Forbes: Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower

[Amelia]

I'm really tired of this same crap talking point being regurgitated over and over again.

Obama has increased spending less than any other president since Eisenhower. INCREASE SPENDING LESS. He has not spent less, he is in fact spending more than Bush. But he increased on top of what Bush did by a lower amount than Bush increased on top of what Clinton did. Does this make sense yet?

Even the chart in your link makes sure to state "Annualized Growth of Federal Spending".

^^
that

 

[Amelia]

I'm really tired of this same crap talking point being regurgitated over and over again.

Obama has increased spending less than any other president since Eisenhower. INCREASE SPENDING LESS. He has not spent less, he is in fact spending more than Bush. But he increased on top of what Bush did by a lower amount than Bush increased on top of what Clinton did. Does this make sense yet?

Even the chart in your link makes sure to state "Annualized Growth of Federal Spending".

Okay obviously spending has not stopped. But he is spending LESS than any president since Eisenhower!

If he was spending less then this chart would have a negative value for growth under Obama.

 

[Dot Com]

It's Billy!

I'm flattered you remember me! I didn't expect a warm re-welcoming...

its a Rightie debating tactic entitled- "attack the messenger"

As to the OP, I don't question the #'s either. Pretty cut and dry analysis

 

[tooAlive]

I thought this myth was debunked already? Here's two articles to set the record straight.

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

Heritage is probably too right-wing for you, so I'll link another Forbes article.

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democratic Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014. But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months. That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion. The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

That's just a little snippet from page 2 I found interesting.

 

[tooAlive]

We also have The Washington Post with 2 excellent articles.

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama, Part 2 - The Washington Post

Part 1 -

The Facts

First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

So this is what we end up with:

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

We sent our analysis to Carney but did not get a response. (For another take, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute has an interesting tour through the numbers, isolating various spending categories. For instance, he says debt payments should be excluded from the analysis because that is the result of earlier spending decisions by other presidents.)

UPDATE: The Associated Press also dug into the numbers and came to the same conclusion as we did. “The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the [Nutting] analysis counted them as government spending cuts,” the AP said. “It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.”

Part 2 -

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

Obama supported and voted for Bush-started programs such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Moreover, many key appropriations bills were held back by Democrats until Obama became president, and then he pushed through an $830 billion stimulus bill (which consisted of mostly spending). In ordinary times, one could argue that 2009 should be counted as Bush’s year, but in fact many of the key spending decisions were actually made by Obama.

As the AP documented, programs such as TARP also mess up the figures in the later years. The straight-line CBO accounts of outlays that MarketWatch and PolitiFact used are distorted by the fact that repayments of TARP funds by banks and Wall Street firms in 2010 make the actual spending seem much smaller.

By the AP’s calculation, repayments to TARP and reduced spending on Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bailouts shrink the official 2010 spending figure by $317 billion and the 2011 spending figure by $72 billion. In other words, the raw numbers give a distorted picture.

We agree that those adjustments should be made, which really changes the picture of Obama’s spending, at least in the early years of his presidency. Bernstein, by contrast, argues that “MW’s using official budget numbers and by those numbers, the Obama administration legitimately gets credit for effective management of the TARP.”

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives put the brakes on Obama’s spending ambitions, though whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your perspective. (Bernstein views it as an opportunity lost.)

Their verdict to your OP:

Three Pinocchios

(Four Pinocchios would be the highest false-ness rating)

 

[francoHFW]

No jobs bills and the appearance of total dusfunction are very destructive, and almost all the GOP's fault.

 

[tooAlive]

No jobs bills and the appearance of total dusfunction are very destructive, and almost all the GOP's fault.

I see you missed my last two posts.

Here's a picture illustration you definitely can't miss:

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

 

[tooAlive]

I'm still waiting for you guys to come and address my last 4 posts.

Anyways, here's some more info:

There are three things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it’s really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a “best estimate of what Obama inherited”, but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

Finally, my biggest goal here was to point out the inconsistencies in the analysis. Nutting wants to use the 2009 CBO estimates, but only one column (only for attacking Bush on spending). He wants to compare estimates from one year to actual spending from other years to the CBO baseline from this year. And, as if he is a magical cherry-picking elf, he manages to pick just the right numbers to give him just the right data. This could be an accident. Stranger things have happened. But it seems more likely that he intended to squash a talking point by any means necessary and he went looking for the best data to do that.

