jiggyfly

In the Rotation
Messages
712
Reaction score
0
Obama spending binge never happened
Rex Nutting
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg

http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...2270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

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!
 
Last edited:

lons

UDFA
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
100
There was no budget from '07, this article is so far from the truth it is sad from the get go. The Democrats had control of both houses from 06 forward til last year when finally the republicans took control of the house and the senate has still not passed a budget.

The rest cannot even be trusted if they can't even get that right.
 

jiggyfly

In the Rotation
Messages
712
Reaction score
0
Here's some more numbers.

547764_10150909947408189_23974168188_9881436_1069486494_n.jpg

The fact that they are using gas prices makes it very evident they are using numbers with very little context.

And this from the guy (Allen West) who claims there over 68 communist in Congress.

Dam NoDak that some VA level party whoring. lol
 

bkeavs

UDFA
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
0
The fact that they are using gas prices makes it very evident they are using numbers with very little context.

And this from the guy (Allen West) who claims there over 68 communist in Congress.

Dam NoDak that some VA level party whoring. lol

Looks like he unfolded that article from his pocket
 

NoDak

UDFA
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
0
The fact that they are using gas prices makes it very evident they are using numbers with very little context.

And this from the guy (Allen West) who claims there over 68 communist in Congress.

Dam NoDak that some VA level party whoring. lol
Not party whoring anything. Just pointing out there are charts and graphs to show pretty much anything you want it too. So if you don't like the gas prices used, argue the other more relevant numbers. Like the unemployment. Or the federal debt.

Oh, and your chart is much better? It doesn't show that Obama is spending less. It shows percentage of growth. So basically, Obama's percentage of growth is smaller, but it's still growth. Put it this way, if Bush spent 100 bucks, Obama has spent 1.4% MORE. As in, he's spent 101.40 But you knew that, right?
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Not party whoring anything. Just pointing out there are charts and graphs to show pretty much anything you want it too. So if you don't like the gas prices used, argue the other more relevant numbers. Like the unemployment. Or the federal debt.

Oh, and your chart is much better? It doesn't show that Obama is spending less. It shows percentage of growth. So basically, Obama's percentage of growth is smaller, but it's still growth. Put it this way, if Bush spent 100 bucks, Obama has spent 1.4% MORE. As in, he's spent 101.40 But you knew that, right?

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.

boom headshot etc.
 

Cythim

2
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
0
wow, was that written by Pelosi herself?

Exactly, this article has absolutely no basis in reality.

When you google the author of the article, its pretty obvious he's a left leaning commentator.

The two of you are so freakin hopeless it isn't even funny anymore. You cannot refute the facts presented in the article so instead you attack the author with cries of LIBERAL! OMG HE IS A LIBERAL! CALL RUSH GET HIM IN HERE TO DEFEAT THIS EVIL LIBERAL AND STOP HIM FROM SPREADING HIS LIES!
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,626
Reaction score
9,079
The two of you are so freakin hopeless it isn't even funny anymore. You cannot refute the facts presented in the article so instead you attack the author with cries of LIBERAL! OMG HE IS A LIBERAL! CALL RUSH GET HIM IN HERE TO DEFEAT THIS EVIL LIBERAL AND STOP HIM FROM SPREADING HIS LIES!

there's enough evidence otherwise Cy that I dont need to address his "facts"
 

Cythim

2
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
0
there's enough evidence otherwise Cy that I dont need to address his "facts"

Nope, there is no evidence contrary to the fact that spending has increased at a lower rate under Obama than it did under Bush.
 

lons

UDFA
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
100
Cythim, please go over to the constitution-forum, we are in dire need of a new nut job liberal.
 

Cythim

2
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
0
Cythim, please go over to the constitution-forum, we are in dire need of a new nut job liberal.

Please, continue to think this is about lib vs con and not about looking at facts and judging them as they are. I am not happy with where our government spending is at. The simple fact is the current spending situation is a product of our economy. Bush saw a $250 billion spending increase in his last year and worked on a budget that called for a similar increase in 2009. I know you will come back to tell me liberals did it all but that is your narrow view of the way government works. The fact is spending has held steady after that initial jump in 2009. Spending is expected to break $4 trillion in 2015 but I would like to see the government work hard to keep it under that mark until 2020 at least.
 
Top Bottom