Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Email
 
2

Obama spending binge never happened: Gov outlays rising @ slowest pace since 50s

49 comments, 323 views, posted 8:47 pm 23/05/2012 in Politics by marksyzm
marksyzm has 10244 posts, 995 threads, 1087 points, location: Oxford, United Kingdom
3.14159 x 1337% = 42

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

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. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

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%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

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.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

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).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

Comments

2
3:31 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Viscera:
if he was so bad, and he was doin such a shit job, how could he get 91% of the vote?


That is electoral vote... not popular which was under 51%
I really hope that I do not need to explain to you the difference.

Quote by Viscera:
The numbers above seem to say the opposite of what you cited, that middle America was doing better (lower tax rate


Not for the lowest 60% and especially for the lowest 20%. Of course the highest 20% and the still popular 1% made out very well.
Exactly when is that supposed to start trickling down?

Quote by Viscera:
higher income


The number of people living below the poverty line increased during his 2 terms and then went back to where it started when he left office.
That should tell you something.

Quote by Viscera:
more people moving into the better earners category


30,000 more people claiming in excess of $1M income but an additional 5,000,000 slipping below the poverty line between 1980 and 1983.

Sorry... I fail to see how those numbers indicate middle America did better.

He also gave birth to the BRAC commissions. Hundreds of military bases closed descimating local economies across the country and causing more unemployment in the private sector... while the complex still spent more on the military.

Quote by Viscera:
Not saying everyone had the same experience, but those years were the ones my dad certainly prospered the most financially


I would say your experience was the exception to the rule... and not the rule itself.
Those were the years my father, USAF Ret. disabled, struggled the most.
Mr. Reagan also reduced those military disability and retirement benefits.

2
3:57 pm 24/05/2012

marksyzm

Quote:
In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result.
0
6:06 pm 24/05/2012

Viscera

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally


The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

rest of story here

don't think for a second that we, the American people, get the real stories. We get what the complicit media wants us to get, and that isn't reserved for one party

1
6:07 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
Regan had it worse when he entered office; over 10% unemployment


No.
7.6%.
Jumped to 10.8% two years later when the effects of his "tax cuts" kicked in.

1
6:19 pm 24/05/2012

Viscera

why is it when Obama gets in, the effects of the economy of the president before him are held responsible for the continuing malaise of the unemployment numbers, budget deficit etc, but for Reagan it is his fault the second that the calendar turns?

0
6:47 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
That is electoral vote... not popular which was under 51%



Wow... I did not know that 58.8% was under 51%!

Quote by backroom:
No.
7.6%.
Jumped to 10.8% two years later when the effects of his "tax cuts" kicked in.

He cut taxes in 1981, they took effect in 1982. Their effect slowed and then reversed the unemployment trend. In case you are unaware, policy takes time to have an effect... which is why Obama can run aroud saying Bush gave him 8% unemployment. In the meantime the only way Obama has been able to even match that is by dropping milions off the employment rolls.

Of course, I can understand with your math skills why this would be impossible to grasp that.

3
6:52 pm 24/05/2012

PiratePoet

1
7:29 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
Of course, I can understand with your math skills why this would be impossible to grasp that.


The only problem with my math skills is when I mistakenly said two years instead of one year after his "tax cuts".
Where I was absolutely correct is identifying your false statement that he inherited a 10% unemployment rate... something that you did not refute instead attempting the standard practice of diversion.
On that note...
How many graphs would you like to see that put the rate in "82 much higher than the one you offer? (because yours presents the average for the year)
What your graph does not show...
Unemployment Rates in 1982

January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%

It also does not indicate the rate staying above 10% for the first half of "83.
The unemployment rate was in excess of 10% for 10 consecutive months under Reagan.
Obama may only make the same claim for 3 consecutive months.
Reagan has him beat again.
Of course, I can understand with your math skills... and agenda... why you would not want to acknowledge that.


0
7:33 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
Wow... I did not know that 58.8% was under 51%!


Wow!
I did not know we were talking '84.
Based on V's original comment I could have swore we were talking '80.

The proof is in the details, Q.
If you can not take the time to actually read, comprehend and formulate...
then please do not even comment.
It is tiresome correcting you when all you really want to do is fight with me.

0
7:38 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
In the meantime the only way Obama has been able to even match that is by dropping milions off the employment rolls.


Are you referring to the practice that has been in place since... ummm...
The 70's? (hint... that was before Reagan.)
How many millions do you think dropped off the rolls during that 10 month stretch in excess of 10%?
(notice I did not say or imply he dropped them.)

