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

[Stephanie]

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.

and thinkprogess is what? something we are all suppose to see it AS THE TRUTH..they put pravda to shame

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Forbes has several Lefties that scrawl for them

 

[asterism]

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????

When has a CBO projection ever come true?

 

[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????

When has a CBO projection ever come true?

So, what is your alternative. Got a better one. Or do you just not like their conclusion.

 

[asterism]

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????

When has a CBO projection ever come true?

So, what is your alternative. Got a better one. Or do you just not like their conclusion.

Their conclusion is moot. The CBO has never gotten any predictions correct so using their prediction to bolster your point is foolish.

 

[Rshermr]

When has a CBO projection ever come true?

So, what is your alternative. Got a better one. Or do you just not like their conclusion.

Their conclusion is moot. The CBO has never gotten any predictions correct so using their prediction to bolster your point is foolish.

Right. So you can not say what source you would use. Because you are ignorant. By the way, even repubs laud the CBO. Only con tools who are totally ignorant berate it. Guess that says where you fit. Dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But in fact, the future, as seen by most economists, is quite good.

when has socialism ever been good?? France has the per capita income of Arkansas?? Cuba is dead poor. USSR and Red China slowly starved 125 million to death under socialism?? China and Israel instantly got rich when they switched to Republican capitalism.



Overview: Federal Debt and the Fiscal Outlook

"GAO's federal simulations show that absent policy changes, the federal government faces a rapid and unsustainable growth in debt. Simulations of the state and local government sector show that not only the federal government faces fiscal challenges that will have a profound effect on government over the coming decades. A growing imbalance between revenue and spending is driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging population, which in turn will lead to a rapid increase in spending on retirement and health programs.

In light of these challenges, GAO works to provide Congress and the public with updated analysis on the fiscal outlook for the federal government and for the state and local government sector and with answers to key questions about federal debt.

Significant actions to change the long-term fiscal path must be taken and the design of these actions should take into account concerns about the near-term impact on economic growth. In the near term, for example, the Baseline Extended simulation reflects a number of fiscal policy changes contained in current law that are projected to sharply reduce spending and raise revenue from their current levels beginning in 2013. CBO, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, and others project that such drastic fiscal tightening--commonly referred to as the "fiscal cliff"--could disrupt economic growth. In the Alternative simulation, historcial trends and past policy preferences are assumed to continue; revenue is lower and spending is higher than in the Baseline Extended simulation. While CBO projects that continuation of such polices would prevent disruptions to the economy in the very near term, it would lead to higher debt over the long term."

 

[Rshermr]

Their conclusion is moot. The CBO has never gotten any predictions correct so using their prediction to bolster your point is foolish.

Right. So you can not say what source you would use. Because you are ignorant. By the way, even repubs laud the CBO. Only con tools who are totally ignorant berate it. Guess that says where you fit. Dipshit.

there are so many sources around:

Overview: Federal Debt and the Fiscal Outlook

"GAO's federal simulations show that absent policy changes, the federal government faces a rapid and unsustainable growth in debt. Simulations of the state and local government sector show that not only the federal government faces fiscal challenges that will have a profound effect on government over the coming decades. A growing imbalance between revenue and spending is driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging population, which in turn will lead to a rapid increase in spending on retirement and health programs.

In light of these challenges, GAO works to provide Congress and the public with updated analysis on the fiscal outlook for the federal government and for the state and local government sector and with answers to key questions about federal debt."

thanks for another profound post, ed. Good to see you still know how to cut and paste.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Right. So you can not say what source you would use. Because you are ignorant. By the way, even repubs laud the CBO. Only con tools who are totally ignorant berate it. Guess that says where you fit. Dipshit.

there are so many sources around:

Overview: Federal Debt and the Fiscal Outlook

"GAO's federal simulations show that absent policy changes, the federal government faces a rapid and unsustainable growth in debt. Simulations of the state and local government sector show that not only the federal government faces fiscal challenges that will have a profound effect on government over the coming decades. A growing imbalance between revenue and spending is driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging population, which in turn will lead to a rapid increase in spending on retirement and health programs.

In light of these challenges, GAO works to provide Congress and the public with updated analysis on the fiscal outlook for the federal government and for the state and local government sector and with answers to key questions about federal debt."

thanks for another profound post, ed. Good to see you still know how to cut and paste.

"But in fact, the future, as seen by most economists, is quite good", just not those at the GAO I guess!!

See why we say slow, so very very slow??

