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

[Rshermr]

So, we have the two dueling fact checkers. Politifact says Obama is a very small spender. The Wn. Post fact checker says that is not true. So???
Here is a pretty rational look at it, written by CNN Money with the data from an ex CBO Director:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Is President Obama a big spender who has blown up the national debt?
Republicans say he is, and Democrats say he isn't. And they both use numbers and past presidents' records to make their point.

Obama's economy

Here's a look at where the economy stood when the president took office in 2009, and what's changed since.
View
Trouble is, "you can make the numbers tell you what you want if you torture them enough," said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Here's what we know about spending and deficits during the Obama administration: They started climbing sharply in late 2008, even before he took office, and have remained high since.
In fact, both spending and debt have been far above their historical norms as a percent of GDP. Revenue, meanwhile, has been treading near 60-year lows.
But those numbers alone don't fully address the question. The context matters. Among the factors to consider:
1. Obama took office when the economy was sinking: Economic conditions were seriously deteriorating at the end of the Bush administration and descended into God-awful during the first year that Obama was in office.
For fiscal year 2008, which ended on Sept. 30, 2008, the country had racked up $459 billion in deficits, or 3.2% of GDP. In September, the world's financial system imploded and the U.S. economy's decline accelerated.
Related: Obama's tax record
The country racked up $563 billion in deficits in the first four months of fiscal year 2009 alone. Bush was president for three and a half of those months.
For the whole of 2009, the deficit clocked in at $1.43 trillion, or 10.1% of GDP. The story improved only slightly for 2010.
Those eye-popping numbers arose in large part because Congress passed the $700 billion TARP bank bailout in October 2008 under Bush and then the $787 billion Recovery Act in February 2009 under Obama.
Safety-net spending on unemployment benefits, Medicare and Medicaid rose during that time. Tax revenue plummeted.
"It was entirely appropriate to increase spending in the recession," Penner said.
And since that kind of recession spending is intended to end, he added, "it doesn't tell you much about the long-term spending growth pattern for either [Bush or Obama]."
What's more, the fact that safety-net spending automatically rose during economic distress was to be expected no matter who sat in the Oval Office.
2. Tax cuts played a role in digging the fiscal hole: The story gets more complicated in fiscal year 2011. The economy was in the midst of a slow recovery and the deficit topped $1 trillion for the third year in a row.
While Republicans often blame the outsized deficits under Obama on spending, a key reason the 2011 deficit was so high was tax cuts.
Obama and the Republicans cut an $858 billion tax compromise that extended the Bush tax cuts for two years. It also enacted a one-year Social Security tax holiday and reduced the estate tax.
All told, the tax cut compromise added about $410 billion to the 2011 deficit, the CBO estimated.
3. When it comes to fiscal policy, no president is an island: That tax cut deal raises another factor to consider when judging Obama's spending record.
Congress and prior presidents have a big say in determining the budget policies of a sitting president.
For example, Obama walked into large increases in defense spending and veterans' health care because of the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And no president has control over the interest spending required on debt that accrued over the country's history. Because of the outsized growth in debt during the past few years, this is an issue that will be a big one for future presidents.
"Assigning blame or credit to presidents ignores the fact that they must work with an entire Congress to pass legislation. [And] their budget can be significantly affected by the decisions of previous Congresses and presidents," the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted recently.
4. Obama's future plans might be more telling: Given the economic circumstances Obama walked into, a better view on the question of whether he's a big spender may be in his 2013 budget proposal, Penner said.
Under Obama's 2013 proposal, spending as a percent of the economy would average 22.5% over the next decade, below where it's been in the past few years but above the historical average of 20.8%, according to the CBO.
Mandatory spending on entitlements would average 14.2% over the next decade, up from 13.5% today.
That increase is partly due to demographics.
"You can't blame Obama for the population aging," said Donald Marron, a former acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. The surge of baby boomer retirements is going to increase entitlement spending regardless of who is president.
And partly it's due to health reform -- Obama's signature piece of legislation.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act permanently increases entitlement spending because of a new insurance subsidy. But overall, it's estimated that health reform will reduce deficits modestly -- in the first decade -- because of cost-reducing measures and tax hikes.

Meanwhile, so-called discretionary spending under Obama's budget -- the money that goes to many of the government's most basic programs including defense -- would fall to the lowest level of GDP in 50 years, the CBO said.
That's in part because of spending controls put in place under the Budget Control Act, which Republicans pushed hard for.
So is Obama a big spender or not?
The political answer will always be yes for Republicans and no for Democrats. For independent budget experts, the political debate is not productive at a time when policymakers face truly pressing fiscal decisions.
Indeed, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted: "[T]he blame game is much less important than trying to find a bipartisan solution to our budget problems."

