Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

[Synthaholic]

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:




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






It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Who knew?


Check out the chart –







So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


*snip*


So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


*snip*







http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

 

[Rocko]

Bold prediction - This will be debunked

 

[bripat9643]

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:




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






It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Who knew?


Check out the chart –







So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


*snip*


So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


*snip*







http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I am really getting tired of that chart. That chart shows spending GROWTH, not total spending.

Obama is spending more than Bush, but he increased his spending less than Bush increased his from Clinton.

Now for the love of god, can liberals please stop posting that chart and saying Obama is a small spender?

 

[Brain357]

I am really getting tired of that chart. That chart shows spending GROWTH, not total spending.

Obama is spending more than Bush, but he increased his spending less than Bush increased his from Clinton.

Now for the love of god, can liberals please stop posting that chart and saying Obama is a small spender?

These numbers are one of the reasons I'm an independent now. I just don't buy that republicans are for less spending.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I will tell you that not only are the Democrats incredible spenders, but so are the Republicans. I have said this many, many times. You want to make conservatives happy? Take a red pen and start doing away with the CRAP that this government spends its money on. The Department of Education for starters. When the Republicans get into office, they are JUST AS BAD as the Democrats.

Your chart is a nonstarter. Barry and his cronies want to spend as much as they can get their hands on, but right now like Bill Clinton, he has to deal with a Republican House that (thank the Dear Lord) says NO to his insane proposals. Only, unlike Bill Clinton, Barry doesn't know how to make that into a positive.

Major FAIL...

 

[rdean]

Obama wasn't sworn in until the end of Jan, 2009. Bush last budget was in effect until nearly the end of the year. Trying to blame Obama for Bush's last budget has always been one of the biggest Republican failures. I wish they would just stop. Worse is trying to blame it on the Democratic congress. The majority wasn't that big and the Democrats have always had Blue Dog conservatives who vote Republican.

Remember, the Democratic Party has conservatives.

The Republican Party, 90% white, has zero liberals. None. Not one.

The second question is "what is Obama spending money on?"

The two wars? The Bush tax cuts he was blackmailed into extending? Nearly half of the stimulus was tax cuts. Otherwise, Republicans wouldn't have passed the bill.

 

[Synthaholic]

I am really getting tired of that chart. That chart shows spending GROWTH, not total spending.

Obama is spending more than Bush, but he increased his spending less than Bush increased his from Clinton.

Now for the love of god, can liberals please stop posting that chart and saying Obama is a small spender?

Link to evidence of that, please.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:

At least you accurately described the source.

 

[bripat9643]

Obama wasn't sworn in until the end of Jan, 2009. Bush last budget was in effect until nearly the end of the year.

No it wasn't, turd. If you had read my previous post you wouldn't have said something so stupid and obviously wrong.

The Republican Party, 90% white, has zero liberals. None. Not one.

Another obvious rdean lie.

The second question is "what is Obama spending money on?"

The two wars? The Bush tax cuts he was blackmailed into extending? Nearly half of the stimulus was tax cuts. Otherwise, Republicans wouldn't have passed the bill.

95% of Bush's budgets went to pay for Democrat social programs, but you don't see Republicans whining about that.

 

[bripat9643]

I am really getting tired of that chart. That chart shows spending GROWTH, not total spending.

Obama is spending more than Bush, but he increased his spending less than Bush increased his from Clinton.

Now for the love of god, can liberals please stop posting that chart and saying Obama is a small spender?

Link to evidence of that, please.

I just posted it, numskull, but since you have me on ignore you're immune to it.

We understand why liberals are such stupid losers: The shut their eyes whenever they are confronted with facts that contradict their comforting delusions.

 

[Avorysuds]

What policy has Obama repealed of Bush's, that makes him a "smaller" overall spender than Bush...? Because you can't do ALL the same shit as the previous President(s), then add bailouts, stimulus, more wars, expansions of wars, massive Government Healthcare and pretend somehow Obama spends less...

 

[eagle1462010]

The Census and Growth in Federal Government Employment | National Review Online

There has been some debate lately about the growth of government employment since the beginning of the recession. A recurring argument is that if there was in fact a growth in government hiring during that time, it was only because of temporary hiring for the census in 2010. This chart looks at that question by breaking down historical fluctuations in federal employment–civilians only–since 1990 (federal, because hiring for census workers happens at the federal level). Total federal employment is shown in blue; non-census federal employment is shown in red.



During census periods, federal employment fluctuates drastically, increasing during census administration and returning to previous levels at the conclusion of the census. These changes are represented above by blue peaks. Indeed, during the summer of 2010, seasonally adjusted federal employment reached 3.4 million employees, the highest level of federal employment since May 1990. However, at the conclusion of this census, federal employment returned to a higher level than before the census hiring. In fact, at the end of the 2010 census, federal employment was even higher than it had been at the beginning of the recession. Even controlling for the effects of census employment, federal employment has increased constantly throughout the recession and into today. Since January 2008, net of census hiring, the federal government has grown by 3.5 percent, gaining 98,000 jobs.

