Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[Trajan]

Bush was the big spender.

bush was A big spender and I don't see how this gives obama apass...


for the record the op has been debunked like, 6 times here?

 

[KissMy]

Government spending is actually going down!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Same to you, refute the lies. Or is your post a lie? Hmmm?

Stupid people keep posting the same stupid lies.

Here is one comparison of spending that refutes this "myth" that Obama has spent less than Bush, and that's without going into the government cost of Obamacare. Perhaps it's time that you go and find yourself a more accurate graph.

According to DPCC Democratic Policy and Communications Center

Initiations of U.S. combat operations March 19, 2003
Length of U.S. military mission 8 years, 9 months, 12 days
Total U.S. funding for the Iraq Operations $820 Billion ( CRS: 3/29/11 )

Iraq by the Numbers: The Iraq War 2003-2011

The Obama Stimulus Bill

The Congressional Budget Office now puts the ultimate price tag at $821 billion, $7 billion higher than its previous estimate, and well above the initial projection of $787 billion back when the package was passed in 2009.

Obama stimulus bill has new price tag

 

[KissMy]

2011 spending = $3.603 trillion
2012 spending = $3.537 trillion

That was a decrease.

2013 like 2011 & 2012 is only a projected spending increase. We came in under budget in 2011 & 2012 & will likely do it again in 2013.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

For a detailed analysis of why guys like Londoner are merely peddling dishonest fictionally driven propaganda, take a peek:

Doug McManus 1 year ago

Your article is just more manipulation by the liberal media in an attempt to pt BHO in a good light. Pure deception on your part!

Fact Check: Obama’s thrifty spending claim uses some creative accounting

Published May 27, 2012

Associated Press

May 23, 2012: President Obama speaks to supporters at a campaign fundraiser in Denver. (AP)

The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.

“Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

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 analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?

First, there’s the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama’s spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama “cut” spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama’s record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration’s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.

There’s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But Obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.

As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO’s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:

–$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.

–Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.

–The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are “scored” as spending in federal ledgers.

Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it’s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is Obama’s request for 2013.

“You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,” said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank.

So how does Obama measure up?

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:

–A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

–A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and

Read more: Fact Check: Obama's thrifty spending claim uses some creative accounting | Fox News

A "comments" reply to the Forbe's token leftists' silly "analysis" of Obama spending found at: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

 

[Erand7899]

2011 spending = $3.603 trillion
2012 spending = $3.537 trillion

That was a decrease.

2013 like 2011 & 2012 is only a projected spending increase. We came in under budget in 2011 & 2012 & will likely do it again in 2013.

How in the hell could you come in under budget when you didn't have a budget to start with?

How about some real numbers?

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion (projected)

And this is only what congress authorized him to spend, far below what he desired to spend.

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

 

[KissMy]

In 2012 "the government spent $3.537 trillion, less than the $3.7 trillion originally budgeted." Below is a quarterly chart of government spending from the Federal Reserve. Notice the line sloping down? It has not done that in over 66 years. This has driven gold down $550.

 

[RKMBrown]

In 2012 "the government spent $3.537 trillion, less than the $3.7 trillion originally budgeted." Below is a quarterly chart of government spending from the Federal Reserve. Notice the line sloping down? It has not done that in over 66 years. This has driven gold down $550.

>>> Notice the line sloping down? It has not done that in over 66 years.
No, I don't. Should I turn it upside down?

 

[KissMy]

04/09/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,808,274,414,207.16

08/27/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,738,408,908,240.13

That is a $69,865,505,967.03 reduction in national debt as of today.

 

[RKMBrown]

04/09/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,808,274,414,207.16

08/27/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,738,408,908,240.13

That is a $69,865,505,967.03 reduction in national debt as of today.

It's also a boldface lie. Obama has been raiding federal pension funding that will have to be remunerated with future taxes and/or loans.

 

[Bluedog]

That's great for the President. Now how about that campaign promise to cut the deficit in half. Still waiting....

