Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

[juanni]

Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



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% —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/rickunga...-barack-obama/



............juanni

[357ross]

I don't know where you got these numbers, but this graph is inaccurate

[juanni]

Originally Posted by 357ross

I don't know where you got these numbers, but this graph is inaccurate

Try reading the link.

Do you have a source for more accurate numbers than the OBM and CBO?
If so show them.




............juanni

[Olaf]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH deep breath HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
obamau has spent more in 3yrs than bush in 8, one can make a graph saying anything they want don't make it true, all this time I thought you just liked to argue but you really do belive the crap you post don't you

[mutter]

Recommended reading "How to Make Statistics Lie".

[juanni]

Originally Posted by Olaf

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH deep breath HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
obamau has spent more in 3yrs than bush in 8, one can make a graph saying anything they want don't make it true, all this time I thought you just liked to argue but you really do belive the crap you post don't you

You really should leave the thinking to others more qualified.


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA......

Would you believe a graph provided by Rush's pals at the Heritage Foundation???




Rather than using the term "crap" you could (if you possessed the ability) provide an intelligent rebuttal.

Additionally had you actually READ the linked article it explains how the 1st year of a president's spending is already determined LONG BEFORE he takes office, with the exception of any additional requested spending like Obama's stimulus which they correctly added to Obama's spending.

So Obama's 3 years of spending are only actually 2 to date, but will extend into the following term of whoever is president.

Finally....
obamau has spent more in 3yrs than bush in 8
Where do you math illiterates come up with this BS???

The area under the spending line is the amount of money SPENT.
Does the area under Bush's 8 year term look larger than under Obama's 3?

Dumbsh*t Nation.






................juanni

[juanni]

Originally Posted by mutter

Recommended reading "How to Make Statistics Lie".

Might be good reading, but the data provided wasn't a "statistic".






.............juanni

[martin35]

How does Obama have a budget when the legislature has yet to approve and pass a budget as such during his tenure?
The National Debt as incurred exceeds the amount of budget expenditures shown for Obama.
Accordingly the USA must be sitting on a mountain of borrowed Chineses Yaun jaunni.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by martin35

How does Obama have a budget when the legislature has yet to approve and pass a budget as such during his tenure?
The National Debt as incurred exceeds the amount of budget expenditures shown for Obama.
Accordingly the USA must be sitting on a mountain of borrowed Chineses Yaun jaunni.

Spending is the actual outflow of money (printed, borrowed or out of savings).
A budget is a plan for future spending.


If you don't have a budget does that prevent your wife from paying the bills and spending today and tomorrow?



............juanni

[GuitarBob]

The funny think is Juanni still gets offended when you suggest he's a shill for Obama.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by GuitarBob

The funny think is Juanni still gets offended when you suggest he's a shill for Obama.

Oh Bob I don't get offended.

If you want to think that discrediting GOP propaganda is shilling for Obama it is OK by me.

But to the topic, do you have anything factual and relevant to dispute the post?




............juanni

[d_s]

Wouldn't the baseline amount be what the previous president spent? Making the graph misleading. The growth of his spending may be lower, but when you are starting in the trillions, I mean there isn't much farther to go until you trigger a collapse I'd think?

[juanni]

Originally Posted by d_s

Wouldn't the baseline amount be what the previous president spent? Making the graph misleading. The growth of his spending may be lower, but when you are starting in the trillions, I mean there isn't much farther to go until you trigger a collapse I'd think?

Yes, that would be zero increase in spending, a horizontal line on the Heritage graph.
How is that misleading?
Previous presidents and congresses have already committed spending to those past agencies, depts and programs.
It isn't like a president can just start off with 0 spending on his term.

I think that actual spending or percentage, in inflation adjusted dollars is an accurate and fair measurement.
What else could you use?

GDP is a poor reference since it is heavily manipulated and bounces all over the place with recessions and expansions.

And yes, there eventually will be a collapse, and Bob's distractions aside it will be from BOTH parties ever expanded spending.




.............juanni

[Seaweed]

Let me see here- If the crappy economy from 2006-2010 in a Democratic controlled congress is Bush's fault, and a crappy economy from 2010-2012 in a Republican controlled House, that's the Republican's fault?

How far do you think a balanced budget ammendment would get these days?

Lacking a budget won't stop wife from spending, only having no cash will do that, unlike the US government.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by Seaweed

Let me see here- If the crappy economy from 2006-2010 in a Democratic controlled congress is Bush's fault, and a crappy economy from 2010-2012 in a Republican controlled House, that's the Republican's fault?

That is only if you buy in to the partisan hack politics.
Hey look Bob, I am defending Bush, Cheney and McConnell.

The economy was "good" while the FED greatly expanded the money supply inflating a massive credit bubble. It wasn't based on real productivity or smart use of capital.

The economy went "crappy" when the bubble burst.

The economy will continue to be crappy until all those bad debts from that massive credit bubble and bad use of capital are resolved through default and bankruptcy.

The economy will float along with bobs up and down, but going nowhere if the govt and FED keep propping up that bad debt out of the hides of taxpayers, savers and burdening future generations.





...............juanni

[NHBandit]

To answer the original question rather than you wankers who got off on spending issues... I would have to say John Lynch, the governor of NH is one of the "smallest". He is really short. Probably not much over 5' tall.

[mutter]

Originally Posted by juanni

Might be good reading, but the data provided wasn't a "statistic".






.............juanni

Representation, comparison and analysis of numerical data is called statistical representation.

I am in no way defending the spending of any of the prior presidents. However, this information is purposely manipulated in a manner to misrepresent the spending of Obama. This statement is even proof of it.

"It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —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."

Using data in this graph tells an individual that Obama has had the lowest year to year percentage increase in budgets.

But it fails to tell the reader that Obama has had the largest on record budgets, budget deficits, and increases in national debt of any president including the lefts beloved FDR during WWII.

On a side note, I lay the responsibility for budgets at congresses door step, not the presidents. Both parties have both hands in this mess but the Dems are the ones that have really accelerated the issue.

[ROBBO]

Juanni, I don't know how this matters. The last president to have a balanced budget was Bill Clinton with a republican congress. I don't know about anyone else, but my problem with Obama is the same as with Bush II. They both have spent way more than they took in.
Federal revenues have never been more than 20% of GDP in the last 50 years, and are usually around 18%. Both Bush and Obama have been spending at a 24-27% rate which is totally unsustainable.
The issue is not the rate of increase in federal spending but the fact that their reckless spending has increased our national debt to the point that it can't be paid off.
Even if the rate of increase in spending under Obama is less than under Bush, he still owns the biggest deficits in our nation's history, and has presided over the largest expansion in our national debt than any previous president.
I agree with you that republicans have spent like drunken sailors too, but there is nothing in your graphs that any of us should be happy about.

[DABTL]

Had we continued the Clinton budget policies we would owe nothing.

Nothing.

Instead we followed Bush II, Grover Norquist and Mitch McConnel into the mess we are in now.

But, at least, we now have FREEDOM as Rand Paul says, to wallow in failure.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by mutter

Representation, comparison and analysis of numerical data is called statistical representation.

Yes, but this is basic accounting.
The money was either spent or is wasn't.
Excluding accounting tricks and gimmicks, etc,,, there is no analysis or interpretation of the numbers.
If the question was which president wasted more money, than that subject is open to analysis, interpretation and skewing the results.

Originally Posted by mutter

Using data in this graph tells an individual that Obama has had the lowest year to year percentage increase in budgets.

No, I think it is spending.
The budget does not include off budget spending like Fannie and Freddie, which the federal govt has spent money propping up.
Ditto the Post Office.
SS is too, that is a whole nuther mess.

Originally Posted by mutter

But it fails to tell the reader that Obama has had the largest on record budgets, budget deficits, and increases in national debt of any president including the lefts beloved FDR during WWII.

Yes, but every president since 1965 (and probably further than the Heritage chart shows) has had record budgets, otherwise the spending would not have always risen. Clinton had a small decrease on one or 2 years of spending.

And the deficit and debt are function of spending and revenues.
Revenue has plummeted due to the credit bubble collapse, and the repubs don't want to raise taxes.
And NEITHER party wants to slash spending.

So in the end,,,,
Obama has been better on spending than most presidents.
His record setting budgets are simply the norm.
And there is little either party is willing to do to reduce the deficit.

So the GOP line about Obama's big spending is BS.




