Obama Spending Binge Never Happened - Wall Street Journal

reply to post by Beanskinner


Ann Coulter has written about this distraction at the Daily Caller.

- Number Don't Lie But Democrats Do -

This bogus story came from Media Matters.

They spoon fed it to MSNBC.

This is a great example of - drive by media -.

They throw out all this garbage and then leave it to us to clean up the mess with

honest charts.

Distract - Deflect - Divide

It's the Obama Triple D Plan of 2012.

- Truth Revealed - It's very funny

Originally posted by Beanskinner
This economy is great shape when you consider what happened...

I was with you right up until that statement. There are lots of words I would use to describe the economy, but "great" is not one of them. What happened was not just the result of the past 4, 8, or 12 years. Thanks to Bush, Obama, heck all of them back to Woodrow Wilson, we have been recklessly heading toward a cliff, all carefully planned by the Federal Reserve.

We no longer have a manufacturing capability in the U.S., we are crippling our businesses through regulation and taxes, squandering our resources both domestically and fighting senseless wars overseas, and yet we are trying to spend our way to prosperity. Our government is too big. It no longer works.

I don't believe four more years of Obama will help, nor do I think Romney would make any difference.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by Beanskinner
This economy is great shape when you consider what happened...

I was with you right up until that statement. There are lots of words I would use to describe the economy, but "great" is not one of them. What happened was not just the result of the past 4, 8, or 12 years. Thanks to Bush, Obama, heck all of them back to Woodrow Wilson, we have been recklessly heading toward a cliff, all carefully planned by the Federal Reserve.

We no longer have a manufacturing capability in the U.S., we are crippling our businesses through regulation and taxes, squandering our resources both domestically and fighting senseless wars overseas, and yet we are trying to spend our way to prosperity. Our government is too big. It no longer works.

I don't believe four more years of Obama will help, nor do I think Romney would make any difference.

edit on 5/24/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

The best part of the Ann Coulter analysis:

Spending Binge Never Happened?

The upside down thinking and calculations throw the Obama Stimulus Plan in the Bush

column!

You know, the $825 Billion Stimulus Bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed AND spent

by Obama goes in the Bush column!!!

This is like a Saturday Night Live skit !

Did they actually think they would get away with this garbage?

--------
The most recent Jobs Growth Chart must be coming out soon.

Don't look at it. Look at this bogus fairy tale constructed at Media Matters instead.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

He blew it on wonderful solutions like Solyndra. - bankrupt scandal -

We need private sector solutions.

I must have missed the bit where Solyndra was government owned. I always thought Solyndra WAS part of the private sector?

Solyndra was a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to fail.

A good private sector solution would be Facebook.

- No government funding required -

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

Obama decided not to reform the big three while in office.

Social Security - Medicare - Medicaid

Hey silly rabbit...reality disagrees with you. Pres. Obama is the only one who did reform Medicare and Medicaid...both through fraud enforcement...

Obama announces crack down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud
www.politico.com...

Record-breaking Medicare fraud case includes 10 arrests in Tampa area
www.tampabay.com...

As well as actual REFORM...of Medicare and Medicaid through the HealthCare reform law...Obama is the only one that has passed reforms to medicare and medicaid.

Of course those reforms aren't of the GOP flavor..."let them die"

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
You know, the $825 Billion Stimulus Bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed AND spent

by Obama goes in the Bush column!!!

This is like a Saturday Night Live skit !

Did they actually think they would get away with this garbage?

It's only page 3...did you already forget Coulter's lie was debunked on page 1?

Coulter goes even further (of course). “It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.” (The italics are in the original; they’re where the good writing is supposed to be.) She continues: “That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column.”

Shockingly, Coulter is … wrong. First of all, only about $120 billion of the stimulus was spent in fiscal year 2009 – and Nutting counted it in Obama’s column. He also included new funds appropriated under Obama and the Democratic congressional majority for the child health insurance program and other projects. And it says so quite clearly on the nifty chart Coulter finds fault with: $140 billion spent in the 2009 budget year is plainly attributed to Obama. It also says so in the text of the story, for people who don’t read charts.

“I attributed all the new spending I could find to Obama,” Nutting told me in an email.

www.salon.com...

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


You do realize that charts as a percent of GDP are cherry picking to the nth degree...I'll give you a hint...GDP fell off a cliff during the worst economic crises since the great depression...so

Spending as a percent of GDP...$1 spent/$1 gdp equals ..$1 in spending as a percent GDP.

