Why the claims Obama hasn't dramatically increased spending are dishonest

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 12:33 AM GMT
    People seem to have forgotten Bush's stimulus bill in 2008 which was supposed to be one year. So yeah, the increased spending is minimal from the year after except the spending during the spike was supposed to be temporary - he's instead kept the level and grown it.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-obama-spending-binge

    Nutting’s evidence consists of the a chart showing that the annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is 1.4 percent, compared with 7.3 percent from 2002-2005 during George Bush’s first term and 8.1 percent from 2006-2009 during Bush’s second term.

    Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s historical spending data. That’s a steep enough rise. But it’s nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.

    But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.


    So even if you absolve Obama of responsibility for the initial growth spike, he still presided over unprecedented spending that was out of line with the existing growth trend. Obama’s average spending is far higher than under Bush or Clinton on both adjusted dollar levels and as a percentage of the economy. James Pethokoukis of The American Enterprise Institute has a handy graphic comparing annual Obama’s spending as a percentage of the economy to George W. Bush’s average spending as a percentage of GDP:

    Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:02 AM GMT
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/numbers-dont-lie-but-democrats-do/

    And a related topic.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/under-obama-30-worst-months-employment-past-25-years_645771.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIt doesn't matter - the liberal hens can't comprehend numbers. (Neither can liberal fish).

    If you told them Obama can walk on water, they would truly believe it.

    catfish.jpg


    "Fuzzy math" is not a forte of the progressive mind
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIt doesn't matter - the liberal hens can't comprehend numbers. (Neither can liberal fish).

    Lacking Facts and Logic, Democrats Manipulate Emotions
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/lacking_facts_and_logic_democrats_manipulate_emotions.html

    Two excerpts:

    Let us start with a simple premise: It is one thing to emote to an ideology, yet it is quite another to live out its reality. Generally, liberals tend to rely upon emotion to push their agenda, while conservatives tend to rely more on pragmatism. Raising the minimum wage to theoretically provide a "living wage" to the poor sounds good, but the reality has generally been higher unemployment of the lower-wage-earners.
    .....
    The president's re-election strategy is another example. Normally, an incumbent seeks re-election based upon his record and accomplishments. Not this time, apparently. Instead, the focus is to tap into people's emotions by trying to portray Gov. Romney as a cold-hearted businessman who enjoys firing people. The ads to this effect have thus far been based upon the emotional outpourings from former workers at one particular steel plant who lost their jobs under Bain Capital management when the steel plant went bankrupt. The reality is that Gov. Romney left Bain to oversee the Olympics two years before the bankruptcy in question; further, the facts are clear that Bain, under Romney, invested private funds in other steel companies that have thrived, even to this day. Even some liberals have come out in defense of Bain and private equity firms in general. Bain Capital's function was to make money for its investors and shareholders, not specifically to create jobs, and overall, the people at Bain did a good job of both. As in the private sector, there are sometimes companies and positions that just are not economically feasible to retain, and the same is likely very true of our bloated federal government. If Romney were president, the people would in effect be his investors and shareholders, and he should look at the government structure the same way. Upon which portrayal should voters view Romney: one based on limited emotional outpourings or a more complete, realistic review of the bigger picture?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:36 AM GMT
    That is the dumbest piece ever published at Reason. And that's saying something given the idiocy that Nick Gillespie said on Melissa Harris Perry last weekend.

    Even if we accept their central premise, such as it is, it still doesn't bring Obama anywhere near the rate of increase under the sainted Reagan.

    And it doesn't explain Bush's spending binge, which increased significantly year over year before any stimulus or bailouts. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    southbeach1500 saidIt doesn't matter - the liberal hens can't comprehend numbers. (Neither can liberal fish).

    Lacking Facts and Logic, Democrats Manipulate Emotions
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/lacking_facts_and_logic_democrats_manipulate_emotions.html

    Two excerpts:

    Let us start with a simple premise: It is one thing to emote to an ideology, yet it is quite another to live out its reality. Generally, liberals tend to rely upon emotion to push their agenda, while conservatives tend to rely more on pragmatism. Raising the minimum wage to theoretically provide a "living wage" to the poor sounds good, but the reality has generally been higher unemployment of the lower-wage-earners.
    .....
    The president's re-election strategy is another example. Normally, an incumbent seeks re-election based upon his record and accomplishments. Not this time, apparently. Instead, the focus is to tap into people's emotions by trying to portray Gov. Romney as a cold-hearted businessman who enjoys firing people. The ads to this effect have thus far been based upon the emotional outpourings from former workers at one particular steel plant who lost their jobs under Bain Capital management when the steel plant went bankrupt. The reality is that Gov. Romney left Bain to oversee the Olympics two years before the bankruptcy in question; further, the facts are clear that Bain, under Romney, invested private funds in other steel companies that have thrived, even to this day. Even some liberals have come out in defense of Bain and private equity firms in general. Bain Capital's function was to make money for its investors and shareholders, not specifically to create jobs, and overall, the people at Bain did a good job of both. As in the private sector, there are sometimes companies and positions that just are not economically feasible to retain, and the same is likely very true of our bloated federal government. If Romney were president, the people would in effect be his investors and shareholders, and he should look at the government structure the same way. Upon which portrayal should voters view Romney: one based on limited emotional outpourings or a more complete, realistic review of the bigger picture?


    To paraphrase Linda from "Coffee Talk": "American Thinker: It's anti-American. It's not thinking. Discuss."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:39 AM GMT
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:50 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThat is the dumbest piece ever published at Reason. And that's saying something given the idiocy that Nick Gillespie said on Melissa Harris Perry last weekend.

    Even if we accept their central premise, such as it is, it still doesn't bring Obama anywhere near the rate of increase under the sainted Reagan.

    And it doesn't explain Bush's spending binge, which increased significantly year over year before any stimulus or bailouts. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You're right - that Bush increased spending particularly in his last year in implementing the stimulus. But this hardly makes it dumb - it's simply inconsistent with how you want to frame the story. Too bad no one really believes your drivel even as much as they might want to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 1:56 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThat is the dumbest piece ever published at Reason. And that's saying something given the idiocy that Nick Gillespie said on Melissa Harris Perry last weekend.

    Even if we accept their central premise, such as it is, it still doesn't bring Obama anywhere near the rate of increase under the sainted Reagan.

    And it doesn't explain Bush's spending binge, which increased significantly year over year before any stimulus or bailouts. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You're right - that Bush increased spending particularly in his last year in implementing the stimulus. But this hardly makes it dumb - it's simply inconsistent with how you want to frame the story. Too bad no one really believes your drivel even as much as they might want to.


    It's not about "framing". It's about reality. Even Bush the Lesser did't blow up the budget the way Reagan did:

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uu

    The entire piece from Reason is a strawman argument selectively pulling out only the years they wish to talk about and not looking at the pattern of Republican president exploding the budget, they same way their blow up the deficit. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 2:33 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThat is the dumbest piece ever published at Reason. And that's saying something given the idiocy that Nick Gillespie said on Melissa Harris Perry last weekend.

    Even if we accept their central premise, such as it is, it still doesn't bring Obama anywhere near the rate of increase under the sainted Reagan.

    And it doesn't explain Bush's spending binge, which increased significantly year over year before any stimulus or bailouts. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You're right - that Bush increased spending particularly in his last year in implementing the stimulus. But this hardly makes it dumb - it's simply inconsistent with how you want to frame the story. Too bad no one really believes your drivel even as much as they might want to.


    It's not about "framing". It's about reality. Even Bush the Lesser did't blow up the budget the way Reagan did:

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uu

    The entire piece from Reason is a strawman argument selectively pulling out only the years they wish to talk about and not looking at the pattern of Republican president exploding the budget, they same way their blow up the deficit. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Again, the graph you show is ridiculous when you factor in the high water mark in Bush's last year because of stimulus which was supposed to be temporary but where the Obama Administration sustained the level of spending. I'm sorry you can't do the math.

    Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 2:49 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThat is the dumbest piece ever published at Reason. And that's saying something given the idiocy that Nick Gillespie said on Melissa Harris Perry last weekend.

    Even if we accept their central premise, such as it is, it still doesn't bring Obama anywhere near the rate of increase under the sainted Reagan.

    And it doesn't explain Bush's spending binge, which increased significantly year over year before any stimulus or bailouts. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You're right - that Bush increased spending particularly in his last year in implementing the stimulus. But this hardly makes it dumb - it's simply inconsistent with how you want to frame the story. Too bad no one really believes your drivel even as much as they might want to.


    It's not about "framing". It's about reality. Even Bush the Lesser did't blow up the budget the way Reagan did:

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uu

    The entire piece from Reason is a strawman argument selectively pulling out only the years they wish to talk about and nojavascript:void(0);t looking at the pattern of Republican president exploding the budget, they same way their blow up the deficit. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Again, the graph you show is ridiculous when you factor in the high water mark in Bush's last year because of stimulus which was supposed to be temporary but where the Obama Administration sustained the level of spending. I'm sorry you can't do the math.

    Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550


    That's bullshit and you know it.

    Bush increased spending significantly year over year well before the stimulus and bailouts. So much so that the jump from 2007 to 2008 wasn't great. And a big percentage of the jump from 2008 - 2009 was the result of
    Bush policies, not Obama's.

    MW-AR657_federa_20120521151828_ME.jpg?uu
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 2:54 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThat is the dumbest piece ever published at Reason. And that's saying something given the idiocy that Nick Gillespie said on Melissa Harris Perry last weekend.

    Even if we accept their central premise, such as it is, it still doesn't bring Obama anywhere near the rate of increase under the sainted Reagan.

    And it doesn't explain Bush's spending binge, which increased significantly year over year before any stimulus or bailouts. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You're right - that Bush increased spending particularly in his last year in implementing the stimulus. But this hardly makes it dumb - it's simply inconsistent with how you want to frame the story. Too bad no one really believes your drivel even as much as they might want to.


    It's not about "framing". It's about reality. Even Bush the Lesser did't blow up the budget the way Reagan did:

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uu

    The entire piece from Reason is a strawman argument selectively pulling out only the years they wish to talk about and nojavascript:void(0);t looking at the pattern of Republican president exploding the budget, they same way their blow up the deficit. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Again, the graph you show is ridiculous when you factor in the high water mark in Bush's last year because of stimulus which was supposed to be temporary but where the Obama Administration sustained the level of spending. I'm sorry you can't do the math.

    Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550


    That's bullshit and you know it.

    Bush increased spending significantly year over year well before the stimulus and bailouts. So much so that the jump from 2007 to 2008 wasn't great. And a big percentage of the jump from 2008 - 2009 was the result of
    Bush policies, not Obama's.

    MW-AR657_federa_20120521151828_ME.jpg?uu


    Bullshit? Your OWN GRAPH shows how dramatically spending increased in the last year of the Bush Administration. So yes, while the increase isn't significant in subsequent years, he turned temporary spending into permanent spending. I've never denied that Bush has been a big spender - but as the Reason article points out, it is Obama that has sustained what was an unusual level of spending in temporary stimulus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 3:55 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidBullshit? Your OWN GRAPH shows how dramatically spending increased in the last year of the Bush Administration. So yes, while the increase isn't significant in subsequent years, he turned temporary spending into permanent spending. I've never denied that Bush has been a big spender - but as the Reason article points out, it is Obama that has sustained what was an unusual level of spending in temporary stimulus.


    Bush's first budget was $2.0 trillion and his last before any stimulus or bailouts was $2.9 trillion. So Bush grew the budget by almost 50% before any stimulus or bailouts. His last budget which covers the financial crisis was $3.1 trillion.

