New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Reckless spending

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.
aei.marketwatch.com_Multimedia_2012_05_21_Photos_ME_MW_AR658_s20349a3448f23829b4583fe3ff4173d8.jpg​
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.
aei.marketwatch.com_Multimedia_2012_05_21_Photos_ME_MW_AR657_f9771fa6b611c760d5c830d04be452faa.jpg​
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.

Page 1Page 2





​http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22
 
IF Pres. Obama had jacked up federal spending at the rates Reagan, Old George, and Li'l George did, our economy - to include employment, wouldn't even be an issue today, EXCEPT to the extent the GOP would be screeching about Obama's "outa control spending"!

It's sorta the shits for Obama. He's taking heat for spending he didn't do, but he doesn't get to take credit for the positives that spending would've generated if he HAD indulged in it!
 
it was his decision. there were certainly advisors that urged him to do exactly what you are saying.
 
IF Pres. Obama had jacked up federal spending at the rates Reagan, Old George, and Li'l George did, our economy - to include employment, wouldn't even be an issue today, EXCEPT to the extent the GOP would be screeching about Obama's "outa control spending"!

It's sorta the shits for Obama. He's taking heat for spending he didn't do, but he doesn't get to take credit for the positives that spending would've generated if he HAD indulged in it!

But isn't the whole GOP retards' philosophy build on to blame Obama for things he did not do or in their paranoid mind he may do?
 
In this case, I'm guessing that the Fox/GOP was pretty darned certain that Obama WOULD balloon federal spending and that it would have egendered a considerably more rapid and dramatic recovery than what we've seen thus far.

SO...they were all geared up to counter-shout all that positivity they were expecting around Obama, by screeching that the only way he was able to accomplish it, was by blowing guvmint spending through the roof. Now that he's done the opposite, it either doesn't even occur to them - OR...since it was the only hate-meme they had in the can, they figure they might as well run with it anyway.
 
The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

From the article in the top post.

This is the heart of the lie the Heritage Foundation has been telling for three years now.

Early on, they shopped the talking point that federal spending went way up in Obama's first year in office. This has become gospel in the GOP and in conservative media, a statement not to be questioned.

But it was Bush's spending, they're talking about.

And they know it!
 
It's interesting to note that,up until now, the respondents to this post have been lefties. I guess the wingers need time to prepare a comeback as usual. Facts such as these are hard to deny so it takes time to spin a reply. They will be along shortly with their usual gargon that loses touch with the theme of this thread.
tks Yuri. Good post. Now all the dems need do is run with these stats while countering the lies the rightwing will repond with; something about Obama's high school record.

Gramps
 
Doesn't matter if it's true. All that matters is that it is repeated often enough on television, radio and the Internet. That's how marketing works -- whether it's laundry detergent or political propaganda.
 
It's interesting to note that,up until now, the respondents to this post have been lefties. I guess the wingers need time to prepare a comeback as usual. Facts such as these are hard to deny so it takes time to spin a reply. They will be along shortly with their usual gargon that loses touch with the theme of this thread.
tks Yuri. Good post. Now all the dems need do is run with these stats while countering the lies the rightwing will repond with; something about Obama's high school record.

Gramps

I noticed that too, gramps.
But knowing their aversion to reality and facts in alternate Universe they inhabit that does not surprises me though
 
Yes, I keep telling you that Obama just continued the failed Bush policies (and unaffordable spending levels) but you keep telling me that somehow he is different.
 
TomFitz: I wouldn't have minded seeing Bush era spending growth, if it [had] all been spent in infrastructure.

LeRoy: Well, leave some for research & development, science and technology, Tom. As well as rebuilding our educational system. Which could, of course, be considered as a major component of 21st century infrastructure....
 
I think you have a reading comprehension problem here, Lukey. Suggestion: go back and re-read the top post. This time, very slowly, so that the facts seep in through your cranium.
 
I think you have a reading comprehension problem here, Lukey. Suggestion: go back and re-read the top post. This time, very slowly, so that the facts seep in through your cranium.

I do not have a "reading comprehension problem" but perhaps you do. The top post cited the leftist spin that Obama hasn't "grown government." In fact he has. He not only continued all the unaffordable Bush bloated spending but has passed Obamacare that, if it stands, guarantees even higher government spending in the future. Alternately, if you look at government spending as a percent of GDP, he has the spending at the highest levels since WWII, and, with his all out assault on capitalism and embrace of Euro-style socialism, he has put in place the policies that will continue to see this ratio increase in the future until our economy collapses. So, like, what, exactly, did I miss???

fed+budget.jpg
 
I do not have a "reading comprehension problem" but perhaps you do. The top post cited the leftist spin that Obama hasn't "grown government." In fact he has. He not only continued all the unaffordable Bush bloated spending but has passed Obamacare that, if it stands, guarantees even higher government spending in the future. Alternately, if you look at government spending as a percent of GDP, he has the spending at the highest levels since WWII, and, with his all out assault on capitalism and embrace of Euro-style socialism, he has put in place the policies that will continue to see this ratio increase in the future until our economy collapses. So, like, what, exactly, did I miss???

View attachment 1329

Yes, you do have a problem, reading comprehension or more serious one requiring an intervention from specialist of medical profession, but you do.
Unless of course you became bold faced manipulative liar since Obama got elected, that can explain a lot as well.

MarketWatch chart is not illustrating spending as a percentage of GDP it is illustrating how much each president increased the growth rate of spending. When Pres. Obama took office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 24.9% of GDP - the MW chart states that the president only increased that rate by 1.4% - that means that in a time of extreme financial crisis, spending under Obama only increased from 25% to 25.4% - and it looks like the number will actually come in even lower:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767/obama-budget-chart/
To round up, you're confusing 'spending as a percentage of GDP', and 'outlays vs. revenues' with increasing the spending rate.
 
Yes, you do have a problem, reading comprehension or more serious one requiring an intervention from specialist of medical profession, but you do.
Unless of course you became bold faced manipulative liar since Obama got elected, that can explain a lot as well.

MarketWatch chart is not illustrating spending as a percentage of GDP it is illustrating how much each president increased the growth rate of spending. When Pres. Obama took office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 24.9% of GDP - the MW chart states that the president only increased that rate by 1.4% - that means that in a time of extreme financial crisis, spending under Obama only increased from 25% to 25.4% - and it looks like the number will actually come in even lower:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767/obama-budget-chart/
To round up, you're confusing 'spending as a percentage of GDP', and 'outlays vs. revenues' with increasing the spending rate.

The fact of the matter is that he is not responding rationally to the new (low growth rate) normal in our economy, which is exactly what Reinhart and Rogoff told us to expect as our debt levels reached the critical levels that trigger growth declines (under Obama). The proper response is to cut government spending and boost PRIVATE economic growth through deregulation and tax reform. Anyone who isn't spinning the data (as your guy here did) can see that as plainly as the nose on their face...
 
In other words, decrease the size of the economy so that it can grow or what the Germans and Brits call "austerity". Never has worked, never will work and it will never come to pass anyway so stop blathering about it.
 
The fact of the matter is that he is not responding rationally to the new (low growth rate) normal in our economy, which is exactly what Reinhart and Rogoff told us to expect as our debt levels reached the critical levels that trigger growth declines (under Obama). The proper response is to cut government spending and boost PRIVATE economic growth through deregulation and tax reform. Anyone who isn't spinning the data (as your guy here did) can see that as plainly as the nose on their face...

Well, we see how your "proper" response helped European economies....
 
The top post cited the leftist spin that Obama hasn't "grown government."

No, it didn't. Care to copy and paste what you "quoted"? If changing the subject and misrepresenting the TP is the only way you can respond, you got nuttin' but another wagon load of straw.

You didn't dispute a single word of the TP. That's a sincere response?
 
Back
Top