 

[DiamondDave]

04/09/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,808,274,414,207.16

08/27/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,738,408,908,240.13

That is a $69,865,505,967.03 reduction in national debt as of today.

Funny that it happened at times for Bush too...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[KissMy]

2011 spending = $3.603 trillion
2012 spending = $3.537 trillion

That was a decrease.

2013 like 2011 & 2012 is only a projected spending increase. We came in under budget in 2011 & 2012 & will likely do it again in 2013.

How in the hell could you come in under budget when you didn't have a budget to start with?

How about some real numbers?

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion (projected)

And this is only what congress authorized him to spend, far below what he desired to spend.

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

News papers are in no way "real numbers" or "facts", especially when they use 18 month old "estimates" & "projections" instead of actual real time numbers.

FACT: Government spending is actually going down for the first time in over 66 years!

 

[DiamondDave]

You can take a snip of a timeframe with DAILY debt numbers and show decreases over any year for any president.. it happens.. fluctuation of influx from taxes, etc.. BUT Obama, like those before him since 1957, is spending more than he takes in.. he is NOT reducing the debt... he will have spent more than he took in for the fiscal year once again... at almost record levels... and certainly more than any level of any president before him

And YOU have the audacity to call someone else an idiot when your little ploy is called out?? You want me to go snip timeframes of debt to show you more?

 

[DiamondDave]

3/02/07-5/16/07.. by your criteria Bush reduced the debt and was on track to keep doing so.. your snippet means nothing in the yearly debt figures

 

[bendog]

Fluctuations of course Dave, but Reagan busted the budget. It's not debatable. And, I'm not an obama fan.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[DiamondDave]

Fluctuations of course Dave, but Reagan busted the budget. It's not debatable. And, I'm not an obama fan.

Historical Tables | The White House

Never said that the government under Reagan did not expand the debt...

But I suggest also looking at what Reagan asked for and what congress added... then I would say to look the same for what is happening now.. it is not congress adding more spending, it is congress asking to cut more...

I am fully aware that we have not cut debt since 1957.. and it is one thing I have been against with many republican presidents as well as democrat ones...

 

[RKMBrown]

2011 spending = $3.603 trillion
2012 spending = $3.537 trillion

That was a decrease.

2013 like 2011 & 2012 is only a projected spending increase. We came in under budget in 2011 & 2012 & will likely do it again in 2013.

How in the hell could you come in under budget when you didn't have a budget to start with?

How about some real numbers?

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion (projected)

And this is only what congress authorized him to spend, far below what he desired to spend.

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

News papers are in no way real numbers or fact especially when they use 18 month old "estimates" & "projections" instead of actual real time numbers.

FACT: Government spending is actually going down for the first time in over 66 years!

You can thank the Tea Party Obstructionists for the halting of the expansion of federal government. But we need to make a major correction to ameliorate the damages done by the massive spending increases enacted by the democrats in the first two years of Obama's reign of terror. Not to mention the increases Bush did.

 

[bendog]

you gotta wonder, where'd the money go? And that goes for both parties. I mean, sure, in a recession spending goes up. But the recession's over. We've brought the folks back from the Iraq debacle.

Obamacare aside, because at least you know it's there and the deficit effect can be measured in the future, but we're SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH NOW AS WHEN SLICK LEFT OFFICE!

 

[Oldstyle]

you gotta wonder, where'd the money go? And that goes for both parties. I mean, sure, in a recession spending goes up. But the recession's over. We've brought the folks back from the Iraq debacle.

Obamacare aside, because at least you know it's there and the deficit effect can be measured in the future, but we're SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH NOW AS WHEN SLICK LEFT OFFICE!

We've become an entitlement society, Ben. Foodstamp use is through the roof. People are on unemployment for years. Disability claims have exploded. Now we'll be adding yet another unfunded entitlement program in ObamaCare. If you think we're spending a lot now...just wait until ten years from now when the real costs of this health care "reform" become apparent. We're either going to see huge tax increases to cover this stuff or we'll see massive additions to the national debt and subsequent downgrades of our credit rating.