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

Since 2010. The only reason it is that low is because the Citizens put in office a Republican majority in the house, which controls the spending.I still haven't seen a budget passed by Obama.

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion.

The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.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.

Wiki

I was no fan of Bush proposing the budget, but Obama signed off on it

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Golf66

 

Who is saying it is a "win"???

The OP is just exposing a Republican lie...and it seems like you bought it.

Neat - please tell me again how a debt increase of 2 trillion over 8 years under Regan is equal to more spending than Obama's debt increase of almost 5 trillion in 42 months. How is that less spending...?

Is there a magic chalk board for this?

The title says Obama lowest spender since Ike.

Really?

If Obama spends more in each year on the government than the total amount Regan added to the debt over an 8 year period how prey tell can that equal less "The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower". Obama spends more in one year on his government than the total cost of fighting WWII. Good thing he is not spending a lot - I'd hate to see how much that would be.

It is amazing how you avoid the question then reverse the accusation in the same post. How much do you get paid for that?

What is sad to me is that the masses will eat this up as if it's fact. Ozombies - no wonder they for hunger for braiiins they don't have any of their own.

I have worked enough stats to know I can take make something that was an utter failure sound spectacular in a bullet point.

Like making this bullet number one on a briefing slide - "We enlisted 100% more people last month than the month before!" it is 100% true but also 100% bull and meaningless.

Sure we were supposed conduct 30 combat patrols each month and we only did 20. However, since we totally sucked the month before only conducting 10 we increased our combat patrol activity over the previous period by 100%. As long as no one is really paying attention to the data we sound like heroes but in reality we are more than 30 under mission for a 60 day period or at 50% mission accomplishment. Take a crappy stat numerically and put it into words that make it sound good. Not lying it’s Lying Congressional Style!

One can find a way to make failure sound like a great thing if he knows what the audience wants to hear. It's manipulation 101. The masses like Obama he is cool – so people want him to have some good stats. They hear what they want to hear – he’s doing great!

Again - I want this as a bullet for an efficiency report: I failed sure but I didn't add as much to the overall failure of the organization relative to the men before me in terms of percentage of the total failure as quickly as the guy before me did.

How can I not get reelected with an accomplishment like that one?

reply to post by Golf66


I see you aren't familiar with this new cool mathematic concept...it's call percentages.


You are either that horrible at math...or you are being intentionally dense to try to trick others who you know are dumb enough to buy it.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

•The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.

•Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.

•As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.

•Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.

•President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)

•The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

•In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).

•Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.

•By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

•Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.

•Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.
.

Ah yes, a blog.

blog.heritage.org...

Clearly blogs are always factually correct and never misleading.

I'll stick with my more reputable sources.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


It is all so simple, just vote for RON PAUL! He is the premier choice. If you think he is
ignorant or stupid I sincerely am sorry for you and the way you look at life. You don't
know what a truly good first step in a positive direction is Ron Paul. Just write em' in!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Golf66

 

I see you aren't familiar with this new cool mathematic concept...it's call percentages.


You are either that horrible at math...or you are being intentionally dense to try to trick others who you know are dumb enough to buy it.

I agree with you.

Reagan spent more than ALL the previous presidents combined.

If we want to get mathematical, over a third of our current debt is
Compounded Interest of Reagan's debt

reply to post by Golf66


That graph is completely biased. They more than likely based it on the value of the dollars
not the actual face value because then it works in favor of Obama. Dollars have decreased in
value and Obama spends more but its low so it then looks low when compared to better times.

reply to post by Golf66


If those numbers are correct it is called a trend.

Reagan grew government spending 180%

If it is true that Obama has grown government
2% that is a serious fiscal move in the right direction.

There's a problem with this thread in general. Everyone believes an R or a D next to a name means anything. It doesn't. They're all playing us and they're all thieves. It's threads like this that they count on to keep us divided and our eyes off the ball. Until people realize that simple, plain truth, we'll continue to be plundered like fools.

What's really funny is none of these numbers matter if you leave out the CAFR information. The government took in 14 trillion via investments into their CAFR "special accounts" while American's took home 5 trillion. We own all these companies by investment. Just go read over at CAFR1.com.

Walter Burien did a great job on updating his documentary of the Biggest Game in Town. If you are not familiar with the thousand upon thousands of local, State, and Federal Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports then you should brush up on it. The debt if fake, the books are cooked, and we are being fleeced. There is no reason to pay any taxes, and Walter has a great fix if people would take his solution seriously.

Something the conservative media has refused to acknowledge is that as a result of the Great Recession (starting in 2007 and peaking in 2008-2009) a number of automatic stabilizers went into effect, such as unemployment insurance, EBT and food stamps, more people were tossed out of the work force and went on social security or welfare. This led to a HUGE jump in government spending. This was not due to any action taken by Obama. It was the 'safety net' doing what it was designed to do.

Another factor conservative media will not acknowledge is that tax revenue decreased significantly in 2008-2009, some of that was due to certain republican policies, a lot was due to the Great Recession. This led to a massive increase in the debt, and had nothing at all to do with Obama or any spending under Obama.

Yet another factor, again not acknowledged by conservative media, are the effects of two very expensive wars (each over a trillion dollars) that was causing a significant drain on the economy. How much does it cost for all those thousands of wounded vets, who'll need a lifetime of care?

The Great Recession caused the single greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and working middle class to the wealthiest 1%. The Republicans in Congress want to slash social security, health insurance, raise the retirement age, and end "entitlement" programs. In exchange, they'll hand the wealthy huge tax breaks and keep corporate welfare firmly in place. That's a wealth transfer, from the bottom to the top.