1
8:12 pm 24/05/2012

Viscera

Quote by backroom:
Quote by Viscera:
if he was so bad, and he was doin such a shit job, how could he get 91% of the vote?

That is electoral vote... not popular which was under 51%
I really hope that I do not need to explain to you the difference.


Um, I do know the difference, didn't claim it was the popular vote, and in fact the stat doesn;t claim that either. So....don't really know where you are going with this. Electoral vote still is a representative of how the country voted, you can't cherry pick the criteria to make a point. If so, then hopefully no one will reference the popular vote from 2000 again

Quote:
Not for the lowest 60% and especially for the lowest 20%. Of course the highest 20% and the still popular 1% made out very well.
Exactly when is that supposed to start trickling down?

ok, so the chart says that for 60% of Americans, the taxation rate Change from 1980-1990 in the total effective federal taxation rate (including both income and payroll taxes) ranged from +1.2% to -14.4%. If my tax rate only climbed 1.2% I'd be very happy.

Quote:
The number of people living below the poverty line increased during his 2 terms and then went back to where it started when he left office.
That should tell you something.


What that tells me is, the poverty level rose 1.3% while the population rose 9.8%, maybe, just maybe some of those who were new to the country through the population increase, didn;t start earning enough money in their new country/jobs to rise above the poverty level, buy they came here because....of the opportunity to do that

Quote:
30,000 more people claiming in excess of $1M income but an additional 5,000,000 slipping below the poverty line
Sorry... I fail to see how those numbers indicate middle America did better.


So you can't see that when a population increases by 22.2 million people in 10 years (and I also assume children born is in that stat but they certainly can't be considered able to "become millionaires" that the stat is exclusive for "middle America"? First of all, as I said above, the rise in population could be immigrants, they don't show up and become "middle America" income-wise. The idea of the "millionares" increasing 7 fold in 7 years is astounding. If you could have 7 fold the am ount of taxpayers in a 7 year span, the revenues increase would blow any defecit out of the water

0
8:37 pm 24/05/2012

marksyzm

It DID go up during Reagan's first few years and took longer to reduce. For Obama, it was pretty much 10% within his first year, which is far more clearly an inheritance.

1
8:40 pm 24/05/2012

marksyzm

Again, you don't know how good you've got it.

0
8:48 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Viscera:
didn't claim it was the popular vote, and in fact the stat doesn;t claim that either.


No. But it was presented as such, regardless.

Quote by Viscera:
you can't cherry pick the criteria to make a point.


But you can identify the criteria you choose to use.
Cherry picking is exactly what you did by selecting the highest number you could find and neglecting to properly identify it. Face it... when making a point 91% is much more impressive than 51%.

Quote by Viscera:
Electoral vote still is a representative of how the country voted


Actually...
No, it's not. If it were there would not be that 40% "difference" in the numbers. 91% of the electoral college does not represent 91% of the vote... as you stated. The 2000 elections should prove it further when the winner of the popular vote lost the race. How does that make the electoral vote representative of anything?

Quote by Viscera:
ok, so the chart says that for 60% of Americans, the taxation rate Change from 1980-1990 in the total effective federal taxation rate (including both income and payroll taxes) ranged from +1.2% to -14.4%. If my tax rate only climbed 1.2% I'd be very happy.


It also says that for 40% of Americans... the ones that find it more difficult to make ends meet... taxes went up anywhere from 6% to 16.1%. I find that to be much more significant than those who do not need a tax break getting one.
Sounds to me like, just like Reagan, you are ready to write off that 40% as nothing more than dead weight.

Quote by Viscera:
What that tells me is, the poverty level rose 1.3% while the population rose 9.8%, maybe, just maybe some of those who were new to the country through the population increase, didn;t start earning enough money in their new country/jobs to rise above the poverty level, buy they came here because....of the opportunity to do that


Maybe the sky is magenta, too.
What you should see is that 13% of that 9.8% population increase were living in poverty. That 13% is amazingly exact to the poverty level at the time regardless of population increase. So, perhaps immigration really has nothing to do with it. There are other ways for population to increase.

Quote by Viscera:
The idea of the "millionares" increasing 7 fold in 7 years is astounding.


No really when you consider the tax law changes surrounding AMT.

