of the economy. But why let the blame game go away.

[spursncowboys]

Very true... Both parties were far different back then.

A big part of the reason the Clinton Presidency had the lowest rate of growth in spending is that defense spending and welfare spending were both slashed. Tax rates were also increased to 39.6% at the top end.

Could you imagine the Democrats of today cutting any social spending? No, see Obamacare, unemployment benefits for 2 years, etc. They can't even sign off on raising the SS eligibility age for FUTURE retirees.

Or the Republicans of today signing off on cuts to any existing military spending, much less an acceptance that we are too tapped out and can't even rationally think about NEW Wars like Iran, North Korea, etc? Even mention this concept and you are some sort of unpatriotic "weak-kneed liberal".

The day the Democrats accept that you can't solve everyone's problems with social spending and the day the Republican's realize you can't spend without limit on the military and War is the day you truly solve the debt problem.

It wasn't as if clinton wanted to slash social spending either (hillarycare).

[bobbyjoe]

the wars weren't even started. 9-11 didn't even happen before the surplus vanished. Due to the shrinking of the economy. But why let the blame game go away.

You are focusing on a very trivial point.

It may be true that by the time 9-11 happened, the country had already slipped from a surplus to a very slight deficit. However, MASSIVE spending on 2 new wars, Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind blew up the deficit to the point that when Bush left office in 2009 the deficits had grown at historical levels. Even if you assume there was no true surplus, he took us from basically having $0 deficits to a $1 trillion defict!!!

The national debt nearly doubled during the 8 years Bush was in office. Big picture wise, his record on fiscal spending was absolutely brutal. It's only marginally better than Obama's. Worst and 2nd worst Presidents in history.

You do realize that Wars are discretionary expenditures right? You don't HAVE to start Wars and you certainly don't HAVE to occupy foreign countries and nation-build for 10 plus years. When you make those choices, it becomes part of your record and it affects how much interest future generations pay and how much debt they are responsbile for.

[Jacob1983]

Why can't we just simply come to the obvious revelation that Obama is just like Bush? Obama has served Bush's 3rd term and will probably serve Bush's 4th term too.

[Wild Cobra]

Bush launched 2 mammoth-sized Wars that an aggregate all-in price tag w/ interest of $1.5 trillion. One of these was completely avoidable, if not flat out fraudulent and the Country stayed in these wars way longer than was budgeted. Bush was the man solely behind that decision.

We all have opinions on if the two wars we needed or not. How about we get past that for a moment. Can you agree that we should always be paying down the nation debt except in time of war or recession?


Bush also increased domestic spending with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. These extra expenditures were financed with tax-cuts. To deny Bush blew up deficits is asinine and completely dishonest.

There is evidence the economy is better with the tax cuts than without them. Still, I can see how people disagree with that.

I thought it was so funny when democrats cried about passing part D. The democrats have promised seniors something like that for ages, and never delivered, then when a republican congress and president delivered, they cry foul.

I haven't though much about "no child left behind." I even forget the arguments pro and con for it. My feeling is the government is too involved in state and local issues anyway.


All this said, Obama has actually been worse. The initial post is full of typical partisan SPIN. The initial graph uses 2009's $1 trillion deficit as the baseline for The Kenyan's spending. However, 2009 included TARP spending of several hundred billion! That should have been a one-time expenditure, not something to be used to justify future imprudent levels of spending.

The forst TARP was passed with the agreement that all money spent went back to paying down the deficit and could not be spent on something else. TARP II under Obama, didn't have that.


This doesn't even mention that when deficits are at a $1 trillion level, the need to slash them is much greater than it was through at least the first 4-5 years of the Bush Presidency, when the deficits were much more modest and manageable.
Again, diring war and recession, I don't worry much about needed financing of such things.

Obama passed on solid bi-partisan ideas like Simpson-Bowles that could have helped significantly. All he does is rant about raising taxes on the 1%, which hardly even brings in much money.

