Spending growth under Obama has been the slowest since Eisenhower. That's the truth of the matter.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Spending growth under Obama has been the slowest since Eisenhower. That's the truth of the matter.
I'll play along. What metric would you use to determine who is the smallest spender if not annualized growth in spending?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
the WH's own website shows obama spent more.....so obviously, he isn't the smallest government spender
the WH's own website shows obama spent more.....so obviously, he isn't the smallest government spender
LOL. Based on the fact that he's never submitted a budget and overspent revenues by 1.2 Trillion each year I'd say this is based on "growth" of spending and not actual spending. They take Bush's last year where he passed the TARP, count it as spending ignoring it was almost entirely payed back, and then compare with Barak's "growth" beyond that particular spending year. It's hacktacular!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
who spent the most money for starters. that isn't difficult. deficits would work. but saying that well....12 trillion isn't that much growth over 11 trillion doesn't help your point that obama is the smallest government spender because the percentage of spending growth isn't that large.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Why this chart is wrong as of now:
1) $831B in stimulus in 2009 that passed after Obama took office and was signed by Obama is being credited to Bush, not Obama... so yeah, when you miscredit a 25%+ increase in spending to the wrong President, it sure will make you look a lot better.
2) It is including projections of the spending for 2012 based on Jan 2012 data...
3) It includes projected 2013 spending decrease... how kind of a left wing op ed piece to include that... especially given that he is using CBO projections without the benefit of having the Dems actually pass an actual budget... funny too because I am pretty sure even Obama predicted spending would go up in 2013
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
let us say that is true...does that mean he is the smallest government spender?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Hmm, who to believe, the Forbes number crunchers or the Forbes blogger from a conservative think tank.
LMAO... the first article was written by a left leaning blogger... it was an op ed piece.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, it is not. It is a blatant distortion from the left. They attribute Obama's stimulus package to Bush rather than to Obama.
cawacko
Well-known member
My understanding, which is possibly wrong, is that Bush's spending was high in his last year due to TARP which was a one time spending deal. So as a result of the '08 spending being so high spending afterwards on a percent increase basis was not going to increase much. The argument I read being made was since TARP was a one-time spending deal the years post TARP spending should have actually dropped to get back to the pre '08 levels.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Surely you can't say that this is the opinion of an unbiased individual?
"...the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse."
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Not only that, but after TARP was included, he raised it further with his own $800B+ stimulus package that is also being included in Bush's total. Then they pretend the baseline starts for Obama.
You're wrong here. Your confusion stems from the fact that although the stimulus bill was passed in 2009, much of the spending actually occurred in 2010 and 2011. The stimulus spending that did occur in 2009 is actually attributed to Obama as the footnote indicates.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Read my post #31. If this is left-leaning, I'm a monkey's uncle, er, aunt.
Just not true, SF.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
here is what factcheck has to say (i use it because i know liberals accept it)
The White House has promoted a May 22 column by Rex Nutting of the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch website that concluded “federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower.” Nutting also argued that allegations of a “reckless spending spree” by Obama constitute a “whopper” and “never happened.”
That raised howls and rebuttals from conservative stalwarts at the Wall Street Journal’s own editorial page, at the libertarian Reason magazine, at the Heritage Foundation and even from Cato’s economist Mitchell, who called Nutting’s comparisons “nutty” in a piece for the Forbes magazine website, even though Nutting based his analysis in part on the same $140 billion figure Mitchell uses for Obama’s fiscal 2009 spending.
Our own analysis leads us to conclude that Obama deserves responsibility for somewhat more fiscal 2009 spending than Nutting or Mitchell assign to him, as we’ve noted. Spending in that year shot up an incredible $535 billion. Nutting and Mitchell hold Obama responsible for only 26 percent of that increase, but we conclude that Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for as much as 38 percent.
We also disagree with Nutting’s conclusion that Obama’s increases are the lowest since Eisenhower. Not only should Nutting have measured Obama’s increases from a lower base, in our judgment, he also fails to take account of inflation, which has been extraordinarily low during Obama’s term.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
The White House has promoted a May 22 column by Rex Nutting of the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch website that concluded “federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower.” Nutting also argued that allegations of a “reckless spending spree” by Obama constitute a “whopper” and “never happened.”
That raised howls and rebuttals from conservative stalwarts at the Wall Street Journal’s own editorial page, at the libertarian Reason magazine, at the Heritage Foundation and even from Cato’s economist Mitchell, who called Nutting’s comparisons “nutty” in a piece for the Forbes magazine website, even though Nutting based his analysis in part on the same $140 billion figure Mitchell uses for Obama’s fiscal 2009 spending.
Our own analysis leads us to conclude that Obama deserves responsibility for somewhat more fiscal 2009 spending than Nutting or Mitchell assign to him, as we’ve noted. Spending in that year shot up an incredible $535 billion. Nutting and Mitchell hold Obama responsible for only 26 percent of that increase, but we conclude that Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for as much as 38 percent.
We also disagree with Nutting’s conclusion that Obama’s increases are the lowest since Eisenhower. Not only should Nutting have measured Obama’s increases from a lower base, in our judgment, he also fails to take account of inflation, which has been extraordinarily low during Obama’s term.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Kinda like that piece you posted today about GM? Get real, man.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
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/
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/
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They are both op-ed pieces Christie... so look at the actual data... rather than someones opinion of the data...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
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?