Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[LTCArmyRet]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

You're facts are screwed up, directly from the Whitehouse own reports, Historical Tables | The White House

Year Total On-Budget
Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (&#8211 Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (&#8211
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 1,932,896 2,275,049 -342,153
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 1,865,945 2,507,793 -641,848
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 1,450,980 3,000,661 -1,549,681
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079 -1,294,373 1,531,019 2,902,397 -1,371,378
2011 2,303,466 3,603,059 -1,299,593 1,737,678 3,104,453 -1,366,775
2012 2,450,164 3,537,127 -1,086,963 1,880,663 3,029,539 -1,148,876


Yeah, it's remained flat alright, increased spending by a trillion his first year in office and has maintained that spending rate. Your point bogus.

 

[deltex1]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

So explain the debt/deficit despite growing revenue.....

 

[zeke]

Really rabbit, do you think that it was the Dem controlled Congress under Bush that approved the wars, the tax cuts and the prescription drug program. You know, those three biggie deficit busters that no one wanted to pay for.

Really is that what you believe? If so, you are wrong. Try again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

i often wonder, were liberals born stupid or did the public school system indoctrinate them to be stupid ??

Maobama is the biggest spender this country has ever seen, $7,000,000,000,000 spending in 5 years is more than ALL the presidents from Washington to FDR !!!

BTW libs, how do you like the fact that this BOOB president of yours has given Iran the green light to develop more nuclear weapons ??

Before you start calling Liberals' stupid, you should first learn the difference between "spending" and "debt," otherwise, you look even more ignorant than those you are insulting.

Adding $7t in debt is not "spending" $7t. Actually, we've spent $17.6t since Obama became president. Debt is the amount we spent beyond the revenues taken in. Now ya know so there is no excuse in the future.

Please make a note of that before you make your next ignorant statement.

Um what? How does one add debt without spending? Do you even know what you're talking about? Don't you mean "$17.6t since Washington became president"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Really rabbit, do you think that it was the Dem controlled Congress under Bush that approved the wars, the tax cuts and the prescription drug program. You know, those three biggie deficit busters that no one wanted to pay for.

Really is that what you believe? If so, you are wrong. Try again.

So what are you saying here, Zeke? That the Democrats did nothing for 2 years in office? How do you think the wars got funded? Who do you think writes spending legislation? Hint: It's not the president.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Hey three more idiots all logged in thinking that Obama inherited a no debt, no obligation government when he came into office.

And all the deficits are on Obama.

How stupid are you people? I mean really? How stupid are you temple of carmac.

So Bush is responsible for everything that happened in his presidency, even though he had a Dem Congress the last two years, but Obama is responsible for nothing, even though he had a Dem Congress for two years?
Sounds about right. Obama gets credit for anyhting good, Bush gets blame for anything bad.

No idiot. bush is simply responsible for more of it. That is a fact.[/QUOTE]

Not a fact, largest deficit during Bush's administration was his last year, also the year of the bailouts, $458 billion. Obama comes in, first year, increased spending by 1 trillion and hasn't slowed down. Reference the white houses own reports, Historical Tables | The White House

 

[The Rabbi]

So Bush is responsible for everything that happened in his presidency, even though he had a Dem Congress the last two years, but Obama is responsible for nothing, even though he had a Dem Congress for two years?
Sounds about right. Obama gets credit for anyhting good, Bush gets blame for anything bad.

No idiot. bush is simply responsible for more of it. That is a fact.[/QUOTE]

Not a fact, largest deficit during Bush's administration was his last year, also the year of the bailouts, $458 billion. Obama comes in, first year, increased spending by 1 trillion and hasn't slowed down. Reference the white houses own reports, Historical Tables | The White House

Damn there you go interjecting facts. You dont get it. It's Bush's fault. Right? Bush singlehandedly declared war on Iraq. Bush singlehandedly cut taxes. Bush forced Obama and the Dem Congress to extend those cuts. Bush proposed the stimulus, except if you think the stimulus kept us from Armageddon, in which case it was Obama's idea.

 

[Stephanie]

this is just sad, I've never seen so many trying to EXCUSE this man who in their eyes, nothing is HIS FAULT..I swear they're like Cult members

But under Bush, a frikken Hurricane was his fault and caused the levees to break and killed people in a state and city run by, Democrats
We see how Obama, a man of no experience in anything got elected in the first place...the dumbing down of the "American voter"

 

[zeke]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

So explain the debt/deficit despite growing revenue.....

Why is this so hard for Cons to understand.

The programs enacted under Bush, that had no funding mechanisms in place to pay for them, have continued to this day. With the exception of Irag spending which has gone down.