 

[asterism]

So, what is your alternative. Got a better one. Or do you just not like their conclusion.

Their conclusion is moot. The CBO has never gotten any predictions correct so using their prediction to bolster your point is foolish.

Right. So you can not say what source you would use. Because you are ignorant. By the way, even repubs laud the CBO. Only con tools who are totally ignorant berate it. Guess that says where you fit. Dipshit.

Anyone who relies on the CBO prediction is either a fool or has an agenda. They are certainly not interested in a reliable prediction since the CBO has never had a single prediction come true.

 

[Rshermr]

Their conclusion is moot. The CBO has never gotten any predictions correct so using their prediction to bolster your point is foolish.

Right. So you can not say what source you would use. Because you are ignorant. By the way, even repubs laud the CBO. Only con tools who are totally ignorant berate it. Guess that says where you fit. Dipshit.

Anyone who relies on the CBO prediction is either a fool or has an agenda. They are certainly not interested in a reliable prediction since the CBO has never had a single prediction come true.

And your proof is???

I know. You keep it up your ass, so it is hard to produce. Funny. bashing the cbo. Really shows who you are. Only use those bat shit crazy con web sights, eh, aster. What a mental giant.

 

[asterism]

Right. So you can not say what source you would use. Because you are ignorant. By the way, even repubs laud the CBO. Only con tools who are totally ignorant berate it. Guess that says where you fit. Dipshit.

Anyone who relies on the CBO prediction is either a fool or has an agenda. They are certainly not interested in a reliable prediction since the CBO has never had a single prediction come true.

And your proof is???

I know. You keep it up your ass, so it is hard to produce. Funny. bashing the cbo. Really shows who you are. Only use those bat shit crazy con web sights, eh, aster. What a mental giant.

Baseless lies and derogatory comments about me don't change the facts.

In 2002, CBO predicted 2012 US debt would be 7.4% of GDP. In reality, it was almost 74% of GDP | AEIdeas

True deficit hawks would be worried with jobs and recovery first | Economic Policy Institute

Here's a summary of the CBO Budget Prediction history:

from http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/12/01/21-40Kliesen.pdf

 

[asterism]

One more:

CBO Forecast Accuracy | Cato @ Liberty

Looks like the CBO came close a few times, I stand corrected.

 

[Rshermr]

One more:

CBO Forecast Accuracy | Cato @ Liberty

Looks like the CBO came close a few times, I stand corrected.

I knew it. there is your source. A bat shit crazy con tool web site. A Libertarian site at that. So, there you go. You would take CATO over the CBO. Which makes it official You are indeed a con tool. Maybe even a libertarian. but then you would not admit that. Few are stupid enough to admit they are libertarians.

 

[asterism]

One more:

CBO Forecast Accuracy | Cato @ Liberty

Looks like the CBO came close a few times, I stand corrected.

I knew it. there is your source. A bat shit crazy con tool web site. A Libertarian site at that. So, there you go. You would take CATO over the CBO. Which makes it official You are indeed a con tool. Maybe even a libertarian. but then you would not admit that. Few are stupid enough to admit they are libertarians.

So you're saying the data is inaccurate? What's the correct data then?

Did you see the other references I posted?

 

[tjvh]

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

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

I just laugh how every couple of months you dumb asses trot this out when it has been debunked over and over and over.

We've added over $5 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. That is the same amount Bush added, but in half the time.

When our economy eventually collapses under the weight of our debt maybe you morons will finally figure out the follies of your ways, though I'm not holding my breath.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

I just laugh how every couple of months you dumb asses trot this out when it has been debunked over and over and over.

We've added over $5 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. That is the same amount Bush added, but in half the time.

When our economy eventually collapses under the weight of our debt maybe you morons will finally figure out the follies of your ways, though I'm not holding my breath.

please don't hold your breath. FDR presided over a 10 year depression with idiotic socialist policies that led to world war, and yet libturds made him their greatest hero!!

 

[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.

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.

Thomas Sowell was originally a hard-core Marxist. That was until he grew up.

And once again, if all you can do is bad-mouth the source of the information without actually disputing anything, you really don't have much of an argument.

I've already debunked your claim with numerous sources. You don't want to hear any of it, so I think it's very clear who has the political agenda here. Have a good one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And once again, if all you can do is bad-mouth the source of the information without actually disputing anything, you really don't have much of an argument.

He's a liberal, he can't dispute anything except trivia.

I have asked him 33 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and he has always been very afraid to even try??