Obama's fuzzy math about his spending

[TheGreatGatsby]

Apparently, Obama and is spouting how he has decreased spending at a lower rate than any president in decades.

How did he come to this conclusion?

He used 2009 as the baseline (year ends at end of June). That was the year that both Bush and Obama passed major stimulus bills. Then in subsequent years, he basically only slightly increased 'stimulus' level spending.

Now here's the real problem. How much has spending actually increased under Obama? Well; Bush's last submitted budget (which was already bloated with Dem crap and two wars) was $3.1 trillion. Obama's 2013 budget submission (with one war and military cuts) is $3.8 trillion. That's an 18 percent increase. That's a little bit different than the 1.4 percent he is claiming.

And Clinton's last submitted budget was $1.9 trillion (2001). So Obama has actually submitted a budget that is double what it was only twelve years ago.

Also, how many times lately, have we heard Obama say that he's going to control debt relative to the percentage of GDP lately? That's his talking point. It's how he's been trying to justify not making any actual cuts.

But here's the problem. He artificially rose the deficit as a level of GDP at a time when the interest on our debt was becoming an even bigger boon.

Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2012 - 8.5
2011 - 8.7
2010 - 8.9
2009 - 9.9
2008 - 3.2
2007 - 1.2
2006 - 1.9
2005 - 2.6
2004 - 3.5
2003 - 3.4
2002 - 1.5
2001 - 1.3
2000 - 2.4
1995 - 2.2
1990 - 3.9
1985 - 5.1
1980 - 2.7
1975 - 3.4
1970 - 0.3
1965 - 0.2
1960 - 0.1
1955 - 0.8
1950 - 0.1
1945 - 21.5
1940 - 3.0
1935 - 4.0
1930 - 0.8

You see the difference between Bush, who Dems called a reckless spender and Obama? Aside from the stimulus year even with two wars he was never above 3.5. Obama has routinely exceeded him by about 250 percent.

And you'll notice that in 2003; the first budget year after 9/11 it still only went to 3.4. At that time, the politicians weren't giving us any phony bologna about a stimulus either. The increase was only war related.

Sources:

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Federal Budget Reference. Compare reviews & ratings.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Apparently, Obama and is spouting how he has decreased spending at a lower rate than any president in decades.

How did he come to this conclusion?

He used 2009 as the baseline (year ends at end of June). That was the year that both Bush and Obama passed major stimulus bills. Then in subsequent years, he basically only slightly increased 'stimulus' level spending.

Now here's the real problem. How much has spending actually increased under Obama? Well; Bush's last submitted budget (which was already bloated with Dem crap and two wars) was $3.1 trillion. Obama's 2013 budget submission (with one war and military cuts) is $3.8 trillion. That's an 18 percent increase. That's a little bit different than the 1.4 percent he is claiming.

And Clinton's last submitted budget was $1.9 trillion (2001). So Obama has actually submitted a budget that is double what it was only twelve years ago.

Also, how many times lately, have we heard Obama say that he's going to control debt relative to the percentage of GDP lately? That's his talking point. It's how he's been trying to justify not making any actual cuts.

But here's the problem. He artificially rose the deficit as a level of GDP at a time when the interest on our debt was becoming an even bigger boon.

Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2012 - 8.5
2011 - 8.7
2010 - 8.9
2009 - 9.9
2008 - 3.2
2007 - 1.2
2006 - 1.9
2005 - 2.6
2004 - 3.5
2003 - 3.4
2002 - 1.5
2001 - 1.3
2000 - 2.4
1995 - 2.2
1990 - 3.9
1985 - 5.1
1980 - 2.7
1975 - 3.4
1970 - 0.3
1965 - 0.2
1960 - 0.1
1955 - 0.8
1950 - 0.1
1945 - 21.5
1940 - 3.0
1935 - 4.0
1930 - 0.8

You see the difference between Bush, who Dems called a reckless spender and Obama? Aside from the stimulus year even with two wars he was never above 3.5. Obama has routinely exceeded him by about 250 percent.

And you'll notice that in 2003; the first budget year after 9/11 it still only went to 3.4. At that time, the politicians weren't giving us any phony bologna about a stimulus either. The increase was only war related.