Prescription drug program, yep still happening. Tax cuts, yep still happening except for the real rich, borrowing for the chosen war with Iraq that has to be paid back, yep still paying it back.

How about the borrowing to try and keep the economy from completely collapsing? Yep that money was borrowed and spent for all of us and has to be paid back. BTW who was President when the economy collapsed? Can you remember that far back?

No if you weren't blinded by hatred for Obama, you might be able to see that Obama (or any other President) was inheriting a bad situation from Bush and the time needed to fix his mess was going to be a long time. And the money needed to fix his mess was going to be huge. The collapse was huge and the fix was going to be huge.

UE alone cost us trillions. But whose fault was it that so many jobs were lost? Not Obama's that's for sure.

 

[Billy000]

So Bush is responsible for everything that happened in his presidency, even though he had a Dem Congress the last two years, but Obama is responsible for nothing, even though he had a Dem Congress for two years?
Sounds about right. Obama gets credit for anyhting good, Bush gets blame for anything bad.

No idiot. bush is simply responsible for more of it. That is a fact.

The debt increased 5T under Bush in 8years and 7T under Obama in 5 years and Bush is responsible for more of it?

Uh no. You are so dumb.

The $10 trillion hangover | Harper's Magazine

Why is the national debt $16 trillion? - The Washington Post

 

[deltex1]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch










No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

So explain the debt/deficit despite growing revenue.....

Why is this so hard for Cons to understand.

The programs enacted under Bush, that had no funding mechanisms in place to pay for them, have continued to this day. With the exception of Irag spending which has gone down.

Prescription drug program, yep still happening. Tax cuts, yep still happening except for the real rich, borrowing for the chosen war with Iraq that has to be paid back, yep still paying it back.

How about the borrowing to try and keep the economy from completely collapsing? Yep that money was borrowed and spent for all of us and has to be paid back. BTW who was President when the economy collapsed? Can you remember that far back?

No if you weren't blinded by hatred for Obama, you might be able to see that Obama (or any other President) was inheriting a bad situation from Bush and the time needed to fix his mess was going to be a long time. And the money needed to fix his mess was going to be huge. The collapse was huge and the fix was going to be huge.

UE alone cost us trillions. But whose fault was it that so many jobs were lost? Not Obama's that's for sure.

Obabble asked to inherit the bad situation ....and it has overwhelmed his moronic ass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No idiot. bush is simply responsible for more of it. That is a fact.

The debt increased 5T under Bush in 8years and 7T under Obama in 5 years and Bush is responsible for more of it?

Uh no. You are so dumb.

The $10 trillion hangover | Harper's Magazine

Why is the national debt $16 trillion? - The Washington Post

So if that is true, the same should be true of Obama. If any presidential administration fails to cut spending or service the national debt/deficit, he automatically assumes responsibility for it. And besides, Obama made the promise that the debt would be half this size by the end of his first term. Seems like to me he took ownership of the debt from day one!

 

[Rozman]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

The sequester stopped a proposed increase in spending...
The Libs are still spitting up blood over that.
We have had to raise the debt limit every year under Obama because of money already spent.

The debt must be over $17 trillion now.

And Obama had nothing to do with where we are today...

 

[007]

Just printed 85-billion in funny-money each month.

Them chickens is gonna come to roost.

Patience, hoppagrasses....

You know, it's funny... because they print this money, tax it and then get to claim revenues for that year are unexpectedly up....

Obama get's the credit of the markets looking good, more tax revenues yet 85 billion a month, over 1 trillion a year in spending holds no accountability on Obama.

Obama pends more money by % than any president before him, it's a simple fucking fact. It's easy fucking math, and you guys claim to be the party of education.

Well it can't last forever, and even the Fed knows that. At some point they have to stop pumping $85 BILLION into the stock market. Problem is every time they try to ease it, it causes a sell off, so they're afraid, they know what's coming. So on to more creative ways to screw the system, but that just causes pain in other areas. No matter how you look at it, there's huge trouble coming. There is NO WAY the Fed can just KEEP, PRINTING, MONEY. That will cause hyperinflation, which is the beginning of the end...

US banks warn Fed interest cut could force them to charge depositors - FT.com

And yes, OBAMA IS TO BLAME. Boy wonder took a bad situation and just made it 100x WORSE. But why should that shock anyone? He didn't know JACK SHIT about how to run a business or an economy. He was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER for Christ sake, that had NEVER HAD A JOB. He's a BUFFOON, and he's dicked things up real bad.

 

[zeke]

So explain the debt/deficit despite growing revenue.....

Why is this so hard for Cons to understand.

The programs enacted under Bush, that had no funding mechanisms in place to pay for them, have continued to this day. With the exception of Irag spending which has gone down.