Quote by Viscera:
If you could have 7 fold the am ount of taxpayers in a 7 year span, the revenues increase would blow any defecit out of the water


That should go without saying...
But as you did say it...
226.5M X 7... that is a hell of alot of taxpayers.
Do you really expect, considering what we have now, that we could ever have a government that would meet the needs and expectations of nearly 2 billion taxpayers?
Wouldn't government expenditures also be expected to go up 7 fold?
Not much left for defecit reduction... without raising taxes.

0
8:54 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
Wow!
I did not know we were talking '84.

Really?


Quote by backroom:
Quote by Viscera:
if he was so bad, and he was doin such a shit job, how could he get 91% of the vote?

That is electoral vote... not popular which was under 51%
I really hope that I do not need to explain to you the difference.

Quote by backroom:
Based on V's original comment I could have swore we were talking '80.

Other than his comment 91% comment was about his 1984 re-election results...

Quote by backroom:
If you can not take the time to actually read, comprehend and formulate...
then please do not even comment.


'nuff said.

0
9:00 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
Are you referring to the practice that has been in place since... ummm...
The 70's? (hint... that was before Reagan.)



Yes I am... and here is how that's played out over the years...

Yay Carbama!

0
9:04 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
Actually...
No, it's not. If it were there would not be that 40% "difference" in the numbers.



Guess what... electoral vote is the only one that matters! Try reading that Constitution, it's not like the Bible is taking up any room on your reading list

1
9:15 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
Maybe the sky is magenta, too.
What you should see is that 13% of that 9.8% population increase were living in poverty. That 13% is amazingly exact to the poverty level at the time regardless of population increase. So, perhaps immigration really has nothing to do with it. There are other ways for population to increase.



Of course, increasing the amount of the poverty level would increase the amount on it, just as the reduction in BMI charts coincided with an increase in overweight and obese Americans. Further, you had the influx of the Boomer generation (those starting to approach retirement age now) into the mix and that helps explain the population jump. Also, the low to mid 20's are not high wage owners. Many are still in school, others are just starting careers but since they get counted along with the rest there is potential to skew statistical results.

I'll admit to not knowing the eccentricities of this though, just some mitigating factors that come to mind.

1
9:19 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
Do you really expect, considering what we have now, that we could ever have a government that would meet the needs and expectations of nearly 2 billion taxpayers?



NO!!!!

(Is it to much to hope that you see the brilliance in your statement?)

Which is why the Federal Government should not be the place to attempt to! State and local governance should handle all things that they can, the Federal should only handle those things the state cannot... the exact opposite of what we have now!

0
9:25 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
Really?


Yes... really.

Quote by Viscera:
Percentage of the popular vote won by Ronald Reagan in the presidential election of 1980: 50.7%
Number of states won by Ronald Reagan in the presidential election of 1980: 44
Percentage of the electoral vote won by Ronald Reagan in the presidential election of 1980: 90.9%7


If he was talking about 84 I am sure... absolutely sure... that he would have referenced...

Quote by Viscera:
Percentage of the electoral vote won by Ronald Reagan in the presidential election of 1984: 97.6%


But considering he said...

Quote by Viscera:
if he was so bad, and he was doin such a shit job, how could he get 91% of the vote?


you are just being an asshole, not making an argument... just arguing with me.

Quote by Quaektem:
'nuff said.


Yup.
But it won't stop you from trying again... will it?

Quote by Quaektem:
Yes I am...


So implying Obama did something "unique" is not relavent to anything... It's just you being an asshole you.

1
9:29 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
If he was talking about 84 I am sure... absolutely sure... that he would have referenced...

I am sorry, I didn't realize he had taken that large a chunk of the electoral vote in 1980. I should have done more research before laying into you.

0
9:30 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:

So implying Obama did something "unique" is not relavent to anything... It's just you being an asshole you.



Nope, never said it was unique... rather an unsavory practice not so radically engaged in since the Carter administration.

0
9:37 pm 24/05/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
Guess what... electoral vote is the only one that matters! Try reading that Constitution, it's not like the Bible is taking up any room on your reading list


I believe we were discussing the difference between them, not which one ultimately matters.
The smiley of course means you were not just being an asshole though. You thought the comment was relevant. That switches it up from "being" to "are".

Your following 2 comments were right on point. Thank You.

0
9:43 pm 24/05/2012

Quaektem

Quote by backroom:
Your following 2 comments were right on point. Thank You.



When I'm wrong and realize it I try to be man enough to admit it. Of course sometimes it takes a few posts and a 2X4 to reach that second stage (Viscera can testify to that!)

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!