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

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'd say its fairly significant to point out that the claims the GOP have been making about Obama's spending arent entirely accurate. Sure, one can merely feign indifference in an effort to pretend there is no significance, but thats doesnt change the facts. It just means you are choosing to not engage them.

When was the last budget passed by Congress?

Does this play into these figures?

I don't know..

I just want Congress to pass a budget... it is their #1 responsibility IMO...

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

He has added the defecit not hrough additional spending. It was caused instead by lower tax collections. Think Bush tax cuts and that 30 trillion sitting in the offshore havens. I think it would be in the citizens best interest for the government to declare war on these havens and take the money back. In my view they abetted treason.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Some of them certainly don't act like it.

Certainly not enough of them...

~Tenth

Deep down I think most do if they actually understand the topic.
Just they have been brought up to have the emotion of meaningless politics override.

reply to post by stanguilles7


In the quest to deny ignorance and point out a flaw in any form of logic is very important.

I stand corrected on that .

~Tenth

How can you blame Obama on spending when Congress/The House has the power of the purse and its been controlled by Republicans since 2010?

How interesting that the chart is showing only 3 year spans.

What about 09 when stimulus money was being handed out like candy? How do you account for 2013 when it has not even happened yet? If 2013 has not happened yet, how does the spending from Obamacare mix into the numbers considering that spending has yet to really happen?

Numbers can be manipulated to present anything you really want them too and that graph is a great example

reply to post by JacKatMtn

When was the last budget passed by Congress?

Does this play into these figures?

I don't know..

I just want Congress to pass a budget... it is their #1 responsibility IMO...

Congress passed the 2012 budget, which the author of the article had provided a link to in the comments section:

Congress Passes FY 2012 Budget

As well as for the first two years that Obama was responsible for (2010, 2011):

Congress Passes 2011 Budget Bill, April 14, 2010
Congress Passes 2011 Budget Bill, April 3, 2009

The 2009 budget was passed by G.W. Bush:
2009 United States federal budget

Not only is this budget the one that dramatically increased the deficit, it was also in 2009 that tax receipts were far lower, due to the recession and Bush tax cuts:

During 2009, individual income taxes declined 20%, while corporate taxes declined 50%. At 15.1% of GDP, the 2009 and 2010 collections were the lowest level of the past 50 years.

$1.4 trillion was the projected shortfall in tax receipts in 2009 alone. Yet that figure is attributed to Obama. Tax receipts are at a 50 year low, and the smallest as a percent of GDP in decades, when combined with the 2008-9 recession, which bordered on a depression, the deficit exploded.

reply to post by MrWendal

What about 09 when stimulus money was being handed out like candy?

Yeah, by Bush. Even then, the stimulus package is not what blew up the deficit.

How do you account for 2013 when it has not even happened yet?

It's projected by the CBO.

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.

This thread title is a lie. He isn't the "smallest spender". More accurately, he is "the smallest spending increaser" Problem is, in a nation with debt run amok, that is like saying, "He sucks less than the others, who sucked pretty damned bad."

yes, he may spend less. But spending less doesn't stop the bleeding he inhereted. And it doesn't account for the fact that spending, when balanced with revenue, is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, it is absolutely needed to do things like improve infrastructure, etc, etc.

I love it when someone finds a stat that they can then mold into a narrative. Nothing like a narrative to avoid context.

US News and WOrld Report seems to think Obama has outspent everyone.



Figures don't lie. But liars can figure.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


yes, he may spend less. But spending less doesn't stop the bleeding he inhereted.

Is the OP claiming otherwise? Seems to me the point the article is making is that, in this context, Reagan was a 'bigger' spender. In terms of the GOP's narrative for several years now, i'd say thats a significant bit of info, if correct.

I hardly read this as an endorsement of obama. More like a refutation of some of the GOP's claims.

reply to post by Cuervo


Have you done the due diligence to ascertain these "facts"?

Or are you just going to assume whatever charts they show us are accurate?

They may be 100% accurate, however I personally have NO way of verifying that it is (neither do you), and considering the governments track record, I cannot just assume what they tell me is true.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


yes, he may spend less. But spending less doesn't stop the bleeding he inhereted.

Is the OP claiming otherwise? Seems to me the point the article is making is that, in this context, Reagan was a 'bigger' spender. In terms of the GOP's narrative for several years now, i'd say thats a significant bit of info, if correct.

I hardly read this as an endorsement of obama. More like a refutation of some of the GOP's claims.

I spent all of about 2 minutes opening up Google, and finding a pretty graph that not only refutes the OP's premise, but actually would call it an outright untruth.

I could dig up 40 more, going either way.

Like i said in the post just prior to yours: figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


When I believe this I'll start believing in the Tooth Fairy...lol

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I am not talking about continuing resolutions

If they were so on the ball why would a Congressman propose..

"Pass A Budget Now Act" Links Congressional Pay to Performance


I agree with the Pass a Budget Now Act...

the can has been kicked down the road too long...

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Have you done the due diligence to ascertain these "facts"?

Or are you just going to assume whatever charts they show us are accurate?

They may be 100% accurate, however I personally have NO way of verifying that it is (neither do you), and considering the governments track record, I cannot just assume what they tell me is true.

So, according you, there can't be any amount of "due diligence" of fact checking to satisfy you since there are no official sources you can believe.

Ok, then...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

More accurately, he is "the smallest spending increaser"

I too thought it should read "Slowest Spending Growth in Decades", but after reading a few comments also along those lines, the title of the chart is in fact correct:

"Slowest Spending in Decades" and "Slowest Spending Growth in Decades" say exactly the same thing. The subtitle of the graph also reads: "Annualized growth of federal spending". As you can see, under Obama, the "annualized growth of federal spending", has been lowest. Yes, we as a nation are still spending a lot, but consider the fiscal straits we were in in 2008. To come in with a budget that only increased in a very small percentage (1.4%), and that's including stimulus aid, is still pretty astounding, and something the Republicans have been falsely claiming otherwise.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


I recall all the continuations from the 2011 budget. Not by Democrat choice, but due mainly to the filibusters by the GOP.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


yes, he may spend less. But spending less doesn't stop the bleeding he inhereted.

Is the OP claiming otherwise? Seems to me the point the article is making is that, in this context, Reagan was a 'bigger' spender. In terms of the GOP's narrative for several years now, i'd say thats a significant bit of info, if correct.

I hardly read this as an endorsement of obama. More like a refutation of some of the GOP's claims.

I spent all of about 2 minutes opening up Google, and finding a pretty graph that not only refutes the OP's premise, but actually would call it an outright untruth.

None of that addresses my post at all. I was pointing out that you claiming this is an endorsement of Obama, is incorrect. Nothing i said relates to your reply.