    And let's also remember that Bush grew this budget while having a Republican Congress for 6 years and while cutting taxes.

    And Romney's policies, unlike Obama's, do not address the deficit but rather explode it.

    So which party is fiscally conservative? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 4:13 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidBullshit? Your OWN GRAPH shows how dramatically spending increased in the last year of the Bush Administration. So yes, while the increase isn't significant in subsequent years, he turned temporary spending into permanent spending. I've never denied that Bush has been a big spender - but as the Reason article points out, it is Obama that has sustained what was an unusual level of spending in temporary stimulus.


    Bush's first budget was $2.0 trillion and his last before any stimulus or bailouts was $2.9 trillion. So Bush grew the budget by almost 50% before any stimulus or bailouts. His last budget which covers the financial crisis was $3.1 trillion.

    And let's also remember that Bush grew this budget while having a Republican Congress for 6 years and while cutting taxes.

    And Romney's policies, unlike Obama's, do not address the deficit but rather explode it.

    So which party is fiscally conservative? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You claim that the Democrats are more fiscally conservative but in actual dollars and as a percentage of GDP Obama has been spending substantially more. How do you square that peg? The only thing that they've done is played with the numbers such that the percentage increases look smaller when the reality is that they are spending far more and adding far more to the national debt under their watch.

    Both parties are responsible but to suggest that somehow because the rate of increase hasn't accelerated and instead of flatlined at an extraordinarily high and what was supposed to be a temporary number is ridiculous and is entirely unreasonable.

    You've become just another partisan - it's kind of funny how that has shifted over the years. I have consistently stated that I think Bush's domestic spending increases have been wrong and consistently pointed out the problems with respect to entitlement spending. Your response is to ignore and act as if these aren't problems unless the Obama Administration or a democrat says they are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 4:55 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidBullshit? Your OWN GRAPH shows how dramatically spending increased in the last year of the Bush Administration. So yes, while the increase isn't significant in subsequent years, he turned temporary spending into permanent spending. I've never denied that Bush has been a big spender - but as the Reason article points out, it is Obama that has sustained what was an unusual level of spending in temporary stimulus.


    Bush's first budget was $2.0 trillion and his last before any stimulus or bailouts was $2.9 trillion. So Bush grew the budget by almost 50% before any stimulus or bailouts. His last budget which covers the financial crisis was $3.1 trillion.

    And let's also remember that Bush grew this budget while having a Republican Congress for 6 years and while cutting taxes.

    And Romney's policies, unlike Obama's, do not address the deficit but rather explode it.

    So which party is fiscally conservative? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You claim that the Democrats are more fiscally conservative but in actual dollars and as a percentage of GDP Obama has been spending substantially more. How do you square that peg? The only thing that they've done is played with the numbers such that the percentage increases look smaller when the reality is that they are spending far more and adding far more to the national debt under their watch.

    Both parties are responsible but to suggest that somehow because the rate of increase hasn't accelerated and instead of flatlined at an extraordinarily high and what was supposed to be a temporary number is ridiculous and is entirely unreasonable.

    You've become just another partisan - it's kind of funny how that has shifted over the years. I have consistently stated that I think Bush's domestic spending increases have been wrong and consistently pointed out the problems with respect to entitlement spending. Your response is to ignore and act as if these aren't problems unless the Obama Administration or a democrat says they are.


    First, government spending as percentage of GDP always rises during Recession particularly when stimulus is spend by the federal government. So I'm entirely consistent. That the Republican blew up the economy necessitating this spending is not a Democratic issue, but a Republican one. Further, the Republicans have controlled the House for 2 of the last four years. So why haven't they stopped the spending?

    Further, the only reason we're not falling apart like much of Europe is because we've kept the rate of government spending up.

    Second, in a recent interview Romney essentially agreed with Keynesian economics and put the lie to his own claims that he will cut spending or embrace the Ryan budget. His exact quote is:

    "if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course."

