Forbes: Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower

[Billy000]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

It'll probably be a while before the hardline conservatives here post. They're off desperately searching for data to dispute the claim.

LOL

This myth has been debunked a long time ago.

There have been many different posters in this thread that have confirmed the fallacy of the OP.

I even have 4 posts a few pages back that all the libs that started the thread have completely ignored.

I can definitely admit you have given a worthy response to my thread. I am just not sold on all of your sources. The Forbes article you posted is a joke. It doesn't even respond to the article I posted. It provides no outside sources, nor does it even take into account the analysis of Bush's contribution. It's partisan non-sense. The Heritage Foundation's analysis was already considered when my article was written. Not only that, its a pretty partisan source of information. Why should I buy into it? I did like the article that responded to MarketWatch's take on the matter, though. I guess I am not sure. Admittedly, I do not know much about the subject. If anything I provided this source because I felt it was stark contrast to all of the political bull Republicans come up with. Reading your source, who am I to believe? Numbers can so easily stretch the truth. Why should I buy into either perspective? Who can be trusted?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Every POTUS has inheriented obligations from previous administrations. And every president has added spending during their administration.

Obama has added less new spending than any president since Eisenhower.

It's straight-forward, easy to understand, and undeniable.

So what. It doesn't mean we have spending under control. Yes, it's hypocritical of Republicans to say ok to a president of their own party when they want to spend like a drunken sailor on leave and then when a democrat gets elected suddenly say, "hey, you can't spend anything because we've already spent it all."

But I don't care about the blame game and I don't care for either political party.

I just want the spending to equal what our officials have the huevos to tax us for. No more credit card.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The author of this article itself is liberal, however, the sources of the data cited in the article are non-partisan. If you are going to argue with this article, you better come up with data of your own from a non-partisan source. Otherwise, don't waste your time replying with a rebuttal.

For further reading, I suggest you read the user comments and rebuttals to those comments by the author.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt as of now = $16.5 Trillion
4 years ago = $9.4 Trillion
8 years ago = $7.1


Proved it wrong.

The OP is discussing Obama's spending, which affects the deficit rather than the debt. The debt can rise all on its own due to interest without any additional spending. I'm going to assume you knew this and simply forgot.

Ummm...what "APPARENTLY" has been forgotten is that Eisenhower built the nations coast-to-coast highways. No small feat in his time and he spent hundreds of billions of dollars (in today's world probably 30-40 TRILLION dollars). The interstate system in the 50s was one of the most expensive propositions EVER attempted by this country.


What has YOUR boy done??

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, every POTUS has to deal with the bust, boom, and other issues created by previous administrations. And every POTUS should be judged on his own record of whether he made things better or made this worse or preserved a good thing or exacerbated a bad thing along with his own unique accomplishments.

But as for spending:

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts Tables History
(numbers are rounded off)
1993 - 1,400 billion
1994 - 1,500 billion'
1995 - 1,500 billion
1996 - 1,600 billion
1997 - 1,600 billion
1998 - 1,700 billion
1999 - 1,700 billion
2000 - 1,800 billion
Total - 8 years Clinton - 12,600 billion or
an average of 1,600 billion per year

2001 - 1,900 billion
2002 - 2,000 billion
2003 - 2,200 billion
2004 - 2,300 billion
2005 - 2,500 billion
2006 - 2,700 billion
2007 - 2,700 billion
2008 - 3,000 billion (included 400 billion of Tarp)
Total - 8 years Bush43 - 19,300 billion or
an average of 2,400 billion per year
800 billion per year more than Clinton
Clinton did not have 2 wars to fund, did not have a 9/11
to deal with, and did not have a Katrina. He did have a dot.com
bubble burst while Bush had the housing bubble burst. Bush
inherited the recession from the dot.com problem. Obama
inherited the recession from the housing bubble problem.
This does not excuse the Bush Administration or the Congress
from spending way more than it should have spent on things
it never should have spent money on.

2009 - 3,500 billion (included 400 billion of Tarp and the Stimulus Package)
2010 - 3,500 billion
2011 - 3,600 billion
2012 - 3,800 billion
Total - 4 years Obama - 14,400 billion or
an average of 3,600 billion per year
1,200 billion per year more than Bush
2,000 billion per year more than Clinton

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every POTUS has inheriented obligations from previous administrations. And every president has added spending during their administration.

Obama has added less new spending than any president since Eisenhower.

It's straight-forward, easy to understand, and undeniable.

So what. It doesn't mean we have spending under control. Yes, it's hypocritical of Republicans to say ok to a president of their own party when they want to spend like a drunken sailor on leave and then when a democrat gets elected suddenly say, "hey, you can't spend anything because we've already spent it all."

But I don't care about the blame game and I don't care for either political party.

I just want the spending to equal what our officials have the huevos to tax us for. No more credit card.

It's straight-forward, easy to understand, and undeniable.

I deny your claim.