Obama Is The Smallest Spender Since Eisenhower?

Submitted by: SmagBoy1 4 years ago
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Provided so 5Cats and AuburnJunky can break the all-time response record trying to respond...
There are 108 comments:
Male 21
I was going to chime in about the flaws of looking at a growth rate graph, but there is no way I can do better than HumanAction... genius!
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Outstanding @HumanAction! Did I welcome you to IAB yet? I did? Oh good :-)

0
Reply
Male 15,832
@HumanAction, the slapping example is spot on. However, you can expect the libs to be too dense to grasp the concept even when it`s reduced to that level of simplicity. It`s called "willful ignorance."
0
Reply
Male 10,339
HumanAction just won.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Want to know the entire problem with this post and following thread? Imagine this scenario:

A husband comes home every day and slaps his wife once. She wisely leaves him, and eventually gets married again. Now though, every time husband #2 comes home, he slaps her twice. Wisely again, she leaves him, and remarries a third time - except now, she gets slapped three times every day.

The increase of slapping from husband #1 to #2 was 100%, while the increase of slapping from husband #2 to husband #3 was only 50%. Supposedly, according to this post and various liberals, this is progress because the increase of rate of slapping has fallen.

Wrong is wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6
@jtrebowski: Also, I am not really sure what a thunder-buddy is, is that what you and Ken are? Must be something you Floridians do... Eitherwaye, I am not interested, I hope you two shower when you are done.
0
Reply
Male 6
@jtrebowski: Well, we have had to deal with you ignorance slowing down this thread`s progress- now its stunning inability to comprehend that is to blame. Re-read my pollution post- there are 2 scenarios present. In the 1st, your dream world rules and the EPA regulations serve as an umbrella of protection of corporations. In the 2nd, free market principals force the corporations to stand by themselves. Remember, it was the government (through the courts) who first stripped away the protections from pollution for property owners (lookup up railroad history, and for the ultimate irony guess who was behind the one in question- the government, not even business). Although the government`s railroad went broke (a pattern maybe?) in short order.

Furthermore, I have noted that we have been very critical of what you say, yet nono of us have commended you for how loud or how often you say it. You are certainly wrong, but you are delirous enough to keep believing. Kudos to you!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@OldOllie: I did misread your post =P. Touche good sir.

@IAmJohnGalt: Welcome to the site. I must ask, who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?

@jtrebowski: Now Jim, can I call you Jim? Perhaps James Paul then? Anyways, Jim, I don`t think Michelle would approve of your delusions. To think of it, I was actually looking at some property in Orlando - a lovely little area - Cypress Creek Dr I think.

In all reality though, if the best you can throw at me now is "Keep thinking that...please. I`ve seen you `liberarians`", I`m pretty sure it`s a win in my column.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
HumanAction: "Not to mention, you`re a 40+ year old man, and I`m 23. Advantage? Me. "

Keep thinking that...please. I`ve seen you `liberarians".
0
Reply
Male 3,364
IamJohGalt: ".. but the company was in EPA compliance." Try again...My scenario takes place under a Ron Paul admin., so...what EPA?

"No on a lighter note, from the above I believe it is safe to assume you are either a union member or a teacher! Ha."........Well,...you`re wrong...so HA yourself.
"the company would be required to “make you whole” again. That means, you would win."
Wait..what? Now you have me suing? Little ol` me? your thunder-buddy sems to think the only thing I can do is move, so why would I be suing? Like it or not, under your precious Paul, "Toxic Sludge Co." will still have a battalion of well-connected high-powered attorneys, and as you can see..it`s not

a good idea.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@HumanAction, I believe you misread my post. Please go back and read it again more carefully.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
jt, Cato isn`t conservative, they`re libertarians. I`m actually a libertarian myself, but they`re dead wrong on this. Over HALF of the FY2009 deficit can be attributed to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was passed by a Democrat congress and signed into law by OBAMA on February 17, 2009, 3 weeks AFTER Bush left office. Since I already explained that to you once, could you please explain to me, what part of that are you too f***ing stupid to understand?
0
Reply
Male 36,299
[quote]What facts are misleading and what did he leave out?[/quote]
@normalfreak2: It`s a fact: the Dems did NOT pass any budget after March 2009, in violation of the Constitution.
For more than 1000 days they "made do" on continuations (or whatever they`re called).
The author CLAIMS that 3 budgets were passed, BUT they weren`t actually `budgets` at all!
So he lied, and when a couple of commentors pointed that out, he IGNORED them.


