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

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Well like the old saying goes.....

You can claim the fame.....

But you gotta take the blame.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The reality:

That is the reality, fiscal year runs through the following year until Sept or Oct I believe

While this very well may be true, I don't dislike Obama because of his financial decisions...I think he is a horrible president because our civil liberties have eroded under him more than any other president in the history of this country. And to think that he won the Nobel Peace Prize...That is the real head-scratcher. Or rather, why they haven't revoked it or something yet, since they didn't know he would push some totalitarian, police-state agenda.

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)

D@mn fine post if I say so myself. The most humorous aspect of it is that monopoly money actually has more value than what is being pushed around right now. At least monopoly money physically exists.Until the American people take a hard stand and say "we will not honor fraud and corruption" this will be a never ending cycle of debt that will continue to increase until it breaks the financial back of the people. I want to know who honestly believes that it is possible to dig ourselves out of 17 trillion dollars of debt? This equates to about $50,000 for every single person in the U.S. Get familiar with the term austerity, you'll be hearing it get thrown around more and more in the next couple of years. There is only one way out of this conundrum, the hard way. Some may not like the idea of not honoring this debt. It sounds so unAmerican, but they're using that exact mindset against us. There comes a point when enough is enough.

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?
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.

That is what i was thinking. These people will do anything to sell their load of crap. Notice that Bushes term ended at the end of 08 and they have all of 09 tacked on ntro his spending. That is not even fuzzy math that is plain stupidity...

reply to post by Blackmarketeer



It doesn't mean squat to me if he truly were the cheapest president ever (which he's not if you add in 2009 to Obama instead of to Bush). Money isn't the main reason I want him out of odd ice anyway, read the following article and you'll see why I want him out! He's stealing our freedoms right out from under us. How dare he! My vote will be NObama

______beforeitsnews/tea-party/2012/07/holder-doj-orders-family-give-up-your-religion-or-your-business-2444688.html

Putin.. He's only 5'7..

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I am not surprised by this, but the numbers do seem a little low considering troop surges, his little war in Yemen, Libya and so forthe. Plus we will probably see a big jump with the in spending to maintain his healthcare program and the new IRS agents. Reagan is the one that got us into this mess, everything has been absolutely down hill spending wise since he screwed us. Everyone with common sense knows this.

Most important though is we don't lose sight of the fact that.. no matter what Obama has still been an awful president. Romney will be an even worse one. Fortunately Romney can't win.

Everyone should take a stand for once in their lives and vote Ron Paul.

Looking at all of the partisan squabbling about which president the least trillions is just more stupid polarizing politics to me.

I find it revolting that democrats and republicans scream about each other while they do the "left/right" march into fascism. I see clear evidence that we don't actually make our own monetary policy which is set by the FED who cares not what party is holding the reins of power in DC. The FED knows that by charter that they have a free hand to do as they wish with our economic policy.

I see the FED as a complete failure because the FED is suppose to control the economy creating max employment. I submit to ATS that the FED has failed their charter because they have allowed the federal government to become enslaved to debt while enriching the member banks while the rest get left behind!

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

Yes exactly, it is a lie. The graph is plotting the growth in annual spending. He may not be increasing the spending by as much as his predecessors, but he is still spending more than any of them, 1.4% more to be exact. That is why the graph says "slowest spending", not "least amount" of spending.

the point is Obama hasn't change sh**

Those numbers means nothing

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by charles1952

 

The chart clearly states the 2009 stimulus spending (Obama's) were attributed to him (look at the asterisk). The 2009 budget was written by GW Bush and passed by the 110th congress, 4 months before Obama came into office.

Again, the facts:
2009 United States federal budget

Submitted by:
- George W. Bush
Submitted to:
- 110th Congress
Total revenue:
- $2.7 trillion (requested)
- $2.105 trillion (enacted)
Total expenditures:
- $3.107 trillion (requested)
- $3.518 trillion (enacted)
Deficit:
- $407 billion (requested)
- $1.413 trillion (enacted)
Debt:
- $12.867455 trillion (requested)
Website: US Government Printing Office

edit on 1-8-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

Up until Dec of 09 everything still goes to Bush not Obama. Just because a person takes office nothing they want takes affect immediately. When Obama leaves office most of that election year will still be his plans not the person following him.

