Obama Spending Binge Never Happened - Wall Street Journal

Hello?

When you have a larger base number to work with, slower growth can still easily account for larger amounts than prior lower base numbers where the same factor would equate to higher growth rates.

This is common sense.

It could grow by half a percent today and still be far more than anything 30-50years ago.

So this article is out of context, misleading, and it makes the critical mistake of thinking that the President is in charge of the budget, he is not, instead the Congress makes the budgets.

Hey but I am always happy to help educate folks.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

That's just as far as this graph is concerned. Pretty graphs can show the wrong information

Yes; and that is the point of most graphs, to lie with a little misdirected truth.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

That's just as far as this graph is concerned. Pretty graphs can show the wrong information

Yes; and that is the point of most graphs, to lie with a little misdirected truth.

No one is buying it.

This whole story had them laughing at The Five on Fox.

Eric Bolling just put the spending on a per day basis.

Obama is spending a lot more per day than any other president in the history

of the United States.

Obama has flattened spending because they are topping out to the MAX !!

Not because they are "thrifty" or not "binging" !!

Notice the wider gaps (deficits) and big jumps in spending (outlays are spending) starting in 2009
(Obama and 111th & 112th Congresses)

Somebody should do a percentage of Receipts/Outlays chart.


Year ----- Receipts ------ Outlays ----- Surplus or -Deficit

2006 ......2,406,869 .......2,655,050 ...-248,181

2007 ......2,567,985 .......2,728,686 ...-160,701

2008 ......2,523,991 .......2,982,544 ...-458,553

 

2009 ......2,104,989 .......3,517,677 ...-1,412,688

2010 ......2,162,724 .......3,456,213 ...-1,293,489

2011 ......2,173,700 .......3,818,819 ...-1,645,119

2012 ......2,627,449 .......3,728,686 ...-1,101,237

(numbers in millions)
(2011 and 2012 are estimates)


Vote Obama !!!
Vote Thrift !!!

(see pages 23 & 24 in the pdf)
-->from the White House


[url=http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_2002_2012USr_12s1li111mcn_F0f]Total Federal Spending Tick Tick Tick

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


I wasn't talking about Bush, learn how to read. No he was brought in to end the wars and make jobs, wasn't that what the people wanted? IF he was brought in to fix Bush's spending like you said, he failed miserably.

Yeah it did.

For your reading enjoyment:

www.politicalmathblog.com...

Originally posted by neo96
Yeah it did.

For your reading enjoyment:

www.politicalmathblog.com...

Good find

That fits the definition of ObamaNomics to the "T"




It's time to "scrub" Washington D.C.

Oh, grow up, people.

its a sad state of affairs if a previous president in his last year in office balloons the budget to make his successor look bad.

Originally posted by randomname
its a sad state of affairs if a previous president in his last year in office balloons the budget to make his successor look bad.

And worse yet when the "successor" continues the wild binge spending.

Especially for 3 more years !!!!!!!!

:shk:

Obviously, Bush was blackmailed and had a gun to his head.

Originally posted by neo96
Yeah it did.

For your reading enjoyment:

www.politicalmathblog.com...

Great link. Dana Perino on The Five also recommended the Political Math Blog.

He makes it easy to understand.

Obama tried to run with the Nutting story but it backfired.

The Washington Post gave Obama 3 Pinocchios for repeating the Nutting hoax.
--------
Suddenly, we can all see the magician perform his trick.

Now it's all very boring when the truth is revealed.

Well, it was fun for a few days.

--------
Now it's time to concentrate on the Scott Walker June 5, 2012 election and

next Jobs Growth Report.

In short it seems posters are simply trusting PolitalMath.com's rebuttal, not because his math makes sense..it doesn't, in contradicts itself in several places, but because it tells you what you want to hear. Ditto with Fox and Friends...god help me, do they even know how to add?

Reality is still reality...you can run the numbers yourself, read the politifact analysis, actually read the article or do any of the research yourself, but I don't expect that to happen. The OP is accurate..it was published in the Conservative Wall Street Journal by an author that is no fan of Pres. Obama, but is a fan of honest numbers. It was confimed via Politifact, the only people disputing the claims are Anne Coulter, Fox and Friends and some right-wing nut on Political Math who knows just enough math to confuse people sufficiently and end then scream that the other side is lying. Everyone that disputes this does so without Premise or is simply an echo chamber.

Geez...

An article authored by the CONSERVATIVE WALL STREET JOURANAL...

Confirmed by analysts...

Vetted by Politifact as TRUE

The numbers for all to see...

And now also AFFIRMED by the CONSERVATIVE FORBES MAGAZINE...

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
www.forbes.com...


BUT GO AHEAD AND KEEP DENYING REALITY....I am sure FORBES and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are just "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!".....KEEP CITING THAT BLOND ON FOX AND FRIENDS...She understands the numbers better than Forbes or the WSJ!!!

Originally posted by Indigo5
Geez...

An article authored by the CONSERVATIVE WALL STREET JOURANAL...

Confirmed by analysts...

Vetted by Politifact as TRUE

The numbers for all to see...

And now also AFFIRMED by the CONSERVATIVE FORBES MAGAZINE...

