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

I've seen those percentages before. Now post real dollar amounts.

Hint: the numbers will shift dramatically to show Obama as the biggest spender in history.

/TOA

reply to post by SimonPeter

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

2008-2009 are listed, under Bush. 2010 is Obama's first budget. The budget years he will submit will be 2010-2013.

Originally posted by charles1952
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.

Camaro has claimed the senate has not passed a budget in 3 yrs. I have posted(and so has Blackmarketeer ), with proof, that they have. He said they hadn't, that one line at the top is his proof.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


That "chart" and article are akin to saying the majority of the debt is President Washington's fault, because he was the first president and was president when the spending started. Each president after him just kept his spending policies, and added maybe a few of their own. But since Washington started them, it's his policies that actually are our debt problem. I mean DOD? That's A LOT of money each year. Washington set us up with all this spending, it's his fault. The Math has to be twisted if he took office at 10.5 Trillion, and it's now over 15 Trillion, but he only added just under a trillion. How can you not see that?

I actually had an epiphany because of this thread. It opened my eyes a little into liberalism. They can do stuff like this, and get people to believe it's true, and fight for it as fact with great passion. If I were them, and at least average intelligence, I would think the masses need to be told what to do in every area of their lives too.

I have to tell them what to eat or drink, they are too dumb to figure it out.

I have to make them have health insurance, because they are just dumb cattle and don't know any better.

I have to provide food and income form them, because if I don't they will starve and die.

Maybe it's the vodka talking, but I actually understand it now.

reply to post by CalebRight14


Why not take a look here and see how it affects your perception of the debt:

Column: Doing the math on Obama’s deficits

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Black, did you not read my post? it was in response to yours. I read (enough) of that that already.
It is twisting the numbers to make Obama look better. Don't get me wrong, I am far from a fan of Bush 2, and would trust the guy as far as I could throw him.. maybe even less, as I'm fairly strong. But how in the world is it ok to blame spending that which is going on NOW on Bush? Because he was the president when the policy was set into action?
Come on, each incoming President can say I don't agree with that, lets change it, and Obama had both houses. and could change anything he wanted. Not to mention the jump in 09 was really him, Despite Technically being the outgoing presidents budget.

If he was concerned about Goverment spending, he would have reduced it. He is not. Period(I guess I need to spell it out).

But I doubt you'll hear that.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


LOL yeeeeah...I think you all just got fool'd....hmmm I wonder where that 5 trillion dollars have went since hes been in office? Any takers?...No?...I guess that's because hes the smallest spender ever.

It doesn't matter how much you actually spend as long as your income and trade can compensate the losses....which in Obama's case is a big time failure.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
That's exactly why I posted this. NOT to endorse Obama, but to refute GOP claims. Three years after driving the country off a fiscal cliff, and then spending the interim time trying to prevent it from being rescued, the GOP are right back in the saddle and poised to reclaim total control of the government.

Damn, people have a short memory in America. After the lies of 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the corruption, and the disastrous fiscal policies of rewarding the wealthy while driving the middle class into the ground (see here for a big list), here we are again. More right-wing then ever. Hell, according to the CBO, over a trillion dollars of our current deficit came from the game of brinkmanship the GOP played that cost us our AAA bond rating. Thank that happened by accident? All part of making Obama look bad so they can get right back into power and rewarding their wealthy
benefactors.

There are several things wrong with this post. First off, Democrats still maintain 2/3rds majority in government today. From 2007 up until 2010, they maintained both houses of Congress (which was still 2/3rds of government). From 2009-2011, Democrats had full control of all houses of government. More than enough time for them to pass whatever they liked. Democrats have effectively controlled government for the most part since 2007. So I don't think you're trying to be as nonpartisan as you would like to think you are. Most of your talking points are quite liberal sounding. Especially your argument against tax breaks. But I'll address that a bit further down.

Now, the OP is incredibly misleading. It only measures increase in spending as a percent. This really amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. It is quite meaningless in other words. Spending has not gone down, and trillion dollar deficits are now the norm with this president and Congress. That is absolutely unacceptable regardless of which political party is responsible for running government. No president in the history of the United States has signed the US into more debt than President Barrack Obama. So the title of the article you sourced is intellectual dishonesty at its absolute finest. That in itself would normally be a yellow flag to an astute viewer who has a bit better grasp on the situation.