HAHAHA! @JTreb getting schooled = :-)
0
Reply
Male 6
@jtrebowski: Furthermore, I can see you have an unending belief in the government “planners”. Unfortunately, they will let you down- you see you don’t have enough money to get them into office, but businesses do. Who do you actually think they will help first? After all, they do want to keep the donations coming so they can run for office again. This goes for both sides of the isle- you are just a pawn to your precious liberal politicians, as are others. And there are just as many who are pawns for the precious "conservatives".

You act like you have an insight into these topics that no one else could possibly have. After all, you are so high above the fray compared to the rest. The truth is you are in the dark and your ignorance empowers you.

No on a lighter note, from the above I believe it is safe to assume you are either a union member or a teacher! Ha.
0
Reply
Male 6
@jtrebowski: I`ll take you up on your pollution argument. You believe the EPA will protect your property from pollution- a fallacy. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume the pollution was enough for you to notice, but the company was in EPA compliance.

In this reality, if your situation went to court the company would use the EPA regulations to demonstrate they have met pollution guidelines. You see, those guidelines provide the business with a level of "acceptable" pollution, where if they stay below it, you can`t touch them no matter what you and your property are going through.

On the contrary, if we were to accept free market principles here, you would simply have to demonstrate the infringement upon yourself and your property and the company would be required to “make you whole” again. That means, you would win.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jtrebowski: By the way, I also find it funny that you`ve abandoned your Obama campaign since my rebuttals. Am I to accept this as your acknowledgement of defeat to a simply more capable and intelligent master?

As always, looking forward to your replies and the associated humor.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jtrebowski: I live in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. I encourage you to come here as well. We have the right to bear arms in this state, and Castle Laws =). Not to mention, you`re a 40+ year old man, and I`m 23. Advantage? Me.

Do you realize that you are throwing a tantrum? I know I`m talking to a staunch liberal, but c`mon - these pouty antics are truely something.

I encourage you to move to a state more aligned with your views, such as California, New York, or Michigan. Oh wait, these are all failing liberal states with a fleeing population.

So, since you have absolutely no idea what is in the Constitution (have you read it lately?), please let me know the next time you are in Wisconsin and I will direct you to my house.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
please..someone find out where "HumanAction" lives"..i want to take a s h i t on his property. He won`t mind. he`ll just pack up and leave and buy a new house.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@HumamAction: No where in the Constitution does it say i have to bow to someone who invades my property. in fact, in gaurantees the right to protect it,, and in my scenario, it was invaded, but you suggested i "move". so you and your Paul-bot suggestion that i simply "move" because that person fouled up my property is the most un-American concept i`ve ever heard.
0
Reply
Male 646
Where does the buck stop? Apparently not with Republican presidents.
0
Reply
Male 6
Ha! If we are going to make-believe Obama is the smallest spender since Ike, I suppose we may as well pretend he value individual liberty more than any president since FDR locked up all the Americans of Japanese descent. This is ridiculous. Also 2+2=22 I suppose...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jtrebowski: Actually, it`s incredibly American. Just because you say something is un-American doesn`t make it so.

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (and others not in this list) shared my viewpoint that a republic is the fairest method of government. Perhaps you suggest that they were un-American as well?

What is un-American is the fact that you wish to wield the federal government as a sword - forcing others to bow to your beliefs. I merely suggest that the federal government not force anybody. In this way, there will be 50 different governments with 50 different sets of laws. I`m sure one of them would align with your views. Leave me to states that align with my views (like Wisconsin).

In truth, this entire argument falls to one difference: I value the Constitution, which directly lists the responsibilities of the federal government, and clearly states that all others matters fall to the states; you do not.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
HumanAction: "move. I know it sucks, but that`s the way a republic works."

Fighting for something that sucks isn`t very American. I suggest you folks move instead.
0
Reply
Male 5,879
"Lolz, the author: Rick Unger goes into the comments to defend his article! Oh so funny!
He COMPLETELY IGNORES facts which don`t suit him: Congress went 1100 days WITHOUT a budget? Pays NO attention!