Net, net, if you look at what he was up against and get your head out of either Con bat shit crazy web sites, or loony liberal sites, he has done a pretty good job considering what he has had to work with.

 

[tooAlive]

I love it.

When ever I post something you can't refute, you resort to name-calling and discredit the information.

I think it's clear for everyone to see that your premise is only found to be valid when information is cherry-picked to make Obama look good. Which is quite funny considering you talk so much about integrity.

 

[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.

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?

Well. So, tell me, since you say Carter had the worst economy since the geat depression, perhaps you have some proof??? Or are you suggesting that we should honor your opinion. Was it the UE rate??? No, the actual worst UE Rate after the great depression was under reagan, in late 1982. What was it, my poor economic clown.

And, apparently you have not heard of Fillibusters. And the record number of them during this presidents term. Huge record, me boy. I suspect that they do not talk about those record fillibusters much where you get your information.

MSNBC??? No, me boy. Never.

Perhaps, if you can find a clear plastic navel, you can see what is going on around you, with your head up your ass. If you ever get any actual facts to posts, let us know.

 

[Caroljo]

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 then all this IS Obama's fault....why isn't he doing something about jobs so that "income" to the Govt grows? Hell, he didn't even talk about jobs in his "look how great i am" speech on Monday.

And the only reason spending was down so much the last 4 yrs is because 3 years of it was controlled by a republican congress and they did just what we put them in to do...STOP THE SPENDING.

 

[Rshermr]

I love it.

When ever I post something you can't refute, you resort to name-calling and discredit the information.

I think it's clear for everyone to see that your premise is only found to be valid when information is cherry-picked to make Obama look good. Which is quite funny considering you talk so much about integrity.

So, TooAlive, I looked at your tag line, and see a quote from that interesting economic proffessor, Thomas Sowell. The self admitted Libertarian. The guy who has been closely involved with the Koch Brothers. And closely aligned with the famous Libertarian think tank, CATO. The current day Birch Society.
So, it is hard to take you seriously. You are, I suspect, a cato con tool. there are a number. Though I have not seen you admit it, perhaps you do.

And no, me boy, I do not cherry pick data. I used no left wing sites, unlike you. So, you lecture ME??? Sorry, it just does not pass the giggle test.

So, you are really, really obviously agenda driven, tooalive. Anyone reading your posts recognizes that. And you believe I am prejudiced??? Sorry, I would be EMBARRASSED to use the type of sites you use. So, don't try to lecture me. As far as I can see, you are the embodiment of an economic wasteland wrapped in conservative agenda. And a potential Libertarian, to boot.

 

[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??

So then all this IS Obama's fault....why isn't he doing something about jobs so that "income" to the Govt grows? Hell, he didn't even talk about jobs in his "look how great i am" speech on Monday.

And the only reason spending was down so much the last 4 yrs is because 3 years of it was controlled by a republican congress and they did just what we put them in to do...STOP THE SPENDING.

I see. So you admit that the deficit was the fault of Repubs. It must feel free to come clean.

 

[S.J.]

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?

Well. So, tell me, since you say Carter had the worst economy since the geat depression, perhaps you have some proof??? Or are you suggesting that we should honor your opinion. Was it the UE rate??? No, the actual worst UE Rate after the great depression was under reagan, in late 1982. What was it, my poor economic clown.

And, apparently you have not heard of Fillibusters. And the record number of them during this presidents term. Huge record, me boy. I suspect that they do not talk about those record fillibusters much where you get your information.

MSNBC??? No, me boy. Never.

Perhaps, if you can find a clear plastic navel, you can see what is going on around you, with your head up your ass. If you ever get any actual facts to posts, let us know.

Pretty funny stuff there, coming from somebody who doesn't have a clue about the makeup of the Senate. Hmm, not MSNBC? Don't tell me, I wanna guess. BET?

 

[Flopper]

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.

The data source is the OBM. Forbes also reports that Obama is the smallest spender since Eisenhower.

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

 

[Flopper]

The following is from Marketwatch which is owned by Dow Jones, who is certainly not know for left wing propaganda.

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s Obama spending binge never happened

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

 

[S.J.]

Sure, no spending problem. That's why we've had 4 consecutive years of trillion plus deficits.

 

[Oddball]

The following is from Marketwatch which is owned by Dow Jones, who is certainly not know for left wing propaganda.

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s Obama spending binge never happened

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Since the baselines were jacked up in 2009, that piece of shit is an outright lie.

 

[Rshermr]

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?

Well. So, tell me, since you say Carter had the worst economy since the geat depression, perhaps you have some proof??? Or are you suggesting that we should honor your opinion. Was it the UE rate??? No, the actual worst UE Rate after the great depression was under reagan, in late 1982. What was it, my poor economic clown.

And, apparently you have not heard of Fillibusters. And the record number of them during this presidents term. Huge record, me boy. I suspect that they do not talk about those record fillibusters much where you get your information.

MSNBC??? No, me boy. Never.

Perhaps, if you can find a clear plastic navel, you can see what is going on around you, with your head up your ass. If you ever get any actual facts to posts, let us know.

Pretty funny stuff there, coming from somebody who doesn't have a clue about the makeup of the Senate. Hmm, not MSNBC? Don't tell me, I wanna guess. BET?

So, you can not find any support for Carter having the worst economy since the great depression?? You apparently just said it, without any support for what you said at all?? Why are you avoiding backing up your own accusation, me boy??

And perhaps you would like to back up your statement that I have no understanding of the makeup of the Senate. Another opinion?? All I said was there were record Fillibusters. Want Proof?? No problem if you want it. Pretty much everyone knows it is true.

So, do you have any facts at all, or just your opinion. Because you know how much I value your opinion. And it looks to me like that is all you have.

 

[Rshermr]

Sure, no spending problem. That's why we've had 4 consecutive years of trillion plus deficits.

Yes, i understand. You do not want any details. Just the good old con point of view. And PLEASE do not try to tell this poor ignorant con what makes up a deficit. Way too confusing. Just give him the good old con dogma. No need to actually think. thinking hurts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The following is from Marketwatch which is owned by Dow Jones, who is certainly not know for left wing propaganda.

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s Obama spending binge never happened

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

The Annual trillion deficits say that article is a lie

 

[Rshermr]

The following is from Marketwatch which is owned by Dow Jones, who is certainly not know for left wing propaganda.

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s Obama spending binge never happened

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

The Annual trillion deficits say that article is a lie

Only, me boy, if you do not read the article. Which of course, you will not. Is ignorance bliss??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure, no spending problem. That's why we've had 4 consecutive years of trillion plus deficits.

Yes, i understand. You do not want any details. Just the good old con point of view. And PLEASE do not try to tell this poor ignorant con what makes up a deficit. Way too confusing. Just give him the good old con dogma. No need to actually think. thinking hurts.

Overspending and Obama's set the all time record

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The following is from Marketwatch which is owned by Dow Jones, who is certainly not know for left wing propaganda.

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s Obama spending binge never happened

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

The Annual trillion deficits say that article is a lie

Only, me boy, if you do not read the article. Which of course, you will not. Is ignorance bliss??

I read it, I read Rex Nutting, it was a waste of electrons

 

[S.J.]

Well. So, tell me, since you say Carter had the worst economy since the geat depression, perhaps you have some proof??? Or are you suggesting that we should honor your opinion. Was it the UE rate??? No, the actual worst UE Rate after the great depression was under reagan, in late 1982. What was it, my poor economic clown.

And, apparently you have not heard of Fillibusters. And the record number of them during this presidents term. Huge record, me boy. I suspect that they do not talk about those record fillibusters much where you get your information.

MSNBC??? No, me boy. Never.

Perhaps, if you can find a clear plastic navel, you can see what is going on around you, with your head up your ass. If you ever get any actual facts to posts, let us know.

Pretty funny stuff there, coming from somebody who doesn't have a clue about the makeup of the Senate. Hmm, not MSNBC? Don't tell me, I wanna guess. BET?

So, you can not find any support for Carter having the worst economy since the great depression?? You apparently just said it, without any support for what you said at all?? Why are you avoiding backing up your own accusation, me boy??

And perhaps you would like to back up your statement that I have no understanding of the makeup of the Senate. Another opinion?? All I said was there were record Fillibusters. Want Proof?? No problem if you want it. Pretty much everyone knows it is true.

So, do you have any facts at all, or just your opinion. Because you know how much I value your opinion. And it looks to me like that is all you have.

Look up "misery index". Do your own research on Carter. I won't spend time doing it for you, not when you're so ignorant you don't even know the makeup of the Senate.

 

[Stephanie]

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

how many times you people plan on posting this same bullshit?

 

[TruthOut10]

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.

Truth be told, Forbes is very right leaning. Doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion and their creditability has tanked over the years.