That exact same spending $1 spent/.5 gdp equals...$2 in spending as a percent of gdp

Same spending...falling GDP...and that is why you will always see the conservatives tout charts with spending as a percentage of GDP.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

He blew it on wonderful solutions like Solyndra. - bankrupt scandal -

We need private sector solutions.

I must have missed the bit where Solyndra was government owned. I always thought Solyndra WAS part of the private sector?

Solyndra was a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to fail.

A good private sector solution would be Facebook.

- No government funding required -

Is Facebook going to hire all the unemployed?

P.S. It seems Facebook and their underwriters are being sued for fraud over misrepresenting its value.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen


We no longer have a manufacturing capability in the U.S., we are crippling our businesses through regulation and taxes,

Manufacturing is suffering...and has been suffering due to two forces...(1) Cheap Labor in Mexico and abroad and (2) Automation/robotics do the work of thousands...and anyone in the Manufacturing sector will tell you the same, regulations aren't the problem.

That said, President Obama is doing more for manufacturing than any Potus has done in decades..
Surprise! American manufacturing is rebounding

Since early 2010, they have created 489,000 jobs and are struggling to fill nearly a quarter million more. Their output last year topped $1.84 trillion, 8% higher than the pre-recession peak.

www.usatoday.com...

Notice these are NUMBERS and FACTS from the Manufacturing sector....and actual news articles...not from Fox News or MSNBC..

My OP article was from the Conservative Wall Street Journal!

Not Fox News..or Obama for America....

This is where reality makes idealogues uncomfortable..

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

He blew it on wonderful solutions like Solyndra. - bankrupt scandal -

We need private sector solutions.

I must have missed the bit where Solyndra was government owned. I always thought Solyndra WAS part of the private sector?

Solyndra got massive loans guaranteed by the government.

Then they went bankrupt.

The taxpayers lost big money.

The Solyndra loan controversy is a political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth.[1][2] Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs.[1] In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.[3][4]

Critics claimed that the Obama administration had unduly influenced awarding the loan guarantee.[5][6] Others have noted that the Solyndra loan guarantee process was a multi-year process begun during the George W. Bush Administration.[7][8]

Solyndra loan controversy

The whole deal was sponsored by Corruption Incorporated


Related Threads:

Abound Solar (an Obama $400 million federal loan recipient) Lays off 300 Employees


Subsidized, Bankrupt Solyndra Managers Got $368,500 in Court-Ordered Bonuses


Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility

reply to post by xuenchen


I'll ask once...please don't derail the thread...Solyndra is not the topic, plenty of threads about that.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by Beanskinner
This economy is great shape when you consider what happened...

I was with you right up until that statement. There are lots of words I would use to describe the economy, but "great" is not one of them. What happened was not just the result of the past 4, 8, or 12 years. Thanks to Bush, Obama, heck all of them back to Woodrow Wilson, we have been recklessly heading toward a cliff, all carefully planned by the Federal Reserve.

We no longer have a manufacturing capability in the U.S., we are crippling our businesses through regulation and taxes, squandering our resources both domestically and fighting senseless wars overseas, and yet we are trying to spend our way to prosperity. Our government is too big. It no longer works.

I don't believe four more years of Obama will help, nor do I think Romney would make any difference.

edit on 5/24/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

The operative is the consideration.

I flew on three planes yesterday, all of them were FULL.

I think we forget what being destitute means... I have yet to stand in a soup line.

While my relatives did so regularly in the 30's

If you are interested in economics, you will see that spending during bad times is positive

simply because it off sets the money that has gone out of circulation. I was surprised to

read that Milton Friedman even advocated the practice.

I think we would be wise to cut the spending when there isn't a lack of money going around.

We should have been addressing this when the economy was doing well...

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

He blew it on wonderful solutions like Solyndra. - bankrupt scandal -

We need private sector solutions.

I must have missed the bit where Solyndra was government owned. I always thought Solyndra WAS part of the private sector?

Solyndra got massive loans guaranteed by the government.

Then they went bankrupt.

The taxpayers lost big money.