    So, Obama has a plan to reduce the deficit and debt over time, and Romney has platitudes. icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the-complete-romney-interview-transcript/#ixzz1vr0qsTx9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 4:55 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidBullshit? Your OWN GRAPH shows how dramatically spending increased in the last year of the Bush Administration. So yes, while the increase isn't significant in subsequent years, he turned temporary spending into permanent spending. I've never denied that Bush has been a big spender - but as the Reason article points out, it is Obama that has sustained what was an unusual level of spending in temporary stimulus.


    Bush's first budget was $2.0 trillion and his last before any stimulus or bailouts was $2.9 trillion. So Bush grew the budget by almost 50% before any stimulus or bailouts. His last budget which covers the financial crisis was $3.1 trillion.

    And let's also remember that Bush grew this budget while having a Republican Congress for 6 years and while cutting taxes.

    And Romney's policies, unlike Obama's, do not address the deficit but rather explode it.

    So which party is fiscally conservative? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You claim that the Democrats are more fiscally conservative but in actual dollars and as a percentage of GDP Obama has been spending substantially more. How do you square that peg? The only thing that they've done is played with the numbers such that the percentage increases look smaller when the reality is that they are spending far more and adding far more to the national debt under their watch.

    Both parties are responsible but to suggest that somehow because the rate of increase hasn't accelerated and instead of flatlined at an extraordinarily high and what was supposed to be a temporary number is ridiculous and is entirely unreasonable.

    You've become just another partisan - it's kind of funny how that has shifted over the years. I have consistently stated that I think Bush's domestic spending increases have been wrong and consistently pointed out the problems with respect to entitlement spending. Your response is to ignore and act as if these aren't problems unless the Obama Administration or a democrat says they are.


    First, government spending as percentage of GDP always rises during Recession particularly when stimulus is spend by the federal government. So I'm entirely consistent. That the Republican blew up the economy necessitating this spending is not a Democratic issue, but a Republican one. Further, the Republicans have controlled the House for 2 of the last four years. So why haven't they stopped the spending?

    Further, the only reason we're not falling apart like much of Europe is because we've kept the rate of government spending up.

    Second, in a recent interview Romney essentially agreed with Keynesian economics and put the lie to his own claims that he will cut spending or embrace the Ryan budget. His exact quote is:

    "if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course."

    So, Obama has a plan to reduce the deficit and debt over time, and Romney has platitudes. icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the-complete-romney-interview-transcript/#ixzz1vr0qsTx9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:41 AM GMT
    I did point out that spending has risen in absolute and relative terms to GDP? But yep, you'd focus on the relative terms to GDP because...?

    More debunking:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/barack-obama-skinflint.php

    So [Rex Nutting - the author of the graph posted by Christian] attributes the 2009 budget to Bush, and 2010 to Obama. This makes all the difference in the world, since Obama’s first year, 2009, was the year when federal spending exploded, in part, but by no means entirely, because of the “stimulus” bill. Federal spending in FY 2009 leaped by $535 billion–more than a half trillion dollars–compared to FY 2008. Since then, Obama and the Democrats have maintained that extraordinarily high level, but increased it only modestly. That is because the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.

    But why would Nutting attribute FY 2009 spending to President Bush rather than President Obama? Obama was president for more than 2/3 of that fiscal year. Nutting implies that Bush was somehow responsible for the FY 2009 budget and the spending that eventually occurred, months after he left office. But this is incorrect. Bush never saw a FY 2009 budget. The Democratic Congress waited until Obama had been sworn in to pass a budget, and he signed the FY 2009 budget on March 12 of that year. Bush had nothing to do with it. The stimulus funds were added on top of the regular appropriations for FY 2009; Bush had nothing to do with that, either. Altogether, Congress spent more than $400 billion more in FY 2009 than Bush had asked to be appropriated in his budget proposal, which the Democrats ignored.

    So Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress own the FY 2009 spending. Let’s redo the math, putting responsibility for the Democrats’ spending extravaganza in 2009 where it belongs.