That's right. You can tax the 1% out of existence, it still won't make a dent, and all you will do is have a short influx of revenue, then it will be gone forever.


Also, this graph doesn't include Obamacare at all since that wouldn't kick in for a couple years. However, you'd see deficits grow even further when that happens and he will have beeen the culprit. So the reality is he's taken actions such as the $1 trillion stimulus and Obamacare which will have negative effects on deficits and debt.

A realistic consideration of ObamaCare will be so much more money spent, it's ridiculous.


Any conservative who thinks Bush's debt/deficit record was acceptable is a naive homer and ditto for any liberal who thinks "at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush". Both have been just God-awful leaders. Probably the 2 worst Presidents of all time...

My only complaint was TARP. I'm OK with helping seniors. I have always said I have no problems with social programs geared toward seniors and our handicapped. Even TARP, I lost my really pissed off attitude when I learned republicans refused to implement it until they got the guarantee that money paid back could not be used elsewhere.

The democrats are too fucking dangerous for this nation. It's bad enough that we are still in economic hard times, and to pass something as expensive as ObamaCare...

That is insane!

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't we just simply come to the obvious revelation that Obama is just like Bush? Obama has served Bush's 3rd term and will probably serve Bush's 4th term too.
He is far worse than Bush.

Do you think Bush would have agreed to pelt Libya with cruise missiles?

How much worse is Libya now anyway? I've been meaning to look that up, but haven't yet.

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize that Wars are discretionary expenditures right? You don't HAVE to start Wars and you certainly don't HAVE to occupy foreign countries and nation-build for 10 plus years. When you make those choices, it becomes part of your record and it affects how much interest future generations pay and how much debt they are responsbile for.
The problem isn't that they are discretionary spending, the problem is we have too much mandatory spending!

[Borat Sagyidev]

He is far worse than Bush.

Do you think Bush would have agreed to pelt Libya with cruise missiles?

How much worse is Libya now anyway? I've been meaning to look that up, but haven't yet.

Bush would have sent troops in with the claim that oil revenues will fund the war, just as he did in Iraq. Iraq still is a shithole last a checked.

I am an Iraq war vet, so I may have a valid opinion on this.

I think it's interesting so many conservatives are so full of themselves regarding war, yet fit the description of chicken hawk more so than military man.

The only Republican with a spine on this issue is Ron Paul and he's retiring.

Yoni and WC talk all about this military intervention crap with no valid reason, almost like they are non-stop war/battle gamers doing things on impulse. Judging from their extensive usage of this forum, it's likely true. I doubt they can handle the sight of blood, just like any other yuppie war-hawk.

[DarrinS]

Bush would have sent troops in with the claim that oil revenues will fund the war, just as he did in Iraq. Iraq still is a shithole last a checked.

I am an Iraq war vet, so I may have a valid opinion on this.

I think it's interesting so many conservatives are so full of themselves regarding war, yet fit the description of chicken hawk more so than military man.

The only Republican with a spine on this issue is Ron Paul and he's retiring.

Yoni and WC talk all about this military intervention crap with no valid reason, almost like they are non-stop war/battle gamers doing things on impulse. Judging from their extensive usage of this forum, it's likely true. I doubt they can handle the sight of blood, just like any other yuppie war-hawk.



Blah blah, the "chickenhawk" card. You have never played in the NBA, so please refrain from any NBA-related takes. Mmmkay?

[Borat Sagyidev]

Blah blah, the "chickenhawk" card. You have never played in the NBA, so please refrain from any NBA-related takes. Mmmkay?

I'll play the idiot card this time.

There is a difference between being a chickenhawk and giving takes on war policy without participating.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Obama 10-13'? They left out 2009 and all of the stimulus spending from their calculations.

[Wild Cobra]

Bush would have sent troops in with the claim that oil revenues will fund the war, just as he did in Iraq. Iraq still is a shithole last a checked.

I am an Iraq war vet, so I may have a valid opinion on this.

