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

[Rshermr]

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.

Someone is a joke. Lets take a look at your little claims:

First, we are looking at National Debt. I was discussing federal spending. You need to look them up. they are two different things. National debt, my poor ignorant con, is caused by spending, and by reduced revenue.

The National debt when Obama took office were in the area of $11T. You have to be a bit math challenged to make the statement that Obama had more than doubled the national debt, my poor ignorant con tool.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Sorry. You are indeed a dipshit. Try a little truth.

You see, national debt is caused in this case primarily by spending on wars started by the previous administration, and by all sorts of spending that has been approved by the congress over the years. What you seem to forget is that we had an economy in freefall. And I know you do not want to admit it, but revenues went down greatly. Primarily from lost income taxes. So, the the National Debt increased most during the last of the bush budget, or 2009, partially due to the stimulus, but much more as a result of war spending. So while we spent like crazy, and really could not stop, revenues decreased. Try to understand something. You will not come off so stupid.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Someone is a joke. Lets take a look at your little claims:

First, we are looking at National Debt. I was discussing federal spending. You need to look them up. they are two different things. National debt, my poor ignorant con, is caused by spending, and by reduced revenue.

The National debt when Obama took office were in the area of $11T. You have to be a bit math challenged to make the statement that Obama had more than doubled the national debt, my poor ignorant con tool.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Sorry. You are indeed a dipshit. Try a little truth.

You see, national debt is caused in this case primarily by spending on wars started by the previous administration, and by all sorts of spending that has been approved by the congress over the years. What you seem to forget is that we had an economy in freefall. And I know you do not want to admit it, but revenues went down greatly. Primarily from lost income taxes. So, the Stimulus increased most during the last of the bush budget, partially due to the stimulus, but much more as a result of war spending. so while we spent like crazy, and really could not stop, revenues decreased. Try to understand something. You will not come off so stupid.

The first president in history to run over $1 trillion deficits, and he did it 4 years in a row. For you to claim that he has slowed spending is a laugh. Get your head out of Obama's ass.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Nice. Lets see, your sources are Heritage. And Peter Ferrara's post in Forbes. Peter, being one of the biggest right wing con tools out there.
So, how about:
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

Damn, competing Forbes sites. But then, you see, i would not use the above article by Rick Ungar. Because he is a left wing writer. Not impartial.

Nor would I use Moveon.org. For the same reason. I tend to believe in integrity. Obviously you do not. Your sources are garbage.

Do you ever use impartial sources, dipshit. I really dislike people who are pushing agenda. A complete waste of time.

 

[tooAlive]

You're making your party look great.

Now that I've posted an article with facts from a reputable source like Forbes, you're discrediting it because you claim the writer has a political leaning. Then you call me a dipshit. Again, very classy.

But now let me ask you; what writer doesn't have a political agenda? You see, if we were to discredit articles and research because those responsible for them have a political leaning, we wouldn't have anything to go by. Because everyone has a political leaning. Everyone.

Now, until you can explain to me how Forbes is lying about Barack Obama's spending, I and everyone else that reads this thread (152 people so far) will see how you're simply trying to push a political agenda without facts.

You want to talk about integrity? Don't bad mouth my sources. Prove them wrong. Until then, you're the one that is wrong.

 

[tooAlive]

Oh, and by the way, that second Forbes article you posted actually links to the Heritage Blog post I linked to earlier.

Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Someone is a joke. Lets take a look at your little claims:

First, we are looking at National Debt. I was discussing federal spending. You need to look them up. they are two different things. National debt, my poor ignorant con, is caused by spending, and by reduced revenue.

The National debt when Obama took office were in the area of $11T. You have to be a bit math challenged to make the statement that Obama had more than doubled the national debt, my poor ignorant con tool.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Sorry. You are indeed a dipshit. Try a little truth.

You see, national debt is caused in this case primarily by spending on wars started by the previous administration, and by all sorts of spending that has been approved by the congress over the years. What you seem to forget is that we had an economy in freefall. And I know you do not want to admit it, but revenues went down greatly. Primarily from lost income taxes. So, the Stimulus increased most during the last of the bush budget, partially due to the stimulus, but much more as a result of war spending. so while we spent like crazy, and really could not stop, revenues decreased. Try to understand something. You will not come off so stupid.

The first president in history to run over $1 trillion deficits, and he did it 4 years in a row. For you to claim that he has slowed spending is a laugh. Get your head out of Obama's ass.

Go look at my link, dipshit. And tell me where it is wrong. I do not push agenda. Just like the truth. So where are your numbers from.