...............juanni

[juanni]

Originally Posted by ROBBO

Juanni, I don't know how this matters. The last president to have a balanced budget was Bill Clinton with a republican congress. I don't know about anyone else, but my problem with Obama is the same as with Bush II. They both have spent way more than they took in.
Federal revenues have never been more than 20% of GDP in the last 50 years, and are usually around 18%. Both Bush and Obama have been spending at a 24-27% rate which is totally unsustainable.
The issue is not the rate of increase in federal spending but the fact that their reckless spending has increased our national debt to the point that it can't be paid off.
Even if the rate of increase in spending under Obama is less than under Bush, he still owns the biggest deficits in our nation's history, and has presided over the largest expansion in our national debt than any previous president.
I agree with you that republicans have spent like drunken sailors too, but there is nothing in your graphs that any of us should be happy about.

Bullseye!!!

The only thing that matters is that BOTH parties are at fault and for either of their partisan hacks to point the finger at the other party as the problem is simply a lie that only the gullible would believe.



............juanni

[juanni]

Originally Posted by DABTL

Had we continued the Clinton budget policies we would owe nothing.

Nothing.

Doubtful.
Even though Clinton was the best on spending, a revenue plummet would have still happened under Greenspan and Bernake's massive credit bubble expansion..... and inevitable pop.




.............juanni

[d_s]

Originally Posted by juanni

Yes, that would be zero increase in spending, a horizontal line on the Heritage graph.
How is that misleading?.............juanni

Juanni, I agree with you on 99.9% of everything we discuss on the FF, maybe I misunderstood the graph, but say Obama did have a lower rate of annualized increase in spending, when we are talking about the overall amounts above and beyond the previous president, it seems like the rate would have to go down as there is only so far you can go until things meltdown. Please correct me if im wrong here, but Obama is still spending us into oblivion like his predecessors is he not?.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by d_s

Juanni, I agree with you on 99.9% of everything we discuss on the FF, maybe I misunderstood the graph, but say Obama did have a lower rate of annualized increase in spending, when we are talking about the overall amounts above and beyond the previous president, it seems like the rate would have to go down as there is only so far you can go until things meltdown. Please correct me if im wrong here, but Obama is still spending us into oblivion like his predecessors is he not?.

Sorry I guess we were talking past each other.

Yes Obama and everyone else in both parties is spending us into a default, dollar collapse or hyperinflation.

That is why I support neither party.
I want to see spending slashed, and I don't want to hear repubs always talking about cutting and smaller govt and doing nothing.
Both parties are big spenders and the repubs are hypocrites to boot.



............juanni

[bakerjw]

When has Obama gotten a budget passed? You know the guy. Mr. "Cut the deficit in half"

Juanni meet Dabs. Nothing more than a shill.

[Olaf]

Originally Posted by ROBBO

Juanni, I don't know how this matters. The last president to have a balanced budget was Bill Clinton with a republican congress. I don't know about anyone else, but my problem with Obama is the same as with Bush II. They both have spent way more than they took in.
Federal revenues have never been more than 20% of GDP in the last 50 years, and are usually around 18%. Both Bush and Obama have been spending at a 24-27% rate which is totally unsustainable.
The issue is not the rate of increase in federal spending but the fact that their reckless spending has increased our national debt to the point that it can't be paid off.
Even if the rate of increase in spending under Obama is less than under Bush, he still owns the biggest deficits in our nation's history, and has presided over the largest expansion in our national debt than any previous president.
I agree with you that republicans have spent like drunken sailors too, but there is nothing in your graphs that any of us should be happy about.

WAIT A MINUTE in juanni land the pres before the one in charge has set the spending soooo Bush is the one with the balanced budget , accordint to HIS logic but I guess he is the only intellectual in these parts, also spending is set by congress not the pres so DEMS set the spending under bush as they were in charge at the end of his term
some of what juinni says is true, the real problem is the deficit and Oba mau has ran up a huge deficit you can argue who started it all year but I can tell he shure the hell aint helping, who cares whos fault it is stop pointing fingers and fix it, he IHHO (oba mau) needs to stop crying about being left this mess and do some serious spending cuts and pay on the deficitbut, hes a dem they dont do that and never will they want total controll buy makeing all here dependent on the gov.

[d_s]

Originally Posted by juanni

That is why I support neither party.
I want to see spending slashed, and I don't want to hear repubs always talking about cutting and smaller govt and doing nothing.
Both parties are big spenders and the repubs are hypocrites to boot.
............juanni

yeah a big +1 there, it's partially why I don't think that supporting Romney is a good idea for anyone calling themselves a Republican. Many talk about how spending will be cut and government will shrink under an R, the exact opposite happens, then it gives the Dems more ammunition than God to use against them, its goes on and on and on like plane spinning out of control, then its too late and they sit around wondering how how Obama gets in for 8 years to "rule". I think its totally counterproductive to run through this cycle, but hey, what do I know, I'm a looney LRon supporter.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by Olaf

WAIT A MINUTE in juanni land the pres before the one in charge has set the spending soooo Bush is the one with the balanced budget , accordint to HIS logic but I guess he is the only intellectual in these parts, also spending is set by congress not the pres so DEMS set the spending under bush as they were in charge at the end of his term

Anyone here that can translate his gibberish?





...............juanni

[indy_Muaddib]

Originally Posted by DABTL

Had we continued the Clinton budget policies we would owe nothing.

Nothing.

id love to see how you can prove that statement dabby, since clinton increased the national debt from 4.411 trillion to 5.807 trillion during his term.

hell obama has increased it from 11,920 trillion to 15,874 trillion.

[357ross]

Originally Posted by DABTL

Had we continued the Clinton budget policies we would owe nothing.

Nothing.

Instead we followed Bush II, Grover Norquist and Mitch McConnel into the mess we are in now.

But, at least, we now have FREEDOM as Rand Paul says, to wallow in failure.

This was Klintons policy in much the same way I am the queen of England. It had everything to do with a REPUBLICAN congress ramming it down his throat. Juanni, you are on a fools errand.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by 357ross

Juanni, you are on a fools errand.

Hey before you try and cover your tracks, how about you support your claim you made way up in post 2 that the graph is inaccurate.

Thanks!


Can't do it huh?
Who would have guessed.






..................juanni

[juanni]

Originally Posted by bakerjw

Juanni meet Dabs. Nothing more than a shill.

Sure, anybody that isn't cheering on spending the US over the cliff has got to be shill.




............juanni

[RG Coburn]

The 8.7% reagan spent was in Billions,where obama-the-illegal has 1.4% but in trillions.
You're using "dabtl math" instead of an apples-to-apples comparison.
Like saying "Reagan ate 8.7% of this little cupcake,while obama ate only 1.4% of this giant wedding cake." Because Reagan ate a larger percentage of a much smaller whole,he somehow ate more cake? Does not compute...

[juanni]

Originally Posted by RG Coburn

The 8.7% reagan spent was in Billions,where obama-the-illegal has 1.4% but in trillions.
You're using "dabtl math" instead of an apples-to-apples comparison.
Like saying "Reagan ate 8.7% of this little cupcake,while obama ate only 1.4% of this giant wedding cake." Because Reagan ate a larger percentage of a much smaller whole,he somehow ate more cake? Does not compute...

Ummmm...... Look at the Heritage chart.
Reagan spent about $1.4 Trillion when he started and ended up closer to $1.8 Trillion when he left.

And who do think doubled Reagan's spending from there to the $3.7 Trillion or so when Obama took office??





.............juanni

[ROBBO]

I'm a little concerned that Juanni and DABTL agree with me on something.
If Alant and Sailor553 chime in positively I'll be really concerned.
Anyway, if the fedgov doesn't alter their current course, we will be all to seek.
The Devil to pay and no pitch hot.

[gew98]

How's that old line go ?.....


There are lies , damned lies , and statistics.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by gew98

How's that old line go ?.....


There are lies , damned lies , and statistics.

Ugh,,,, as have already pointed out accounting and the accounting term spending isn't a statistic or statistics.

If you spent $10 on breakfast it is a mathematical fact, calling it a lie doesn't change the reality that you spent $10 on breakfast.




............juanni

[RG Coburn]

Originally Posted by juanni

Ummmm...... Look at the Heritage chart.
Reagan spent about $1.4 Trillion when he started and ended up closer to $1.8 Trillion when he left.

..and obama and co. have spent three to four times this amount.
How does this compute to "spending less"?

[juanni]

Originally Posted by RG Coburn

..and obama and co. have spent three to four times this amount.

Lord, any of you guys have basic math skills????

If Reagan spent about 1.8 trillion and Obama spent about 3.7 trillion, that is NOT 3 or 4 times more.

Let's do the math.
3.7/1.8 = 2.05, Obama has spent about twice what Reagan did.

Originally Posted by RG Coburn

How does this compute to "spending less"?

That was explained in the article.
Obama has increased spending the least as a percentage of any president since Ike.

Don't know how to make it any clearer than that.





..............juanni

[357ross]

Originally Posted by juanni

Hey before you try and cover your tracks, how about you support your claim you made way up in post 2 that the graph is inaccurate.

Thanks!


Can't do it huh?
Who would have guessed.






..................juanni

The cbo can only work with numbers given to them by politicians. This administration has never had a budget, so in therory, he has spent nothing. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.

[RG Coburn]

Originally Posted by juanni

That was explained in the article.
Obama has increased spending the least as a percentage of any president since Ike.

Don't know how to make it any clearer than that.





..............juanni

Hence,the "eat cake" anology.
4-5 trillion is a hellofa lot more than 1.something trillion.
Compare apples to apples. Not a green grape to a watermelon.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by 357ross

The cbo can only work with numbers given to them by politicians. This administration has never had a budget, so in therory, he has spent nothing. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.

Denial, is a terrible thing to waste.

I will try this one last time with you.
You don't have to have a budget to spend.
Got it?

Otherwise, since we don't have a budget, we couldn't be spending and govt employees etc couldn't be paid.
Have you noticed the Post Office shuddered and gobs of federal workers out on the street on workdays?

No you haven't.

So you are suggesting that the CBO is fed false info by dept heads etc....
Have any proof of that?
Or it it just more crap pulled out of your ass?

It is amazing the level of ignorance displayed in this thread.



..............juanni

[juanni]

Originally Posted by RG Coburn

Hence,the "eat cake" anology.
4-5 trillion is a hellofa lot more than 1.something trillion.
Compare apples to apples. Not a green grape to a watermelon.

You seem to make numbers up out of nowhere.

1st it was Reagan only spend billions, off by a factor of 1,000.

Then it was Obama spent 4 times more than Reagan, off by a factor of 2 ,, getting better.

Now it 4-5 trillion, no one has spent 4-5 trillion annually.

So, since you are clearly not using anything based on reality, do you just spin the pointer to come up with your numbers?

And now the grape to a watermelon. You seem to have no grasp of scale, but a very childlike quality of exaggeration.


...........juanni

[mutter]

Originally Posted by juanni

Ugh,,,, as have already pointed out accounting and the accounting term spending isn't a statistic or statistics.

If you spent $10 on breakfast it is a mathematical fact, calling it a lie doesn't change the reality that you spent $10 on breakfast.




............juanni

Ugh,,,, as have already pointed out, manipulation and analysis of mathematical data over time is called statistics. Especially when a method of displaying that data is chosen that misrepresents the real picture. They're called lies. Nothing more and nothing less.

The articles explanation that the graph demonstrates that Obama is the lowest spending president is utter nonsense. The articles statement that he is the lowest spending president as a percentage of year to year budgets is true but it is a direct attempt to mis-represnt and hide the meaning of the data. AKA a lie.

Using the articles logic and your logic:

A man that drinks 1 beer a day for 1 year and then 2 beers a day for 1 year has an increase in alcohol consumption of 100% annually and is therefore a worse alcoholic then the man that drinks a fifth of vodka every day for those same 2 years and has a 0% increase in alcohol consumption.

I agree with you that both parties are a problem. However, I just want off of this drunken government spending spree.

Mutter





.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by mutter

Ugh,,,, as have already pointed out, manipulation and analysis of mathematical data over time is called statistics. Especially when a method of displaying that data is chosen that misrepresents the real picture. They're called lies. Nothing more and nothing less.

The articles explanation that the graph demonstrates that Obama is the lowest spending president is utter nonsense. The articles statement that he is the lowest spending president as a percentage of year to year budgets is true but it is a direct attempt to mis-represnt and hide the meaning of the data. AKA a lie.

Using the articles logic and your logic:

A man that drinks 1 beer a day for 1 year and then 2 beers a day for 1 year has an increase in alcohol consumption of 100% annually and is therefore a worse alcoholic then the man that drinks a fifth of vodka every day for those same 2 years and has a 0% increase in alcohol consumption.

I agree with you that both parties are a problem. However, I just want off of this drunken government spending spree.

Mutter





.