I think it's interesting so many conservatives are so full of themselves regarding war, yet fit the description of chicken hawk more so than military man.

I was in the Army During Desert Storm, and have seen aspect of it that few have. I have my own beliefs that are based on Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN resolutions that he agreed to so that we stopped short of Baghdad then.

It was never about oil.

How did we do? How much oil did we get?

[Borat Sagyidev]

I was in the Army During Desert Storm, and have seen aspect of it that few have. I have my own beliefs that are based on Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN resolutions that he agreed to so that we stopped short of Baghdad then.

It was never about oil.

How did we do? How much oil did we get?

Not enough to benefit the consumer. Halliburton fared pretty well though.

Sure.... it had nothing to do with oil. Even though Saddam literally invaded Kuwait for that purpose and the economic tension as a result was from oil prices.

This deal has been played out long enough. If it wasn't the oil, it was the WMDs, if not that it was on humanitarian grounds nevermind far brutal dictators elsewhere. It's an ever changing story.

Planned Parenthood never was about abortion either

[Nbadan]

If it wasn't the oil, it was the WMDs, if not that it was on humanitarian grounds nevermind far brutal dictators elsewhere. It's an ever changing story.


There were likely many reasons the Neo-Cons went after Saddam, maybe they really thought that they could set up a model democracy in the Middle East, but the oil in Iraq was supposed to pay for it regardless of the reason...instead it costs taxpayers a trillion dollars up front and its gonna keep costing us...

[Nbadan]

Bush also increased domestic spending with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. These extra expenditures were financed with tax-cuts. To deny Bush blew up deficits is asinine and completely dishonest.

All this said, Obama has actually been worse...

sure like to hear your justification for thinking Obama has been worse....

Obama's stimulus has created millions of private sector jobs, the Bush tax cuts were accompanied by the creation of millions of public sector jobs...this is one of the reasons Obama has kept spending down, despite a fluttering economy, the Bush tax cuts, the unfunded medicade part D and two unfunded war...instead Dubya told us to go out and spend...remember that?

[Nbadan]

this graph doesn't include Obamacare at all since that wouldn't kick in for a couple years.

You know better than the CBO?


n total, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the legislation would not have any budgetary effect in fiscal year 2012, and would reduce deficits by $0.1 billion over the 2012-2013 period, $13.6 billion over the 2012-2017 period, and $48.6 billion over the 2012-2022 period. (About $1.9 billion of that $48.6 billion total would be off-budget because of effects on revenues from Social Security payroll taxes).

CBO expects that those changes would, on balance, lower costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of health care services prescribed by providers when faced with less pressure from potential malpractice suits. Those reductions in costs would, in turn, lead to lower spending in federal health programs and to lower private health insurance premiums.

Because employers would pay less for health insurance for employees, more of their employees' compensation would be in the form of taxable wages and other fringe benefits. As discussed below, the bill would also increase revenues because it would result in lower subsidies for health insurance. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would increase federal revenues by about $7 billion over the 2012-2022 period.

Enacting the legislation also would reduce direct spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the government's share of premiums for annuitants under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, subsidies for individuals enrolled in health insurance through health insurance exchanges, and other federal health benefits programs. CBO and JCT estimate that direct spending would decline by about $41 billion over the 2012-2022 period.

Federal spending for active workers participating in the FEHB program is included in the appropriations for federal agencies, and is therefore discretionary. The legislation would also affect discretionary spending for health care services paid by the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Affairs (VA). CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would reduce discretionary costs by about $1 billion over the 2012-2022 period, assuming appropriation actions consistent with the legislation.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43197

[Nbadan]

More recently..


The estimated net costs of expanding healthcare coverage under President Barack Obama's landmark restructuring have been reduced by $48 billion through 2021, though fewer people would be covered under private insurance plans, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-budget-deficit-idUSBRE82C19Q20120314

[Nbadan]

2010 projections versus 2012 projections...

