Does not reflect borrowing or Fed activities, but I was surprised by this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://articles.marke ch.com/2012...unken-sailor/2
Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.
Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.
The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.
When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.
Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.
If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.
In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).
By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!
this again?
do you detect some inaccuracy, Darrin?
do share, if you have.
You coming up with this at ude is hilarious. Whats wrong with the analysis?
Looks like W had everything pretty much where Obama wanted it.
WOW!!
If these numbers are correct, (and I have no reason to doubt them), then why isn't the Democratic Party beating the drums about it?
Do you think they don't know? Can't figure out how to communicate it? Maybe they are afraid that if they bring it up the Republicans will counter that the numbers to date don't include the ACA expenditures.
But still..
Doesn't it strike you, looking at that graph of spending increases going bck to Reagan), that the drumbeat of Republicans "Dems only know how to spend" is as much a mantra without substance as is "We're going to get attacked again if you elect a Democrat because they are soft on ____ism (Communism, Islamism, Al Quaedaism) etc. etc. etc.
But if the Dems can't convince the voters that the numbers are accurate, then they really aren't very good at their jobs, are they?
Its a losing proposition to try to make this argument, IMO. Look at that graph and then look at the democrats on it. Bush passed huge expansions in government spending and yet the GOP is always looked upon as the fiscally conservative party.
Its pretty much a waste of resources to try to make the public do a 180 on what they think is the case.
Darrin believes all the LIES the Repug and right-wing hate media tell him.
In larger context, the Obama economy the Repugs are blaming him far is a
REPUG DREAM ECONOMY:
lower govt spending
low tax income from (esp 1%) Human- and esp Corporate-Americans.
GDP growing (slowly) with all those deservedly unemployed, lazy, criminal people suffering the way God wants them to suffer.
The corps are wallowing in $2T+ in cash.
Elect Repugs to take over the Other Two Branches, and their DREAM will become even more real.
Didn't our resident twoofer post this same bogus analysis a few months ago?
Nbadan
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...05#post5907605
Since Winehole is our resident archive dweller and bumper, I'm surprised he overlooked this.
Nbadan, boutons, and winehole -- the three amigos
so, what's wrong with the spending analysis? besides that posters you dislike have referenced it.
(who btw yields to no one in the area of scorn heaped on boutons and Nbadan)
that says basically the same thing, Darrin. spending levels are high, but are growing at a low level.
I appreciate your support.
Well, surprise, surprise. Darrin didn't read his thread although he does get a gold star for use of the search function
Well, my point was that in looking at that graph, government spending growth
was slower under all the Democrats than the Republicans...why would they concede that argument?
I know you are saying that Americans minds are made up about this and nothing will change it, but why wouldn't they try?
Independents like me who are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian really get impressed by things like this. I just think that they need some help with communicating things to people...the Republicans appear to be much better at things like that the Dems.
Becasue trying takes a lot of time and money. Once that time and money is spent, you can't get it back. There's a huge amount of thought that goes into where to spend campaign finances and much like any other form of advertising they've got it down to a science that gets amazing results.
lol "We haven't run the numbers yet"
Uh...if Bush was on a spending binge (which he was) and Obama has moderately increased that spending level then...
Darrin yields to no one in the area of singeing his own beard.
Obama (and the US Congress) slowed the train down a little in the area of spending. the blown up deficit is mainly due to revenue shortfall.
for which Obama deserves plenty blame too
Other aspects of the study strike me:
Bush authored the auto bailout, yet that lies solely at the feet of Obama.
Same for the bank bailout.
Same for the 5.8% Social Security bump.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