Additionally, your argument for tax breaks doesn't really hold up. Obama continued the "Bush tax-cuts" by keeping them in place when he could have increased taxes in 2010 (when he had full control of Government). But because his party was trying to fend off republicans in the 2010 November elections, and the fact that this own economists advised against raising taxes, He decided to maintain the Bush tax cuts. So technically, they're now "Obama tax cuts." But I'll let it slide for now.

Moving on, you claim that tax cuts incurred more debt. But this logic fails miserably when it actually comes to understanding economics. Federal Revenue before the "Great Recession" was right around historical averages. The Bush tax cuts didn't affect Federal Revenue at all. The recessions however did. Once more, revenue wasn't the issue, spending however was, and it still remains a major issue that this president and Congress can't seem to figure out. As for your opinion on the AAA credit rating downgrade. This happened with one of the smallest credit rating agencies inside the US. Moody's and Fitch still maintain a AAA credit rating for the US. So, how does one credit rating agency seemingly decide Americas credit rating, when far more prominent ones maintain a AAA credit rating?

I don't think you quite think your posts out, or research the material before you make a thread/post. In the meantime, try and abide by the sites motto.

Regards

But who spends the most on his campaign???? flawed post don't believe what they try tell you

reply to post by rock427

There are several things wrong with this post. First off, Democrats still maintain 2/3rds majority in government today. From 2007 up until 2010, they maintained both houses of Congress (which was still 2/3rds of government). From 2009-2011, Democrats had full control of all houses of government. More than enough time for them to pass whatever they liked. Democrats have effectively controlled government for the most part since 2007.

That is completely false.

Even if true, no party has held a super-majority that could force through their agenda no matter what the other party did. Dems only held slim margins over Repubs when they did control the Senate. Even then, Repubs could filibuster to block any legislation they didn't like, and it wouldn't stop them from introducing their own acts/bills.

Since Obama took office, Republicans have blocked virtually all legislative acts he has attempted to pass, and the Dems did not have the numbers to counter it.

Republicans have set a record high with filibusters:
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism by the Numbers

"Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner's move was unprecedented." A month before Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s popular jobs bill, that’s how the New York Times described Speaker John Boehner's refusal to grant the President's request for a September 7 address to joint session of Congress to present the American Jobs Act. As it turns out, "unprecedented" is apt description for almost every boulder in the stone wall of Republican obstructionism Barack Obama has faced from the moment he took the oath of office. From the GOP's record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its admitted hostage-taking of the U.S. debt ceiling, the Republican Party has broken new ground in its perpetual quest to ensure that Barack Obama will be a one-term president.

GOP Filibuster Record: Republicans Using Obstruction Tool With Astonishing Frequency

Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters

111th Senate Breaks A Filibuster Record

So it doesn't really matter who held the majority in the house or senate. The minority party can bring everything to a standstill if they want to play partisan politics. You have to look at the specific acts/bills that are passed, who the sponsors are, to identify specific policies and their effects. Looks at the acts/bills that are blocked, what effects they may have had, and who blocked them. That will give you a better more comprehensive view of Congress, than just saying "so-and-so was controlled by so-and-so"

As an example, the Senate Republicans, who are in the minority in the Senate, blocked every bill proposed by Senate Democrats. Dems lack the super-majority to override them. Yet failure is assigned to the Dems, for not passing any bills.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer
read this. op not true

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Republicans have set a record high with filibusters

Thank all gods of all religions !!!

The national debt could have easily been $20 trillion by now

It's gonna hit $16 trillion any week now as it is.

Who do you think is going to pay that off for you ?

please explain how "tax cuts" equals "spending"...

reagan created 20 million jobs in 8 years
with an average gdp growth of 6.4% per year

obama has supposedly created 4 million jobs in 4 years, with a super majority in congress.
with an average gdp growth of 1.7% per year. fail.

but if the jobs that were originally lost have not been replaced yet, how can there be any created?

there can't. obama has not created one single job. not one...

obama is a complete failure...