Gets all nit-picky when people point out the obvious: His title is grossly misleading.

Fail post + fail article = Lolz! "

What facts are misleading and what did he leave out?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]What additional revenue did they create?[/quote]

The additional revenue got wasted on the wars, bad policies enacted under Bush.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`However, you`re wrong about the tax cut. It`s a fact that lowering tax RATES actually increases tax REVENUES. When rates are lower, the rich are more likely to invest in real money-making businesses, rather than hiding their money in tax shelters. When Reagan cut the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, tax revenues more than doubled. (Of course, Tip O`Neill and the Democrat congress spent it all and more, but that`s another story.)`

So how come that didn`t happen this time around? You guys complain about the current deficit, but the Bush Tax cuts have been in place for ages now. What additional revenue did they create?
0
Reply
Male 546
LOL.... to those that think Obama knows what he is doing.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Why do people let the left wing press such as Forbes lie like this? Call them on it! Don`t link to crap stories like this.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jtrebowski: Simple really - move. I know it sucks, but that`s the way a republic works. If you don`t like the rules in one state, you can go to another one. In this way, conservatives can have conservative states, liberals can have liberal states, and libertarians can have libertarian states. Just find a different state.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
HumanAction: "The states would rule over corporate rules."

Ok, but when you have a governor like Rick Scott down here in Florida who is trying his best to eliminate environmental protections, that can get pretty scary. Let my offer up a hypothetical scenario: Let`s say I buy a property just over the border in a neighboring state...nice house on a large lot that relies on well water. Things are great until some corporation builds a factory just over the border back in Florida, and tyhey start dumping toxic sludge, consequently fouling up my well water. What then, is my recourse?
0
Reply
Male 1,104
lol, i read the link to "The 11 Leadership Secrets You`ve Never Heard About" on the bottom. what a load of bollocks ...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jtrebowski: As for Ron Paul, you have him completely wrong. First, he doesn`t want the so-called "limited government". He wants "limited federal government". Essentially, he wants the US to act like, oh you know, a Republic.

Also, I`m not sure where you came up with the idea that Ron Paul would let corporations run wild... The states would rule over corporate rules.

Regarding foreign affairs, Ron Paul simply wants to leave every one alone. Make no mistake, he would send every Iranian ship to the bottom of the sea if they attacked us.

Simply put, Ron Paul wants the states to be soverieign and the federal government to pursue only those responsiblites listed in the Constitution. 50 little experiments in democracy will yield better ideas than one giant one.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@OldOllie: "you`ve fallen for a big lie"... OK, even if we play like Bush is responsible for 2009`s budget (which he is not), Obama`s administration is still spending more. How is this a "big lie"?

@jtrebowski: All of your sources suggest Obama is still spending more; they just say that he is increasing the rate of spending less - two very different things.

I consider this as an example of how he sidestepped the Consitition: the DREAM Act stalled in Congress (proper method for passing legislation) so Obama went to Janet Napolitano and issued an executive order assisting SOME illegal immigrants.

An example of his attacks on civil liberties are the individual mandate (a tax?? come on Roberts), and the signing of NDAA. He also authorized the military killing of US citizen Anwar al-Alawki in violation of Constitutional Amendments V and VI.

As for corporatism, you should read the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Obama is pushing hard for th
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Glad you cited a libertarian source (important difference there) JT that chart still shows that Obama is a bigger spender than Bush, as it shows the deficits under him are larger. Also Kathleen Sebelius admits to double counting from a perspective other than the Whitehouse`s
0
Reply
Male 371
obama took the blame for george bush and is still paying for it. Romney sucks more than a vacuum, I`m still trying to figure how he is running for president. I bet the polls in November show obama with 65% of the popular vote. Obama is going to win.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@mad_gremlyn: Come to think of it, I hate Savage too. He`s too freaking loud. They both just scream and rabble rouse. Annoying.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Hey. I just want all the non-nice individuals who wish to do harm to our country, whether it physically, or fiscally, to get drated.

Obama and his cronies are currently drating things up, so I want him to get drated, and give Romney a chance. If he drats it up, same.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Oh, and while i`m at it, since you seem to like the Office of Management and Budget so much, thought i might bring this up.