Sources:

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Federal Budget Reference. Compare reviews & ratings.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Barack Obama pledged Monday to cut the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first term."

Obama pledges to cut nation's deficit in half - Feb. 23, 2009

"President Obama used his weekly YouTube address to reiterate his promise to go "line by line" and reduce waste"

Promise: Cut Waste In Federal Budget - The Promise Audit - National Journal Online

"Obama is making final decisions on his budget for next year and is still promising to outline a path to substantially lower federal deficits. But on nearly every front, that goal has gotten harder since his first budget a year ago."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/us/politics/06budget.html

"Obama's fuzzy math about his spending" ??

Fuzzy Math or Fibs? .....

.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Nice finds. Crazy how Obama makes all these huge promises and then the media never calls him out. And they should be calling him out for his low spending claims. But what do we get? <Crickets>

 

[RightWingFerret]

The average hamster can solve any mathemetic caculation far better than Obama.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

The average hamster can solve any mathemetic caculation far better than Obama.

Let's see Fuzzy Math, Hamsters.... is that why Libs get that tingling feeling up their leg when Obama is a round?

 

[RightWingFerret]

and to think a 3 year old monkey can do a budget 10 times more efficiant than Obama......lets just put an ape in office,,,yah,,thats the ticket! (and demote Obama to white house janitor)

 

[DontBeStupid]

I thought it was obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Deficits during good economic times is bad and during bad economic times is good.

Beyond that, anyone crying over Obama and the deficit, Romney's "plan" makes the deficits worse. So, there's that.

 

[rdean]

Actually, if you take away the Bush/Republican commitments, Obama has spent less than any president since 1929.

Course, the numbers aren't all that accurate. There has been more than 40,000 young Americans maimed in the Iraq fiasco. The majority of those will need medical help for decades. The billions Republicans lost in Iraq and the billions thrown away on overpaid no bid contracts could come in handy. But Republicans NEVER, EVER take a shred of responsibility for any of their catastrophes. In fact, how about a $10,000.00 BET that Republicans will try to figure out a way to deny those maimed Americans health care the way they did the first responders?

Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill

Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11.

A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year.

The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

---------------------------------------------

These terrible actions by this odious party can hardly be denied. Everything is documented by the Senate itself. This is the dirtiest and sickest political party in a hundred years.

 

[RightWingFerret]

my sister is an accountant, if she was president the unemployment would go back to 5%.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^ 2 ^^^

Actually, the deficit as a percent of GDP is higher under Obama than any other president since FDR. That's your spending reality dean; not whatever lies you're telling yourself that I didn't bother to read.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just remember: 10t - 5t= 16t.

 

[ShackledNation]

Actually, if you take away the Bush/Republican commitments, Obama has spent less than any president since 1929.

Course, the numbers aren't all that accurate. There has been more than 40,000 young Americans maimed in the Iraq fiasco. The majority of those will need medical help for decades. The billions Republicans lost in Iraq and the billions thrown away on overpaid no bid contracts could come in handy. But Republicans NEVER, EVER take a shred of responsibility for any of their catastrophes. In fact, how about a $10,000.00 BET that Republicans will try to figure out a way to deny those maimed Americans health care the way they did the first responders?

Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill

Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11.

A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year.

The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

---------------------------------------------

These terrible actions by this odious party can hardly be denied. Everything is documented by the Senate itself. This is the dirtiest and sickest political party in a hundred years.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP has increased. To say Obama has spent less than any president since the early 20th century is absurd.

It is equally deceptive to completley ignore 2009.

In addition, the report only looks at discretionary spending. As mandatory spending programs exponentially eat up the budget, there will be less room for discretionary spending whether the president likes it or not.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Yea - Don't you just love that the government has created this huge "mandatory" spending category in the first place.

 

[BreezeWood]

Budget Control Act of 2011 Forces Real Cuts to Defense, and Difficult Choices

Budget Control Act of 2011 Forces Real Cuts to Defense, and Difficult Choices

Enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 now provides specific information on the future course of defense spending.