I don't blame the spending increases for the stimulus, for either Bush or Obama, as a cause for alarm, because that was spending sorely needed to keep the Great Recession from turning into another Depression. In fact those stimulus programs helped the USA recover better than Europe, which chose to go with Austerity, and they are still deep into the Global Recession.

IMHO, what this country really needs is another Bill Clinton.

The LAST thing this country needs is another Republican in the WH. Ron Paul might be the exception there, but someone like Romney would be horrible, especially as a fake conservative.

and what I say to the article is this... It takes money to make money...

Republicans really blew it nominating a**hat Romney. They've been using the financial crisis as an excuse to try and force Americans to cut minimum wage, raise the retirement age, slash retirement plans and social security, so they write big checks to their billionaire corporate backers.

It is very telling their nominee is a vulture capitalist and banker.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Ah yes, a blog.

blog.heritage.org...

Clearly blogs are always factually correct and never misleading.

I'll stick with my more reputable sources.

A list of facts were provided. Which of those facts were wrong? Feel free to claim they're false and misleading, but be prepared to show how they are. Otherwise, you might as well admit they're correct and be honest about it.

Pretty hard to spend money when the republicans are cutting the money from all your projects. Pretty hard for the economy to recover if the government as a whole is not even trying to stimulate the economy. In a recession it is not time for the government to tighten up, that should have been done under bush. Where did all the money go under the bush administration? Question the big things if you want the truth. some deceptions are so big we can't comprehend them.

reply to post by frankensence


Add to that the Republicans that blocked the Jobs act ---

After Stonewalling Obama’s Jobs Package, Republicans Complain About GDP Growth

New data released today shows that the U.S. economy grew by 1.5 percent last quarter, following a revised increase of 2 percent in the first quarter. Republicans, of course, leaped on the middling number, with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) calling it “a troubling sign for the future of our economy.”

But GOP’ers neglect to mention that they repeatedly filibustered President Obama’s American Jobs Act in the Senate, after several independent economic analysts estimated that the bill would boost GDP by one to three percent.

• Goldman Sachs economists estimated that the AJA would increase GDP by 1.5 percent, before any multiplier effects.
• – Thomas Lam, of the economic advisory firm OSK-DMG, estimated that the bill would boost GDP by 1.8 percent.
• Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the boost would be 1.3 percent.
• Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy, put the boost at 2 percent of GDP.
• The Economic Policy Institute estimated that the new initiatives in the AJA would increase GDP by 1.9 percent, while policy extensions it included would increase GDP by another 1.4 percent.

They also blacked even no-brainer acts like the "Bring Jobs Home Act" ---
House Republicans Block "Bring Jobs Home Act"

The Bring Jobs Home Act blocked after Republican filibuster.

Yesterday a bill was blocked in Congress that would have ended the tax credit for outsourcing jobs (where companies are REWARDED for outsourcing jobs to China and Mexico) and instead would have given a 20% tax credit to companies for bringing jobs BACK to America.

It goes on and on. Both parties need to work together to on legislation to help this country recover. One party has clearly made it's mandate to make Obama fail, no matter how it destroys jobs or the economy. I don't understand Republican/Tea Party claims that Obama is a socialist or his policies are socialist. If Obama is a socialist, then Ronald Reagan was Karl Marx. Reagan and the first Bush were big 'ol lefties compared to Obama.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TsukiLunar
reply to post by frankensence
reply to post by rickymouse
reply to post by RancorXXX


If you want an article that spells out how much of the current debt is due to Obama, and how much is due to his predecessor's policies, then see this:

Column: Doing the math on Obama’s deficits
(washingtonpost.com)

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds

Image: Bush vs. Obama Policy Impact.
(Graph: Todd Lindeman/Ezra Klein; data: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

The author breaks down just how much of the current debt can be attributed to whom.

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
Obama took office debt was 10.6 trillion.

Latest estimate debt is 14.6 trillion.

That’s 1 trillion a year.

He is on par with the Bush admin.

Nice try OP …

Why is simple math so bloody hard for you to understand.

Assume an interest on the debt of 5%

When Obama took office debt repayment was half a trillion. The other half a trillion was spending. Come on mate, it is just simple math!

P

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


What happened to the 2008 thru 2012 years ? All I see is 2010 thru 2012 .

This post is such a joke. You are all arguing with each other across party lines, as a few others have tried to point out, instead of calling it all BS and debating real solutions for yourselves as real people. As if it matters whether "Obama" did it or "Bush" did it. Does winning that argument help you personally, or all of us collectively? Do you think the next guy is going to be any different or "fix things?" If you do, please let me have some of what you're smoking - I will pay good money for it. You are playing right into their hands and you deserve what you get.

"Just keep them bickering with each other and we can get away with whatever we want. They are too stupid and polarized to ever be on the same side so they will never stop us from screwing them over. They will never rise up. They never step out of line. They will spend all their time using charts and graphs and figures to support one side of two halves that are really all a part of the same whole."

What a perfect plan. Plato's cave in action. All shadows and no substance.

Here's a man who understood that:

"Any individual who is able to raise $25 million to be considered presidential is not going to be much use to the people at large. He will represent oil, or aerospace, or banking, or whatever moneyed entities are paying for him. Certainly he will never represent the people of the country, and they know it. Hence the sense of despair throughout the land as incomes fall, businesses fail, and there is no redress." Gore Vidal, RIP 2012

Is that all we are left with, despair? I for one have been stepping out of line for years, though from the outside no one would ever know. Revolution can be a quiet thing after all.