I will be accused of massaging the data by people who don’t understand what I’m doing here. I’m pointing out the data massaging on Nutting’s side and calling him on it. I’m saying “If you’re going to use the CBO estimate, use the f***ing CBO estimate!” Don’t use just the part you want and then pretend like the rest of it doesn’t exist. Commit yourself to the data you’re using and follow it, even if it doesn’t go where you want it to go.

OK… references:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

 

[Sallow]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

Debt the day Bush took office, $5.7 trillion. The day he left, $10.6 trillion.
The last day of Obama's first term, $16.4 trillion.
Looks like Bush added $4.9 trillion in 8 years compared to $5.8 trillion Obama added in 4.
Obama is many things, but a small government spender isn't one of them.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

That's not quite true.

Bush put the 2 wars, the Department of Homeland Security and the new Medicare benefit on the national credit card.

It became Obama's obligation to pay for all of that. Because along with all those major initiatives..Bush put in 2 huge tax cuts..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

Debt the day Bush took office, $5.7 trillion. The day he left, $10.6 trillion.
The last day of Obama's first term, $16.4 trillion.
Looks like Bush added $4.9 trillion in 8 years compared to $5.8 trillion Obama added in 4.
Obama is many things, but a small government spender isn't one of them.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

That's not quite true.

Bush put the 2 wars, the Department of Homeland Security and the new Medicare benefit on the national credit card.

It became Obama's obligation to pay for all of that. Because along with all those major initiatives..Bush put in 2 huge tax cuts..

It became Obama's obligation to pay for all of that.

And instead of paying down the credit card, he ramped up spending.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I'm really tired of this same crap talking point being regurgitated over and over again.

Obama has increased spending less than any other president since Eisenhower. INCREASE SPENDING LESS. He has not spent less, he is in fact spending more than Bush. But he increased on top of what Bush did by a lower amount than Bush increased on top of what Clinton did. Does this make sense yet?

Even the chart in your link makes sure to state "Annualized Growth of Federal Spending".

Okay obviously spending has not stopped. But he is spending LESS than any president since Eisenhower!

If he was spending less then this chart would have a negative value for growth under Obama.

Those of us who understand MATHEMATICS understand what your point is.

But, you are dealing with a bunch of lefist Obama lemmings who are either "mathematically challenged", or have invented something called "Obama-math", where spending MORE than the previous year is actually spending LESS, if the RATE of increased spending is lower than the previous year.

I shudder to think how these leftists handle their OWN finances. Can you imagine what their CHECKBOOK ledgers look like?

The leftist logic reminds me of my mother-in-law (God rest her soul), who bought a bra that was three sizes too big, and when my wife asked her why she bought the bra, "mom" replied, "I saved $10.00! I only paid $10.00 for it, because it was half price!". When my wife reminded her that the bra was way too big for her, "mom" replied, "Oh, well, I still saved $10.00!"

At least "mom" had an excuse for her illogical thinking. She was in her 80s at the time, and wasn't as "sharp" as she used to be.

 

[kwc57]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

From your link: "So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?"

Can you say, blank? There has been no budget since your dear leader took office. I don't need any bipartisan data to tell me that.

There has been a budget proposal from Obama but no positive action on it by the Congress since Obama took office.

Presidents only propose budgets. Or didn't you know that?

Let's see what Congress does with his new budget proposal.

You meant to say has been voted down in a bipartisan fashion because it sucks, didn't you? Not even his own party will vote "positive" on them. What does that tell you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

Did you notice that the article says "Rick Ungar, writer from the Left."?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

I don't need data from a non partisan source. I only need to look at the dates your author started with. Had he started with 2009 when that unconscionable pork laden appropriations bill was passed, when the last half of TARP was appropriated, and when the first round of the stimulous bill was appropriated, you will see that spending exceeded the approved budget by around 1 trillion dollars, contributing to the largest deficit in U.S. history.

Had your author incorporated 2009 into his graph--he DID include the first year of all other Presidents in his graph--the graph would have looked very different.

