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

Just in case someone hasn't posted this yet. If they have I think I'm okay with it. Apparently some people could benefit from reading this. Funny how I didn't have to look any further than that bastion of conservative thought......
The Washington Post.

Washington Post Fact Checker gave it 3 Pinocchios

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama:

First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.
Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.
In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.
Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.
The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion. So this is what we end up with:
2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:
2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.
Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation.
Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

www.washingtonpost.com...

There's a good bit more. Check out the link^


youtu.be...

so are you trying to say that because Obama increased spending from his predecessor by the lowest margin that it makes him the smallest government spender? He has still spent more than bush. This thread is such a joke.

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.

The thread title is misleading, but the facts are not. Obama's increases as a percentage are a smaller annual increase than his predecessors. The reason it is worse, however, is that his economic growth is slow. W's looks worse as a percentage because GDP was shrinking during his administration.

We can argue Rep vs. Dem when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but only if we're small-minded buffoons. The fact is, since the beginning of the Reagan administration, the debt has skyrocketed - however, it is not, by far, the worst in history. What few understand is that the only numbers that truly matter are the debt:GDP ratio. Now sitting at around 100%, we were well above 130% during WWII. Should we find a way to double our GDP without adding more net debt over the next 20 years, by 2032 we'll be down to 50% of GDP. (I doubt that will happen)

The point is, just tracking the dollar amount itself is senseless. Its like saying Bill Gates is far worse off financially than me because he owes $800,000 on his mortgage to my $200,000.

Originally posted by thepresident

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.

That is what you got out of my post? I'm not even going to try with you. You obviously have your mind made up, and nothing I say will ever change that. That's your opinion, and you're allowed to have it.

I happen to love Math BTW, it's factual, and not based of the opinions of anyone. 2+2=4, not X. By defining 2, we have a set value, and adding that value to another known value, we have a known sum. Math is very simple, and is always true. Fuzzy/Funny Math as I like to call it, is usually looking at factual data, and presenting it in a way that, while accurate and true, is still a miss representation of the truth. But you probably cannot comprehend how that is possible.

I dont' know if anyone posted this because i haven't read all replies but i remember that i read the article what OP quoted and here is something that will make you think how reliable the Forbes magazin is:

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

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

Both on the same forbes.com website and only 3 weeks passed between them.

The point is, when it comes to government growth - Obama put the brakes on. Government grew the least under his admin.

That's a big deal, IMO. Government growth became reckless and out of control under the Neocons of Bush's term.

some factors of spending can't be helped - like unemployment - because of the 2008 and 2009 recession when millions lost their jobs, they went on unemployment insurance, which is an automatic stabilizer for the economy. That spending should not be blamed on Obama, it would have happened under any president. Obama didn't cause that recession, but Republican policy making did.

If that recession never occurred, or Obama's presidency had followed Clinton's - then I think you would have seen government shrink dramatically with sound policies for returning jobs to America and improving health care for all. Republicans have no policy, other than to shift blame for their misdeeds to others.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Why did you bring this up ? Now the sheeple understand the truth.

reply to post by LastProphet527


You mean the truth that the methodology of this post is misleading at very best? I would recommend reading the article I posted earlier in the thread. It does a thorough job of laying it all out.

this says 2009 on the graph i believe? i would like to think that he is a fiscal conservative, but we all know good and well that none of them are. what would the other years make it i wonder?

just saw another graph, so i retract the above statement. all i can say is.........that is REALLY hard to believe.

i've got nothing else.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The chart only reflects annualized INCREASE in federal spending not the amount of money spent. Obama has spent more money in 4 years than any leader of any country in the world!

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 is an asinine argument, he's raised the amount he's spending by LESS, so he's spending less???

You need to go back to basic math, he's STILL SPENDING MORE THAN ANYONE EVER...

Was Bush better, HELL no, but Obama's spending MORE than Bush did...not LESS...

Raising the amount spent less, is NOT spending less...

That is an asinine pathetic argument...

Jaden

Originally posted by thepresident

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

you are welcome, and this is bush's third term.
Thanks

reply to post by manna2

Under Obama the banks got bailed out big time and the people are getting forclosed on and entitlement programs dropped.

TARP was under Bush

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

TARP was under Bush

And Obama voted for it:

The measure did not cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties’ presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, were making rare appearances to vote their support. That would send the package back to the House, where passage would require a turnaround of 12 votes from Monday’s 228-205 defeat.

www.youdecidepolitics.com...

...and then he requested the remaning 350 billion after he was elected

Obama Asks Bush to Seek TARP Funds From Congress:

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama asked the Bush administration to notify Congress he plans to seek the remaining $350 billion in financial-rescue funds

The request will trigger a 15-day period when Congress can vote to deny the release, and it comes as Obama’s aides draft plans for broadening the program beyond the Bush administration’s focus on buying stakes in banks

Bush’s request to Congress, on Obama’s behalf, “would be a report to Congress with a formal notification of intent to exercise the authority” and tap the remaining $350 billion

www.bloomberg.com...

Plenty of blame to go around

reply to post by Masterjaden


I assume these numbers have been normalized to account for changes in the value of the US dollar over time. A dollar is worth a whole lot less now than it was even under Bush. Thus it takes a heck of a lot more dollars to do the same thing... hence the yearly increase. To lower the rate of change is still better than raising it.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Presidents don"t "spend" money. Congress does.

No, Blackmarketeer, they will not believe it.
Especially because it's true.

But they will work every angle imaginable
to disprove what they fear may be true.

Comparing actual dollars spent between different eras is misleading.

In 1969, the president was paid $100,000 a year. Today, with inflation, that amount would be $932,000.
Today we pay the president $400,000.

If you didn't factor in inflation, you would be tempted to think the president was paid more today than he was back in 1969. That's false. The president today makes half of what he did back then.

Claiming the current pres is spending more money, based just on the dollar amount, and ignoring inflation along with ignoring the fact that 1,4 trillion in our current debt came just from the loss of the AAA bond rating which caused rates to go up on our outstanding debt, is false and misleading. You can only make comparisons based on percentages. Rate of growth under Obama has been the slowest since Eisenhower. The goal is to slow and then halt growth completely, then you can reverse it.

My belief is that the Republican opposition does not want to slow or reverse government growth. They are in the process of the NWO agenda which means a state of warfare in the M.E., a transfer of wealth to the very top, and a concentration of power in the hands of a very small circle of elites.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Thoroughly debunked here.
www.forbes.com...

Obama signed that 2009 budget that destroyed America.

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.

The real reason why this is so is cause we now have a much higher deficiet then in the past!
Also the research i have done puts this graph as possibly being flawed which would not suprise me in the least
considering our growing government! I am finding that what they could be talking about is discretionary spending! since i'm no economist i would ask that someone with a bit more incite take a look at this article>
factcheck.org...