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
That is completely false. [

Even if true, no party has held a super-majority that could force through their agenda no matter what the other party did.

You forget that democrats held a super-majority in the Senate. They controlled all three legislative branches of government from 2009-2011.

Dems only held slim margins over Repubs when they did control the Senate. Even then, Repubs could filibuster to block any legislation they didn't like, and it wouldn't stop them from introducing their own acts/bills.

This is not entirely true. When democrats had full control in Washington, they had full control to put forth legislative budgets and appropriations, yet they never did. Budgets can't be filibustered, they only require a simple majority in both the House and Senate. Recall that democrats controlled both chambers in congress while having a super-majority in the Senate. The only thing they needed was the president to sign their budgets into law.

Regards

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


good, good. We are discussing the topic and addressing facts. Some here are calling on the op as if it is about debt. It is not. It is about federals spending.
IT IS A FACT that he has increased our debt more than all those before him, he just never spent any of it on the people. It all went to the bankers, the FED. Not much went to the people, savvy? All the money, the debt, went to mostly foreign bankers through the FED. The debt is in devaluing our currency and the op is addressing entitlements. 2 different topics in this case. Under Obama the banks got bailed out big time and the people are getting forclosed on and entitlement programs dropped.

Originally posted by bjax9er
reagan created 20 million jobs in 8 years
with an average gdp growth of 6.4% per year

obama has supposedly created 4 million jobs in 4 years, with a super majority in congress.
with an average gdp growth of 1.7% per year. fail.

but if the jobs that were originally lost have not been replaced yet, how can there be any created?

there can't. obama has not created one single job. not one...

obama is a complete failure...

edit on 2-8-2012 by bjax9er because: add

Well, in Obamas defense, he did inherit a mess left over from the prior government (which did include a democrat majority in both the Congress and Senate). As well as two wars (which he expanded) while starting a few "contingency operations" in Libya and Syria. He also made a smart move by extending the tax cuts. But I can't completely blame him for the current state of affairs. Government in general has failed. And that is something that runs through both parties.

Originally posted by CalebRight14


I actually had an epiphany because of this thread. It opened my eyes a little into liberalism. They can do stuff like this, and get people to believe it's true, and fight for it as fact with great passion. If I were them, and at least average intelligence, I would think the masses need to be told what to do in every area of their lives too.


Maybe it's the vodka talking, but I actually understand it now.

edit on 1-8-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)

I think the vodka has soaked your brain.

What is being discussed is the rate at which spending is increasing or decreasing.
I hope liberalism can open your eyes into the world of mathematics where projecting
and accounting for the percentage rate of future outlay is not something you mistake for
a vodka bottle.

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

good, good. We are discussing the topic and addressing facts. Some here are calling on the op as if it is about debt. It is not. It is about federals spending.
IT IS A FACT that he has increased our debt more than all those before him, he just never spent any of it on the people. It all went to the bankers, the FED. Not much went to the people, savvy? All the money, the debt, went to mostly foreign bankers through the FED. The debt is in devaluing our currency and the op is addressing entitlements. 2 different topics in this case. Under Obama the banks got bailed out big time and the people are getting forclosed on and entitlement programs dropped.

President Bush initiated TARP

Thanks

Originally posted by bjax9er
reagan created 20 million jobs in 8 years
with an average gdp growth of 6.4% per year

obama has supposedly created 4 million jobs in 4 years, with a super majority in congress.
with an average gdp growth of 1.7% per year. fail.

but if the jobs that were originally lost have not been replaced yet, how can there be any created?

there can't. obama has not created one single job. not one...

obama is a complete failure...

edit on 2-8-2012 by bjax9er because: add

For Obama to have increased spending to the rate of Reagan he would of had to have
spent 28 Trillion Dollars or 180% increase of all prior national debt

Eat it

Private sector employers added 163000 jobs in July, which is better than expected, according to ADP jobs ... ADP jobs report shows companies added jobs in July.

I will PM you when Obama is reelected

money.cnn.com...