Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's...

page: 1
52
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+43 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?




It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Obama, the fiscal conservative.

Read the comments after the article, for the typical counter-arguments used to try and deflate this article's premise.



+8 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
You know how hard it is to get people to actually understand stuff like this? I have been trying for some time.

This article is a great find. I like the following quote. It really puts people in their place and forces them to accept the truth or be labeled a hypocrite.



No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you. However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


ETA: I am not an Obama supporter.
edit on 31-7-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


The graph clearly says:
'GROWTH OF FEDERAL SPENDING'.
This would mean that the spending is above Bush's 8.1

Eta: Sorry the total spending that resulted in the 8.1 growth
edit on 31-7-2012 by HumanCondition because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


The graph clearly says:
'GROWTH OF FEDERAL SPENDING'.
This would mean that the spending is above Bush's 8.1



Actually, it says "Annualized Growth..."

Here's some background to the temrinology

www.measuringworth.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


The graph clearly says:
'GROWTH OF FEDERAL SPENDING'.
This would mean that the spending is above Bush's 8.1

Eta: Sorry the total spending that resulted in the 8.1 growth
edit on 31-7-2012 by HumanCondition because: (no reason given)


considering inflation, a 1.4% increase, is actually a decrease...
1.4% is a very good number... if federal spending only increased 1.4% every three and a half years since Eisenhower, you conservatives would have the smaller government you so badly want..



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?




It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Obama, the fiscal conservative.

Read the comments after the article, for the typical counter-arguments used to try and deflate this article's premise.


Try adding in 09 and see where you end up.


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Numbers are very easy to manipulate.

A big election is coming up.

Same song and dance....


+17 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
Numbers are very easy to manipulate.

A big election is coming up.

Same song and dance....


Facts can also be ignored if they don't support your pet perspective. As many of you are eager to do.

I don't expect this to become a big thread for this reason.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Its going to be interesting seeing where Ron Paul fits in with the spending.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The point is government keeps growing no matter it being a democrat or republican in the White House, either way they all are still spending us into debt.

I do find it funny that the Republicans hold Reagan up on a pedestal when he tripled the national debt during his time in office.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Its telling that they start the chart with Regan. Before his time, Republicans knew what fiscal responsibility was really about.


Once upon a time Republicans thought that budget deficits were bad, that it was immoral to live for the present and pass the debt onto our children. Until the 1970s they were consistent in opposing both expansions of spending and tax cuts that were not financed with tax increases or spending cuts. Republicans also thought that deficits had a cost over and above the spending that they financed and that it was possible for this cost to be so high that tax increases were justified if spending could not be cut.

Dwight Eisenhower kept in place the high Korean War tax rates throughout his presidency, which is partly why the national debt fell from 74.3% of gross domestic product to 56% on his watch. Most Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the Kennedy tax cut in 1963. Richard Nixon supported extension of the Vietnam War surtax instituted by Lyndon Johnson, even though he campaigned against it. And Gerald Ford opposed a permanent tax cut in 1974 because he feared its long-term impact on the deficit.

Forbes


Regan brought in the Starve the beast doctrine that intended to cut the government's source of revenue in order to hold back the growth of government and hopefully shrink it until "you could drown it in a bathtub".

Its sounds great in theory until you realize they never chopped up the gubment's credit cards after cutting its funding. "Starve the beast" actually resulted in massive increases in spending.


Unfortunately there is no evidence that the big 1981 tax cut enacted by Reagan did anything whatsoever to restrain spending. Federal outlays rose from 21.7% of GDP in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983, before falling back to 21.3% of GDP by the time he left office.

When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, one of his first acts in office was to push through Congress--with no Republican support--a big tax increase. Starve the beast theory predicted a big increase in spending as a consequence. But in fact, federal outlays fell from 22.1% of GDP in 1992 to 18.2% of GDP by the time Clinton left office.

Although all of evidence of the previous 20 years clearly refuted starve the beast theory, George W. Bush was an enthusiastic supporter, using it to justify liquidation of the budget surpluses he inherited from Clinton on massive tax cuts year after year. Bush called them "a fiscal straightjacket for Congress" that would prevent an increase in spending. Of course nothing of the kind occurred. Spending rose throughout his administration to 20.7% of GDP in 2008.

Forbes



edit on 7/31/12 by FortAnthem because:


+9 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
So where is the huge increase in debt coming from?
You mean to tell me that someone who wants to expand federal programs and entitlements is for reducing government spending?
Sorry, sir. There is no logic or reason to that argument.
A bit of a silly premise if you ask me. But fuzzy math has been a part of dumb partisan politics for awhile.
Obama spending less. Wow.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
So where is the huge increase in debt coming from?
You mean to tell me that someone who wants to expand federal programs and entitlements is for reducing government spending?


Who said that? All the article says is that all the presidents have raised the debt significantly, some more than others. Reagan is probably the most surprising.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The title of this thread is still a lie and that was my point



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
The title of this thread is still a lie and that was my point


This whole thread is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Believe me he's already added 4.5 trillion in debt and is running MASSIVE deficits.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


I agree, but the message stays true, I think it speaks volumes about our 2 party system when Regan is a legend even though he tripled the national debt during his tenure, Bush is still popular among his party and he doubled the debt, the Democrats have of course done the same after all they are democrats. I just wish so called "Republicans" would quit hijacking the conservative brand and making us all look like ass hats in front of the rest of the world, but it's people, especially a surprising amount on ATS that keep us locked into this pick a side 2 party system.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by HumanCondition
The title of this thread is still a lie and that was my point


This whole thread is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.


Please, explain to us how it is a misrepresentation. I'd be interested your take on it.


Believe me he's already added 4.5 trillion in debt and is running MASSIVE deficits.


That is not being contested.


+19 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
People who don't understand economics amuse me.

The amount of money that's been spent is meaningless, it's also inconsequential.

The reality is that debt is fiat, should be declared odious and was a fraud perpetuated on the American people by Globalist Scumbags.

Arguing over who spent the most monopoly money in the game that never ended is really stupid.

~Tenth
edit on 7/31/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
People who don't understand economics amuse me.

The amount of money that's been spent is meaningless, it's also inconsequential.

The reality is that debt is fiat, should be declared odious and was a fraud perpetuated on the American people by Globalist Scumbags.

Arguing over who spent the most monopoly money in the game that never ended is really stupid.

~Tenth
edit on 7/31/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
I think most people here understand that.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


Some of them certainly don't act like it.

Certainly not enough of them...

~Tenth





top topics
 
52
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join