PDA

View Full Version : According to The GOP, Spending is now the Problem; Yea Right!



Cigar
01-07-2013, 12:05 PM
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130107-mitch-mcconnell-its-time-to-confront-our-spending-addiction.jpg

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


Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama (http://www.forbes.com/profile/barack-obama/) being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor) is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States (http://www.forbes.com/places/united-states/) president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


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% (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)—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.


Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/


Obama spending binge never happened


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. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

http://articles.marketwatch.com/images/pixel.gif
• 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.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Ladies and Gentlemen, prepare for a lot of whining, crying and bitching from the right ... ready ... set ... go ... :frustrated:

Peter1469
01-07-2013, 12:08 PM
This chart is incorrect. Obama has had deficits of over $1.3T per year. Now we need to find out why the author(s) lied.

Cigar
01-07-2013, 12:23 PM
This chart is incorrect. Obama has had deficits of over $1.3T per year. Now we need to find out why the author(s) lied.


Focus Grasshopper Focus ... we're talking Spending here.

Peter1469
01-07-2013, 12:28 PM
Focus Grasshopper Focus ... we're talking Spending here.

Right. :wink: Where do you think those deficits came from? Savings plans?

Cigar
01-07-2013, 12:30 PM
Right. :wink: Where do you think those deficits came from? Savings plans?



Some of then are passed on from President to President ... some of them :)

Peter1469
01-07-2013, 12:32 PM
Some of then are passed on from President to President ... some of them :)

That is nonsense. Clinton didn't deficit spend, much. Why did Bush and Obama do it?

Chris
01-07-2013, 12:32 PM
Spending is a problem. Was under Bush. Worse under Obama.

Cigar
01-07-2013, 12:36 PM
Prescription Drug Plans, Tax Breaks for the Rich and 2 Wars all in 8 years aren’t as cheap as you thought … right.

nic34
01-07-2013, 12:46 PM
This chart is incorrect. Obama has had deficits of over $1.3T per year. Now we need to find out why the author(s) lied.

wow, throwing forbes under the bus too.... along wit T.R. DeMint, and the rest of the GOP...

and without a cite in sight....:grin:

Peter1469
01-07-2013, 01:31 PM
Prescription Drug Plans, Tax Breaks for the Rich and 2 Wars all in 8 years aren’t as cheap as you thought … right.


10 years of two wars cost as much as 1 year of Obama's deficits.

Taxcutter
01-07-2013, 02:04 PM
Only a blather Democrat partisan would believe that chart.

patrickt
01-07-2013, 02:53 PM
Sorry, Nitwit, but tax cuts aren't spending. Wars are expensive but wars end. Entitlements to deadbeats never end because they raise their kids to continue the tradition. President Bush was far too liberal but that's not your complaint, is it?

zelmo1234
01-07-2013, 03:03 PM
Prescription Drug Plans, Tax Breaks for the Rich and 2 Wars all in 8 years aren’t as cheap as you thought … right.

Well lest just see what they cost?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/122681-frustrated-house-still-waiting-for-senate-action-on-420-approved-bills

1.2 trillion over ten years

http://costofwar.com/

1.4 trillion over 12 years

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-19/business/35488195_1_tax-cuts-top-two-tax-brackets-republican-measure

And I will use the huffington post number of 1.2 trillion over ten years even though that is not the truth it is more like 80 billion a year.

So the Wars are 117 billion a year, and the cost of the drug plan and the tax cuts is 240 billion a year I count that as 357 billion a year, where did Obama come up with the other 1.2 trillion that he has been over spending?????

Just wondering?

nic34
01-07-2013, 03:18 PM
Entitlements to deadbeats never end because they raise their kids to continue the tradition.

Everyone on SS and Medicare/Medicaid and the VA are deadbeats? Everyone?

What a X-stian....

Uncle Slam
01-07-2013, 04:11 PM
Everyone on SS and Medicare/Medicaid and the VA are deadbeats? Everyone?

What a X-stian....

Don't forget those evil socialists who drive on federal highways!

GrumpyDog
01-07-2013, 04:22 PM
Would not want the welfare people to have to take a decrease in pay.

So i will continue living in my campervan, eating can food, and working as I am able to , even though I too, could apply for all those "programs", including Vet Admin drugs to keep me.."happy".

Because, the welfare society, must be sustained, as their contribution to society, although not working at all, is so much more valuable, than my service job, which gets people to and fro, in time to make sure their own business succeeds.

I must sacrifice my own expectations, because, being a white male, military veteran, who has been stereotyped as a universal enemy, (despite that I am an Obama democrat), I deserve to do with less, so that the "qualified" welfare recipient, can receive more in free money, than I earn through actual work, in an entire year.

Similarly, it would not be fair, if Congressmen were to receive no Christmas bonus, or God forbid, a cut in salary, while I continue to live in a campervan. This is the way a Plutocracy is supposed to function, so who am I, just a dumbass former combat veteran, to question the logic of this society. I should be happy that I am still alive, and CIA has not terminated me yet by the favorite way they terminate vets, which always is by "suicide" or by "fatal car accident".

zelmo1234
01-07-2013, 04:26 PM
Would not want the welfare people to have to take a decrease in pay.

So i will continue living in my campervan, eating can food, and working as I am able to , even though I too, could apply for all those "programs", including Vet Admin drugs to keep me.."happy".

Because, the welfare society, must be sustained, as their contribution to society, although not working at all, is so much more valuable, than my service job, which gets people to and fro, in time to make sure their own business succeeds.

I must sacrifice my own expectations, because, being a white male, military veteran, who has been stereotyped as a universal enemy, (despite that I am an Obama democrat), I deserve to do with less, so that the "qualified" welfare recipient, can receive more in free money, than I earn through actual work, in an entire year.

Similarly, it would not be fair, if Congressmen were to receive no Christmas bonus, or God forbid, a cut in salary, while I continue to live in a campervan. This is the way a Plutocracy is supposed to function, so who am I, just a dumbass former combat veteran, to question the logic of this society. I should be happy that I am still alive, and CIA has not terminated me yet by the favorite way they terminate vets, which always is by "suicide" or by "fatal car accident".

For an Obama Democrat you sound like a TEA party republican!

Thank You for your service to our country! And Thanks is not enough!

GrumpyDog
01-07-2013, 05:34 PM
Cigar must explain how we get a balanced Federal budget, if no spending is going to be cut.

What tax rates would Cigar suggest, to both balance the current Federal budget, as well as generate at least 500 billion/year surplus, to start paying down the 16 Trillion National debt, which has accumulated thanks to spending sprees of every President/Congress all the way back to Eisenhower, with just one exception being Clinton.

Chris
01-07-2013, 06:21 PM
Cigar needs to figure out if he's for or against what he calls the party of no. They're the ones holding up spending.

Chris
01-07-2013, 07:38 PM
You dems are in denial...


November’s presidential election was doubly historic: Not only did it ensure Barack Obama a second term, it ensured George W. Bush a fourth.

This flies in the face of Obama’s rhetoric, which repudiated everything the Bush administration supposedly stood for. But Obama’s record repudiates much of his rhetoric.

Consider the deal to avert the fiscal cliff. Although it raises taxes on the top 1 percent of Americans, it extends the Bush tax cuts for the great mass of lower-income earners—as Obama repeatedly insisted it should do. What’s more, it contains almost zero spending cuts. Thus it largely sustains the fiscal trajectory set by Bush, who increased domestic spending at a faster pace than any president since Lyndon Johnson.

The signature domestic accomplishment of Obama’s first term was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It represents the largest expansion of government involvement in health care since the signature domestic accomplishment of Bush’s first term, the Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit. That in turn was the largest expansion of government involvement in health care since, again, Johnson.

Yet these parallels pale in comparison to those concerning national security—where, for instance, the president has embraced the unilateral use of military force he once disdained....

The upshot, then, is that the Obama administration has carried forward those Bush policies most expansive of government power—and where it differs from past policy, it deviates in the direction of more government still. To political partisans, elections can look like wrenching transitions in which power whipsaws back and forth. Take a step or two back, though, and the effect begins to look like a one-way government ratchet, tightening click by click.

@ Obama Begins His Second Term—and Bush’s Fourth (http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/07/obama-begins-his-second-termand-bushs-fo)