By the way, do you know that spending is decreasing based on budgets over the next several years??? Did not see that in those great bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh, dipshit???

So, my guess is I know where you are spending your time. And getting your "knowledge". Try this one:
2011 2012 2013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-1,296 -1,079 -585 -345 -269 -302 -220 -196 -258 -280 -279 -339
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

Those would be the projected Deficit numbers for twelve years, beginning in 2011. So, you see, it takes a while to turn the worst recession in history around. But it is getting there. As a con tool, you will try to make it look awfull. But in fact, the future, as seen by most economists, is quite good.

Now, with an imroving deficit, want to try to tell me what problem we have with the economy today??? National debt, Deficit, or unemployment. So, want to try to tell me when we have ever seen the deficit go down when unemployment is bad????

 

[Rshermr]

You're making your party look great.

Now that I've posted an article with facts from a reputable source like Forbes, you're discrediting it because you claim the writer has a political leaning. Then you call me a dipshit. Again, very classy.

But now let me ask you; what writer doesn't have a political agenda? You see, if we were to discredit articles and research because those responsible for them have a political leaning, we wouldn't have anything to go by. Because everyone has a political leaning. Everyone.

Now, until you can explain to me how Forbes is lying about Barack Obama's spending, I and everyone else that reads this thread (152 people so far) will see how you're simply trying to push a political agenda without facts.

You want to talk about integrity? Don't bad mouth my sources. Prove them wrong. Until then, you're the one that is wrong.

So, let me understand this. You are going to provide me with articles from authors known to have an agenda. And you want me to prove them wrong. I don't think so, dipshit.
How about providing me an impartial source. And not because it is forbes. That just does not pass the giggle test. I did not, by the way, say Forbes was a bad source. Now listen carefully. I said it has many opinion pieces from people that have a reputation for agenda.

Look, shithead. You can not figure out why I do not like spending my time trying to vet sources I know to be suspect??? You are unable to understand that Forbes is famous for posting biased pieces by either con or liberal agenda driven authors??? Do you understand the concept of impartial reporting?

If you want to send prejudiced articles for people to vet, fine. I would not. And I consider you to be a person with NO integrity because of it. Your agenda is obvious.

I do not think anyone whom I provide information to should have to check our the data to find out if it is true, and if it is complete, and if it may have :forgotten" some facts. And I would feel guilty if they found the information was wrong. Sorry you could not figure that out.

If you provide me with a piece from heritage on some subject, I can pretty much figure out what they will say. And it is likely to be completely different than what the data will show if you use an impartial source. Like the gov numbers for unemployment, like the CBO, and like a number of other sources.


And by the way, I did provide the numbers. From impartial sources. You are the one who pushed the agenda pieces. Again, nice try.

 

[S.J.]

Someone is a joke. Lets take a look at your little claims:

First, we are looking at National Debt. I was discussing federal spending. You need to look them up. they are two different things. National debt, my poor ignorant con, is caused by spending, and by reduced revenue.

The National debt when Obama took office were in the area of $11T. You have to be a bit math challenged to make the statement that Obama had more than doubled the national debt, my poor ignorant con tool.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Sorry. You are indeed a dipshit. Try a little truth.

You see, national debt is caused in this case primarily by spending on wars started by the previous administration, and by all sorts of spending that has been approved by the congress over the years. What you seem to forget is that we had an economy in freefall. And I know you do not want to admit it, but revenues went down greatly. Primarily from lost income taxes. So, the Stimulus increased most during the last of the bush budget, partially due to the stimulus, but much more as a result of war spending. so while we spent like crazy, and really could not stop, revenues decreased. Try to understand something. You will not come off so stupid.

The first president in history to run over $1 trillion deficits, and he did it 4 years in a row. For you to claim that he has slowed spending is a laugh. Get your head out of Obama's ass.

Go look at my link, dipshit. And tell me where it is wrong. I do not push agenda. Just like the truth. So where are your numbers from.

By the way, do you know that spending is decreasing based on budgets over the next several years??? Did not see that in those great bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh, dipshit???

So, my guess is I know where you are spending your time. And getting your "knowledge". Try this one:
2011 2012 2013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-1,296 -1,079 -585 -345 -269 -302 -220 -196 -258 -280 -279 -339
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

Those would be the projected Deficit numbers for twelve years, beginning in 2011. So, you see, it takes a while to turn the worst recession in history around. But it is getting there. As a con tool, you will try to make it look awfull. But in fact, the future, as seen by most economists, is quite good.

Now, with an imroving deficit, want to try to tell me what problem we have with the economy today??? National debt, Deficit, or unemployment. So, want to try to tell me when we have ever seen the deficit go down when unemployment is bad????