That means there is much more behind the growth in federal employment than census hiring.

What about employment in the rest of the economy? Since the beginning of the recession, state governments have added 42,000 employees to their payrolls. Local governments have cut 258,000 jobs (1.7 percent of their January 2008 workforce). Overall, total government employment has shrunk by 0.5 percent since January 2008. And the private sector has lost 7.2 million jobs, or 6 percent of its January 2008 workforce.

 

[thereisnospoon]

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:




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






It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Who knew?


Check out the chart –







So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


*snip*


So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


*snip*







http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

Yer kidding right?
You libs have been bitching and moan about GOP 'obstruction' and spending cuts. Now you turn that into a win for Obama...Umm, nice try.
Take your bullshit elsewhere.
I will suggest to the mods this moved to the romper room soon enough.

 

[eagle1462010]

It must be nice to Cherry pick data, and include local government cut backs via the Recession and say LOOK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SMALLER NOW UNDER OBAMA.................

When in fact, anyone with half a brain cell KNOWS THE FED HAS INCREASED.

Nice try with the Cherry Picking. Only problem is that the Cherry's are rotten.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:




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






It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Who knew?


Check out the chart –







So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


*snip*


So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


*snip*







http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

It's easy to manipulate data when this happens

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/307927-debt-clock-frozen.html#post7685815

 

[Edgetho]

What policy has Obama repealed of Bush's, that makes him a "smaller" overall spender than Bush...? Because you can't do ALL the same shit as the previous President(s), then add bailouts, stimulus, more wars, expansions of wars, massive Government Healthcare and pretend somehow Obama spends less...

dimocraps are lying scumbags.

What the original author was saying is that the Stuttering Clusterfukk has the lowest annual increased spending. True.

But not exactly a feat to be proud of.

Bush saved the World's Financial Sector from collapse. Bush got the money that saved Generic Motors and Chrapler (and that obama gave to the UAW). And Bush started the Stimulus, which the Stuttering Clusterfukk abused.

BTW, the money that Bush spent? It's all been paid back.

With Interest. All the money loaned to the Financial Sector? Paid back with BILLIONS in profit to the Government.

The money the Stuttering Clusterfukk Of a Piece Off A Fucking Shit spent on the Porkulus Package?

Gone forever. Remember Solyndra? Gone. All the money he gave to Public Sector Unions for their Pension Funds? Gone.

So the entire premise of the post is dishonest. Is it accurate to a degree? Yes, but it's dishonest.

It would be like saying that Harry Truman spent the least of any President because FDR was fighting WWII.

True, but absurd

But what else could you expect from a lying piece of fucking shit dimocrap

 

[GHook93]

Hey Numbnutz which party owned both Houses of Congress back then? Where spending bills and budgets get passed? Who was Speaker of the House? Who forced Clinton to sign the welfare reforms (that Obama reversed)?

Answers:m Republicans owned by the House and Senate; House of Rep; Newt Gingrich; Newt again!!!

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:




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






It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Who knew?


Check out the chart –







So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


*snip*


So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


*snip*







http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

 

[auditor0007]

From that ultra-Liberal rag, Forbes:




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






It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Who knew?


Check out the chart –







So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


*snip*


So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.


*snip*







http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

Yea, your headline is a major fail. Go ahead, neg me again. I don't give a shit. Be honest in your posts. While spending under Obama has increased at the slowest rate since Eisenhower, spending is still at its highest level since WWII. There was a brief period in the 80's when spending was almost as high as it is now, but it has been around or over 24% of GDP for most if not all of Obama's time in office.

While the economy has caused a spike in safety net spending, entitlement spending is exploding as we knew it would. And the reason for the massive yearly deficits is in great part due to a lack of revenue. In 2009 and 2010, revenue was at it's lowest levels in over 60 years.

Bottom line is that spending is at its highest levels, and revenues are near record low levels.

 

[auditor0007]

I will tell you that not only are the Democrats incredible spenders, but so are the Republicans. I have said this many, many times. You want to make conservatives happy? Take a red pen and start doing away with the CRAP that this government spends its money on. The Department of Education for starters. When the Republicans get into office, they are JUST AS BAD as the Democrats.

Your chart is a nonstarter. Barry and his cronies want to spend as much as they can get their hands on, but right now like Bill Clinton, he has to deal with a Republican House that (thank the Dear Lord) says NO to his insane proposals. Only, unlike Bill Clinton, Barry doesn't know how to make that into a positive.

Major FAIL...

There is a big difference in the economy now compared to when Clinton was in office. Spending is substantially higher due to increased spending on safety net programs due to the really bad economy plus entitlement spending is much higher now than it was under Clinton because we have more retirees. Both of these items make it much more difficult for Obama to try to follow a tightening of the belt as Clinton was able to do. It really is not a fair nor good comparison.