    In 2009, Obama and the Congress increased spending by $535 billion over the FY 2008 baseline. Spending dipped slightly in 2010 as fewer stimulus dollars were spent, and has risen again since then. If you add up the amounts by which spending in FYs 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 has exceeded the FY 2008 baseline, it is $2.44 trillion, almost exactly one-half of the $5 trillion in new debt that has been racked up during the Obama administration.

    Federal spending in FY 2008 was $2,983,000,000 (rounded). In FY 2012, it is projected to be $3,796,000,000 (rounded). I am using budget, not off-budget numbers; if you add the off-budget numbers, they are worse for Obama. That means that on Obama’s watch, spending has increased by $813 billion, or 27% over the 2008 baseline. Annualizing that growth in a crude fashion, we get 6.75% per year, rather than Nutting’s 1.4%. This is, in other words, a classic case of using bogus numbers to deceive one’s readers. Barack Obama is indeed the drunken sailor that virtually every American takes him for.

    UPDATE: This is another key statistic: since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, federal spending has increased 39%, by more than $1 trillion.


    Frankly, I don't get it. From purely a marketing perspective, the argument that Obama isn't a profligate spender but a fiscally responsible one isn't believable on its face. So why bother? It would make far more sense to make the argument that the spending was worthy... the only problem is that it wasn't in fact, quite the opposite.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2395724
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 25, 2012 11:28 AM GMT
    You republicans don't get it do you?

    Now there's a Math question here so listen up
    and there is an OPERATIVE word There is Spending .... which granted is high ...Thank youu republican George W Bush
    and there is GROWTH of spending
    The GROWTH OF SPENDING was MASSIVE MASSIVE under the previous administration ...yes again George W Bush ... Thank you republicans
    and now we Have Obama ... there was growth of spending yes
    BUT IT WAS THE LOWEST RATE OF GROWTH FOR DECADES

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2012 5:46 AM GMT
    More here:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2400361/ - pointing out that not only did spending increase dramatically under the Obama administration, it increased significantly less than Obama wanted it to because of the Republican House.

    But also there's this debunking - that points out that Obama was responsible for 2008's budget, with the last budget Bush signed 2007 as the Democrat controlled House tabled the budget only after Obama came to office -
    After you take out Nutting's "adjustments" to the actual numbers, here's the actual differences in spending:

    ObamaVsBush43SpendingComparison2006to201

    The simplest riposte to ridiculousaurus Rex is to isolate the discussion to which party has controlled Congress. To do so requires comparing officially reported spending in fiscal 2007, the last full fiscal year with a budget passed by a Republican Congress which was signed by George W. Bush, to fiscal 2011, the last of four full years driven by Democratic Party legislative spending priorities with a budget signed by Oba- … oh, wait a minute. The federal government, solely because of Democratic Party obstruction, first bicameral but now limited to the Senate, hasn’t passed a budget in over three years.

    We still know the reported spending figures for the two years involved: $2.729 trillion in fiscal 2007, and $3.603 trillion in fiscal 2011. That’s a 32% increase, or a 7.2% compounded annual rate, all of which occurred while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Even if one concedes (which I don’t) that a spending increase of many hundreds of billions was at first necessary as the recession hit, what possible legitimate justification is there for staying at or above that level in perpetuity after that?

    This argument of course will not satisfy those who insist on a Bush 43-Obama faceoff, so let’s have at it.

    The effect of Obama’s failure to rein in spending once his failed stimulus plan ran its course is obvious if you compare his administration’s reported four-year historical and projected spending total for 2010-2013 to 2006-2009, revised upward in fiscal 2008 to properly treat Bush’s $94 billion in IRS stimulus checks as spending instead of as negative receipts (who says we can’t be fair about this?). After incorporating that change and the Obama stimulus-related adjustment Nutting made, Obama will have spent 21% more by the end of fiscal 2013 than the government under Bush and then Obama did during 2006-2009 – if we really believe that Obama would show any kind of restraint should he win reelection: