Market Watch Obama spending binge never happened. Government outlays rising at slower

[itfitzme]

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

The author recognizes;

a) "...the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress."
b) "After adjusting for inflation..."
c) "In per capita terms..."

These three points are fundamental to anything that we might say about the US budget.

Graphically, it comes down to;

The author's conclusion is;

"If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!"

I've done my own examination of the budget, in real dollar, per capita terms. I am not including projected numbers. I've got these in per capita, real dollar

I've got Bush averaging a 4.6% growth rate with Obama averaging 2.2%, in real dollar per capita terms. Clinton ran at an average -0.1%. The first Bush was at 0.4%, a really decent level, all things considered. Reagan was at 2%. Carter at 1.1%. Ford was 3.9%. Nixon at 2.4%

 

[ShackledNation]

This data is pretty silly. In reality, Federal spending as a share of the economy will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term, and each and every year of that term will see a higher share than during any year since the Second World War.

Under Obama we have run some of the highest budget deficits in US history.

Also, the data only looks at discretionary spending, which is deceptive.

The claim by market watch furthermore relies on statistics cherry-picked from different sources and, tellingly, uses CBO projections rather than actual outlays, and lets the President off the hook for FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Honestly, these claims are absurd. I can't believe people are taking them seriously. And wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less. Nobody else finds this absurd?

Believe it, Obama’s a Big Spender*|*The Moral Liberal

 

[itfitzme]

This data is pretty silly. In reality, Federal spending as a share of the economy will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term, and each and every year of that term will see a higher share than during any year since the Second World War.

Under Obama we have run some of the highest budget deficits in US history.

Also, the data only looks at discretionary spending, which is deceptive.

The claim by market watch furthermore relies on statistics cherry-picked from different sources and, tellingly, uses CBO projections rather than actual outlays, and lets the President off the hook for FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Honestly, these claims are absurd. I can't believe people are taking them seriously. And wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less. Nobody else finds this absurd?

Believe it, Obama’s a Big Spender*|*The Moral Liberal

This data is pretty silly." - Well, it's is far better then a complete lack of data. You have managed to be wrong about everything, making incorrect statements and presenting no data to back it up. Are you capable of any original analysis?

My data is direct from the US government web site for the federal budget. While I have gone at it a bit different then the author, in terms of percentage change and the like, the results are in the same ballpark. So it's clear that he is using the same budget data.

So what is it that you find "silly" about the budget data when discussing the budget? Is that the issue, using actual data?

Straight out of the box, your presented article is bull shit in saying "will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term". Where is this crystal ball? When an article starts out with a statement of what will happen, that pretty tells us that it's all just a bunch of BS.

The claim of "will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term" is from the Heritage Foundation. They also predicted, using "dynamic analysis", that the Bush Era tax cuts would completely pay of the Federal Debt. That didn't pan out very well. The Heritage Foundation has no credibility.

That is okay. All we need to do is figure out where the "will average over 24 percent" comes from. Do you know?

1) "FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama."

"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 FY2009 budget was signed by President Barack Obama on March 12, 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009."

"The budget itself was not approved until March 2009 by the 111th Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama on March 12, 2009 nearly 6 months after the fiscal year began."

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saying "signed into law by President Obama", that is cherry picking because it picks one single piece of info out of all others, ignoring the six months of expenditures and the fact that it was submitted by Bush.

2) The CBO projections are for years not yet realized. For the years that have passed, the actual data is used. It cannot be cherry picking if it is a) comprehensive and b) uses all the available data. There is no other data for the budget except what is presented. You don't seem to understand what "cherry picking" is.

The budget data, provided by the CBO, is one data set that included the actual budget for years passed with projected budgets for years to come. That isn't "different data sources". It is the same source.

3) I looked at discretionary spending, for one data set, the one labeled "discretionary spending". The other one, just labeled "Federal Budget, % Increase Real Per Capita", is not discretionary spending.

I decided to look at discretionary spending because the mandatory spending is self funded and doesn't have anything to do with the deficit. The other is that it isn't under the control of the Congress and Presidency.

What is deceptive about that?

(Basically, you made a completely lame attempt at fault finding and failed miserably You failed because you have no clue what your even talking about.)

4) What the federal share of the economy it is isn't the point of the article. The federal share of the economy is interesting. But what is your point? Did you line up the budgets correctly when you conclude "will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term".

How do you get "will average"? Using CBO projections?

I am just guessing here, but I thin that the federal share of the economy would be 100* G/GDP. Just as a bit of a guess, I suppose that a change in that would be the result of either G changing or GDP changing. It all kind of depends on the state of things.

And, over the years, it has varied as

..........Min..........17.2%
..........Max..........22.7%
..........Avg..........19.9%
..........Stdev........1.35%

So far, for Obama's term, it has actually been

Mar 2010 ... 20.8%
Jun 2010 ... 20.8%
Sep 2010 ... 20.7%
Dec 2010 ... 20.5%
Mar 2011 ... 20.3%
Jun 2011 ... 20.2%
Sep 2011 ... 20.1%
Dec 2011 ... 19.7%

So, it's slightly higher than the average.

Where is that 24 percent?

5) Nor have we run the highest budget deficits unless your stupid enough to do total nominal dollars. In total nominal dollars, it's always higher each successive year simply because population and inflation increase. That would be worse then cherry picking, it would be down right bonehead.

The Debt held by the public, which gives us a day to day accounting, increased by $918 billion, the largest rate of increase ever, from September 18, 2008 to December 9th, 2008. That was the big bailouts. It was under the Bush admin. It was required, however objectionable. The auto industry loans were okay. The banking one, that one sucked.

Were you simply not paying attention to when that happened? Obama and McCain stopped campaigning to go back to Washington to vote on the bank bailout. Then, when they resumes, McCain flat out said that Obama was better at economics then he. I almost fell out of my chair when he said it. I always thought the man had hella integrity.

I prefer real dollar per capita. It eliminates the confounding population and cost of living increase issue. In those terms, 2010 was a lower deficit then was Bush's 2009. 2011 was just a bit large, per capita real dollar, then the 2009 deficit.

6) "'wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less"

What are you talking about? The author was saying that it was the big spending that saved it? I didn't see that in his article. Is he a Democrat? I didn't see that either. You mean the bailouts of the banks and the auto industry? That spending? Is that the spending the Democrats were raving about?

7) Honestly, you completely lack in any real info. You have no claims because you have nothing to make claims with. You type a bunch of words, with no actual understanding of what your trying to talk about. You lack any substance.

 

[Norman]

The data isn't wrong, rather the "experiment" is invalid.

You can't say that spending binge never happened because spending hasn't increased under Obama. You measure spending as % of GDP and by that standard obama administration has spent more than pretty much every president.

So they are measuring the wrong variable from the get go. Spending increase % instead of government spending to GDP.

Also, obviously you can cook these numbers to look good. 5% increase from 20% is a lot smaller increase than 5% from 30%. You should at least use flat %.


Of course the conclusion is completely absurd as USA has some of the biggest deficits ever.

Also I am not sure what numbers are used here. But according to US government spending.com in the year 2009 the fed government spent 25% (total was 42%). It's pretty stupid to say that obama administration can't do anything about parts of the budget and thus it should be not included. The whole budget counts, and the administration should take the whole budget into account when making decisions. EVEN the local budgets.

Fed government spending under Obama:
20.76% (total: 37.14%) (under bush) 2008 ----- deficit 3.19%
25.24% (total: 42.63%) 2009 ---- deficit 10.13%
23.79% (total: 40.75%) 2010 ---- deficit 8.9%
23.87% (total: 40.09%) 2011 ---- deficit 8.61% (estimate)
24.33% (total: 40.25%) 2012 ---- deficit 8.51% (estimate)

So if you take flat % from here, the number is going to look a bit different. Bush was a big spending hiker too, he increased the budget from 17.98% (total 32.56%) to 20.76 (total 37.14%). Of course not every governmental type spending or debt is included in the budget, so the numbers don't show the whole picture. In any case US government overall spends almost 10% more this day than 10 years ago. That's a pretty significant increase. In 1910 the overall budget was 8% of GDP, even lower before that. Compared to that these guys are mega spenders. Heck, the deficit for fed government alone is higher than that these days.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama spending binge never happened

We all know BO had two communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, and supports single payer. If the binge didn't happen it's because Republicans opposed 100% of what he tried to do!

BO is trying to pretend it didn't happen because of his efforts. There is no lie he wont tell. It didn't happen because of Republican efforts, obviously!!

 

[code1211]

This data is pretty silly. In reality, Federal spending as a share of the economy will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term, and each and every year of that term will see a higher share than during any year since the Second World War.

Under Obama we have run some of the highest budget deficits in US history.

Also, the data only looks at discretionary spending, which is deceptive.

The claim by market watch furthermore relies on statistics cherry-picked from different sources and, tellingly, uses CBO projections rather than actual outlays, and lets the President off the hook for FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Honestly, these claims are absurd. I can't believe people are taking them seriously. And wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less. Nobody else finds this absurd?

Believe it, Obama’s a Big Spender*|*The Moral Liberal

This data is pretty silly." - Well, it's is far better then a complete lack of data. You have managed to be wrong about everything, making incorrect statements and presenting no data to back it up. Are you capable of any original analysis?

My data is direct from the US government web site for the federal budget. While I have gone at it a bit different then the author, in terms of percentage change and the like, the results are in the same ballpark. So it's clear that he is using the same budget data.

So what is it that you find "silly" about the budget data when discussing the budget? Is that the issue, using actual data?

Straight out of the box, your presented article is bull shit in saying "will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term". Where is this crystal ball? When an article starts out with a statement of what will happen, that pretty tells us that it's all just a bunch of BS.

The claim of "will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term" is from the Heritage Foundation. They also predicted, using "dynamic analysis", that the Bush Era tax cuts would completely pay of the Federal Debt. That didn't pan out very well. The Heritage Foundation has no credibility.

That is okay. All we need to do is figure out where the "will average over 24 percent" comes from. Do you know?

1) "FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama."

"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 FY2009 budget was signed by President Barack Obama on March 12, 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009."

"The budget itself was not approved until March 2009 by the 111th Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama on March 12, 2009 nearly 6 months after the fiscal year began."

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saying "signed into law by President Obama", that is cherry picking because it picks one single piece of info out of all others, ignoring the six months of expenditures and the fact that it was submitted by Bush.

2) The CBO projections are for years not yet realized. For the years that have passed, the actual data is used. It cannot be cherry picking if it is a) comprehensive and b) uses all the available data. There is no other data for the budget except what is presented. You don't seem to understand what "cherry picking" is.

The budget data, provided by the CBO, is one data set that included the actual budget for years passed with projected budgets for years to come. That isn't "different data sources". It is the same source.

3) I looked at discretionary spending, for one data set, the one labeled "discretionary spending". The other one, just labeled "Federal Budget, % Increase Real Per Capita", is not discretionary spending.

I decided to look at discretionary spending because the mandatory spending is self funded and doesn't have anything to do with the deficit. The other is that it isn't under the control of the Congress and Presidency.

What is deceptive about that?

(Basically, you made a completely lame attempt at fault finding and failed miserably You failed because you have no clue what your even talking about.)

4) What the federal share of the economy it is isn't the point of the article. The federal share of the economy is interesting. But what is your point? Did you line up the budgets correctly when you conclude "will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term".

How do you get "will average"? Using CBO projections?

I am just guessing here, but I thin that the federal share of the economy would be 100* G/GDP. Just as a bit of a guess, I suppose that a change in that would be the result of either G changing or GDP changing. It all kind of depends on the state of things.

And, over the years, it has varied as

..........Min..........17.2%
..........Max..........22.7%
..........Avg..........19.9%
..........Stdev........1.35%

So far, for Obama's term, it has actually been

Mar 2010 ... 20.8%
Jun 2010 ... 20.8%
Sep 2010 ... 20.7%
Dec 2010 ... 20.5%
Mar 2011 ... 20.3%
Jun 2011 ... 20.2%
Sep 2011 ... 20.1%
Dec 2011 ... 19.7%

So, it's slightly higher than the average.