Here’s an apples-to-apples graph of the gross spending on health-care coverage — remember, these numbers don’t take into account the Medicare cuts or other pay-fors — that the CBO predicted in March 2010 and their most recent release:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/health%20reform%20gross%20costcoverage%20aca.jpg?u uid=a8ORUHKKEeG3R-5kJlrmxg

It’s up by 8 percent, mostly because the recession has made people poorer, and so the health-care law is going to have to spend more to help them get health insurance. That’s what it’s supposed to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/heath%20care%20net%20cost%20coverage.jpg?uuid=lOeS tnKKEeG3R-5kJlrmxg

The net cost, as you can see, is down slightly, mostly because Congress has tweaked some penalties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-the-cbo-hasnt-doubled-its-cost-estimate-for-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAZj7FPS_blog.html

[tlongII]

AP Fact Check article.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-oba...BPaDsADQ7QtDMD


FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim


WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack 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:

—$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.

—Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.

—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:

—A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

—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 the MarketWatch analysis.

[Nbadan]

Fact checking the fact check...


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

So as much as conservatives like to criticize TARP, much of that money has been paid back...that's a good thing...that said, if your not going to count the revenue generated by the pay back in 2010 then you can't count the TARP expenditure in 2009 either...either way, the jobs TARP created and saved and the tax revenue it generated meant that they didn't have to dump another $200 billion to stimulate job growth and tax revenue grew...

[Nbadan]

he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.

Would these agencies have gone without funding had Obama not signed these appropriations...just because they were not funded when Obama took office does not mean they were not going to be funded at all....they were going to get funded...

[Wild Cobra]

Fact checking the fact check...



So as much as conservatives like to criticize TARP, much of that money has been paid back...that's a good thing...that said, if your not going to count the revenue generated by the pay back in 2010 then you can't count the TARP expenditure in 2009 either...either way, the jobs TARP created and saved and the tax revenue it generated meant that they didn't have to dump another $200 billion to stimulate job growth and tax revenue grew...
Right.

It was paid back from the 2008 TARP. Though it technically counts as revenue back to the government, it isn't something Obama can claim as his doing.

[boutons_deux]

TARP wasn't Hussein's doing, either. It was Goldman-Sachs Repug doing, approved by the Repug administration.

[Nbadan]

A LONG List of President Obama’s Accomplishments! With Citations!

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/29/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/

If you’re one of those folks who thinks President Obama is a “disappointment,” you haven’t been paying attention the last few years. And those of you who try to draw comparisons with the Bush Administration should put away the hallucinogens and have your memory checked. If you were in a coma for the eight Bush Years, I apologize and forgive you. But please join the real world. So far, this president has done most of what he said he would do if elected; imagine what he could have done by now if progressives had supported him and not given him a Congress that doesn’t look at him as if he’s the demon seed.

Not only is he NOT a “disappointment,” he’s pretty much the opposite. And no, I don’t just say that because he took out Osama bin Laden, helped Libya determine their own destiny for the first time in a while, and because he seems able to handle international incidents without starting a new war. The guy does nearly everything we elect a president to do, and he doesn’t brag about it constantly.

Is he perfect? No, he’s human. Does he deserve some criticism? I suppose, but I must admit I haven’t seen any complaints that were of based on anything having to do with the real world. One I can’t forgive him for is pulling Janet Napolitano out of Arizona. But the thing is, on balance, he’s mostly stellar. Besides, criticism about certain specific problems is one thing; taking on an overall “Obama sucks” meme not only has the potential to put Willard Romney into power, it’s also a lie. Just because you wanted a president who would give you a glitter-farting unicorn and didn’t quite get that doesn’t mean he’s not doing well at the job we hired him for.

[boutons_deux]

Pants on Fire Romney


An analysis published last week by MarketWatch, a financial news website owned by Dow Jones & Co., compared the yearly growth of federal spending under presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, MarketWatch concluded that “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

Quite the contrary: Spending has increased at a yearly rate of only 1.4 percent during Obama’s tenure, even if you include some stimulus spending (in the 2009 fiscal year) that technically should be attributed to George W. Bush. This is by far the smallest—I repeat, smallest—increase in spending of any recent president. (The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded the spending increase figure should have been 3.3 percent.)

In Bush’s first term, by contrast, federal spending increased at an annual rate of 7.3 percent; in his second term, the annual rise averaged 8.1 percent. Reagan comes next, in terms of profligacy, followed by George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and finally Obama, the thriftiest of them all.

The MarketWatch analysis was re-analyzed by the nonpartisan watchdogs at Politifact who found it “Mostly True”—adding the qualifier because some of the restraint in spending under Obama “was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.” Duly noted, and if Romney wants to claim credit for the GOP, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to say that “federal spending has accelerated” under Obama, because any way you look at it, that’s a lie.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/pants_on_fire_romney_20120530/

Like McLiar, and Fox Repug Propaganda network, US CoC (a branch of the Repug party), Gecko offers nothing but LIES and SLANDER, with no specifics of how he would be better for America. His campaign platform will be a joke.

[coyotes_geek]

TARP wasn't Hussein's doing, either. It was Goldman-Sachs Repug doing, approved by the Repug administration.

Nonsense. Obama took time off from the Presidential campaign to go push TARP through. Barney Frank and other democrats got on TV to tell me how important Obama was to the entire process. Since we know there's no way Obama would be party to a cheap political gimmick to make himself look important it's obvious that he's just as responsible for TARP as Bush or anyone else is.

[boutons_deux]

REPUG Paulsen's TARP was a 3-pager extortion demanding $700B within 7 days, and for him to be free of oversight by legislative or judicial authorities, OR ELSE (bring down the economy). Paulsen worked for the Repug Exec, which didn't kill it. Congress did modify it, but it was Repug plan from the beginning.

btw, the $700B was later to be a number they pulled out of their asses.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ blindbot

[coyotes_geek]

REPUG Paulsen's TARP was a 3-pager extortion demanding $700B within 7 days, and for him to be free of oversight by legislative or judicial authorities, OR ELSE (bring down the economy). Paulsen worked for the Repug Exec, which didn't kill it. Congress did modify it, but it was Repug plan from the beginning.

btw, the $700B was later to be a number they pulled out of their asses.

So Obama is a liar for attempting to take credit for a republican plan. Thanks for setting the record straight on that. :tu

[TeyshaBlue]

Logic bomb goes Boom.

[boutons_deux]

TARP basically worked, no matter who started it.

Repugs hate their own TARP because it did basically work, meaning their "all govt is bad" mantra is bullshit.

President McLiar and the Repugs would not have let AIG, WF, Citi, BoA, etc all go bankrupt anyway, wiping out wealthy stock and bond holders in those corps.

[TeyshaBlue]

omfg

[coyotes_geek]

TARP basically worked, no matter who started it.

Repugs hate their own TARP because it did basically work, meaning their "all govt is bad" mantra is bullshit.

President McLiar and the Repugs would not have let AIG, WF, Citi, BoA, etc all go bankrupt anyway, wiping out wealthy stock and bond holders in those corps.

So Obama is a liar and the Republicans saved the economy with their successful TARP program.

[boutons_deux]

what is Hussein lying about.

The Congressional Repugs hate TARP as a govt intervention, no matter what the results, and trash TARP to rouse their rabble against govt.

[Th'Pusher]

To the list of things that everyone knows is true … except for they’re not, add this one: President Obama’s been a big, huge, spender. His profligate spending, as Gov Romney puts it, created a "prairie fire of debt."

In fact, President Obama's spending record is the lowest of any president since Eisenhower, according to a recent analysis by the journalist Rex Nutting for the website MarketWatch (MW).

I’m sure that sounds surprising, and it has led to some reanalysis of Nutting’s work, which I’ll review in a moment. His critics made one reasonable correction (and some unreasonable ones), but either way, the qualitative result is the same: Obama is low spender; in fact, when I make some adjustments that I think make sense, real spending has actually declined under his presidency (see here).