GOP hits back at Harry Reid threat on sequester - POLITICO.com

GOP hits back at Reid threat on sequester

Sen. Harry Reid&#8217;s refusal to &#8220;back off&#8221; looming cuts to the Pentagon won&#8217;t just harm the nation&#8217;s security, Republicans say. It could plunge the fragile U.S. economy back into a recession next year.

Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans | Defense News | defensenews.com

Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans

Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans

Today in black and white - the Republicans are attempting to circumvent the Budget Control Act of 2011 and increase the National Deficit against an Act they themselves agreed to just 8 months ago ... the Great Recession began on their watch Dec. 07 for the same reason as above - Unfunded Spending.

 

[Amelia]

Just remember: 10t - 5t= 16t.

Well, this is true if t = 0.

 

[ladyliberal]

Apparently, Obama and is spouting how he has decreased spending at a lower rate than any president in decades.

How did he come to this conclusion?

He used 2009 as the baseline (year ends at end of June). That was the year that both Bush and Obama passed major stimulus bills. Then in subsequent years, he basically only slightly increased 'stimulus' level spending.

Could I see a source to support your claim about what Obama is claiming? I assume you mean that he is claiming that under him spending increased, not decreased at a slower rate.

You might also be referring to an independent analysis conducted by a financial journalist:
Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

While the Obama campaign has certainly mentioned the analysis, they didn't conduct it. More to the point, it includes the stimulus, so your critique of Obama's accountancy would not apply to it anyway.

It's true that deficits are high under Obama, but deficits are the difference between spending and revenue, and revenue has been very, very low under Obama.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

You can find video of Obama at the podium claiming that he increased spending at the lowest rate in decades. Then compare that to how the deficit relative to GDP is way up and you'll know he's full of crap.

 

[ladyliberal]

^^^

You can find video of Obama at the podium claiming that he increased spending at the lowest rate in decades. Then compare that to how the deficit relative to GDP is way up and you'll know he's full of crap.

I can't find any such video. Can you?

 

[rdean]

Actually, if you take away the Bush/Republican commitments, Obama has spent less than any president since 1929.

Course, the numbers aren't all that accurate. There has been more than 40,000 young Americans maimed in the Iraq fiasco. The majority of those will need medical help for decades. The billions Republicans lost in Iraq and the billions thrown away on overpaid no bid contracts could come in handy. But Republicans NEVER, EVER take a shred of responsibility for any of their catastrophes. In fact, how about a $10,000.00 BET that Republicans will try to figure out a way to deny those maimed Americans health care the way they did the first responders?

Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill

Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11.

A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year.

The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

---------------------------------------------

These terrible actions by this odious party can hardly be denied. Everything is documented by the Senate itself. This is the dirtiest and sickest political party in a hundred years.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP has increased. To say Obama has spent less than any president since the early 20th century is absurd.

It is equally deceptive to completley ignore 2009.

In addition, the report only looks at discretionary spending. As mandatory spending programs exponentially eat up the budget, there will be less room for discretionary spending whether the president likes it or not.

Economist Justin Wolfers tweets a graph from Mark Thoma that's very much worth talking about. It measures per capita growth in government spending for the last seven presidents' first term in office. This is what he finds:

Business - Derek Thompson - Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History? - The Atlantic

The question here is what has Obama spent the money on? We know Bush and his tax cuts and wars and drug program. But what has Obama spent?

 

[frazzledgear]

^^^

Nice finds. Crazy how Obama makes all these huge promises and then the media never calls him out. And they should be calling him out for his low spending claims. But what do we get? <Crickets>

He did get three Pinocchios for telling this whopper about his spending from the Washington Post Fact Checker. Biggest whopper of his yet and leading Romney big time in racking up more and bigger Pinocchios -another proud moment for Obama. UNBELIEVABLE but the man knows no shame, has no real conscience. To me this shows the level of contempt he has for people knowing full well this is a monster of a lie -he still thinks people are so stupid they will just believe whatever they are instructed to believe. For some of his own supporters, they really are that stupid but most people are not. Apparently Obummer never heard of PT Barnum while growing up in Indonesia. LOL With every passing day listening to this man literally rant against traditional American values and spew his anti-capitalism venom and vomit out yet another distortion, exaggeration or outright lie -I find the man increasingly creepy and disturbing. He isn't a nice guy.