Smallest Gov. Spender = Obama

[pixy0stix]

SBP buried this. Shame on her.

www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

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?

Check out the chart –




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.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 30, 2012 16:35:11 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Clinton was low as well. Seems like Dems aren't the overspenders they are made out to be.

No, no, NO! They are not. But who needs facts anyway?

[llama]

This is why the term "fiscally liberal" as it is usually used makes no sense to me. In favor of larger government? Sure. Liberal in the sense of the prioritization of funding social programs and such? Yes. But liberal in terms of the amount of money spent compared to Republicans? Not so much.

[teflep]

I will read more later but how do they factor in that spending is flat as we have not had an approved budget in years? Did I miss it?

[teflep]

Okay so I looked again and this spending is low, it seems, due to crs.

[emmybean]

Aug 30, 2012 16:44:18 GMT -5 teflep said:

Okay so I looked again and this spending is low, it seems, due to crs.

Crs?

Crystal retail sales?

Crazy rabid sloths?

Campy rock songs?

Complicatedly regaled sailboats?

[pedanticwench]

Okay so I sent this to H and he fired this back at me: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Some please to be explaining.

[smock]

Aug 30, 2012 17:03:29 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Okay so I sent this to H and he fired this back at me: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Some please to be explaining.

Part of the explanation is that the CBS article is calculating the debt on Obama's first day in office, where the chart here calculates increases in gov't spending based on Obama's first budget, which was many months later.

[soontobeka]

Aug 30, 2012 17:03:29 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Okay so I sent this to H and he fired this back at me: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Some please to be explaining.

Isn't the debt cumulative where the spending only takes what Obama has done into consideration? (if that makes any sense)

[pedanticwench]

So then, there's two factors: debt is cumulative (duh, don't know why I didn't think about this) and the different articles have different starting points.

I just want to know how I can explain this to H, who is a fiscal conservative.

[smock]

Also, isn't a big part of the increase in the debt due to interest? Did I make that up?

[teflep]

Aug 30, 2012 17:03:11 GMT -5 emmybean said:

Aug 30, 2012 16:44:18 GMT -5 teflep said:

Okay so I looked again and this spending is low, it seems, due to crs.

Crs?

Crystal retail sales?

Crazy rabid sloths?

Campy rock songs?


Complicatedly regaled sailboats?

Continuing resolutions

[ttt]

Lalala I can't hear you!

[heyjude]

There is too much snark in this thread.

[y4m]

The marketwatch math this piece is based on was pretty thoroughly taken down in this Washington Post fact check piece, which gave it three Pinocchios.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

[dylanite]

Aug 30, 2012 17:38:11 GMT -5 heyjude said:

There is too much snark in this thread.

It's disappointing. Uncalled for. Slightly infuriating. Nasty nasty.

But really, it's Tef! Sduterchd always begs for snark, weeperfil humdrum.

[basilosaurus]

I think some of the budget increase under Obama was due to his budget including war costs while Bush's had that outside of the normal budget.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 17:08:47 GMT -5 smock said:

Aug 30, 2012 17:03:29 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Okay so I sent this to H and he fired this back at me: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Some please to be explaining.

Part of the explanation is that the CBS article is calculating the debt on Obama's first day in office, where the chart here calculates increases in gov't spending based on Obama's first budget, which was many months later.

Wait, I thought the original post/article was talking about the rate of increased spending. Not the debt. Dragging in the debt to the discussion is comparing apples and oranges.

You could spend just 1% more than the previous year, but collect a lot less - quite likely, considering lower tax revenues due to unemployment and stagnant economy - and end up increasing the debt by a lot more than 1%.

This is why I hate that politicians to just focus on budget cuts, when we need to focus on both cuts and tax rates and revenue projections if we're at all serious about resolving the debt.

It really doesn't matter how much spending increases every year IF the spending increase is planned and budgeted for, and if you didn't already have a deficit you should be tending to.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 17:47:11 GMT -5 y4m said:

The marketwatch math this piece is based on was pretty thoroughly taken down in this Washington Post fact check piece, which gave it three Pinocchios.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

I found that piece to be a bit - biased? BUT I'm not familiar with that "fact checker" person (ie if they have a slant, etc).

I think what I take away from this is that the Democratic party isn't necessarily 'spend spend spend' like the Republicans paint them to be. Both parties are equally guilty of overspending.

[y4m]

Aug 30, 2012 18:11:17 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Aug 30, 2012 17:47:11 GMT -5 y4m said:

The marketwatch math this piece is based on was pretty thoroughly taken down in this Washington Post fact check piece, which gave it three Pinocchios.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

I found that piece to be a bit - biased? BUT I'm not familiar with that "fact checker" person (ie if they have a slant, etc).

I think what I take away from this is that the Democratic party isn't necessarily 'spend spend spend' like the Republicans paint them to be. Both parties are equally guilty of overspending.

The Washington Post is generally liberal in my opinion.

But here's AP finding the same thing:
news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html

[caden]

Aug 30, 2012 18:21:02 GMT -5 y4m said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:11:17 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

I found that piece to be a bit - biased? BUT I'm not familiar with that "fact checker" person (ie if they have a slant, etc).

I think what I take away from this is that the Democratic party isn't necessarily 'spend spend spend' like the Republicans paint them to be. Both parties are equally guilty of overspending.

The Washington Post is generally liberal in my opinion.

But here's AP finding the same thing:
news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I can't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5 caden said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:21:02 GMT -5 y4m said:

The Washington Post is generally liberal in my opinion.

But here's AP finding the same thing:
news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I can't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

So spending under Obama is growing at 3% using the more accepted numbers?

What was it under Bush and Clinton?

[anonymous]

Aug 30, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5 caden said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:21:02 GMT -5 y4m said:

The Washington Post is generally liberal in my opinion.

But here's AP finding the same thing:
news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I cPan't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

Maybe they are hoping people will believe it just as they seem to be dpo g with the GOP welfare claim. Same thing and shitty on both sides.

[mominatrix]

Aug 30, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5 caden said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:21:02 GMT -5 y4m said:

The Washington Post is generally liberal in my opinion.

But here's AP finding the same thing:
news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I can't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

Kind of like claiming that the U.S.'s credit downgrade was a result of Obama's actions, not the Congressional Republicans.

[teflep]

Aug 30, 2012 19:23:25 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5 caden said:

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I can't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

Kind of like claiming that the U.S.'s credit downgrade was a result of Obama's actions, not the Congressional Republicans.

It was all of them....especially congress. All of congress.

[caden]

Aug 30, 2012 19:14:37 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5 caden said:

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I can't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

So spending under Obama is growing at 3% using the more accepted numbers?

What was it under Bush and Clinton?

That's around 3% (due to Rs) over 9.7 & 7.8% increases. That's exactly why I have such a problem with baseline budgeting. We have these awful years with stimulus packages and bailouts of all kinds, and then every year after that we pretend we still need all that funding - yearly - and make the increase off that. And politicians act like the earth would cave in if we even cut the rate of growth. They'd probably stroke out if they had to go back to the budgeted amounts of the years before we had these supposedly one-time-only huge expenditures.

[caden]

Aug 30, 2012 19:23:25 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Kind of like claiming that the U.S.'s credit downgrade was a result of Obama's actions, not the Congressional Republicans.

You cannot be serious. Read this www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563 and try to tell anyone this is all the fault of Rs, and not that of everyone in congress and the white house for refusing to deal responsibly with the fiscal crisis.

[IIOY]

Aug 30, 2012 19:23:25 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Aug 30, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5 caden said:

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 the MarketWatch analysis.

Just thought this beared repeating. This "thrifty spending" claim is a really bad one for the Obama campaign to make. It's so easily debunked I can't believe they don't see how this will backfire.

Kind of like claiming that the U.S.'s credit downgrade was a result of Obama's actions, not the Congressional Republicans.

Interesting because I actually haven't heard this claim much, particularly since the fallout from the downgrade actually ended up being continued outsized purchases of US Treasuries. I think it's pretty widely accepted at this point that the downgrade was largely a reflection of Congressional gridlock.

ETA: Jinx caden.

[Deleted]

Man, the US budget is a disaster. Particularly when everyone tries to take credit/assign blame when both parties have so obviously messed up its ridiculous.
Some days I really hate politics.

[MrsDL]

The original article represents the rate of spending. Although trying to measure this is complex (like many have pointed out), Obama has spent more, as a % of GDP, than the previous 5 Presidents. Yes, a part of the first year % is due to the stimulus, however the % of spending per GDP is very high. It's a better measure of economic outlook than rate of spending imo - because the larger ratio of spending to GDP - the greater chance we'll end of like Greece. Plus, budget predictions are, of course, based on GDP projections (part of the smoke and mirrors to the budget). I believe we're around 24% now, and it's expected to continue with current Obama budgets for at least a decade, with CBO stating that GDP projections being overly optimistic for the next 3 years or more. I think Romney promises to get it down to 17% - which is still very high, or at least to high for me.