You right-wingers love to claim the sky is falling when it`s just another cloudy day, yet the only answer you provide is to seed the clouds. Please.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@oldOllie: There are conservatives that disagree with you, and not just any old cons, but these ones
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@AJ: I kinda figured you did. We might have differing opinions but you`ve always had intelligent conversations.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I hate Limbaugh.
0
Reply
Male 512
SmagBoy1: Their handles are "5Braincells" and "Auburnflunky" and that`s for a reason. They regurgitate Rush Limbaugh and Mikey "Savage" Weiner, who both love to spin peoples` names into offensive and childish mock nicknames. These fools deserve no less.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@jtrebowski, PolitiFact is certainly political, but they are certainly NOT factual. The only way they can make this claim is by using the FY2009 spending as the baseline which included the "one-time emergency" Wall St. bailout and Obama`s $800 billion "stimulus" that passed long after Bush left office. This extra spending occurred in FY2009, but it was not part of the FY2009 budget as signed by Bush. However, it is dishonestly attributed to Bush in order to perpetrate the lie to which you linked.

Here`s what REALLY happened with the deficit. As you can see, it started turning to $#!+ when the Democrats took over congress in 2007, and it`s been going from bad to worse ever since.

0
Reply
Male 3,364
5Cats: "PERCENTAGE CHANGE IS NOT A VALID MEASUREMENT!!!! "

That`s your opinion, and you`re entitled to it.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
*sigh* click on the "projections links
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@%cats: No, because he also reached a deal with Republicans that extended the tax cuts at all income levels through the end of 2012 (they expire Jan. 1, 2013) as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. It`s called `politics`, Son. I have a feeling that ours are a little rougher than your up there in liberal Canada, eh?
0
Reply
Male 36,299
@JTreb: 1,450 < 650?
0
Reply
Male 36,299
"it" @JTreb? Did you even READ your link?

[quote]Average percentage increase per year[/quote]
It`s the SAME CRAP I`VE JUST PROVEN FALSE!!!!
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IS NOT A VALID MEASUREMENT!!!!

So, yeah! Again I refute it!

plz to read your own links, k-thx!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@FoolsPrussia [quote]Not sure you counted correctly. And you forgot the impact of Bush`s tax cut.[/quote]
Yeah, I added the Democrat congress as an afterthought and forgot to change the count. However, you`re wrong about the tax cut. It`s a fact that lowering tax RATES actually increases tax REVENUES. When rates are lower, the rich are more likely to invest in real money-making businesses, rather than hiding their money in tax shelters. When Reagan cut the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, tax revenues more than doubled. (Of course, Tip O`Neill and the Democrat congress spent it all and more, but that`s another story.)
0
Reply
Male 36,299
[quote]I guess Forbes doesn`t know the difference.[/quote]
Got that right @sr3nity!
Ot @SmagBoy
Or @JTreb
Or @FP
Or @earplay for that matter...
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Please..again..refute it.
0
Reply
Male 36,299
[quote]the impact of Bush`s tax cut.[/quote]
@FP Oh you mean the BENIFIT it created for the economy? NO? Then WHY did Obama RE-SIGN it???
Oh right, the evil Repubs "forced him to"...

0
Reply
Male 53
`growth of federal spending` and `actual federal spending` are two different things. One is a percentage and one is a dollar amount. I guess Forbes doesn`t know the difference.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@Thelonius: Not necessarily. Economics is still based on theories. If we had it down to an exact science, we wouldn;t be having this conversation.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]2010 - $3.6 trillion (Obama)
2009 - $3.1 trillion (Bush) <<<<<
2008 - $2.9 trillion (Bush) [/quote]
@HumanAction, you`ve fallen for a big lie. FY2009 spending includes Obama`s $800 billion "stimulus" plan that was passed by the Democrats long after Bush left office. Were it not for that, the deficit for Bush`s last year would have been much lower, in spite of being saddled with a Democrat congress in the 2006 election.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
At some point, people might possibly recognize that having a valid point to make about federal spending and the economy requires you to be in possession of knowledge and systems that would get you a high paying job with lots of stressful demands that keep you from posting on internet sites like this one. But that is a big might.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@HumanAction: What did I claim that Obama did was false? He gave gays civil liberties in allowing them to serve without being discriminated against, and your claim that he sidestepped the Constitution is debatable, but not fact. And yes, he may have fallen into the corporist trap, but Romney practically invented the concept, and Paul doesn`t want corporations to be held accountable for a f*ck!ng thing. What is Paul`s answer to the average citizen if Bhopal comes over and spews onto my property? (obvious exxageration used, but you get my point( What could i do under Pauls "limited government" scenario?