It goes without saying that conservatives are throwing a fit over this result, since it undermines two of their favorite talking points: 1) Obama spends like a drunken sailor, and 2) to fix America, end this runaway spending.

But there is no runaway spending.

MarketWatch does not do somersaults to get these results. Nutting took the published budget numbers and for this comparison used methods that are standard among budget analysts, coming up with a rate of spending increase, between 2009 and 2013, of 1.4 percent per year. Comparable rates include 8.7 percent for Reagan’s first term (say it ain’t so, Ronny!), 5.4 percent for Bush I, 3.2 percent for Clinton’s first term, and 7.3 percent for Bush II’s first term.

Since a president inherits his predecessor’s budget – his own first one doesn’t take effect until his second year in office – the standard method here is to consider their first year in office as the base year. In Obama’s case, that’s 2009. Now, that year’s spending was inflated by a lot of stuff related to the Great Recession and financial rescue, so it’s a high base, but it’s still the legitimate starting point. And MW tries to be fair by assigning the 2009 stimulus spending and some other appropriations from that year to Obama’s record.

The Washington Post Fact Checker made two other adjustments, one of which I think is legit. First, he re-assigned some of the 2009 Troubled Asset Relief Program (aka TARP, aka the bank bailout) spending to Obama, a peculiar choice given that this was clearly a Bush program. But OK … it is true that the 2009 TARP estimate turned out to be too high (giving President Obama a high spending perch to come down from) and later budgets’ adjustments to the TARP took the spending down as estimates began to reflect far fewer bank losses than expected (though this doesn’t effect that endpoint comparisons of 2009 and 2013 made by MW).

This is also very cherry-picky of the Post … they didn’t go through and adjust other presidents' base years for other anomalies, of which there are many (recessions, wars, etc.). On the other hand, the WaPo is correct that MW’s endpoint in 2013 is biased down, since MW uses the CBO "current law" outlays for that year instead of CBO’s score of the president’s actual budget request. When you plug that in, instead of MW’s 1.4 percent spending growth per year, you get 2.4 percent.

But here’s the clincher. Do it the WaPo way, including the (bogus) assignment of 2009 TARP addition to Obama, do it my way (with the correct 2013 endpoint), or do it MW’s way, you still get essentially the same result: spending under Obama increased more slowly than under any president since the 1950s.

This isn’t just academic, nor is it simply a matter of blowing away some Republican talking points. The view that spending is out of control under the President is a key theme of the Tea Party, and it thus played a central role during the 2010 midterm elections. And in no small part, those results heralded an era of political dysfunction that continues to generate steep human costs.

This erroneous spending meme and the politics it engenders has thus far crushed any chance of additional job measures, leaving us slogging along at levels of unemployment that should be unacceptable. Moreover, this state of affairs is even more unconscionable when you consider that the cost to the government of borrowing right now is lower than it has been in 60 years.

One day, facts will again matter. The sooner that day comes, the better.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-obama-is-no-big-spender-20120531#ixzz1wVg8MUZY

[boutons_deux]

"This erroneous spending meme"

meme? IT'S A LIE

[Wild Cobra]

My God people. Look it up yourself:

OMB Table 1.1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls)

If I take on and off budget for Bush's 8 years, there is an average annual deficit of $443,317 million. Obama for his two reconciled years averages a $1,296,542 million per year deficit. If I use the on budget numbers only, they are $610,698 million and $1,368,636 million.

[boutons_deux]

USA has a Banksters' Great Depression REVENUE problem, NOT a spending problem. The REVENUE problem is Repug/VRWC POLICY results of phony wars and gigantic tax cuts and financial deregulation (and tax avoidance/evasion by the 1%).

Cutting spending is an multi-decade, announced Repug/VRWC strategy of reducing govt size until it can be drowned in a bathtub.