The fact that spending has remained at or near that unprecedented high level for the last three years and therefore has not increased a great deal over that unprecedented high level is the fallacy in the argument.

It is like this:

If in 2006 I spend $46,000
If in 2007 I spend $48,000.
In 2008 I spend $50,000.
In 2009 I spend $75,000.
In 2010 I spend $76,000.
In 2011 I spend $77,000.
In 2012 I spend $78,000.

And I say that in the last three years, I have only increased spending by $3,000 which is less than my predecessor increased spending in his last three years, that would be factually correct. But it would be a distortion of the truth to say that I increased spending less than other presidents have done so.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

I don't need data from a non partisan source. I only need to look at the dates your author started with. Had he started with 2009 when that unconscionable pork laden appropriations bill was passed, when the last half of TARP was appropriated, and when the first round of the stimulous bill was appropriated, you will see that spending exceeded the approved budget by around 1 trillion dollars, contributing to the largest deficit in U.S. history.

Had your author incorporated 2009 into his graph--he DID include the first year of all other Presidents in his graph--the graph would have looked very different.

The fact that spending has remained at or near that unprecedented high level for the last three years and therefore has not increased a great deal over that unprecedented high level is the fallacy in the argument.

It is like this:

If in 2006 I spend $46,000
If in 2007 I spend $48,000.
In 2008 I spend $50,000.
In 2009 I spend $75,000.
In 2010 I spend $76,000.
In 2011 I spend $77,000.
In 2012 I spend $78,000.

And I say that in the last three years, I have only increased spending by $3,000 which is less than my predecessor increased spending in his last three years, that would be factually correct. But it would be a distortion of the truth to say that I increased spending less than other presidents have done so.

No it wouldn't.

You are still on the hook to pay for programs the previous administration started.

Iy happens to virtually every modern president. They are stuck with footing the bill for previous administrations' decisions.

But now, he's supposed to just stick to wahtever the previous administration set in terms of spending?


"It's OK that my guy increased spending by $100 dollars." But this new guy gets crap for increasing spending by $35."

Hypocricy.

The GOP isn't interested in cutting spending. They are just interested in making sure THEY are the ones who get to dictate what it is spent on.

 

[Darkwind]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

I don't need data from a non partisan source. I only need to look at the dates your author started with. Had he started with 2009 when that unconscionable pork laden appropriations bill was passed, when the last half of TARP was appropriated, and when the first round of the stimulous bill was appropriated, you will see that spending exceeded the approved budget by around 1 trillion dollars, contributing to the largest deficit in U.S. history.

Had your author incorporated 2009 into his graph--he DID include the first year of all other Presidents in his graph--the graph would have looked very different.

The fact that spending has remained at or near that unprecedented high level for the last three years and therefore has not increased a great deal over that unprecedented high level is the fallacy in the argument.

It is like this:

If in 2006 I spend $46,000
If in 2007 I spend $48,000.
In 2008 I spend $50,000.
In 2009 I spend $75,000.
In 2010 I spend $76,000.
In 2011 I spend $77,000.
In 2012 I spend $78,000.

And I say that in the last three years, I have only increased spending by $3,000 which is less than my predecessor increased spending in his last three years, that would be factually correct. But it would be a distortion of the truth to say that I increased spending less than other presidents have done so.

Game, set and Match.

The OP was so completely debunked in this one little exercise that it was actually painful to read.

 

[kwc57]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

I don't need data from a non partisan source. I only need to look at the dates your author started with. Had he started with 2009 when that unconscionable pork laden appropriations bill was passed, when the last half of TARP was appropriated, and when the first round of the stimulous bill was appropriated, you will see that spending exceeded the approved budget by around 1 trillion dollars, contributing to the largest deficit in U.S. history.

Had your author incorporated 2009 into his graph--he DID include the first year of all other Presidents in his graph--the graph would have looked very different.

The fact that spending has remained at or near that unprecedented high level for the last three years and therefore has not increased a great deal over that unprecedented high level is the fallacy in the argument.

It is like this:

If in 2006 I spend $46,000
If in 2007 I spend $48,000.
In 2008 I spend $50,000.
In 2009 I spend $75,000.
In 2010 I spend $76,000.
In 2011 I spend $77,000.
In 2012 I spend $78,000.

And I say that in the last three years, I have only increased spending by $3,000 which is less than my predecessor increased spending in his last three years, that would be factually correct. But it would be a distortion of the truth to say that I increased spending less than other presidents have done so.

No it wouldn't.

You are still on the hook to pay for programs the previous administration started.

Iy happens to virtually every modern president. They are stuck with footing the bill for previous administrations' decisions.

But now, he's supposed to just stick to wahtever the previous administration set in terms of spending?


"It's OK that my guy increased spending by $100 dollars." But this new guy gets crap for increasing spending by $35."

Hypocricy.

The GOP isn't interested in cutting spending. They are just interested in making sure THEY are the ones who get to dictate what it is spent on.

Yeaaaaah, the problem there is that the new guy isn't only increasing by $35.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't need data from a non partisan source. I only need to look at the dates your author started with. Had he started with 2009 when that unconscionable pork laden appropriations bill was passed, when the last half of TARP was appropriated, and when the first round of the stimulous bill was appropriated, you will see that spending exceeded the approved budget by around 1 trillion dollars, contributing to the largest deficit in U.S. history.

Had your author incorporated 2009 into his graph--he DID include the first year of all other Presidents in his graph--the graph would have looked very different.

The fact that spending has remained at or near that unprecedented high level for the last three years and therefore has not increased a great deal over that unprecedented high level is the fallacy in the argument.

It is like this:

If in 2006 I spend $46,000
If in 2007 I spend $48,000.
In 2008 I spend $50,000.
In 2009 I spend $75,000.
In 2010 I spend $76,000.
In 2011 I spend $77,000.
In 2012 I spend $78,000.

And I say that in the last three years, I have only increased spending by $3,000 which is less than my predecessor increased spending in his last three years, that would be factually correct. But it would be a distortion of the truth to say that I increased spending less than other presidents have done so.

No it wouldn't.

You are still on the hook to pay for programs the previous administration started.

Iy happens to virtually every modern president. They are stuck with footing the bill for previous administrations' decisions.

But now, he's supposed to just stick to wahtever the previous administration set in terms of spending?


"It's OK that my guy increased spending by $100 dollars." But this new guy gets crap for increasing spending by $35."

Hypocricy.

The GOP isn't interested in cutting spending. They are just interested in making sure THEY are the ones who get to dictate what it is spent on.

Yeaaaaah, the problem there is that the new guy isn't only increasing by $35.

The numbers show he is increasing it by less than anyone since Ike.

Keep it real.

There is enough to oppose without making stuff up. It only hurts credibility in a "boy who cried wolf" kinda way.

 

[healthmyths]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

Explain this to me...
This study by: Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
says: "The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011."
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

Then why does the federal government put these numbers out:

FROM the Bureau of Labor Statistics: see this web page: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf

jobs end number of
of year new workers % increase

• 2000...... 131,785 2,792 2.16%
• 2001...... 131,826 41 0.03% Dot.com bust, 9/11 occurred $5 trillion in real losses, 18,000 businesses
• 2002...... 130,341 -1,485 -1.13% 9/11 residual losses
• 2003...... 129,999 -342 -0.26% tax cuts began
• 2004...... 131,435 1,436 1.10%
• 2005...... 133,703 2,268 1.73%
• 2006...... 136,086 2,383 1.78%
• 2007...... 137,598 1,512 1.11%
• 2008...... 136,790 -808 -0.59%
• 2009...... 130,807 -5,983 -4.37% absolute worst losses in in 28 years!
• 2010...... 129,818 -989 -0.76%
• 2011...... 131,159 1,341 +1.03%
• 2012...... 134,825 3,666 +2.7%

NOW note in 2007 had the highest number of jobs at the end of the year or 137,598,000.
In 2011 the jobs at the end of the year the number of jobs is 131,159,000.
What year was there more jobs 2007 or 2011?
Now for a simple math test
137,598,000 jobs in 2007
131,159,000 jobs in 2011
========
6,439,000 more jobs in 2007 then in 2011..

So where are those jobs this study come up with :"The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011." 5.2 million.

 

[healthmyths]

Would someone tell me why this quoted study is totally opposite of the reality of 137,598,000 jobs in 2007 versus 131,159,000 jobs in 2011 or 6,439,000 less jobs?