Please..by all means, since i know you`ll never vote for Obama or Romney...vote for paul, but at least have the common courtesy of explaining how his policies won`t leave us as a nation, helpless against other nations, or as citizens, more helpless against powerful corporations.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`Most of Bush`s deficits can be attributed to 2 things: 9/11, 2 wars, and the the Democrat takeover of congress in 2007.`

Not sure you counted correctly. And you forgot the impact of Bush`s tax cut.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@5Cats: Thanks for the welcoming! I find that many people aren`t clever enough to compare the ratio of spending to GDP.

(further enhancing your point)...

For those who are curious, Obama is the first president since the 1940`s to bring the Spending/GDP ratio above 40%.
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Hiya @HumanAction! Welcome to IAB!
It`s not the AMOUNT they spend that`s the problem, it`s the DEFICIT!!! You can spend 3.7 trillion easily if your income is 3.9 trillion, eh?
BUT Obama has continued to spend like a drunken sailor despite lower revenues!
He`s REFUSED to provide an acutal budget which is required by the US Constitution! (Ok, his party has refused; same damn thing since he`s the LEADER of the party!)

[quote]jobs: oops...not great, but hardly anything rightwingers can campaign on...[/quote]
@JTreb: There`s ONE example, there are others in your brief but highly delusional posting.
Happy now?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
LOL @Nubblins`s comment.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Not sure how they`re playing this one, but the facts are pretty straight forward when looking at the federal budget:

2013 - $3.8 trillion (Obama)
2012 - $3.7 trillion (Obama)
2011 - $3.8 trillion (Obama)
2010 - $3.6 trillion (Obama)
2009 - $3.1 trillion (Bush)
2008 - $2.9 trillion (Bush)
2007 - $2.8 trillion (Bush)
2006 - $2.7 trillion (Bush)

Not that Bush was good, because we all know that`s wrong; Obama is just as bad though (spending wise).

@jtrebowski: Yes, vote for Ron Paul (though he won`t get the nod). Obama is a tyrant, and almost everything you`ve claimed about his tenure is false. He strongly supports corporatism, has severly hampered civil liberties, and has sidestepped the Consitution several times to push his agenda.

I will provide sources at request; will you be able to do the same?
0
Reply
Male 121
@Andrew155 Obama`s deficits are easily justified. If you start jerking around an economy this big, you are in for social unrest and political upheaval. The spending trends were built into the society for decades. You can`t reverse that in four years or even eight. It will take decades to recover. The way to do it is thru growth. Enthusiastic austerity will deepen the recession. As it stands now, depression may be unavoidable. That will lengthen the time it takes to recover, but the way out is thru gradual spending reduction (Obama is doing that) and policies that facilitate growth and competitiveness.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
So...what`s your answer..vote for Ron paul? lol!
0
Reply
Male 3,364
(cont) he`s given people more civil liberties in who can serve our country.
He`s been aggressive in going after terrorists.
he got health care reform passed.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Andrew155: "...half the budget is waste due to the inefficiencies of the military bureaucracy. Cut it. Easy."

agreed.

"
But cut everything else, too. It is insane to spend a few million for advertising for food stamps"

agreed

"those are the fattest people anyways."...now we start to differ a bit....It`s a lot cheaper to feed a family with a bunch of 60 cent cheeseburgers from McDonalds than it is to provide a meal with lean steak or chicken, or fish/seafood, salad, and fresh veggies.

"Raise retirement to 70," "
Raise revenues, too. It`s simple." "Time to progress to the future`

Yep, yep, and yep.

"But that`s no reason to vote for Obama, or even justify him."