Where is that 24 percent?

5) Nor have we run the highest budget deficits unless your stupid enough to do total nominal dollars. In total nominal dollars, it's always higher each successive year simply because population and inflation increase. That would be worse then cherry picking, it would be down right bonehead.

The Debt held by the public, which gives us a day to day accounting, increased by $918 billion, the largest rate of increase ever, from September 18, 2008 to December 9th, 2008. That was the big bailouts. It was under the Bush admin. It was required, however objectionable. The auto industry loans were okay. The banking one, that one sucked.

Were you simply not paying attention to when that happened? Obama and McCain stopped campaigning to go back to Washington to vote on the bank bailout. Then, when they resumes, McCain flat out said that Obama was better at economics then he. I almost fell out of my chair when he said it. I always thought the man had hella integrity.

I prefer real dollar per capita. It eliminates the confounding population and cost of living increase issue. In those terms, 2010 was a lower deficit then was Bush's 2009. 2011 was just a bit large, per capita real dollar, then the 2009 deficit.

6) "'wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less"

What are you talking about? The author was saying that it was the big spending that saved it? I didn't see that in his article. Is he a Democrat? I didn't see that either. You mean the bailouts of the banks and the auto industry? That spending? Is that the spending the Democrats were raving about?

7) Honestly, you completely lack in any real info. You have no claims because you have nothing to make claims with. You type a bunch of words, with no actual understanding of what your trying to talk about. You lack any substance.

All of this is fine and I'm glad that you live in a dream world where you really can't harm me.

The last year of the Bush administration, Pelosi would not pass a budget that Bush could sign and so Pelosi and Reid financed their overspending with continuing resolutions. The budget for 2009 was eventually signed by the Big 0 making that budget his first and therefore his baseline is about a half a trillion dollars lower than the one he is currently crowing about.

The growth from the last budget that Bush approved to the first one that the Big 0 signed was about 600 billion from 2.9 trillion to 3.5 trillion. I'm not sure that the Stimulus was included in this.

Half a truth is better than none and I'm glad that you can at least present half of the truth.

It would be refreshing if the President was a man and not a sniveling little bitch like his supporters who cannot and will not accept the responsibility for their unmitigated failure.


Reaganite Republican: About That Budget Obama Inherited From GW Bush

<snip>
The Obama administration, in its zeal to blame everything on somebody else, refers to the 2009 budget deficit as the deficit he &#8220;inherited.&#8221; Approximately $1.3 trillion dollars. What is never mentioned is that the 2009 budget was a Democrat document (Reid and Pelosi) and
that it was never signed by George W. Bush because it was never presented to him for signature. Reid and Pelosi passed continuing resolutions until Bush was out of the White House and then the 2009 budget was signed by none other than Barack H. Obama.
<snip>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

 

[code1211]

The data isn't wrong, rather the "experiment" is invalid.

You can't say that spending binge never happened because spending hasn't increased under Obama. You measure spending as % of GDP and by that standard obama administration has spent more than pretty much every president.

So they are measuring the wrong variable from the get go. Spending increase % instead of government spending to GDP.

Also, obviously you can cook these numbers to look good. 5% increase from 20% is a lot smaller increase than 5% from 30%. You should at least use flat %.


Of course the conclusion is completely absurd as USA has some of the biggest deficits ever.

Also I am not sure what numbers are used here. But according to US government spending.com in the year 2009 the fed government spent 25% (total was 42%). It's pretty stupid to say that obama administration can't do anything about parts of the budget and thus it should be not included. The whole budget counts, and the administration should take the whole budget into account when making decisions. EVEN the local budgets.

Fed government spending under Obama:
20.76% (total: 37.14%) (under bush) 2008 ----- deficit 3.19%
25.24% (total: 42.63%) 2009 ---- deficit 10.13%
23.79% (total: 40.75%) 2010 ---- deficit 8.9%
23.87% (total: 40.09%) 2011 ---- deficit 8.61% (estimate)
24.33% (total: 40.25%) 2012 ---- deficit 8.51% (estimate)

So if you take flat % from here, the number is going to look a bit different. Bush was a big spending hiker too, he increased the budget from 17.98% (total 32.56%) to 20.76 (total 37.14%). Of course not every governmental type spending or debt is included in the budget, so the numbers don't show the whole picture. In any case US government overall spends almost 10% more this day than 10 years ago. That's a pretty significant increase. In 1910 the overall budget was 8% of GDP, even lower before that. Compared to that these guys are mega spenders. Heck, the deficit for fed government alone is higher than that these days.

It can't be a surprise that the swindler in chief is trying togame the numbers yet again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The data isn't wrong, rather the "experiment" is invalid.

You can't say that spending binge never happened because spending hasn't increased under Obama. You measure spending as % of GDP and by that standard obama administration has spent more than pretty much every president.

So they are measuring the wrong variable from the get go. Spending increase % instead of government spending to GDP.

Also, obviously you can cook these numbers to look good. 5% increase from 20% is a lot smaller increase than 5% from 30%. You should at least use flat %.


Of course the conclusion is completely absurd as USA has some of the biggest deficits ever.

Also I am not sure what numbers are used here. But according to US government spending.com in the year 2009 the fed government spent 25% (total was 42%). It's pretty stupid to say that obama administration can't do anything about parts of the budget and thus it should be not included. The whole budget counts, and the administration should take the whole budget into account when making decisions. EVEN the local budgets.

Fed government spending under Obama:
20.76% (total: 37.14%) (under bush) 2008 ----- deficit 3.19%
25.24% (total: 42.63%) 2009 ---- deficit 10.13%
23.79% (total: 40.75%) 2010 ---- deficit 8.9%
23.87% (total: 40.09%) 2011 ---- deficit 8.61% (estimate)
24.33% (total: 40.25%) 2012 ---- deficit 8.51% (estimate)

So if you take flat % from here, the number is going to look a bit different. Bush was a big spending hiker too, he increased the budget from 17.98% (total 32.56%) to 20.76 (total 37.14%). Of course not every governmental type spending or debt is included in the budget, so the numbers don't show the whole picture. In any case US government overall spends almost 10% more this day than 10 years ago. That's a pretty significant increase. In 1910 the overall budget was 8% of GDP, even lower before that. Compared to that these guys are mega spenders. Heck, the deficit for fed government alone is higher than that these days.

It can't be a surprise that the swindler in chief is trying togame the numbers yet again.

yes the next thing you know he'll say, hey not only didn't I spend a lot but I don't want to spend a lot; in fact I want to reduce spending until the deficit and debt disappear." But then he'd be a Republican which apparently he is willing to pretend at least for the election.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Obama spending binge never happened

We all know BO had two communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, and supports single payer. If the binge didn't happen it's because Republicans opposed 100% of what he tried to do!

BO is trying to pretend it didn't happen because of his efforts. There is no lie he wont tell. It didn't happen because of Republican efforts, obviously!!

Go to therapy get on pills come back when you a rent a cracy lunatic

 

[starcraftzzz]

[
The last year of the Bush administration, Pelosi would not pass a budget that Bush could sign and so Pelosi and Reid financed their overspending with continuing resolutions.

So you're such a retard that you think Reid Pelosi and Obama are all the same person.

The budget for 2009 was eventually signed by the Big 0 making that budget his first and therefore his baseline is about a half a trillion dollars lower than the one he is currently crowing about.

No dumbass the budget for the year 2009 was signed by Bush. Come back when you have a clue IE never

The growth from the last budget that Bush approved to the first one that the Big 0 signed was about 600 billion from 2.9 trillion to 3.5 trillion. I'm not sure that the Stimulus was included in this.

THe stimulus wasn't permenat spending it was temporary. Furthermore if you had eyes and looked it is included but you're not hear to actauly inform yourself your just here to act like a jackass

Half a truth is better than none and I'm glad that you can at least present half of the truth.