Improving from what, the last 4 RECORD deficits??? Dude, you are a complete fucking idiot! And after 4 years, this economy is OBAMA'S. Unemployment is bad because of our president's fucking policies, so the record deficits are his, not some evil Republican's. Ignorance as profound as your's is rare.

 

[tooAlive]

If you can't prove an article wrong, regardless of where it came from, you're wrong.

And I would stop with the name calling; it's only making you look like more of a fool. Educated liberals would be shaking their head at you for making them look like such ignorant partisans.

My political leaning and that of the writer from my source does not change the validity of the information provided.

You and almost every other liberal I've argued with all do the same thing when presented with facts they cannot dispute. "Oh, I don't like your source. It's biased!"

Again, if the information provided in the Forbes article is wrong, please explain it to us so we can send a formal message to one of their editors and have the article removed. Since you talk to much about integrity, I think that would be a pretty integral thing to do. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Rshermr]

The first president in history to run over $1 trillion deficits, and he did it 4 years in a row. For you to claim that he has slowed spending is a laugh. Get your head out of Obama's ass.

Go look at my link, dipshit. And tell me where it is wrong. I do not push agenda. Just like the truth. So where are your numbers from.

By the way, do you know that spending is decreasing based on budgets over the next several years??? Did not see that in those great bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh, dipshit???

So, my guess is I know where you are spending your time. And getting your "knowledge". Try this one:
2011 2012 2013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-1,296 -1,079 -585 -345 -269 -302 -220 -196 -258 -280 -279 -339
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

Those would be the projected Deficit numbers for twelve years, beginning in 2011. So, you see, it takes a while to turn the worst recession in history around. But it is getting there. As a con tool, you will try to make it look awfull. But in fact, the future, as seen by most economists, is quite good.

Now, with an imroving deficit, want to try to tell me what problem we have with the economy today??? National debt, Deficit, or unemployment. So, want to try to tell me when we have ever seen the deficit go down when unemployment is bad????

Improving from what, the last 4 RECORD deficits??? Dude, you are a complete fucking idiot! And after 4 years, this economy is OBAMA'S. Unemployment is bad because of our president's fucking policies, so the record deficits are his, not some evil Republican's. Ignorance as profound as your's is rare.

And you believe the house and senate have no ownership, right. The pres had gotten prescious little past out of the house for the past two years, and almost all of that was stopped by the senate. Get a grip. Worst economy since the great depression, and you expect it turned around in a couple years. That is quite simple con tool thinking. I know where you get your information.

 

[tooAlive]

Improving from what, the last 4 RECORD deficits??? Dude, you are a complete fucking idiot! And after 4 years, this economy is OBAMA'S. Unemployment is bad because of our president's fucking policies, so the record deficits are his, not some evil Republican's. Ignorance as profound as your's is rare.

Don't lose sleep over this one.

He's clearly been proven wrong by facts, so he resorts to name-calling and discrediting sources. Which in the end only make him appear even more out of his league and misinformed.

Hopefully one day he'll learn.

 

[S.J.]

Go look at my link, dipshit. And tell me where it is wrong. I do not push agenda. Just like the truth. So where are your numbers from.

By the way, do you know that spending is decreasing based on budgets over the next several years??? Did not see that in those great bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh, dipshit???

So, my guess is I know where you are spending your time. And getting your "knowledge". Try this one:
2011 2012 2013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-1,296 -1,079 -585 -345 -269 -302 -220 -196 -258 -280 -279 -339
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

Those would be the projected Deficit numbers for twelve years, beginning in 2011. So, you see, it takes a while to turn the worst recession in history around. But it is getting there. As a con tool, you will try to make it look awfull. But in fact, the future, as seen by most economists, is quite good.

Now, with an imroving deficit, want to try to tell me what problem we have with the economy today??? National debt, Deficit, or unemployment. So, want to try to tell me when we have ever seen the deficit go down when unemployment is bad????

Improving from what, the last 4 RECORD deficits??? Dude, you are a complete fucking idiot! And after 4 years, this economy is OBAMA'S. Unemployment is bad because of our president's fucking policies, so the record deficits are his, not some evil Republican's. Ignorance as profound as your's is rare.

And you believe the house and senate have no ownership, right. The pres had gotten prescious little past out of the house for the past two years, and almost all of that was stopped by the senate. Get a grip. Worst economy since the great depression, and you expect it turned around in a couple years. That is quite simple con tool thinking. I know where you get your information.

Obama has had a Democratic majority in the Senate for 4 years, dumbshit. And I hate to tell you this but the worst economy since the great depression was during the Carter admisistration. Where do you get YOUR information? Wait, don't tell me. MSNBC?

 

[Rshermr]

If you can't prove an article wrong, regardless of where it came from, you're wrong.

Can't is the operand word. Why should I have to vet data from a partial site?? You see, you just said something that does not pass the giggle test. It is your argument. Back it up with impartial data, from actual impartial sources. That should not be too hard to understand. But nice try. Stupid, but it was a try.

And I would stop with the name calling; it's only making you look like more of a fool. Educated liberals would be shaking their head at you for making them look like such ignorant partisans.

then quit acting like a complete conservative tool.

My political leaning and that of the writer from my source does not change the validity of the information provided.

Right. But it does make it not worth the time to consider it. Again, me boy, you have no right to ask someone to vet partisan statements presented as fact.

You and almost every other liberal I've argued with all do the same thing when presented with facts they cannot dispute. "Oh, I don't like your source. It's biased!"

And you, like every con, provide "facts" from sources with agenda, that when I have to spend the time to check them out, prove to be wrong. So, you are suggesting that I spend my time vetting your prejudiced sources, as I have too many times before, to prove the validity of what they are saying. Sorry, I value my time.

So, here is a bit of news. If it is a fact, it is available from impartial sources. Try a little integrity.

Again, if the information provided in the Forbes article is wrong, please explain it to us so we can send a formal message to one of their editors and have the article removed. Since you talk to much about integrity, I think that would be a pretty integral thing to do. Wouldn't you agree?

Let me see if I understand this. I should read the information in your article, from a source known to have a very strong conservative agenda, and check it out and let you know if it is wrong.

Right. How about this. Instead of me spending a couple of hours vetting your agenda driven article, how about you spending a couple of minutes providing the data from impartial sources.

And I won't send you sources from left wing loonies. Because I value your time. Though you do not value mine. Get the integrity thing yet???

 

[Politico]

Whatever fancy way you word it truth it has been four years and the rubber stamp says FAIL.

 

[Rshermr]

Improving from what, the last 4 RECORD deficits??? Dude, you are a complete fucking idiot! And after 4 years, this economy is OBAMA'S. Unemployment is bad because of our president's fucking policies, so the record deficits are his, not some evil Republican's. Ignorance as profound as your's is rare.

Don't lose sleep over this one.

He's clearly been proven wrong by facts, so he resorts to name-calling and discrediting sources. Which in the end only make him appear even more out of his league and misinformed.

Hopefully one day he'll learn.

Maybe you need to show me where I have been proven wrong by facts, dipshit. Cmon and show me some actual facts, without agenda. Or are you incapable.

 

[tooAlive]

Maybe you need to show me where I have been proven wrong by facts, dipshit. Cmon and show me some actual facts, without agenda. Or are you incapable.

This one is long, so I'd suggest you get the kettle ready.

PolitiFact | Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

The most common criticism focuses on how to divvy up the responsibility for outlays made in fiscal year 2009. Should those outlays be counted on George W. Bush’s balance sheet or Obama’s?

Nutting’s method was to assign spending for the first fiscal year following a president’s inauguration to the preceding president. In his column, Nutting argued that "what people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress."

The critics countered that the transition between Bush and Obama, which came amid a severe economic downturn, did not fit the historical pattern. While Nutting tried to account for this by re-assigning $140 billion of fiscal 2009 spending from Bush to Obama -- specifically the stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009 -- the critics say that that’s not enough.

And because spending spiked dramatically in the crucial period between 2008 and 2009, figuring out where exactly to draw the line between the two presidents has an enormous impact on the results of any analysis of federal spending.

And a secondary source quoted by Politifact also said this:

"The reason why Nutting included FY 2009 is because it was ‘the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.’ This assumption is incorrect and dishonest. This flaw in Nutting’s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting’s whole piece is based on flawed data.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending. Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct. If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct. The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances. …

"President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. ...

"President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree. ...

"How can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto? Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis. Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

"This is unethical and fuzzy math. The Truth-O-Meter may want to consider these facts when further analyzing the complications and distortions in analysis used by Nutting to argue that Obama is more fiscally responsible than his predecessors."

 

[tooAlive]

Or maybe a nice picture graphic will be easier to understand.

Political Math » MarketWatch?s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic)

 

[tooAlive]

And finally, we have The Washington Post.

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama, Part 2 - The Washington Post

Part 1 -

The Facts

First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

So this is what we end up with:

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

We sent our analysis to Carney but did not get a response. (For another take, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute has an interesting tour through the numbers, isolating various spending categories. For instance, he says debt payments should be excluded from the analysis because that is the result of earlier spending decisions by other presidents.)

UPDATE: The Associated Press also dug into the numbers and came to the same conclusion as we did. “The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the [Nutting] analysis counted them as government spending cuts,” the AP said. “It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.”

Part 2 -

The Facts

When looking at Obama’s spending, the key issue is what to do about the 2009 fiscal year. Since the federal government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, about four months took place in Bush’s presidency — and those were dramatic months of fiscal crisis and emergency spending.

Obama supported and voted for Bush-started programs such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Moreover, many key appropriations bills were held back by Democrats until Obama became president, and then he pushed through an $830 billion stimulus bill (which consisted of mostly spending). In ordinary times, one could argue that 2009 should be counted as Bush’s year, but in fact many of the key spending decisions were actually made by Obama.

As the AP documented, programs such as TARP also mess up the figures in the later years. The straight-line CBO accounts of outlays that MarketWatch and PolitiFact used are distorted by the fact that repayments of TARP funds by banks and Wall Street firms in 2010 make the actual spending seem much smaller.

By the AP’s calculation, repayments to TARP and reduced spending on Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bailouts shrink the official 2010 spending figure by $317 billion and the 2011 spending figure by $72 billion. In other words, the raw numbers give a distorted picture.

We agree that those adjustments should be made, which really changes the picture of Obama’s spending, at least in the early years of his presidency. Bernstein, by contrast, argues that “MW’s using official budget numbers and by those numbers, the Obama administration legitimately gets credit for effective management of the TARP.”

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives put the brakes on Obama’s spending ambitions, though whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your perspective. (Bernstein views it as an opportunity lost.)

Their verdict to your OP:

Three Pinocchios

(Four Pinocchios would be the highest false-ness rating)

 

[Rshermr]

Maybe you need to show me where I have been proven wrong by facts, dipshit. Cmon and show me some actual facts, without agenda. Or are you incapable.

This one is long, so I'd suggest you get the kettle ready.

PolitiFact | Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

The most common criticism focuses on how to divvy up the responsibility for outlays made in fiscal year 2009. Should those outlays be counted on George W. Bush’s balance sheet or Obama’s?

Nutting’s method was to assign spending for the first fiscal year following a president’s inauguration to the preceding president. In his column, Nutting argued that "what people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress."

The critics countered that the transition between Bush and Obama, which came amid a severe economic downturn, did not fit the historical pattern. While Nutting tried to account for this by re-assigning $140 billion of fiscal 2009 spending from Bush to Obama -- specifically the stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009 -- the critics say that that’s not enough.

And because spending spiked dramatically in the crucial period between 2008 and 2009, figuring out where exactly to draw the line between the two presidents has an enormous impact on the results of any analysis of federal spending.

And a secondary source quoted by Politifact also said this:

"The reason why Nutting included FY 2009 is because it was ‘the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.’ This assumption is incorrect and dishonest. This flaw in Nutting’s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting’s whole piece is based on flawed data.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending. Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct. If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct. The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances. …

"President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. ...

"President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree. ...

"How can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto? Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis. Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

"This is unethical and fuzzy math. The Truth-O-Meter may want to consider these facts when further analyzing the complications and distortions in analysis used by Nutting to argue that Obama is more fiscally responsible than his predecessors."

So Politifact is a fair source. But you used it in a rather interesting way. Their main point in this piece was the following:

Nutting’s conclusion that spending under Obama has actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." We gave the combination of the two claims a Mostly True rating.

You seem to have ignored that rather important point. It was, after all, the statement being judged.

Then, after ignoring Politifacts judgement, you went to a long piece by Heritage. Here is the part you forgot to post from the Politifact article, just prior to the segment you cut and pasted to your post:

Here are excerpts from a blog post by Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Still using those good old agenda driven sources.

The other thing you forgot, my friend, is the judgement of the statement AFTER the Heritage, as well as two other right wing think tank attempts to refute the article, by Politifact:

We haven't seen anything that justifies changing our rating of the Facebook post. But people can have legitimate differences about how to assign the spending, so we wanted to pass along some of the comments.

So, from what you say, you have no problem with your post. You cut and pasted what you wanted, and ignored the important parts of the Politifact effort. Kinda tacky from my point of view. But I guess I do not see how you think this helps your point of view. As I have said, so Politifact has said. Obama was a very small spender compared to other presidents over the past 50 -60 years. Or did I miss something???

 

[Rshermr]

Or maybe a nice picture graphic will be easier to understand.

Political Math » MarketWatch?s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic)

Wow. You do have a little lack of integrity. Clown time, dipshit.