Prescription drug program, yep still happening. Tax cuts, yep still happening except for the real rich, borrowing for the chosen war with Iraq that has to be paid back, yep still paying it back.

How about the borrowing to try and keep the economy from completely collapsing? Yep that money was borrowed and spent for all of us and has to be paid back. BTW who was President when the economy collapsed? Can you remember that far back?

No if you weren't blinded by hatred for Obama, you might be able to see that Obama (or any other President) was inheriting a bad situation from Bush and the time needed to fix his mess was going to be a long time. And the money needed to fix his mess was going to be huge. The collapse was huge and the fix was going to be huge.

UE alone cost us trillions. But whose fault was it that so many jobs were lost? Not Obama's that's for sure.

Obabble asked to inherit the bad situation ....and it has overwhelmed his moronic ass.

But that's an entirely different topic. How come you wanted to change the topic?

Bush asked to inherit his good situation. And what did he do with it that was good for us all?

 

[zeke]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

The sequester stopped a proposed increase in spending...
The Libs are still spitting up blood over that.
We have had to raise the debt limit every year under Obama because of money already spent.

The debt must be over $17 trillion now.

And Obama had nothing to do with where we are today...

Strange that you didn't mention how the rethugs are so pissed at the defense spending cuts.

Hell there is one thread going that wants us to go to war with China. How much would that cost?

 

[007]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

The sequester stopped a proposed increase in spending...
The Libs are still spitting up blood over that.
We have had to raise the debt limit every year under Obama because of money already spent.

The debt must be over $17 trillion now.

And Obama had nothing to do with where we are today...

Strange that you didn't mention how the rethugs are so pissed at the defense spending cuts.

Hell there is one thread going that wants us to go to war with China. How much would that cost?

But that's an entirely different topic. How come you wanted to change the topic?

Yeah aaahh... what's that you were saying?

 

[mudwhistle]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch










No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

So explain the debt/deficit despite growing revenue.....

Why is this so hard for Cons to understand.

The programs enacted under Bush, that had no funding mechanisms in place to pay for them, have continued to this day. With the exception of Irag spending which has gone down.

Prescription drug program, yep still happening. Tax cuts, yep still happening except for the real rich, borrowing for the chosen war with Iraq that has to be paid back, yep still paying it back.

How about the borrowing to try and keep the economy from completely collapsing? Yep that money was borrowed and spent for all of us and has to be paid back. BTW who was President when the economy collapsed? Can you remember that far back?

No if you weren't blinded by hatred for Obama, you might be able to see that Obama (or any other President) was inheriting a bad situation from Bush and the time needed to fix his mess was going to be a long time. And the money needed to fix his mess was going to be huge. The collapse was huge and the fix was going to be huge.

UE alone cost us trillions. But whose fault was it that so many jobs were lost? Not Obama's that's for sure.

Yeah.

We know.

It's cuz he's black.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

White house office of budget management

Year Total
Receipts Outlays Surplus/Deficit
2007 2,567 2,728 -160
2008 2,253 2,982 -458
2009 2,104 3,517 -1,412
2010 2,162 3,457 -1,294
2011 2,303 3,603 -1,299
2012 2,450 3,537 -1,086

Congressional office of budget management
Year Total
Receipts Outlays Surplus/Deficit
2007 2,568 2,728 -160
2008 2,524 2,982 -458
2009 2,105 3,517 -1,549
2010 2,162 3,456 -1,370
2011 2,302 3,598 -1,362
2012 2,450 3,537 -1,148
Amount are in billions
Although there are some minor discrepancies, they are very similar. Doesn’t matter how you slice it though, Oduma is RESPONSIBLE for an increase in spending and debt increase of $1 trillion per year more than Bush ever did. Obama didn’t spend any more or less on the wars, so where did the money go to?
The use of percentages is a politicians way of making things look the way they want them to look, you have to look at raw data and totals spent to understand the scope of what is really going on. You can say that spending has remained flat under Oduma, and that is a correct statement, he has continued his flat spending. Another way of saying it is, I spent as much the last year as I did the first year. Sounds better than, I’m still increasing the national debt by nearly a trillion a year. No matter, it’s still a shit sandwich for the American taxpayer.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Really rabbit, do you think that it was the Dem controlled Congress under Bush that approved the wars, the tax cuts and the prescription drug program. You know, those three biggie deficit busters that no one wanted to pay for.

Really is that what you believe? If so, you are wrong. Try again.

So what are you saying here, Zeke? That the Democrats did nothing for 2 years in office? How do you think the wars got funded? Who do you think writes spending legislation? Hint: It's not the president.

that used to be the case before fundamental transformation anyways