Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just not true, SF.

yes, it is true.

 

[Bonestorm]

Spending under Obama remains at a level that is quite high by historical standards. Measured as a percentage of the nation’s economic production, it reached the highest level since World War II in fiscal 2009, and has declined only slightly since.

And there’s more spending to come: The health care law Obama signed in 2010 calls for a new wave starting in 2014, to subsidize coverage for millions who wouldn’t otherwise have it. That will be adding an estimated $110 billion to federal outlays in fiscal 2015, and more in later years.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

The issue isn't whether spending is high, but whether Obama's spending increases are high relative to increases under previous presidents. Factcheck doesn't like the % increase in spending for whatever reason, but does little to challenge the fact that spending increases under Obama have been the lowest since the Eisenhower administration.

 

[Bonestorm]

yes, and???

My point to Christie was that the article she said was done by 'Forbes number crunchers'... was also an op ed piece, which was written by a left leaning blogger.

Are you not intelligent enough to comprehend that?

It's actually based largely on a MarketWatch column, so . . .

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Read my post #31. If this is left-leaning, I'm a monkey's uncle, er, aunt.

Look at the article Christie, I said it was written by a left leaning blogger. That is right up by his name. He states that (or Forbes makes that distinction).

Given his manipulation of the numbers... yes, it is left leaning.

 

[Bonestorm]

yes, it is true.

Sorry. Just not so. Like I said, you seem to think all of the stimulus spending occurred in 2009 because the bill was passed in 2009. In reality, much of the spending occurred in 2010 and 2011 and is thus attributed to Obama. And, to the extent that stimulus funds were spent in 2009, the chart attributes it to Obama as indicated in the footnote.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's actually based largely on a MarketWatch column, so . . .

Next time a simple "No" would be sufficient or you could go with "no, I am not smart enough"... that too would work.

I will try to dumb it down so you can comprehend... the article in the OP was not done by 'forbes number crunchers' as Christie stated.

 

[Bonestorm]

Next time a simple "No" would be sufficient or you could go with "no, I am not smart enough"... that too would work.

I will try to dumb it down so you can comprehend... the article in the OP was not done by 'forbes number crunchers' as Christie stated.

I trust you of all people are not attacking the source of the information. Certainly that cannot be the case.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The issue isn't whether spending is high, but whether Obama's spending increases are high relative to increases under previous presidents. Factcheck doesn't like the % increase in spending for whatever reason, but does little to challenge the fact that spending increases under Obama have been the lowest since the Eisenhower administration.

the title of the article is "smallest government spender"

so how can you say the issue isn't whether spending is high? that is pure nonsense.

 

[Bonestorm]

the title of the article is "smallest government spender"

so how can you say the issue isn't whether spending is high? that is pure nonsense.

Spending was high before Obama did anything at all. The issue is how much Obama's policies and things that he did are responsible for the high spending. The answer is not much at all.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Spending was high before Obama did anything at all. The issue is how much Obama's policies and things that he did are responsible for the high spending. The answer is not much at all.

even factcheck says you're wrong.

 

[Bonestorm]

even factcheck says you're wrong.

No, it doesn't. Factcheck says that spending got really high under Bush and Obama did little to reverse it. That's not at all inconsistent with what I'm saying.

 

[christiefan915]

Look at the article Christie, I said it was written by a left leaning blogger. That is right up by his name. He states that (or Forbes makes that distinction).

Given his manipulation of the numbers... yes, it is left leaning.

We must be talking about different articles. I'm referring to Peter Ferrara's hit piece.

Edit: Now that I see you were talking about Ungar, not Ferrara, I guess it all boils down to which blogger you think is more credible. And even yurt's Factcheck C & P left out this part, which corroborates the title of the thread.

"Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year."

 

[Howey]

here is what factcheck has to say (i use it because i know liberals accept it)

And you edited out every extensive bit that supported Obama, didn't you? Fraud.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year.

So if current spending is an “inferno,” it’s one that Bush (and Congress) is mostly responsible for starting. But it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out.

And this is why!

But note also that receipts are running at levels that are well below historical averages. It is the combination of historically high spending and low revenues that is producing the current string of trillion-dollar annual deficits, and piling up debt. Those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the other side of the ledger.

Back to the FactCheck defense of the President:

Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama’s spending amounts to an “inferno.” But who is really responsible for the huge jump that took place in fiscal 2009? Here are some undisputed facts:

Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year.

Update, June 7: A new CBO monthly report, issued after this article was posted, showed outlays for the first eight months of the fiscal year running 1.2 percent higher than the same period a year earlier, after adjusting for timing of payments and also after taking account of an unusual adjustment to TARP outlays booked in May 2011. The June 7 CBO report thus shows fiscal 2012 spending to be on track to increase only slightly for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

But CBO also projected on June 5 that by the end of the year, due to the continued mismatch between outlays and receipts, “the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.”

All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year — for which we assign most of the increase to Bush — the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent.

It goes on...explaining the allocation of funds, how they were dispersed, and so on...and finally comes to this compelling statement.

Nevertheless, the spending Obama inherited was so high that even modest increases keep it at a level that is extraordinarily lofty by historical standards.

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

Spending under Obama remains at a level that is quite high by historical standards. Measured as a percentage of the nation’s economic production, it reached the highest level since World War II in fiscal 2009, and has declined only slightly since.

And there’s more spending to come: The health care law Obama signed in 2010 calls for a new wave starting in 2014, to subsidize coverage for millions who wouldn’t otherwise have it. That will be adding an estimated $110 billion to federal outlays in fiscal 2015, and more in later years.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

There you go again. We read it the first time. You continue to nitpick the negative, ignoring the positive. Fraud.

Spending was high before Obama did anything at all. The issue is how much Obama's policies and things that he did are responsible for the high spending. The answer is not much at all.

Correct.

even factcheck says you're wrong.

Liar.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

LOL

howey ignores that factcheck said spending increased under obama. highest level since WWII. i cannot cite the entire article you fracking idiot. i gave the cite, hence, i could not have committed fraud for two reasons:

1. i gave the cite

2. everything i quoted is entirely accurate and not fraudulent as it is a direct quote.

you're just an imbecile that doesn't even know what the word fraud means.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

notice howey conveniently cuts this out:

It hasn’t come down much since that postwar record. It was 24.1 percent of GDP in both fiscal 2010 and 2011. Spending for each of the last three fiscal years was higher than any since 1946.

poor howey....all bluster and no muster

 

[Howey]

LOL
i cannot cite the entire article you fracking idiot.


you're just an imbecile and a fraud.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

so not citing an entire article means i'm an imbecile and a fraud?

do explain.

 

[Howey]

so not citing an entire article means i'm an imbecile and a fraud?

do explain.

No, fraud. Leaving out pertinent information and skewing the article does. How Breitbart of you!

 

[cancel2 2022]

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, fraud. Leaving out pertinent information and skewing the article does. How Breitbart of you!

lol...howey backs down off the imbecile claim after he realizes that he was wrong.

the rules for the board clearly state i cannot cite the entire article. therefore, i gave a link. i left out nothing that proves my point. you, on the other hand, left out much in order to dishonestly claim i was fraudulent. you cannot commit fraud if you give the actual cite you fucking dumbass. if i changed the article, that is fraud. but i didn't. everything i cited was in full context, unlike your cherry picking. thus, i didn't skew the article.

what is truly laughable about your claim is that you ALSO did not cite the entire article. the paragraph after your bolded paragraph goes against what you claim factcheck said. so, according to you, since you left that bit out, you committed fraud.

what a dumbass, pwns himself again and again.