Under Obama, Government Spending Has Grown More Slowly Than Under Any President Since

[TruthOut10]

Under Obama, Government Spending Has Grown More Slowly Than Under Any President Since Eisenhower

Government spending under President Obama has grown at a slower rate than it did under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower was in office six decades ago, according to an analysis from Bloomberg. That may not jibe with the conservative complaints that Obama has overseen a massive growth in government spending, but it’s true:


Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Expenditures as a share of the economy sank last year to 22.8 percent, their lowest level since 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office data. That’s down from 24.1 percent in 2011 and a 64-year high of 25.2 percent in 2009, when Obama pushed through an $831 billion stimulus package. [...]

Spending grew just 0.6 percent from 2009 to 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from government reports.

Under Obama, Government Spending Has Grown More Slowly Than Under Any President Since Eisenhower | ThinkProgress

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, right!!!!!

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, right!!!!!

Yup, that would be true. We do not have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
Check this out.
Chart of the Day: US Federal Spending by President | Credit Writedowns

It is helpfull when you look for the truth, instead of bs to make you feel good. Dipshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So who is racking up the annual trillion deficits?

 

[Rshermr]

So who is racking up the annual trillion deficits?

Crusader, lets see if we can educate you. If you have a gov, it costs to run it. So, you have outflows. Kind of like writing checks. You know, wars in two countries, police, fire, medicare, etc. Got it. That is kind a like writing checks on your account, for things that are already appropriated.

Then, crusader, there are inflows. You know, incoming revenue to the gov. Mostly from income taxes.
When you decrease jobs, you decrease income taxes. Get it yet??? When you have decreased revenue for companies, you decrease income taxes. Kind a like your pay was decreased.

So, spending went up very little, comparatively. But income went down greatly.

Now, I made this look really simple for you. What is it that you do not understand??

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, right!!!!!

Yup, that would be true. We do not have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
Check this out.
Chart of the Day: US Federal Spending by President | Credit Writedowns

It is helpfull when you look for the truth, instead of bs to make you feel good. Dipshit.

Yeah, that looks like a real credible website.

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, right!!!!!

Yup, that would be true. We do not have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
Check this out.
Chart of the Day: US Federal Spending by President | Credit Writedowns

It is helpfull when you look for the truth, instead of bs to make you feel good. Dipshit.

Yeah, that looks like a real credible website.

It is. Glad you approve, dipshit.

 

[S.J.]

Yup, that would be true. We do not have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
Check this out.
Chart of the Day: US Federal Spending by President | Credit Writedowns

It is helpfull when you look for the truth, instead of bs to make you feel good. Dipshit.

Yeah, that looks like a real credible website.

It is. Glad you approve, dipshit.

Name calling, the preferred tactic of those who have no intelligent argument. In other words - liberals.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, it has "grown more slowly" because the baselines were jacked way the fuck up.

Another lame-assed socialist dickweed yapping point bites the dust.

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, that looks like a real credible website.

It is. Glad you approve, dipshit.

Name calling, the preferred tactic of those who have no intelligent argument. In other words - liberals.

Not actually. I just do not like people who post without saying anything. You said: Yeah, that looks like a real credible website

I said it is. And you are a dipshit for saying nothing more than what you said above. Say something that has some indication of brain activity. Find a reason why the link is not credible. You know, like why the data used was incorrect. See why I call you a dipshit. You are exhibiting no visible intelligent life.

 

[S.J.]

It is. Glad you approve, dipshit.

Name calling, the preferred tactic of those who have no intelligent argument. In other words - liberals.

Not actually. I just do not like people who post without saying anything. You said: Yeah, that looks like a real credible website

I said it is. And you are a dipshit for saying nothing more than what you said above. Say something that has some indication of brain activity. Find a reason why the link is not credible. You know, like why the data used was incorrect. See why I call you a dipshit. You are exhibiting no visible intelligent life.

More name-calling. You need to grow up before you can be worthy of an adult debate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So who is racking up the annual trillion deficits?

Crusader, lets see if we can educate you. If you have a gov, it costs to run it. So, you have outflows. Kind of like writing checks. You know, wars in two countries, police, fire, medicare, etc. Got it. That is kind a like writing checks on your account, for things that are already appropriated.

Then, crusader, there are inflows. You know, incoming revenue to the gov. Mostly from income taxes.
When you decrease jobs, you decrease income taxes. Get it yet??? When you have decreased revenue for companies, you decrease income taxes. Kind a like your pay was decreased.