Well done.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by mutter

Ugh,,,, as have already pointed out, manipulation and analysis of mathematical data over time is called statistics. Especially when a method of displaying that data is chosen that misrepresents the real picture. They're called lies. Nothing more and nothing less.

The articles explanation that the graph demonstrates that Obama is the lowest spending president is utter nonsense. The articles statement that he is the lowest spending president as a percentage of year to year budgets is true but it is a direct attempt to mis-represnt and hide the meaning of the data. AKA a lie.

The articles statement that he is the lowest spending president as a percentage of year to year budgets is true
Yes and that is stated right on the top of the graph.
Annualized growth of federal spending
If you don't know what the words annualized, growth and spending mean, then I can understand the confusion.
Since all the growth numbers are positive, and each administration is in chronological order, clearly every president GREW spending more than the prior.
Why does this have to be stated or spelled out?
Especially to anyone that has been aware about federal spending over the decades.

Forbes being a business and financial publication probably didn't feel the need to dumb down the article for the masses who are completely ignorant on such subjects.
Nor insult their readers.

Like the ones that think Obama has spent 4 times more than Bush or that the words spending, debt and deficit all have the same meaning and are completely interchangeable

That doesn't make it lies.

Plus saying that every president since Ike was a big spender and a bigger spender that his predecessor is true.
But it gives no info on how much bigger or how to compare them.
This article does that.

Originally Posted by mutter

Using the articles logic and your logic:

A man that drinks 1 beer a day for 1 year and then 2 beers a day for 1 year has an increase in alcohol consumption of 100% annually and is therefore a worse alcoholic then the man that drinks a fifth of vodka every day for those same 2 years and has a 0% increase in alcohol consumption.

That is a clean miss.
The dollars were all adjusted for inflation.
They were not using different sets of criteria as in your DIFFERENT alcohol content per drink.

But since you think they were, point it out.

Originally Posted by mutter

I agree with you that both parties are a problem. However, I just want off of this drunken government spending spree.

On that we can agree.





.............juanni

[357ross]

Originally Posted by juanni

Denial, is a terrible thing to waste.

I will try this one last time with you.
You don't have to have a budget to spend.
Got it?

Otherwise, since we don't have a budget, we couldn't be spending and govt employees etc couldn't be paid.
Have you noticed the Post Office shuddered and gobs of federal workers out on the street on workdays?

No you haven't.

So you are suggesting that the CBO is fed false info by dept heads etc....
Have any proof of that?
Or it it just more crap pulled out of your ass?

It is amazing the level of ignorance displayed in this thread.



..............juanni

Look Juanni, if Obummer's your guy, then by all means go forth with confidence. Please don't insult our intellegence with this stuff. If you can't see the economic destruction brought on by this administration, well, don't know what to tell you. That ain't to say I'm impressed with the gop either, they're two different sides of the same turd.

[mutter]

On that we can agree.

We've found a starting point! Statesmen we have become.

Now as to your other points:

The articles statement that he is the lowest spending president as a percentage of year to year budgets is true
Yes and that is stated right on the top of the graph.

This proves my point exactly about the method of data mis-representation and analysis.

Annualized growth of federal spending
If you don't know what the words annualized, growth and spending mean, then I can understand the confusion.

I understand the terminology.

Since all the growth numbers are positive, and each administration is in chronological order, clearly every president GREW spending more than the prior.

Thank you for finally admitting that Obama has spent more then any other president.

Why does this have to be stated or spelled out?
Especially to anyone that has been aware about federal spending over the decades.

Because you wouldn't admit that the statement proffered by this article and graph were purposely misleading!

Plus saying that every president since Ike was a big spender and a bigger spender that his predecessor is true.
But it gives no info on how much bigger or how to compare them.
This article does that.

It doesn't give the adjusted raw data because then everyone would know that the information is being presented in a false and politically skewed frame work to make Obama look better.

Try this link: The first blue link a little bit down is "Table 1.1, yaadi, yaadi, yaadi".http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals



That is a clean miss.
The dollars were all adjusted for inflation.
They were not using different sets of criteria as in your DIFFERENT alcohol content per drink.

But since you think they were, point it out.


OK, I'll point it out.

If you follow the above link you will note that the following information comes directly from Obama's White house Office of Management and Budget.

This is the bottom of the table with the year and total on and off budget expenditures per the white house. I added: 3rd column, the real average annual spending; 4th column, total outlays for the periods coinciding with the graph; 5th column which is average annual outlay for those time frames.

Year/Total-Outlays/% Inc/Dec/Total spent during term/Avg Annual $ outlay Average annual % change


1978 458,746 #DIV/0!
1979 504,028 9.87%
1980 590,941 17.24%
1981 678,241 14.77% 2,231,956 557,989
1982 745,743 9.95%
1983 808,364 8.40%
1984 851,805 5.37%
1985 946,344 11.10% 3,352,256 838,064 8.71%
1986 990,382 4.65%
1987 1,004,017 1.38%
1988 1,064,416 6.02%
1989 1,143,744 7.45% 4,202,559 1,050,639.75 4.87%
1990 1,252,994 9.55%
1991 1,324,226 5.68%
1992 1,381,529 4.33%
1993 1,409,386 2.02% 5,368,135 1,342,033.75 5.40%
1994 1,461,753 3.72%
1995 1,515,742 3.69%
1996 1,560,484 2.95%
1997 1,601,116 2.60% 6,139,095 1,534,773.75 3.24%
1998 1,652,458 3.21%
1999 1,701,842 2.99%
2000 1,788,950 5.12%
2001 1,862,846 4.13% 7,006,096 1,751,524 3.86%
2002 2,010,894 7.95%
2003 2,159,899 7.41%
2004 2,292,841 6.16%
2005 2,471,957 7.81% 8,935,591 2,233,897.75 7.33%
2006 2,655,050 7.41%
2007 2,728,686 2.77%
2008 2,982,544 9.30%
2009 3,517,677 17.94% 11,883,957 2,970,989.25 9.36%
2010 3,456,213 -1.75%
2011 3,603,061 4.25%
2012 3,795,547 5.34%
2013 3,803,364 0.21% 14,658,185 3,664,546.25 2.01%

Now looking at a correct presentation of data are you still willing to state that Obama is the least spending president.

On a last note, the entire article and all its contents lack any credibility what so ever due to improper data manipulation. In the bold print narrative the author blames Bush for the 2009 budget increase due to the stimulus.

That's cool with me.

However, now look at the bottom of the graph itself: *2009 stimulus reassigned to Obama. This reassignment would cause a false massive increase in expenditures that would cause all the following years to be represented as massive negatives in growth and provide a false picture of what's really going on.

Obama's average annual spending is predicted by his own people to be 700 billion per year more then Bush's spending.

You wanted some data to back up my statements. Well it's right up there and I didn't do any funky statistics tricks to create it. I just used basic accounting.

mutter

[juanni]

Originally Posted by mutter

2009 3,517,677 17.94% 11,883,957 2,970,989.25 9.36%
2010 3,456,213 -1.75%
2011 3,603,061 4.25%
2012 3,795,547 5.34%
2013 3,803,364 0.21% 14,658,185 3,664,546.25 2.01%

Now looking at a correct presentation of data are you still willing to state that Obama is the least spending president.

On a last note, the entire article and all its contents lack any credibility what so ever due to improper data manipulation. In the bold print narrative the author blames Bush for the 2009 budget increase due to the stimulus.

That's cool with me.

However, now look at the bottom of the graph itself: *2009 stimulus reassigned to Obama. This reassignment would cause a false massive increase in expenditures that would cause all the following years to be represented as massive negatives in growth and provide a false picture of what's really going on.


mutter

1st off thanks for providing something of substance instead of it's just lies.

2nd I would have preferred they use constant dollars, table 1.3 instead.
Comparing a 64 silver dime to ten cents in 2013, makes no sense.
A mustang listed for $2400, you can barely buy a hubcap for that now.
Anyway.

I follow you all the way down to the $700 Billion stimulus.

The author states...
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

And I agree with this premise and they were consistent in the application of it.
But as the author points out that Obama's stimulus package was passed, spent and accounted for in 2009, but since Bush had nothing to do with it, it should be moved into 2010 or somewhere and placed under Obama's spending.
I agree with this also.

You seem to have interpreted that backward.
In the bold print narrative the author blames Bush for the 2009 budget increase due to the stimulus. Huh??

Where do you want to place Obama's stimulus?
On Obama or on Bush?



...........juanni

[davedude]

Originally Posted by juanni

Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



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% —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/rickunga...-barack-obama/



............juanni

I love the replies to that article juanni. Read any of them?

Dave Dude