Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2014, 09:47:04 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Spending under Obama increasing at lowest pace since Eisenhower's administration
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Spending under Obama increasing at lowest pace since Eisenhower's administration  (Read 2706 times)
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« on: May 24, 2012, 03:17:17 pm »
Ignore

Yup, spending is the slowest in basically 50 years, including slower than under St. Reagan.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_story_popular




Quote
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.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — 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. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%........

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations........

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).
 

« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 03:27:16 pm by Senator Sbane »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27517
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2012, 03:22:09 pm »
Ignore

It is still reckless coming off a big pop up due to wars and the Lehman collapse, and unsustainable.  Just because you are binging only six days a week rather than seven, doesn't mean you won't die an early death.
Logged

ShadowOfTheWave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1565
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2012, 03:24:27 pm »
Ignore

Go to anncoulter.com, she clears this up.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2012, 03:30:40 pm »
Ignore

It is still reckless coming off a big pop up due to wars and the Lehman collapse, and unsustainable.  Just because you are binging only six days a week rather than seven, doesn't mean you won't die an early death.

The binge didn't happen under Obama though, just making it clear for the record. And a lot of the widening of the deficit was due to lower revenue due to the recession. Sure, we may need to cut but saying it's Obama's fault we are here is a complete lie. Go check out the charts I just posted. And yes, that 1.4% increase in spending is including the portions of the Stimulus spent in 2009. Republicans just don't like it because a lot of the cuts came from the Military and wars whereas other things didn't get cut much. Well, too bad for the warmongering chickenhawks, but military spending needs to be cut, not increased like Mittens wants!

Now we do need to cut spending and raise taxes. Mittens might be ready to cut spending but taxes....we are unclear on that no matter what your instincts tell you. I need to see Romney's tax plan written down, not you or anybody telling me what he "wants" to do. Instituting a 20% across the board cut in the tax rate with a few cuts in deductions for richers is still going to lower revenue which is the opposite of what is needed. Unless you can show me how the math works...
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 03:34:33 pm by Senator Sbane »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2012, 03:34:54 pm »
Ignore

Go to anncoulter.com, she clears this up.

I don't read her drivel. Do you have a more credible source?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27517
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2012, 03:36:42 pm »
Ignore

Well I didn't mean to suggest that Mittens' broad outlines of his plan reach metaphysical perfection. How can it be when it is almost certainly not co-extensive with what the Torie plan would be?  Tongue
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27517
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2012, 03:38:09 pm »
Ignore

Go to anncoulter.com, she clears this up.

I don't read her drivel. Do you have a more credible source?

Well sometimes the chick has stats and what not. She's biased, but she ain't dumb. In short, she is not just a female version of Sean Hannity.
Logged

King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25985
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2012, 04:00:55 pm »
Ignore


Of course spending as % of GDP went up as the GDP slowed due the recession.  This would have happened even if Obama had enacted spending cuts to start his administration (which would have caused the economy to tank further and thus lower the GDP).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2012, 04:06:14 pm »
Ignore

Even if we attribute the entire 2009 budget to Obama (not fair imho but let's just do it), spending will have grown more slowly than in the Bush years and Reagan's first term (which also had a recession, but not as deep as this one). So I guess it's fair to say Obama spends like a Republican, not like the Democrat Clinton. Tongue
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13612


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2012, 04:09:30 pm »
Ignore


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

A better source than looking at it as a % of GDP. Government spending should counteract the business cycle. Too bad we already had a huge budget deficit due to Bush's reckless tax cuts and spending on unnecessary wars. Under Obama spending only increased in one year in the middle of a recession, and since then has actually decreased in real terms.
Logged
Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1293


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2012, 08:35:12 pm »
Ignore

Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers.  Let's break this down a bit:

The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president.  The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.

The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term.  There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?)  Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.

The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.
Logged

Signatures suck.
Christmas Bushie 2014
BushOklahoma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22457
Kenya


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2012, 08:40:41 pm »
Ignore

Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers.  Let's break this down a bit:

The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president.  The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.

The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term.  There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?)  Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.

The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.