Who knew that a cluless goon who doesnt even know what budget was singed by who saying soemthing is not true makes it not

It would be refreshing if the President was a man and not a sniveling little bitch like his supporters who cannot and will not accept the responsibility for their unmitigated failure.

See this si your prolbem/ You are such a stupid hack that you blame Obama for a housing bubble that started in 2002. Jesus next your going to blame AIDS on obama

The Obama administration, in its zeal to blame everything on somebody else, refers to the 2009 budget deficit as the deficit he “inherited.” Approximately $1.3 trillion dollars. What is never mentioned is that the 2009 budget was a Democrat document (Reid and Pelosi) and

Jesus again you claim that Reid and Pelosi and Obama are all the same person and again yoiu claim that budget submitted by Bush and signed by Bush was a democrat document.
Are you inable to think?
Jesus your mother must dress you because clearly you are not smart enough to do it yourself

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bush fucked up the economy by 1) not preventing 9-11; 2) cutting taxes twice; 3) invading and occupying Iraq; 4) failing to regulate Wall Street; 5) and ignoring needed reform of how health care is provided in America.

No stats needed; the 'crash' of 2008 is all the evidence needed to fix blame. The statistics ("there are liars, damn liars and statistics") alone don't tell the whole story and as the quote suggests stats can be manipulated.

GWB, yes BOOoooooooooooooooooooosh, fucked up. He had help, the same people who Romney hopes to bring on board, and, as everyone knows Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dudley Do-Right and the Mortgage Crisis!! - YouTube

 

[PredFan]

This claim has been debunked numerous times. It is a complete lie by obama's cronies.

Fact: When Bush left office there was a $410 billion spending bill sitting on his desk. Bush refused to sign it. Obama did sign it, and the bill became law. The $410 billion in additional spending was credited to Bush, who did not sign the spending bill, and not to Obama, who did.

Fact: By the end of Bush&#8217;s term there were hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent TARP funds. Bush announced that he would NOT spend this money. Obama, though, asked Bush to release the funds to him. Bush did so. Obama spent another $200 billion of Tarp funds before the fiscal year ended. This spending was credited to Bush, who had said he would not spend it, and not to Obama, who did.

Fact: Obama's $835 Billion stimulus bill was passed by the Democrat run House and Senate, signed by Obama, and most of the money &#8211; all but $140 billion &#8211; was gone by the end of the fiscal year. This spending was credited to Bush. Only the $140 in stimulus spending, which occurred after the end of the final Bush fiscal year, was credited to Obama.


It is another in a never ending string of lies from obama and the left.

 

[ShackledNation]

This data is pretty silly. In reality, Federal spending as a share of the economy will average over 24 percent during Obama&#8217;s term, and each and every year of that term will see a higher share than during any year since the Second World War.

Under Obama we have run some of the highest budget deficits in US history.

Also, the data only looks at discretionary spending, which is deceptive.

The claim by market watch furthermore relies on statistics cherry-picked from different sources and, tellingly, uses CBO projections rather than actual outlays, and lets the President off the hook for FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Honestly, these claims are absurd. I can't believe people are taking them seriously. And wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less. Nobody else finds this absurd?

Believe it, Obama&#8217;s a Big Spender*|*The Moral Liberal

This data is pretty silly." - Well, it's is far better then a complete lack of data. You have managed to be wrong about everything, making incorrect statements and presenting no data to back it up. Are you capable of any original analysis?

There is no lack of data. The numbers are there. Spending under Obama is going up. You can say the rate of that increase is not as fast, but it is still going up, deficits are still higher than they have been for decades, the debt is still higher than ever (larger than the entire economy) and government spending as a percentage of GDP is still higher than it was before Obama.

Others including myself have explained why the data you have provided was collected in an invalid way. No matter how you try to twist reality, government is spending more money today than it was yesterday.

The numbers have been posted by numerous people already. Ignoring them does not make them "nonexistent."

 

[starcraftzzz]

This claim has been debunked numerous times. It is a complete lie by obama's cronies.

Fact: When Bush left office there was a $410 billion spending bill sitting on his desk. Bush refused to sign it. Obama did sign it, and the bill became law. The $410 billion in additional spending was credited to Bush, who did not sign the spending bill, and not to Obama, who did.

Fact: By the end of Bush’s term there were hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent TARP funds. Bush announced that he would NOT spend this money. Obama, though, asked Bush to release the funds to him. Bush did so. Obama spent another $200 billion of Tarp funds before the fiscal year ended. This spending was credited to Bush, who had said he would not spend it, and not to Obama, who did.

Fact: Obama's $835 Billion stimulus bill was passed by the Democrat run House and Senate, signed by Obama, and most of the money – all but $140 billion – was gone by the end of the fiscal year. This spending was credited to Bush. Only the $140 in stimulus spending, which occurred after the end of the final Bush fiscal year, was credited to Obama.


It is another in a never ending string of lies from obama and the left.

If you ad eyes youd notice that the data shows thatt he increaed spending in 2009 from Obama was his spending
but dont let reality get in your way

 

[starcraftzzz]

This data is pretty silly. In reality, Federal spending as a share of the economy will average over 24 percent during Obama&#8217;s term, and each and every year of that term will see a higher share than during any year since the Second World War.

Under Obama we have run some of the highest budget deficits in US history.

Also, the data only looks at discretionary spending, which is deceptive.

The claim by market watch furthermore relies on statistics cherry-picked from different sources and, tellingly, uses CBO projections rather than actual outlays, and lets the President off the hook for FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Honestly, these claims are absurd. I can't believe people are taking them seriously. And wasn't it Democrats saying how greating big spending was? Bragging how their big spending on the economy saved it? Now suddenly they are trying to say they spend less. Nobody else finds this absurd?

Believe it, Obama&#8217;s a Big Spender*|*The Moral Liberal

This data is pretty silly." - Well, it's is far better then a complete lack of data. You have managed to be wrong about everything, making incorrect statements and presenting no data to back it up. Are you capable of any original analysis?

There is no lack of data. The numbers are there. Spending under Obama is going up. You can say the rate of that increase is not as fast, but it is still going up, deficits are still higher than they have been for decades, the debt is still higher than ever (larger than the entire economy) and government spending as a percentage of GDP is still higher than it was before Obama.

Others including myself have explained why the data you have provided was collected in an invalid way. No matter how you try to twist reality, government is spending more money today than it was yesterday.

The numbers have been posted by numerous people already. Ignoring them does not make them "nonexistent."

Yes spending udner Obama is increase 10 times less then all other periods since 1950
furthermore you saying something is invlaid does not make it so
also spending as a percent of GDP has delcined under obama . Why do you lie so much?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

The author recognizes;

a) "...the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress."
b) "After adjusting for inflation..."
c) "In per capita terms..."

These three points are fundamental to anything that we might say about the US budget.

Graphically, it comes down to;

The author's conclusion is;

"If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!"

I've done my own examination of the budget, in real dollar, per capita terms. I am not including projected numbers. I've got these in per capita, real dollar

I've got Bush averaging a 4.6% growth rate with Obama averaging 2.2%, in real dollar per capita terms. Clinton ran at an average -0.1%. The first Bush was at 0.4%, a really decent level, all things considered. Reagan was at 2%. Carter at 1.1%. Ford was 3.9%. Nixon at 2.4%

 

[starcraftzzz]

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

The author recognizes;

a) "...the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress."
b) "After adjusting for inflation..."
c) "In per capita terms..."

These three points are fundamental to anything that we might say about the US budget.

Graphically, it comes down to;

The author's conclusion is;

"If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!"

I've done my own examination of the budget, in real dollar, per capita terms. I am not including projected numbers. I've got these in per capita, real dollar

I've got Bush averaging a 4.6% growth rate with Obama averaging 2.2%, in real dollar per capita terms. Clinton ran at an average -0.1%. The first Bush was at 0.4%, a really decent level, all things considered. Reagan was at 2%. Carter at 1.1%. Ford was 3.9%. Nixon at 2.4%

Get back on your anti psychotic medications your insanity is showing

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Schools out for the summer, I see...