Actually, yes it is, because as much as he`s not the savior that you thought he might be, he`s accomplished more in his first term than people realize..
0
Reply
Female 1,743
How about you all just shut up and pay taxes? Mkay?
0
Reply
Male 3,310
There`s something about an aqua velva man. Something.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@5cats: ummm...yeah, of course, but how in this case?
0
Reply
Male 36,299
[quote]5Cats...you are correct...if we ignore, you know, facts...[/quote]
@drWorm: Which facts, exactly, am I ignoring? Details and links please, after all: I provided them.
@JTreb: You`re truely delusional, you know that eh?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
jtrebowski, many people are willing to get rid of military spending. I believe there is a difference between "military" spending and "defense" spending. My dad was in the military for 30 years, one rank below General, he tells me that half the budget is waste due to the inefficiencies of the military bureaucracy. Cut it. Easy.

But cut everything else, too. It is insane to spend a few million for advertising for food stamps, especially when those are the fattest people anyways. Raise retirement to 70, at least. It was 65 in the 1930`s, when you were lucky to live past 65. Time to progress to the future. And that`s just the tip of what could be cut.

Raise revenues, too. It`s simple.

But I noticed all of the arguments being put forward are not pro-Obama so much, but rather, "The Republicans are crazy". Now, I understand this and I wish they would abandon the crazy base. But that`s no reason to vote for Obama, or even justify him. Be
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Until the conservative right will even consider military spending, and giving up their own entitlements like Medicare and TRICARE, I don`t see how any of this can be taken seriously. Sooooo..on that note....lets take a look at jobs: oops...not great, but hardly anything rightwingers can campaign on. If you want to vote for some stiff that still believes that lowering taxes for the wealthy and lowering wages for the middle class is the best way to make America great....go for it. Real Americans will recognize you as the traitors you are, but it`s still your right, I suppose.
(Is this seriously what conservatives are running against?)
0
Reply
Male 2,578
A 1 trillion + deficit every year for probably the next 10 years. Just because you cover your eyes doesn`t mean it`s not happening. And the math they are using is very fuzzy....are they intentionally being misleading?

It`s actually pretty psycho to justify Obama`s deficits 4 years after the recession began. Our children will be condemned to poverty and eternal austerity because of the disgusting excess we live in.
0
Reply
Male 662
5Cats...you are correct...if we ignore, you know, facts...
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Debt increase by Bush: 5 trillion (apx) over 8 years = 625 billion per year.
Debt increase under Obama: 5.1 trillion, plus 6 more months to go! = 5.8 trillion (apx) = 1,450 billion per year.

HOW is that "better" in any way, shape or form?
HOW is it "a lie" that Obama has rung up MORE DEBT than anyone?

His spending rate is more than TWICE that of Bush`s, yet you claim it`s "a lie" that he`s spending faster? Twice as fast =/= faster in your books? And yes, Bush spent faster than any President since WW2, Obama twice as much!

Lord! I am done here, someone else take over plz!
0
Reply
Male 36,299
"Smallest Spender" does not bring "percentage increase" to mind now does it? Honestly now!

Adding 879 BILLION to Bush while subtracting it from Obama is NOT acceptable accounting practice.
DUH if you "juggle the numbers" like that it will "look good" but it`s still a fact:
>Obama spends more than anyone
>Obama racked up more debt than anyone
>no budget since March 2009!
period!

Adjust for inflation all you like: 1,300 > 300 OK?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Again, I`m not trying to say Obama is great. I`m not saying that he`s been fiscally conservative. I`m only saying that he`s not doing anything differently (except actually, by the numbers, clearly increasing spending slightly less) than any other preside.

I`m only addressing the LIES that state that he`s spending in a way that`s far and away and above more than other presidents. Seems, in fact, he`s just like all of them, spending more than he`s taking in. I`m not proud of that, but, at the same time, I`m not falling the narrative that he`s spent proportionally more than other presidents because, clearly, the numbers just don`t bear that out. That`s not sticking up for Obama, it`s sticking up for the truth and against the crazy rhetoric (same stuff saying he`s not a citizen, that he`s a terrorist, a secret Muslim, etc.)
0
Reply
Male 4,431
5Cats, I understand and fully acknowledge what you`re saying. In dollar amounts, more has been spent in the last three years than by any president. Ever. I agree! But, that`s *not* what the article is saying. It`s very specific and clear. It`s talking about INCREASE over the previous president. And compared all presidents since Eisenhower, Obama has INCREASED spending by a smaller proportion than any other president. That has nothing to do with dollars and everything to do with big increase versus less big increase.

MeGrendel, final spending bills for 2009 are probably *still* being signed. Spending bills and the President`s budget are two entirely different things.
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Jan 1994 - Jan 1995:
The debt went from 4.5 to 4.8 trillion, a deficit of: 300 billion.
An increase of: 6%
THEREFOR: According to your "SmagBoy Logic" that`s 6X WORSE than Obama!!!

You "get it" yet?
Source: The US Gov`t
0
Reply
Male 36,299
@SmagBoy: Percentage RATE of growth does NOT equal amount spent!
ESPECIALLY if you take things Obama signed and add them to Bush`s total!
LOOK at the difference between 2011 vs 2010: 1.3 TRILLION vs 1.29 TRILLION: An increase of 1% Ooo, how LOW is that?
SO MUCH LOWER than Reagan!
It doesn`t matter, 1.3 TRILLION is the highest EVER!!! To argue otherwise is dishonest (at best).

Get it, didn`t think so.

[quote]Facts won`t get in the way of racism.[/quote]
@madest: you`ve made that your motto, eh? Have it tattoo`d on your butt yet?
0
Reply
Male 7,329
SmagBoy1-"NOT a lame duck budget, and the incoming president does NOT sign it."

The final spending bills for the 2009 budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. The final bill he signed included 7991 earmarks totaling nearly 5.5 billion dollars.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I disagree, AntEconomist. In fact, the article analyzes "annualized growth." So, if the first graph had shown Clinton, we`d see the increase of Bush over Clinton being far and away more significant than the growth of Obama over Bush. But the first graph only shows two presidents. Can`t make any relative growth observations over that except between the two of them. And that`s meaningless in the overall conversation of the article.

Now don`t get me wrong. I think that they BOTH spend way too much. By a long shot! But, the typical conservative insane line of "Obama is the worst ever" is just a joke. And it needs to be addressed.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]attack *Forbes* for being a liberal publication. [/quote]

Nope, instead I`ll point out that percentages are misleading. In REAL dollars Obama IS the biggest spender.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Facts won`t get in the way of racism.
0
Reply
Male 371
@SmagBoy: Not quite sure who you`re endorsing. The factcheck article (see the first graph) contradicts the Forbes headline.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I think Tallon314 nailed it. And I`ll stand by that and Forbes ANY day. No need to even argue.
0
Reply
Male 926
Lol, I would like some popcorn...and I am ready.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
~munches popcorn with LIK~

Yeah, this is going to be good. I wanna see the far-right I-A-B`ers attack *Forbes* for being a liberal publication. LOL!
0
Reply
Female 3,727
Would anyone else like popcorn? I have been waiting for this one since I saw it on the live submission page.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
This is a load of crap. the unfunded mandate of Obamacare makes Obama the biggest spending president of all time and makes GW Bush look like a skinflint.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I`ll stick my neck out and guess Obama is spending what the average President would spend.[/quote]
...and you would get your neck chopped off. Obama has run up more debt in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8 years. Most of Bush`s deficits can be attributed to 2 things: 9/11, 2 wars, and the the Democrat takeover of congress in 2007. What`s Obama`s excuse (except for a Democrat congress for his first 2 years).
0
Reply
Male 15,832
If you use FY2009 as your baseline, a budget which contained the supposed "one-time emergency" of the $800 billion Wall St. bailout and Obama`s $800 billion stimulus (which was passed by Obama and the Democrats after Bush left office but which they dishonestly attribute to Bush because it occurred within the time frame of the FY 2009 budget), then yes, the spending increases have been quite small. It`s just that we`ve had 4 straight years of "one-time emergencies."
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Oh, I`m not hiding behind anything, 5Cats! I most assuredly *did* write the description exactly like it`s posted! And look at what happened! You guys didn`t fail me at all! ;-)

But seriously, you`re incorrect about the 2009 budget. It`s NOT a lame duck budget, and the incoming president does NOT sign it. It`s written in late 2007 and is supposed to be approved by both houses prior to the summer. Since the government runs on fiscal cycles from October to September, the 2009 budget started in October of 2008. The president proposed it at the end of 2007 and it had to wind its way through committee and then open debate, etc. And probably suffer through a CRA or three.