The Solyndra loan controversy is a political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth.[1][2] Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs.[1] In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.[3][4]

Critics claimed that the Obama administration had unduly influenced awarding the loan guarantee.[5][6] Others have noted that the Solyndra loan guarantee process was a multi-year process begun during the George W. Bush Administration.[7][8]

Solyndra loan controversy

The whole deal was sponsored by Corruption Incorporated


Related Threads:

Abound Solar (an Obama $400 million federal loan recipient) Lays off 300 Employees


Subsidized, Bankrupt Solyndra Managers Got $368,500 in Court-Ordered Bonuses


Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility

So you're telling me the Private Sector can't be trusted?

I'm confused about who signed the FY2009 budget into law.

This says Obama did in March 2009.

The bill was passed by Congress.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 – September 2009. The final FY2009 budget was signed by President Barack Obama on March 12, 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

2009 United States federal budget

Related article:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

Actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen

reply to post by BritofTexas

So you're telling me the Private Sector can't be trusted?

Only when they are not directly involved with politicians in office and are not receiving taxpayer money.

Make further responses to the older threads, or start a new one please.

Originally posted by xuenchen
I'm confused about who signed the FY2009 budget into law.

This says Obama did in March 2009.

See below..

The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.

This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.

Link

Originally posted by xuenchen
Related article:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

You are treating GDP as if it is a fixed number...spending as percentage of GDP will massively increase even if spending itself doesn't if GDP falls off a cliff like it did with the economic downturn.

Spending as a percent of GDP...Spending $1/$1gdp....equals $1 spending
that same dollar with GDP decreasing ...Spending $1/.5 now equals $2 dollars spending

Using spending as a percent of GDP during an economic crisis is both hugely inaccurate and dishonest and every economist knows this fact....even the ones that make numbers for right wing "think tanks" to use.

reply to post by Indigo5

You mean the Graph published in the WALL STREET JOURNAL??

Oh, you mean the same company that OWNS FOX NEWS? News Corp owned by Rupert Murdoch?

While I'm going to be in the minority, we should have spent more money. MORE STIMULUS, MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.

Everyone complains and cries, truth is nearly every single American happily took a tax CUT while we were in the middle of 2 wars that were not paid for when taxes should have been raised.

It's time to pay up, and it's time to rebuild the country and the infrastructure that supports all of us.

reply to post by LeoStarchild


1. Because a site this big will be a platform to sway voters.
2. Schools are letting out for summer. They're both :
a: not in the loop on the history
b. starting to reach voting age, and will want a hope and change pony.

He's the biggest spender of all time, anyone who disagree's is a complete idiot (no offense).

When Bush left office in 2008 he left us with a defecit of almost 500 billion.

U.S. budget deficit hits record...

The next president is likely to have to scale back campaign pledges as he inherits a likely deficit for 2009 exceeding $500 billion. But neither GOP standard-bearer John McCain nor Democratic nominee Barack has given much detail regarding what promises they won't be able to keep.

US Deficit hits 1.4 trillion

^ Under Obama Administration...he doubled the deficit and then some. Facts are right there in front of everyones face but I wouldn't expect them to know because there too busy believing what people say on TV.

Proof

^ Research for yourself if you don't believe me.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


The SUBJECT of this thread was not Bush. So: Bush being brought in is a misdirection.

Besides, wasn't Obama brought in to fix Bush's big spending? Did Obama? Nope.

So now, back to Obama.

Once again a lib misuses statistics to defend the undefendable. Nutting is so far off base it's ludicrous that ANYONE can take him seriously. The only way you can can compare the bush spending as, bad as it was, to the obama administration is to select the last year bush spent in office instead of considering the entire 8 years. When the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007, unemployment was 4.5 percent. It is now 8.6 percent. The budget deficit created by the outgoing Republican Congress was only $161 billion. It is now $1.7 trillion. The total outstanding debt in January 2007 was $8.7 trillion. It is now $15.8 trillion. Before the Democrats took control of everything, America’s credit rating was AAA. It is now AA+.

Originally posted by Indigo5
This from the conservative Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch..

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

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?

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 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.

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.

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).

The whole article is just 2 pages and worth a read...And before anybody shouts this is a "socialist spin" piece...this is Marketwatch and the Wall Street Journal...no fans of Obama and the article takes shots where it can, but numbers are numbers...

In short he is measuring the rate of spending increases and Obama has slowed and even reversed spending more than any POTUS in 60 years.

See here and I am interested on opinions...and more interested in opinions with real numbers to back them up.

articles.marketwatch.com...