Not to mention, the debt has actually increased substantially under Obama.  So, the spending is only looking at one piece of the puzzle.  Granted, it's an important piece, but it is just that, a piece not the whole puzzle.
Logged

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)
Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1293


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2012, 09:00:15 pm »
Ignore

Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers.  Let's break this down a bit:

The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president.  The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.

The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term.  There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?)  Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.

The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.

Not to mention, the debt has actually increased substantially under Obama.  So, the spending is only looking at one piece of the puzzle.  Granted, it's an important piece, but it is just that, a piece not the whole puzzle.

Now you're changing the subject.  The article didn't mention debt at all, and I didn't see anyone else do so.  In fact, the article was very clear that it was about spending and not about debt.
Logged

Signatures suck.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11857
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2012, 09:39:01 pm »
Ignore

Why are they only counting $140 billion of the 2009 stimulus spending as belonging to Obama?
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2666
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2012, 10:20:47 pm »
Ignore

It's because otherwise the statistics would show something quite different, Shua.

Quote
This would have happened even if Obama had enacted spending cuts to start his administration (which would have caused the economy to tank further and thus lower the GDP).

Even if all the public servants who were let go never found private sector employment, the net change to the economy would be zero.

Increasing the size of the public service also provides a net change of zero. For the same reason.

I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure it out.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2666
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2012, 10:23:57 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Even if we attribute the entire 2009 budget to Obama (not fair imho but let's just do it), spending will have grown more slowly than in the Bush years and Reagan's first term (which also had a recession, but not as deep as this one). So I guess it's fair to say Obama spends like a Republican, not like the Democrat Clinton.

What 2009 budget? There wasn't a budget passed in 2009, 2010, 2011, or as yet, in 2012.

The last federal budget was passed in 2008, in April. More than 4 years ago. Obama will be the first president never to pass a budget in his entire term.

We don't actually know how much he has spent because we don't have a budget. The numbers that we do have, show that the debt has jumped from 60 percent of GDP all the way up to 100+ percent.

Obama could clear the previous record of 120 percent easily.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32309


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2012, 02:17:31 am »
Ignore

The Republicans don't need facts when conventional wisdom is on their side.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16891
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2012, 02:25:55 am »
Ignore

I love how Politifact gave it a "mostly true." Is anything in the statement actually wrong? No, not really, it's just given "mostly true" for no real reason other than to seem nuanced and therefore, obviously, more true and reliable.
Logged

Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34886
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2012, 02:38:14 am »
Ignore

Why are they only counting $140 billion of the 2009 stimulus spending as belonging to Obama?

Because only 140 billion were in fiscal 2009, which ended in September 2009.

The big chunk of the stimulus spending was in fiscal 2010, which started in October 2009.
Logged
AmericanNation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 967


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2012, 10:04:43 am »
Ignore


The last federal budget was passed in 2008, in April. More than 4 years ago. Obama will be the first president never to pass a budget in his entire term.

We don't actually know how much he has spent because we don't have a budget. The numbers that we do have, show that the debt has jumped from 60 percent of GDP all the way up to 100+ percent.
I think he signed a budget his first year in office.  Still, only passing one budget in 4 years is pathetic. 

This is pretty simple.  Nutting took at least 1.6 trillion of Obama (debt)spending increases and gave it to Bush.  Running a 1.5 to 2 trillion dollar deficit every year of your term is a 'flat' trend in a misleading sense.  Jacking up spending in year one (than pretending that increase doesn't count) and than base lining forever at the insane level isn't "flat."  It is spiking up and continuing the spike level out.     
Logged

WhyteRain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 952
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

P

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2012, 02:50:41 pm »
Ignore

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned yet this angle:  Obama didn't "inherit the mess"; he VOTED for the mess.

Look at it this way.  We are used to talking about a new president "inheriting" the circumstances left by his predecessor -- because most of our recent presidents (all but one since 1977) have been former governors with no D.C. authority before entering the Oval Office -- Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43.

