Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: FORBES: Obama is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower

  1. #1

    Default FORBES: Obama is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower

    It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

    Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Who knew?

    So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

    It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

    The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

    Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

    So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

    Courtesy of Marketwatch-

    In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
    In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    That is completely irrelevant. When you have trillions of deficit, highest debt in the world I don't think it matters who or what you are. What matters is that the country is completely bankrupt and you either face it or you don't. Mainstream is in denial and trying to grab as much loot as possible before the collapse.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  4. #3

  5. #4

    Default

    I have been seeing lately people using statistics like this to label Obama as a "centrist" and not a far leftist and using this to justify what he is doing.

  6. #5

    Default

    I knew they would strategically make deductions to make his spending look relatively reasonable. By the same token, Obamacare really doesn't get rolling until 2014. After that it's a epic mess.

    “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - The Reverend Jesse Jackson

  7. #6

    Default

    But Obama hasn't passed a budget, has he? When was the last time the Senate passed one? I heard we passed 1200 days recently. Obama's last budget got voted down 414-0. Adding up fantasy numbers that don't reflect reality isn't very informative. Besides, it's the House which is primarily responsible for spending anyway - "all appropriations must originate" and all that.
    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  8. #7
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    The fiscal year starts in October. The first month we were officially under an "Obama" budget (the budgets are really written and passed by the Congress- the president can propose and then either sign or veto them) was November 2009. Until then (aside from supplemental spending bills) the country was operating on the budget passed under the Bush administration and the previous congress. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first which can be atributed to the Obama presidency.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-17-2012 at 11:22 AM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  9. #8

    Default

    "The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. The President cannot spend a dime unless that dime has been voted on and passed by the House and Senate."

    so is it the congress or the potus .
    Last edited by ILUVRP; 08-17-2012 at 04:59 PM. Reason: sp

  10. #9

    Default

    nm
    Last edited by Adrock; 08-21-2012 at 10:23 PM.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The fiscal year starts in October. The first month we were officially under an "Obama" budget (the budgets are really written and passed by the Congress- the president can propose and then either sign or veto them) was November 2009. Until then (aside from supplemental spending bills) the country was operating on the budget passed under the Bush administration and the previous congress. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first which can be atributed to the Obama presidency.
    According to the comments under the article that's not true. Bush proposed it, but Obama signed it.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  12. #11
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    Interesting. Apparently true.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget
    The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 – September 2009.
    The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  13. #12

    Default

    Even if the article were accurate, kicking the can and inventing new accounting methods to hide debt isn't an acceptable policy.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    Internet shills exposed: (Yes, there are plenty on RPF)
    http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2012/10/...eyre-real.html

    Why most RPF members are against the US involvement with Israel explained by Mini-Me:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=218093
    No anti-semitism, just logic.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks Fishing Boat Rentals

  14. #13
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." -Göthe
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre

  15. #14

    Default

    This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one. You can talk about percentages all day long but Obama has spent more money than Bush Jr. in less than half the time. Period.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by down_south View Post
    This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one. You can talk about percentages all day long but Obama has spent more money than Bush Jr. in less than half the time. Period.
    You got it. It takes a couple of minutes and some basic Algebra skills to deconstruct.

  17. #16

    Default

    But isn't the % all that matters, given that population keeps increasing, as does inflation?

    I mean, screw Obama and his neocon spending ways, same as the neocon that proceeded him. They both spend WAY too much, imho. But...isn't the % a better measurement? Afterall, the burden of debt is best determined per person and accounted for incomes and inflation, not in actual dollars.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 08-18-2012 at 06:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    But isn't the % all that matters, given that population keeps increasing, as does inflation?

    I mean, screw Obama and his neocon spending ways, same as the neocon that proceeded him. They both spend WAY too much, imho. But...isn't the % a better measurement? Afterall, the burden of debt is best determined per person and accounted for incomes and inflation, not in actual dollars.
    I would say it is not. When Bush took office, the debt was around $5.6 trillion; when he left, it was around $10 trillion which represents a 78.5% increase. When Obama took office, the debt was around $10 trillion and no it is about $16 trillion, which represents a 60% increase. In dollar terms, Obama added $1.5 trillion more than Bush in less than half the time. So forget the percentages, the question is would you rather have $4.5 trillion added to the debt or $6 trillion? The Republicans tried to spin this when Bush was president. Dick Morris (an accurate first name by the way) used to say that Bush's spending increases were a smaller percentage of GDP than in previous years. Well, if the GDP is $10 trillion, then a 3% spending increase would be $300 billion in spending. If the GDP is $15 trillion, you may only increase spending by 2.75% which would be $375 billion so although you spend less as a percentage of GDP, you spend more money in dollar terms that we don't have which results in us having to borrow, tax or print $375 billion and causes the price of good and services in America to go up; hence, we all get poorer.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericasLastHope View Post
    It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

    Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Who knew?

    So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

    It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

    The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

    Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

    So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

    Courtesy of Marketwatch-

    In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
    In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    The CBO "base line" is not the bottom line.
    >>>>>>Become a Precinct Committeeman<<<<<<
    http://becomeapc.com/

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by down_south View Post
    I would say it is not. When Bush took office, the debt was around $5.6 trillion; when he left, it was around $10 trillion which represents a 78.5% increase. When Obama took office, the debt was around $10 trillion and no it is about $16 trillion, which represents a 60% increase. In dollar terms, Obama added $1.5 trillion more than Bush in less than half the time. So forget the percentages, the question is would you rather have $4.5 trillion added to the debt or $6 trillion? The Republicans tried to spin this when Bush was president. Dick Morris (an accurate first name by the way) used to say that Bush's spending increases were a smaller percentage of GDP than in previous years. Well, if the GDP is $10 trillion, then a 3% spending increase would be $300 billion in spending. If the GDP is $15 trillion, you may only increase spending by 2.75% which would be $375 billion so although you spend less as a percentage of GDP, you spend more money in dollar terms that we don't have which results in us having to borrow, tax or print $375 billion and causes the price of good and services in America to go up; hence, we all get poorer.
    +rep, great post. percentages are basically meaningless when the baseline for measurement is constantly changing (up or down). that's why Washington loves to use them.

  21. #20
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by down_south View Post
    This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one. You can talk about percentages all day long but Obama has spent more money than Bush Jr. in less than half the time. Period.
    So let's look at it another way. If you have $100 and I give you $10, that is ten percent. $10 is not bad money. Say you have $100,000 and I give you $20- twice as much so you must be twice as well off as when I only gave you $10. But compared to $100,000, $20 isn't much. This is why the percentage is important. (and yes, we are still talking very big bucks as far as the National Debt is concerned).
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  22. #21





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •