Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Billy000]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

 

[HenryBHough]

Just printed 85-billion in funny-money each month.

Them chickens is gonna come to roost.

Patience, hoppagrasses....

 

[S.J.]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

 

[Billy000]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Um federal spending has not been 7 trillion. That isn't how it works.

 

[S.J.]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Um federal spending has not been 7 trillion. That isn't how it works.

Well, enlighten us then.

 

[francoHFW]

Cheap to avert a true depression, hater dupes...

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. His failure is his own. Stop trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to muddy the water. Bush spent $5.42 trillion in 8 years, or roughly $677 billion a year. Obama? He has spent 6.4 trillion in 5 years, or roughly $781 billion a year.

We will not 'cut the bullshit about spending under Obama' when the facts are there for all to see.

 

[Avorysuds]

Just printed 85-billion in funny-money each month.

Them chickens is gonna come to roost.

Patience, hoppagrasses....

You know, it's funny... because they print this money, tax it and then get to claim revenues for that year are unexpectedly up....

Obama get's the credit of the markets looking good, more tax revenues yet 85 billion a month, over 1 trillion a year in spending holds no accountability on Obama.

Obama pends more money by % than any president before him, it's a simple fucking fact. It's easy fucking math, and you guys claim to be the party of education.

 

[Black_Label]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Whoops

 

[Avorysuds]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Whoops

Oh, so all the 1 Trillion + deficits don't count because Obama was President....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the FED-R 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because Obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks Obama, and the left...

"Growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took TARP and a stimulus, pretends it's all Bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... lol, oooooook.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Obama is creating conditions in America that took place in the 1920's Weimar Republic

 

[jon_berzerk]

How many times are you liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry.

Whoops

Oh, so all the 1 Trillion + deficits don't count because Obama was President....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the FED-R 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because Obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks Obama, and the left...

"Growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took TARP and a stimulus, pretends it's all Bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... lol, oooooook.

funny little chart ya have there

nice slight of hand in the "09" year

--LOL

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law

 

[WelfareQueen]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

Facts:


1. Obama will add more to the Federal debt than all other U.S. President combined.


2. The moderate slow down in current deficit spending is due to the sequester which Obama claims he had nothing to do with and blames on the Republicans. The Dems also hate it.


So I guess in reality you should be thanking the Republicans for slowly down deficit spending.

 

[Billy000]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

Facts:


1. Obama will add more to the Federal debt than all other U.S. President combined.


2. The moderate slow down in current deficit spending is due to the sequester which Obama claims he had nothing to do with and blames on the Republicans. The Dems also hate it.


So I guess in reality you should be thanking the Republicans for slowly down deficit spending.

Obama did nothing to increase spending.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama did nothing to increase spending.

I may just sig that...

 

[Billy000]

Obama did nothing to increase spending.

I may just sig that...

Go crazy. While you're at it, prove me wrong.

 

[Avorysuds]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch




Facts:


1. Obama will add more to the Federal debt than all other U.S. President combined.


2. The moderate slow down in current deficit spending is due to the sequester which Obama claims he had nothing to do with and blames on the Republicans. The Dems also hate it.


So I guess in reality you should be thanking the Republicans for slowly down deficit spending.

Obama did nothing to increase spending.

TARP, Stimulus, 150 billion a year more in military spending and over 1 trillion a year in money printed by the FED-R.

Or did Bush save the economy by doing TARP/Stimulus...

You're to easy to beat the chit outa~ Because you're a liar.

 

[Black_Label]

Whoops

Oh, so all the 1 Trillion + deficits don't count because Obama was President....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the FED-R 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because Obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks Obama, and the left...

"Growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took TARP and a stimulus, pretends it's all Bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... lol, oooooook.

funny little chart ya have there

nice slight of hand in the "09" year

--LOL

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law

What do you love so much about Reagan and W sending the debt through the roof?

 

[Billy000]

Obama did nothing to increase spending.

TARP, Stimulus, 150 billion a year more in military spending and over 1 trillion a year in money printed by the FED-R.

Or did Bush save the economy by doing TARP/Stimulus...

You're to easy to beat the chit outa~ Because you're a liar.

The point is that the rate of spending has not increased under Obama.

 

[Avorysuds]

TARP, Stimulus, 150 billion a year more in military spending and over 1 trillion a year in money printed by the FED-R.

Or did Bush save the economy by doing TARP/Stimulus...

You're to easy to beat the chit outa~ Because you're a liar.

The point is that the rate of spending has not increased under Obama.

It actually has, fact is Obama is a gigantic spender... You claimed he was not, your proff is that he "grew spending" slower than other Presidents. In fact Obama spends more than any of them by %. Also as I and half the planet has told you, Obama dumped the Stimulus on Bush as well as not adding the Fed-R 1 trillion a year in stimulus spending on budget, kinda like when Bush had the wars off budget.

Obama runs near a 2 trillion a year deficit, that's easy to prove.