President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

[HomeInspect]

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

 

[SniperFire]

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since we know for a fact that more was spent under Bush than has been spent under Obama,

why would you people keep saying that Obama has spent more than Bush did?

Well, I'd have preferred an honest answer,

but getting them to shut up is a decent consolation prize.

 

[Stephanie]

Since we know for a fact that more was spent under Bush than has been spent under Obama,

why would you people keep saying that Obama has spent more than Bush did?

Well, I'd have preferred an honest answer,

but getting them to shut up is a decent consolation prize.

man oh man..

 

[Polk]

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Oops.

you really don't care if you're honest, do you?

That chart was completely honest.

 

[Polk]

1. Bush's FY 2009 budget proposal called for 3.1 trillion in spending.

2. Revenues for FY 2009 were 2.1 trillion.

3. Obama inherited a 1 trillion dollar deficit from Bush based on Bush's OWN budget.

And even though numbers were cooked by counting the "doc fix" and the wars as "emergency" spending. As if we didn't know we were fighting two wars and were going to pay doctors.

 

[paulitician]

Well it isn't his Money right? Democrats never have a problem spending someone else's Money. Obamabot dipshits are probably applauding this.

 

[Douger]

Father please forgive him.
He B nigga rich.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Oops.

you really don't care if you're honest, do you?

That chart was completely honest.

Sure if you accept the false underlying assumptions

 

[Neotrotsky]

US News
the evil right wing cabal



President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents- Updates

Gave three Pinocchios- it really should have been more

Update, Friday, 5:19 p.m.:

Some readers have pointed out that although Obama passed the stimulus plan, federal spending under his administration has risen at a very slow pace -- the slowest pace, in fact, "since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950's," Marketwatch reported last month.

Update, Monday, 9:47 a.m.:

The Washington Post's FactChecker, however, gave the Marketwatch article "3 pinocchios" for its veracity, writing: "We are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of numbers -- numbers that are easily manipulated." Factchecker points out some of the methodological issues in Marketwatch's analysis.

Another player in the evil right wing cabal

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.”

(even the AP is part of the evil right wing cabal)


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


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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


The desperation on the left would be more amusing
if it was not so pathetic

 

[Polk]

you really don't care if you're honest, do you?

That chart was completely honest.

Sure if you accept the false underlying assumptions

I'll bite. What's the false assumption underlying the chart?

 

[Polk]

US News
the evil right wing cabal



President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents- Updates

Gave three Pinocchios- it really should have been more

Update, Friday, 5:19 p.m.:

Some readers have pointed out that although Obama passed the stimulus plan, federal spending under his administration has risen at a very slow pace -- the slowest pace, in fact, "since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950's," Marketwatch reported last month.

Update, Monday, 9:47 a.m.:

The Washington Post's FactChecker, however, gave the Marketwatch article "3 pinocchios" for its veracity, writing: "We are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of numbers -- numbers that are easily manipulated." Factchecker points out some of the methodological issues in Marketwatch's analysis.

Another player in the evil right wing cabal

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.”

(even the AP is part of the evil right wing cabal)


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


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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


The desperation on the left would be more amusing
if it was not so pathetic

I love how they take the biggest issue and turn it into a throw-away line that's half a sentence long (re: consequence of the recession). The idea that we have a "sustained higher level of spending" is bogus. Virtually all of the "rapid increase" in spending is part of the recession. A decline in GDP results in a higher ratio of government spending to the total size of the economy, even holding government spending constant. Government spending has increased, because when you're in a recession, more people are out of work. That means more unemployment insurance, more food stamps, and more Medicaid. That's a feature of our system, not a bug.

 

[paulitician]

Dems love spending other peoples' Money. It's just what they do. It is very sad but it is what it is. Get out and vote in November.

 

[Neotrotsky]

When the Washington Post gives
the liberals

You know it is bad for the left

 

[HomeInspect]

Let's face it.... the Democrat party used to be for the working people, now it's the party for those that don't want to work