I can`t argue the "spending" versus "budget" part of the title or article. That`s what the article was titled by the author. But, you get his point. Arguing over semantics is silly.

And, I truth is, I think that Gerry has nailed it. They ALL spend too much. WAY too
0
Reply
Male 770
This looks like a story made from using whats called `Baseline Spending` which is used all the time by govenments but is not a very useful tool to get accurate pictures of spending.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
You guys are so funny with your Obama this and Obama that.

Every time I see the name Obama in a post, I just picture everyones faces going like this:


Save yourself a few hours reading and just watch this. Same thing really.
0
Reply
Male 79
The title of the article is misleading. The data shown in the article is about new spending. The author is correct in that under Obama new spending has not increased much under Obama compared to previous presidents. This includes his stimulus plan and the GM/Chrysler bailouts. However under Obama we do have record deficits as a result of Bushes deficit increases (2 wars, Bush Tax Cuts, Bailouts) and a stagnant economy.
0
Reply
Male 13
Aaaaaaannnnnnndddddddddddd...

Factchecked
0
Reply
Male 98
Right wing says he`s the biggest spender.
Left wing now says he`s the smallest.
I`ll stick my neck out and guess Obama is spending what the average President would spend.
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Lolz, the author: Rick Unger goes into the comments to defend his article! Oh so funny!
He COMPLETELY IGNORES facts which don`t suit him: Congress went 1100 days WITHOUT a budget? Pays NO attention!

Gets all nit-picky when people point out the obvious: His title is grossly misleading.

Fail post + fail article = Lolz!

@AntEconomist: I agree, it`s even worse than irrelevant in this article: it`s an outright lie.
0
Reply
Male 371
@5Cats: Rate of growth is worse than a bad measure. If your goal is to compare spending across administrations, it is an irrelevant measure.
0
Reply
Male 36,299
@Gerry1: The "Bush 2009 Budget" is what`s called a "lame duck" budget: it would require the signature of the new President (iirc, for sure it would have to pass BOTH houses IN 2009 which were both Dem controlled).
By assigning Bush the money spent BY OBAMA this whole article is a joke.

J-O-K-E.
And it isn`t funny.

"Rate of Growth" is a BAD measure at best: after you cook the numbers? It`s an outright fraud.
0
Reply
Male 371
The headline says, "smallest spender" but the data cited in the article isn`t spending. He talks only about the growth rate of spending. If you read the comments, you`ll see that several people call the author out on this. The author`s response (I`m not kidding) is, "math isn`t my strong suit".
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Lolz, complete horse-spit!
Assigning Obama`s spending to OTHER presidents? Brilliant! I`m assigning my Credit Card debt to my neighbor, lets see how that works!

"Anualized Growth Of Federal Spending" Well if you take 0.879 TRILLION and put it in "last year`s spending" heck YA! It looks great!

This is so utterly meaningless, @SmagBoy hang your head in SHAME! You cannot even blame @FancyLad for changing the description since I saw it in the submissions...



So it`s "true" that the GROWTH in DEFICIT isn`t that big, the DEFICIT itself is HUGE! Highest EVER!
0
Reply
Male 37,888

AJ [quote]"That asterisk is telling. They reassigned the stimulus that Barack Obama signed, to Bush." [/quote]
It says "stimulus re-assigned to Obama" but if it were assigned to Bush, the 2009 budget was done by Bush so he spent it. It should be assigned to him. Just as the budget Obama sets for the next president will be his fault.

They all spend way too much, way too frivilously, without a care how to repay the money. ALL OF THEM - both parties. So the arguement is really which thief is better.
0
Reply
Male 1,249
lol that was for the stupid grandpa post
0
Reply
Male 1,249
fake and gay
0
Reply
Male 10,339
That asterisk is telling. They reassigned the stimulus that Barack Obama signed, to Bush.

Why did they do that?

Also, Obama`s 2009 stimulus has persisted every year since, but it is not included. Weird "fuzzy math".
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Link: Obama Is The Smallest Spender Since Eisenhower? [Rate Link] - Provided so 5Cats and AuburnJunky can break the all-time response record trying to respond...
0
Reply