This graph has been posted before here Obama Spending Binge Never Happened - Wall Street Journal and here Obama spending binge never happened (MARKET WATCH). With pretty much the exact same debate that is occurring here.

I think it is misinformation for Obama supporters to feel better about themselves. The only thing you should be taking from that graph is that spending has continued to increase.

Haven't spending and deficits been increasing under every president since Andrew Jackson?

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Well like the old saying goes.....

You can claim the fame.....

But you gotta take the blame.

Yes but if your going to place the blame at least know who to blame. If if it says 09 it's Bush's policy not Obama's.This is how the GOP is playing on the ignorance of the average voter.

reply to post by watchitburn

Haven't spending and deficits been increasing under every president since Andrew Jackson?

Our deficits really didn't start until 1913. Up until then our government paid our own way like it should be.

reply to post by buster2010

In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished.[29][30] The accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a tenfold increase in national debt within its first year.

Wikipedia



1913 and the Fed was when it got completely out of hand, But Jackson was the only one who knew how bad it was to have national debt. The only one to really address it anyway.

I remember in another thread, a lovely pie diagram on who the US govt owes all this money to. Many here on ATS still think it is China. The huge chunk I took notice of was the chunk where your Govt has borrowed and spent from retirement funds. That is (to the Americans reading) YOUR retirement fund. What is in those funds now is virtually a promissory note. I don't know anyone on ATS that has any idea how to repay the debt so ........... at some time in the future ........ when you want access to your retirement funds .......... they won't be there.

Slick, really slick. They took your retirement funds, spent it on single use bombs and really expensive F22 Raptors and when you retire you will just have to suck it up and realize that your retirement fund went on an ejection seat for an F22 and there is a hairy but sitting on it ready to explode.

Of course, what really happened is it is just another way to transfer your savings to the pockets of the 1%.

As I said, slick!

P

When Reagan increased spending the American economy was booming and growing. Hell even under George W Bush the economy grew for 50-some straight months. Under Obama the economy is shriveling and shrinking into nothing and he's still increasing spending. And don't even try to add in the Obamacare costs he's saddling the middle class with.

so when Obama took office and his fiscal year started the government was in deficit 1.3 trillion dollars annually. The house and senate have not passed a budget since Obama has been in office. For the past 3 year the deficit has been roughly 1.3 trillion yearly. Because there has been no budget there has not been any decrease or increases in federal spending.

The 1.3% annualized federal spending increases under Obamas term would there for be correct because there has not been a budget passed under his term. Miss leading but correct. The 1.3% annualized federal increases would there for be the increase of interest on those deficits yearly. HAHA

so for the average Neanderthal that reads this would think obama is a "saver". But for the Intelligent intellectual like myself who takes the time to really look into this grossly misleading article, Obama is nothing but drunken Sailor on a spending binge. Of course his year spending increases are low. It because his spending was is already so high in the first place. And it helps not to pass a budget for 3 years.

reply to post by camaro68ss

so when Obama took office and his fiscal year started the government was in deficit 1.3 trillion dollars annually. The house and senate have not passed a budget since Obama has been in office. For the past 3 year the deficit has been roughly 1.3 trillion yearly. Because there has been no budget there has not been any decrease or increases in federal spending.

There has been a budget passed every year. Read the first comment by Doug in that article and then read the response to see him get schooled with this reply from the author of the article.

Doug- I appreciate you may not like the article, but I’m afraid that it is you who is a bit confused on the facts. For starters, there is a budget passed every year. The 2012 budget was passeé on December 11, 2011. /www.districtdispatch.org/2011/12/congress-passes-fy-2012-budget/. The 2011 budget was passed on April 14, 2010 www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/politics/15congress.html. The 2010 budget was passed on April 3, 2009. online.wsj.com/article/SB123870974208284245.html