[Wild Cobra]

USA has a Banksters' Great Depression REVENUE problem, NOT a spending problem. The REVENUE problem is Repug/VRWC POLICY results of phony wars and gigantic tax cuts and financial deregulation (and tax avoidance/evasion by the 1%).

Cutting spending is an multi-decade, announced Repug/VRWC strategy of reducing govt size until it can be drowned in a bathtub.
If you wish to call it a revenue problem, then let me remind you of a few simple facts.

Revenues decline aftre 9/11.

Tax cuts had revenues increasing in short order.

Revenues declined again after the democrats won Congress 2006, as they scared the shit of of the job creating people promising to raise their taxes.

[ElNono]

If you wish to call it a revenue problem, then let me remind you of a few simple facts.

Revenues decline aftre 9/11.

Tax cuts had revenues increasing in short order.

Baloney. Only in your imagination. Already asked you to back this up and you couldn't.

Revenues declined after the tax cuts and never rose to pre-tax cut values again.

lol facts

[boutons_deux]

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves as increased revenue.

[Nbadan]

My God people. Look it up yourself:

OMB Table 1.1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls)

If I take on and off budget for Bush's 8 years, there is an average annual deficit of $443,317 million. Obama for his two reconciled years averages a $1,296,542 million per year deficit. If I use the on budget numbers only, they are $610,698 million and $1,368,636 million.

People aren't stupid...54% of Americans still blame the Bush Administration for the lame economy today for good reasons...the Bush administration did everything it could do hold off the recession, including undermining spending by increasing the size of government, until 2008, the recession was gonna happen because housing had bubbled out, but it did'nt help that the Bush tax cuts didn't create the private jobs which were promised...this just made the deficit worse...

[Nbadan]

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves as increased revenue.

They did when Kennedy lowered them but tax rates were much higher then they are today, today, cutting taxes is much like skinning the fat off an anorexic chicken..

[Wild Cobra]

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves as increased revenue.
You need to get that saran Wrap off of you. Isn't that "static" cling bothersome?

If you think of the economy as a "static" zero sum game, they that would be correct. However, the economy is "dynamic" and the Laffer Curve is real.

[boutons_deux]

"the economy as a "static" zero sum game, they that would be correct"

it's not perfectly zero sum, but in practice, it essentially is. That's why household income has basically flatlined as the VRWC's policies took hold in the past 35 years, while the share of national income by the 1% has exploded. Less income(less jobs, lower salaries) for the 99% because it was taken by the 1%.

The Laffer curve, like trickle down voodoo economics, is a huge laugher from St Ronnie's Keynesian days.

[boutons_deux]

you right winger and the right-wing VRWC stink tanks love to LIE about "47% of Americans paying no taxes".

But, under the Repug mis-governance, richies who pay NO INCOME TAXES spiked:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wealthy-non-taxpayers-1977-2009.jpg

According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, one in 189 high income Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2009. This included households making more than $200 million. As this chart by Noni Mausa at Angry Bear shows, the number of wealthy taxpayers managing to avoid the income tax spiked after 2004, while the percentage increased “eightfold”:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/07/496055/wealthy-taxpayers-chart-income/

So, is the IRS lying?

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...don't you think that 47% includes this?

Fuck. A spike of 20,00 in a population of 216,885,347?

lol @ .01% variance

lol thinkprogress

[boutons_deux]

"don't you think that 47% includes this"

no. The Heritage/etc "poor people don't pay any taxes" propaganda clearly is aimed at raising income taxes on the low end, NOT on their paymasters on the high end.

[TeyshaBlue]

Umm...that 47% figure came from the IRS. It's drawn from the entire population of taxpayers. Try again.

and again...lol at a .01% variance

[boutons_deux]

the "the 47% don't pay" propaganda was/is to inflame the bubbas (many of whom don't pay income tax) that the poor don't have any skin in the game.

[TeyshaBlue]

So you say.

[boutons_deux]

The VRWC, Fox Repug network, stink tanks know exactly whom them target with their propaganda.