So, spending went up very little, comparatively. But income went down greatly.

Now, I made this look really simple for you. What is it that you do not understand??

So, who racked up those annual trillion deficits these past 4 years?

 

[Oddball]

It is. Glad you approve, dipshit.

Name calling, the preferred tactic of those who have no intelligent argument. In other words - liberals.

Not actually. I just do not like people who post without saying anything. You said: Yeah, that looks like a real credible website

I said it is. And you are a dipshit for saying nothing more than what you said above. Say something that has some indication of brain activity. Find a reason why the link is not credible. You know, like why the data used was incorrect. See why I call you a dipshit. You are exhibiting no visible intelligent life.

The baslinenes were jacked up in 2009, dipshit.

Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56...

As usual, the socialist fuckbags are using rigged statistics and half-truths....Speaking of no visible intelligent life.

 

[Rshermr]

Name calling, the preferred tactic of those who have no intelligent argument. In other words - liberals.

Not actually. I just do not like people who post without saying anything. You said: Yeah, that looks like a real credible website

I said it is. And you are a dipshit for saying nothing more than what you said above. Say something that has some indication of brain activity. Find a reason why the link is not credible. You know, like why the data used was incorrect. See why I call you a dipshit. You are exhibiting no visible intelligent life.

More name-calling. You need to grow up before you can be worthy of an adult debate.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything besides opinion, or is that it???

 

[S.J.]

Not actually. I just do not like people who post without saying anything. You said: Yeah, that looks like a real credible website

I said it is. And you are a dipshit for saying nothing more than what you said above. Say something that has some indication of brain activity. Find a reason why the link is not credible. You know, like why the data used was incorrect. See why I call you a dipshit. You are exhibiting no visible intelligent life.

More name-calling. You need to grow up before you can be worthy of an adult debate.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything besides opinion, or is that it???

Do you have anything besides name calling?

 

[Rshermr]

Name calling, the preferred tactic of those who have no intelligent argument. In other words - liberals.

Not actually. I just do not like people who post without saying anything. You said: Yeah, that looks like a real credible website

I said it is. And you are a dipshit for saying nothing more than what you said above. Say something that has some indication of brain activity. Find a reason why the link is not credible. You know, like why the data used was incorrect. See why I call you a dipshit. You are exhibiting no visible intelligent life.

The baslinenes were jacked up in 2009, dipshit.

Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56...

As usual, the socialist fuckbags are using rigged statistics and half-truths....Speaking of no visible intelligent life.

Just think how cool it would be if you could read, me con tool. The numbers in the calculations were adjusted for the Stimulus, and the stimulus attributed to Obama in 2010 for these calculations. Plain as day. Right there in the web site that the nice link led you to, should you have used it. Next time get some one to read the information that the link provides. And the rest of your post was not part of anything posted on my link. By the way, you may want to read the source and their data sources. Actual real impartial and truthful sources. I know you are not used to that.

Not sure what your issue with three years is. Did you happen to notice that the numbers are ANNUAL. That would be PER YEAR, not per presidency, or per four year term.

But nice try. Back to the bat shit crazy con sites, dipshit. Let us know if you come up with anything else profound.

 

[Rshermr]

More name-calling. You need to grow up before you can be worthy of an adult debate.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything besides opinion, or is that it???

Do you have anything besides name calling?

I suggest you get something better to do. Maybe you should try collecting stamps. Stop wasting my time. You have no game, at all. And I dislike anyone who wastes my time.
If you have an economic argument, let it out. If not, go collect some stamps and maybe drink your tea from a nice tea cup with your little finger sticking out.

 

[S.J.]

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything besides opinion, or is that it???

Do you have anything besides name calling?

I suggest you get something better to do. Maybe you should try collecting stamps. Stop wasting my time. You have no game, at all. And I dislike anyone who wastes my time.
If you have an economic argument, let it out. If not, go collect some stamps and maybe drink your tea from a nice tea cup with your little finger sticking out.

More of the same, just what I thought. Your "source" forgot to mention the record $6 trillion added to the debt in 4 years. This dictator has added more to the debt than all past presidents combined in the shortest amount of time. Your source is a fucking joke, and so are you.

 

[tooAlive]

Here you go.

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

 

[tooAlive]

And in case you don't trust The Heritage Network, here's Forbes.

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes

It's a long article, so you may want to get your tea ready beforehand.

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democratic Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014. But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months. That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion. The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

That's just a little snippet from page 2 I found interesting.