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
www.forbes.com...


BUT GO AHEAD AND KEEP DENYING REALITY....I am sure FORBES and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are just "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!".....KEEP CITING THAT BLOND ON FOX AND FRIENDS...She understands the numbers better than Forbes or the WSJ!!!

edit on 26-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

And..........the Washington Post gave Obama -- 3 Pinocchios -- for repeating the

Nutting hoax.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
When President Obama took office in 2009 the U.S. Debt = $9.986 trillion
Today, US the debt rises to $15.75 trillion.

Obama has added $5.764 trillion to the U.S. debt, so far.

So obama increased the debt by just over 50%. Reagan TRIPLED the debt that he inherited. These are known, confirmed facts.

GOP loves to tout Reagan as the Conservative hero, and never mention either Bush in their rhetoric. Bush Jr also massively increased debt, and turned a spending surplus created by Clinton into a spending deficit, which has remained ever since.

Even the granddaddy conservative of them all, Ole' Abe Lincoln (every Conservative's 'favorite' President), massively increased spending during his tenure (Federal debt had been almost wiped out before his Presidency) and presided over one of the largest transfers of wealth to the banking classes that the United States has ever seen.

Conservative Presidents don't have a real good track record of upholding true Conservatism.

reply to post by Indigo5

BUT GO AHEAD AND KEEP DENYING REALITY....I am sure FORBES and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are just "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!".....KEEP CITING THAT BLOND ON FOX AND FRIENDS...She understands the numbers better than Forbes or the WSJ!!!

I'll go with the numbers from the White House pdf accounting reports.

here's some interesting comparisons.

Year ----- Receipts ------ Outlays ----- (Deficit) ----- Revenue/Spending Ratio

2006 ......2,406,869 .......2,655,050 ...(248,181)…………110.83%

2007 ......2,567,985 .......2,728,686 ...(160,701)…………106.23%

2008 ......2,523,991 .......2,982,544 ...(458,553)……..….118.25%

 

2009 ......2,104,989 .......3,517,677 ...(1,412,688)………167.62%

2010 ......2,162,724 .......3,456,213 ...(1,293,489)………160.19%

2011 ......2,173,700 .......3,818,819 ...(1,645,119)………176.04%

2012 ......2,627,449 .......3,728,686 ...(1,101,237)………141.83%

(numbers in millions)
(2011 and 2012 are “estimates”)


^^^ Where are these figures not accurate ? ^^^



How can those Massive spending Increases vs. those reduced revenues be explained ??



""I am sure FORBES and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are just "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!"""
You Never know !!

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
When President Obama took office in 2009 the U.S. Debt = $9.986 trillion
Today, US the debt rises to $15.75 trillion.

Obama has added $5.764 trillion to the U.S. debt, so far.

So obama increased the debt by just over 50%. Reagan TRIPLED the debt that he inherited. These are known, confirmed facts.

GOP loves to tout Reagan as the Conservative hero, and never mention either Bush in their rhetoric. Bush Jr also massively increased debt, and turned a spending surplus created by Clinton into a spending deficit, which has remained ever since.

Even the granddaddy conservative of them all, Ole' Abe Lincoln (every Conservative's 'favorite' President), massively increased spending during his tenure (Federal debt had been almost wiped out before his Presidency) and presided over one of the largest transfers of wealth to the banking classes that the United States has ever seen.

Conservative Presidents don't have a real good track record of upholding true Conservatism.

Watch out for - Red Flags -.

When someone starts throwing around words like - double- or -triple-.

Just stick to the actual numbers.

Obama is spending over $9 Billion everyday!

President George W. Bush spent $6.2 Billion everyday.

Common sense question: Does that make Obama a big spender?

BTW, i found a shorter link to the Washington Post Analysis. - Obama Get 3 Pinocchios-

A guy named wygator has the direct link to the Washington Post at the bottom of his post.

- It backfires on Obama -

---------

Also, listen up everybody. This is all just an old progressive trick.

- Explain things to the American people in a way that they can't even understand it.-

Thankfully, we all have the Washington Post to hand out the Pinocchios.

Current CBO projections but the national debt in 2016 at 21 trillion

Obama raised the debt celing 3 times continuing all that evil Bush Spending

The Us credit downgrade for what now? Too much spending.

From 2008 to 2016 the current term and next term will be 10 trillion dollars

Double what Bush spent.

reply to post by Malynn


Who owned the house and senate? Democrats. No he did not do it alone, he had a lot of help from his party.

Obama Presided Over a Tax Revenue Drought, Not a Spending Binge

According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement...

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected [in January], but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

"Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending".

Two things affected tax revenue the most - the 2008/9 economic collapse and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. The following chart shows tax revenues took a serious dive in 2009 AND spending took a huge hike in 2009, just as Obama was coming into office.



Adjusted to show Democrat/Republican terms:



Obama has in fact cut spending more than we realize. "But Obama increased the debt by 5 trillion, herp derp" - consider the DEBT BOMB he was handed, and the fact that the cumulative debt is a direct extension of the policies of those administrations that proceeded his, THAT is how we got to 15 trillion.