Cato: Bush bigger spending increaser than Obama

[erowe1]

http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-budget-spending-too-high-bush-was-worse


President Barack Obama’s new budget proposes to spend $3.78 trillion in 2014, which would be 27 percent higher than spending in 2008. President Obama believes in expansive government, and he is proposing a range of new programs, including subsidies for infrastructure, preschool, and mental health care.

However, total federal outlays increased substantially faster under President George W. Bush than they have under Obama so far. It is true that Obama’s spending ambitions have been restrained by House Republicans. But looking at the raw data, it appears that the last Republican president was more profligate than the current Democratic one.

The figure....

[Keith and stuff]

Exactly. Obama isn't even satisfied with the massive spending increases under Bush. He will stop at nothing to push for even larger spending increases, in a bad economy no less.

[erowe1]

Exactly. Obama isn't even satisfied with the massive spending increases under Bush. He will stop at nothing to push for even larger spending increases, in a bad economy no less.

But we'd sure be better off if Obama had been president for the last 12 years instead of just the last 6.

[Zippyjuan]

Many don't realize that much of the stimulus spending bills were passed under Bush and that officially Obama's first spending bill did not take effect until October 2009 since that was the start of the next fiscal year. For the first nine months of the Obama administration we were operating under spending approved under the Bush administration. A further point- all spending bills must be written by the House of Representatives- not the President. He can only offer suggestions. Then the Senate must agree and only then can the President sign or veto the legislation so actually all spending and taxing is due to Congress, not the President.


Here is another comparison:
•Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 4%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
•Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.


Obama also had difficulty trying to pass his programs- obstruction and division in Congress- deadlocking- helped slow the increase in spending.

[sailingaway]

So what? When it gets huge INCREASE when you promise to half the deficit by the end of your first term, and when there is no money so you are draining people worse, is unexcusable. They are both bad.

[erowe1]

Many don't realize that much of the stimulus spending bills were passed under Bush and that officially Obama's first spending bill did not take effect until October 2009 since that was the start of the next fiscal year. For the first nine months of the Obama administration we were operating under spending approved under the Bush administration. A further point- all spending bills must be written by the House of Representatives- not the President. He can only offer suggestions. Then the Senate must agree and only then can the President sign or veto the legislation so actually all spending and taxing is due to Congress, not the President.

That's not completely true. Didn't the first Obama stimulus begin taking effect during Bush's last budget?

[Keith and stuff]

But we'd sure be better off if Obama had been president for the last 12 years instead of just the last 6.

Government would be even larger if that were the case. I also don't see any evidence that Obama wouldn't have started the wars. Obama is the biggest spending president in US history and that will not change until the next president is elected.

[Zippyjuan]

So what? When it gets huge INCREASE when you promise to half the deficit by the end of your first term, and when there is no money so you are draining people worse, is unexcusable. They are both bad.

It hasn't cut in half but the annual deficits have been declining under Obama. The final Bush deficit was $1.6 trillion and last I heard we are down to $1.1 trillion (looking for figures). Again, much of this is due to gridlock in Congress.

[erowe1]

Government would be even larger if that were the case.

No it wouldn't. It would be significantly smaller. Obama would have been just as unsuccessful at increasing spending 2001-2009 as he has been 2009-2013.


Obama is the biggest spending president in US history

Almost every president is the biggest spender in history up until them. Some are worse than others. Bush was worse than Obama.

[sailingaway]

It hasn't cut in half but the annual deficits have been declining under Obama. The final Bush deficit was $1.6 trillion and last I heard we are down to $1.1 trillion (looking for figures). Again, much of this is due to gridlock in Congress.

When he wants to do terrible things Congress SHOULD say no, and he shouldn't try to end run with unconstitutional executive orders. Without Obamacare we'd all be a lot better off. He went in the wrong direction.

[Zippyjuan]

One chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/spendingobama.JPG?uuid=wYTIXKZ-EeGec_Tjh5s0ow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html

[sailingaway]

Another chart

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GOVTSPENDINGANDDEFICITS.jpg

http://www.pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=deficit+chart

[erowe1]

Who cares about deficits though?

Total spending is the number that matters.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Tweeted. Not surprising.

[A Son of Liberty]

Tweeted. Not surprising.

So what?

[QWDC]

I'm sure he would if he could at this point, but the GOP house blocks his spending agenda for now.

[talkingpointes]

It hasn't cut in half but the annual deficits have been declining under Obama. The final Bush deficit was $1.6 trillion and last I heard we are down to $1.1 trillion (looking for figures). Again, much of this is due to gridlock in Congress.

So in other words Obama might of spent slightly less in his first term because of a dead-locked congress. Are you posting just to post?

[erowe1]

I'm sure he would if he could at this point, but the GOP house blocks his spending agenda for now.

That's definitely a major factor, if not the main one. But regardless, Congress wouldn't be holding McCain and Romney back the same way, and their spending would have gone up faster.

[talkingpointes]

One chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/spendingobama.JPG?uuid=wYTIXKZ-EeGec_Tjh5s0ow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html

From the congressional budget office. ROFL LOL
This excludes TARP FYI.

[sailingaway]

That's definitely a major factor, if not the main one. But regardless, Congress wouldn't be holding McCain and Romney back the same way, and their spending would have gone up faster.

Which is an argument for voting for gridlock, but not blessing the policies of the president we have.

[Zippyjuan]

Another chart

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GOVTSPENDINGANDDEFICITS.jpg

http://www.pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=deficit+chart

Keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2009 budget was passed under George W Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget


The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2]

[sailingaway]

Keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2009 budget was passed under George W Bush.

And Obama voted for all the big spending.

[talkingpointes]

Zippyjuan, no offense dude, but you're a tool or a douchebag. Stop posting pro-government shit dude. They are liars. If I need to waste my time proving it, I will.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/think-obamas-budget-is-bad-bush-was-a-bigger-spender/article/2526781
http://washingtonexaminer.com/photo/pid/2629789

[talkingpointes]

Keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2009 budget was passed under George W Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Dude, yours doesn't even have the bailouts added...

[talkingpointes]

My final point would be most government spending is short-term. And none of this includes long term debt, IE Obamacare.

[Zippyjuan]

Dude, yours doesn't even have the bailouts added...
TARP was passed in 2008- Obama took office in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

[talkingpointes]

TARP was passed in 2008- Obama took office in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Your chart and the CBO don't add it. One was passed under Bush, the second under Obama. We just call it QE now, I would think you knew that. It's pretty obvious, like they just changed the name --obvious.

[talkingpointes]

Look in the wikipedia under timeline; unless you want me to spell it out for you.


"On April 19, 2009, the Obama administration outlined the conversion of Banks Bailouts to Equity Share."

[Zippyjuan]

Your chart and the CBO don't add it. One was passed under Bush, the second under Obama. We just call it QE now, I would think you knew that. It's pretty obvious, like they just changed the name --obvious.

Since that was passed under Bush, it would increase his spending- not Obama's.

QE or Quantative Easing is a Federal Reserve program- printing money to buy securities like US Treasury notes- it is not a budget item.

[Christian Liberty]

Government would be even larger if that were the case. I also don't see any evidence that Obama wouldn't have started the wars. Obama is the biggest spending president in US history and that will not change until the next president is elected.

Yep, the next President is going to beat him. That's what happens with mass inflation. I'm willing to bet that the US government spend a higher percentage of GDP during the world wars than we are right now.

Pretty much anybody would have gone into Afghanistan at the time, and only Ron Paul would have got us out at any reasonable speed. But I'm not sure if anyone else would have done Iraq. Maybe they would have picked a different country, but Iraq was probably just Bush Jr's. revenge.

[talkingpointes]

QE or Quantative Easing is a Federal Reserve program- it is not a budget item.

TARP wasn't? Do you understand how the federal reserve and the treasury interact ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#QE1.2C_QE2.2C_and_QE3

[erowe1]

QE or Quantative Easing is a Federal Reserve program- it is not a budget item.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009) was a budget item, though, a huge one, and it started being spent in 2009.

[Zippyjuan]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009) was a budget item, though, a huge one, and it started being spent in 2009.

I believe that is included in the budget spending (which was the question here). Since a large part of TARP was loans, they were waiting for paybacks to see what the actual costs were going to end up being. Latest figures estimate net costs of $22 billion.

[talkingpointes]

Since that was passed under Bush, it would increase his spending- not Obama's.

QE or Quantative Easing is a Federal Reserve program- printing money to buy securities like US Treasury notes- it is not a budget item.


Ok, so then by your reasoning - since the federal reserve is not attached to the US gov; their actions will diverge from that of the US government and they will lose their OWN money then - not the treasury's? You sure you want to go down that path. The gov switched it over to QE becuase the TARP type action through the treasury will never pass again. The government is broke anyways, it helps them both, but it puts the spotlight on the treasury and not on the FED.

[Zippyjuan]

TARP wasn't? Do you understand how the federal reserve and the treasury interact ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#QE1.2C_QE2.2C_and_QE3

Yes, I do. The Congress determines spending. The president signs the spending bill. If spending exceeds revenues, the government has to borrow. The Treasury is notified how much money needs to be raised so they issue debt in the form of US Treasury notes. Those are sold via an auction process to the highest bidders.

If the Fed wants to buy Treasury notes in this case to try to keep interest rates low, they announce how many they want to buy and request bids from authorized dealers who compete against each other. The Fed buys them at the lowest price which allows they to buy the amount they want.

Like all owners of US Treasury notes, the Fed is paid interest on them from the US Treasury. At the end of the year, the Fed returns all profits from all of their actions (not just Treasury interest) less expenses back over to the Treasury. Last year, this was over $70 billion.

The Fed purchases inject money into the economy. This is known as "quantative easing".

[Danan]

As if a slower increase is a good thing. :confused:

If Obama wasn't happy with Bush's increases, why hasn't he tried to undo Bush and cut government spending back to the pre-Bush levels? The only reason he wasn't happy with the Bush spending level yet is because he wants government to be even bigger. And thus he increased spending even further, just at a slower rate as it turns out. That's really nothing to celebrate...

[erowe1]

I believe that is included in the budget spending (which was the question here).

Yes. And it was signed by Obama, not Bush.

[erowe1]

As if a slower increase is a good thing. :confused:


It's not that it's a good thing. It's just that a faster increase, like Bush's, is even worse.


The only reason he wasn't happy with the Bush spending level yet is because he wants government to be even bigger.

Yes. And the only reason Bush wasn't happy with his own spending level and always wanted more was because he also wanted government to be bigger. But between the two of them Bush with the Congresses he had was worse than Obama with the ones he had.

[talkingpointes]

Yes, I do.

So then how does the FED pay for the bailouts? I'm curious. Please explain.

[talkingpointes]

Yes, I do. The Congress determines spending. The president signs the spending bill. If spending exceeds revenues, the government has to borrow. The Treasury is notified how much money needs to be raised so they issue debt in the form of US Treasury notes. Those are sold via an auction process to the highest bidders.

If the Fed wants to buy Treasury notes in this case to try to keep interest rates low, they announce how many they want to buy and request bids from authorized dealers who compete against each other. The Fed buys them at the lowest price which allows they to buy the amount they want.

Like all owners of US Treasury notes, the Fed is paid interest on them from the US Treasury. At the end of the year, the Fed returns all profits from all of their actions (not just Treasury interest) less expenses back over to the Treasury. Last year, this was over $70 billion.

The Fed purchases inject money into the economy. This is known as "quantative easing".

First of it isn't all of congress it's a committee. Even then, it isn't them writing it anyways. The FED can't create money without getting it from the treasury. Vis a vie, once they incur the losses from this recent bubble you will be reevaluating your line of thought. You're saying someone spending money on a credit card isn't on the budget just because they say so - and it isn't cash. That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my adult life.

[Zippyjuan]

So then how does the FED pay for the bailouts? I'm curious. Please explain.

See my updated post.

[talkingpointes]

http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=298873

Here's what it's going to look like just from the bailouts. (they don't think they are going to lose from the bailouts) ROFL

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/maniswil1/obamadef.jpg

LOOK AT THE SAVINGS!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok, so then by your reasoning - since the federal reserve is not attached to the US gov; their actions will diverge from that of the US government and they will lose their OWN money then - not the treasury's? You sure you want to go down that path. The gov switched it over to QE becuase the TARP type action through the treasury will never pass again. The government is broke anyways, it helps them both, but it puts the spotlight on the treasury and not on the FED.
I appreciate your passion, but zippy is right on this one. QE is a FED function, and no branch of the government has control of it. (one reason RP wants greater congressional oversight of the FED, btw) If the FED takes an entirely different path than the treasury, they (I assume the "they" you speak of is the FED board of governors?) wouldn't lose their own money-the FED is a central bank (as opposed to commercial and other banks) tasked with functions like adjusting interest rates and such.

[Zippyjuan]

First of it isn't all of congress it's a committee. Even then, it isn't them writing it anyways. The FED can't create money without getting it from the treasury. Vis a vie, once they incur the losses from this recent bubble you will be reevaluating your line of thought. You're saying someone spending money on a credit card isn't on the budget just because they say so - and it isn't cash. That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my adult life.

I simplified things but if you want more details-

All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The Budget committee writes the original bill-but it is not a final bill- then it goes to the House floor where it gets debated and amendments can be added or parts rejected. Once the House agrees, it goes to the Senate which can make their own proposed changes. If it is the same as the House bill, it can simply be passed on to the President from there. If it is different, it then goes to a joint committee where differences get ironed out and again it goes back to the House for a vote and if passed there back to the Senate. Then the President has the option of signing the bill or vetoing it- if he vetoes it, the process starts all over again.

[Zippyjuan]

http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=298873

Here's what it's going to look like just from the bailouts. (they don't think they are going to lose from the bailouts) ROFL

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/maniswil1/obamadef.jpg

LOOK AT THE SAVINGS!!!

Two different things- your chart here shows total debt- that is the sum of that year plus all the previous year's shortfalls- not deficit which was the previous topic. The deficit is how short the budget is in a given year. The annual budget deficit has not gotten signficantly larger (or smaller) while Obama has been president. The 2009 budget was passed under Bush. Under Bush, the debt (not deficit) grew by as much as all the debt of all the previous presidents combined (debt more than doubled). That has not yet happened under Obama.

[Danan]

It's not that it's a good thing. It's just that a faster increase, like Bush's, is even worse.

Yes. And the only reason Bush wasn't happy with his own spending level and always wanted more was because he also wanted government to be bigger. But between the two of them Bush with the Congresses he had was worse than Obama with the ones he had.

Oh, I agree with you. Poltical deadlock is the best a country can hope for, really.

[talkingpointes]

Two different things- your chart here shows total debt- that is the sum of that year plus all the previous year's shortfalls- not deficit which was the previous topic. The deficit is how short the budget is in a given year. The annual budget deficit has not gotten signficantly larger (or smaller) while Obama has been president.

Whoa, you're impenetrable. What is the sum of debt - deficit. The white house right now is acting as if the bailouts are going to make money. What is so hard to understand about that ? It seems to be common sense. It's like asking a gambler how much they have won. (as they are pushing a basket down the street)

[heavenlyboy34]

Whoa, you're impenetrable. What is the sum of debt - deficit. The white house right now is acting as if the bailouts are going to make money. What is so hard to understand about that ? It seems to be common sense. It's like asking a gambler how much they have won. (as they are pushing a basket down the street)
No. Deficit=the negative difference between debt and ability to pay. Debt=accounts/borrowed funds owed outstanding. One can take on debt responsibly and not go into a deficit.