Unlike four of his five immediate predecessors, Pres. Obama did not need a map of D.C. when he became president.  In fact, he literally (an often misused word nowadays, but not here) just moved the contents of his desk from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other!  He had been in D.C. for four years and with the ruling majority in Congress for two.  As such, Obama became the first president in nearly 50 years to preside over a budget that he himself had voted for.  Thus it's beyond ridiculous to speak of Obama "inheriting the mess" in D.C. on Jan. 20, 2009.

Moreover, Obama voted for the Democratic Congress' budgets of FY2008 and FY2009.  Therefore it is fair to say that his spending began on Oct. 1, 2007 (the beginning of the FY 2008 budget which tripled the deficit in one year from 1.1% to 3.2% of GDP and, I'm convinced no coincidentally, eight days before the peak of the stock market averages).
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3715
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2012, 03:09:55 pm »
Ignore

I love how Politifact gave it a "mostly true." Is anything in the statement actually wrong? No, not really, it's just given "mostly true" for no real reason other than to seem nuanced and therefore, obviously, more true and reliable.

The Washington Post seems to think the article is wrong. They give Jay Carney's statement, and Nutter's article, THREE PINOCCHIOS http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html#pagebreak

The very serious centrists come to America's rescue! Except what they left out was that government spending increasing as a percentage of GDP is the norm during recessions because they're pandering dolts with their head in the sand. Under what kind of absurd framework would it be positive for counter-cyclical measures (unemployment benefits, medicaid, food stamps etc.) to not exist so that the government would shrink in conjunction with the economy?

People, this isn't rocket science. Obama was burdened with a crushing economic crisis that required tough action on a few fronts (action that he didn't deliver but that's besides the point) and was bound to create enormous fiscal stress because tax revenues plummeted while expenditures were bound to increase based off of formulas already set in stone. To me this article is negative and reveals one of the biggest moral failures of Obama but it's also the reality we're living in. Obama isn't a big spender, he's not a dangerous radical and he most certainly is not a socialist. He's a slow-moving and ineffective moderate who didn't engage in enough counter-cyclical spending to bring us out of this recession properly and we're still paying the price of that.
Logged



Economic score: -6.26
Social score: -7.74
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10364
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2012, 04:14:38 pm »
Ignore

It is still reckless coming off a big pop up due to wars and the Lehman collapse, and unsustainable.  Just because you are binging only six days a week rather than seven, doesn't mean you won't die an early death.

Medical analogy. You get cancer that requires expensive treatment. Your medical expenditures skyrocket. They are likely to stay high for some time because any symptom is likely to be treated with deadly seriousness because cancer is a deadly-serious disease.

Are you wasting money (even if it is that of an insurance company?) Not in the least. The alternative is to die, after which any possibility of an income stream comes to an end.  That is not to say that cancer treatment is pleasant; it isn't something that I would wish upon anyone.

In view of my posting record you should be able to figure what I offer as an analogue to cancer -- two eminently-avoidable wars and  the promotion of an economic boom that could only go catastrophically wrong.

OK. We are finally getting some honest-to-goodness economic growth. Have enough of that with flat spending, and relief expenditures will go down as tax revenues rise.  If that isn;t a win-win scenario, then what is?         
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2666
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2012, 05:54:55 pm »
Ignore

Quote
I think he signed a budget his first year in office.

Nope. The last budget passed was in April of 2008. There have been zero budgets passed under Obama, so the only way to know how much has been spent is to look at the debt.

Quote
This is pretty simple.  Nutting took at least 1.6 trillion of Obama (debt)spending increases and gave it to Bush.  Running a 1.5 to 2 trillion dollar deficit every year of your term is a 'flat' trend in a misleading sense.  Jacking up spending in year one (than pretending that increase doesn't count) and than base lining forever at the insane level isn't "flat."  It is spiking up and continuing the spike level out. 

Not to mention the fact that we don't actually have the numbers for how much he is spending. Wink   
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
AmericanNation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 967


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2012, 10:25:49 am »
Ignore

Nope. The last budget passed was in April of 2008. There have been zero budgets passed under Obama, so the only way to know how much has been spent is to look at the debt.
did they pass a half year budget in Obama's first year?  They passed something and the continuing resolutions have been based on that.  I'm to lazy to look right now.   
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines