BHO's Historic Spending Binge...

S

Satchel

2,500+ Posts
.... appears to be a figment of the GOP's imagination:

By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.






The Link
 
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.


And satch?
 
LMAO! Knew Satchel was teeing up this lemon the minute I saw it earlier today.
golfnana.gif
(and if he hadn't, I would have posted it myself as an 'everybody point and laugh at the liberal retard------>
nutting_rex.jpg
' thread)

My oh my, what a lemon it is. Possibly worse than the "Taxes, Spending Deficit" idiocy.
eek.gif

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Since the laugh factor at Satch is somewhat gone now that the beans have been spilt, here is a blogger response (not worth my time):

Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s historical spending data. That’s a steep enough rise. But it’s nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.

But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.

So even if you absolve Obama of responsibility for the initial growth spike, he still presided over unprecedented spending that was out of line with the existing growth trend. Obama’s average spending is far higher than under Bush or Clinton on both adjusted dollar levels and as a percentage of the economy. James Pethokoukis of The American Enterprise Institute has a handy graphic comparing annual Obama’s spending as a percentage of the economy to George W. Bush’s average spending as a percentage of GDP:

052312spending2.jpg



Make no mistake: George W. Bush was a tremendous spender, and he deserves some of the non-credit for making Obama’s federal budget binge possible, especially during Obama’s first year. But Obama and his fellow Democrats share the responsibility for allowing a spending spike to continue on at newly high levels, for posting record outlays and running record deficits — and for taking few if any effective steps to get the nation’s economic and fiscal houses in order.
 
So Satch, ready to give an opinion? Copying a viral facebook post was the easy part. Now that you know that you were duped, the hard part is manning up.
 
If you listen closely, you can almost hear the clapping sounds as message board liberals everywhere e-high-five each other and praise this Nutting loon for "sticking it to the TeaTardiCONs."
crazy.gif
 
It's a gift: From PolitiFact

On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, "Obama spending binge never happened." Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that -- contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president.

The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook -- which appears to have originated with the liberal blog Groobiecat Call -- that paired a line from Nutting’s column with a quote from Mitt Romney’s campaign website. And by day’s end, roughly a dozen readers had asked us to check the claim.

The Facebook post said that Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years."

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rated the claim Mostly True.
The Link
 
I read that earlier, Satch. The poli article also mentioned what Prodigal, leftwich, and I pointed out which is that we have no budget and are spending many more trillion than we can afford and as a percent of GDP Obama's spending is out of control and will bring us to financial disaster. The more you post these misleading pro-Obama financial blog articles, the more silly you appear. Obama has been a financial disaster and we need a change of course.
 
Well, I'll continue to advance a balanced assessment of the President's economic policies and I really don't care how you feel about. You can always wax eloquent on the football board.
As regards, November 7, 2012, get ready.
cool.gif
 
You just don't get math do you Satch?

Name one year in which in actual dollars spending decreased. We've spent more money than ever.
 
Shiner, you beat me to it. There has never been a budget passed during BO's presidency, so any reference to "budgets" is just ignorant.
 
OK Satchel, what is your point here?
* Republicans and Democrats are both spend too much money?
* Obama wants to spend less but can't (implying the Republicans are holding spending cuts back)
* Obama should spend more but can't (implying that possibly both Republicans and Democrats are keeping him from it)
* The 2009 spending was about right?
* You (and likely others here) aren't aware of the mismatch between the Fiscal 2009 and Presidential terms.


Surely you have a point?
 
Let's expose another one. For some reasons many people such as satchel believes that when you outline a budget, that defines your spending. Would it were so. I have plenty of budgets that prove otherwise.

So his argument is that if Bush set the 2009 budget, that means he MUST have approved every dime of spending for that year.

Who campaigned for and signed the $800 billion stimulus bill? It wasn't Bush. How about spending the TARP fund? Bush stopped at half of it and decided we didn't need to spend any more, since it was supposed to be a fund reserved for meltdown issues. Obama decided to spend it.



The budget does not define spending, and as it happened, spending in 2009 came in at about $400 billion over budget. Did Bush spend too much? Absolutely. But the idea that Obama was somehow a slave to Bush's plan is laughable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top