Wall Street Journal: "Massive Obama spending - never happened"

[Riot]

Wall Street Journal MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...2?pagenumber=1

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.
Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

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.

[Riot]

[ArlJim78]

what a shame that this nonsense goes unchalllenged. he assigned the stimulus year of 2009 to Bush. since that time Democrats have refused to make a budget, relying instead on continuing resolutions. so the stimulus has been baked into the budget every year since. since that time there have been no big increases but the bump up from Obama's stimulus has put us into all new territory.

it's amazing what people will believe. government spending by all measures has never been higher.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

what a shame that this nonsense goes unchalllenged. he assigned the stimulus year of 2009 to Bush.

See the bottom of the graph? Where it says

* 2009 stimulus re-assigned to Obama

How do you read that to be assigned to Bush?

it's amazing what people will believe. government spending by all measures has never been higher.

All measures except reality.

[Handsome Boy]

I wonder why the graph doesn't include 2009, the first year of the Obama presidency? Sure, the "*" notes the stimulus reassigned to Obama, but that was only part of the more than half a trillion dollars of spending increase from fiscal year 2008 to 2009. Bush never saw a FY 2009 budget. The Democratic Congress waited until Obama had been sworn in to pass a budget, and he signed the FY 2009 budget on March 12 of that year. Altogether, Congress spent more than $400 billion more in FY 2009 than Bush had asked to be appropriated in his budget proposal (which the Democrats ignored).

In 2009, Obama and Congress increased spending by $535 billion over the fiscal year 2008 baseline. If you add up the amounts by which spending in the fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 has exceeded the fiscal year 2008 baseline, it is $2.44 trillion. Put another way, federal spending in fiscal 2008 was $2,983,000,000 (rounded). In fiscal 2012, it is projected to be $3,796,000,000. That means that on Obama’s watch, spending has increased by $813 billion, or 27% over the 2008 baseline, roughly 6.75% per year. What's more, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, federal spending has increased 39%. Hardly as thrifty as, say, Clinton and the Republican Congress.

[Rudeboyelvis]

I just hope nobody tells Obama what comes after "Trillions"

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Handsome Boy

I wonder why the graph doesn't include 2009, the first year of the Obama presidency? Sure, the "*" notes the stimulus reassigned to Obama, but that was only part of the more than half a trillion dollars of spending increase from fiscal year 2008 to 2009. Bush never saw a FY 2009 budget. The Democratic Congress waited until Obama had been sworn in to pass a budget, and he signed the FY 2009 budget on March 12 of that year. Altogether, Congress spent more than $400 billion more in FY 2009 than Bush had asked to be appropriated in his budget proposal (which the Democrats ignored).

In 2009, Obama and Congress increased spending by $535 billion over the fiscal year 2008 baseline. If you add up the amounts by which spending in the fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 has exceeded the fiscal year 2008 baseline, it is $2.44 trillion. Put another way, federal spending in fiscal 2008 was $2,983,000,000 (rounded). In fiscal 2012, it is projected to be $3,796,000,000. That means that on Obama’s watch, spending has increased by $813 billion, or 27% over the 2008 baseline, roughly 6.75% per year. What's more, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, federal spending has increased 39%. Hardly as thrifty as, say, Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Math, logic and reason are not welcome here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Handsome Boy

I wonder why the graph doesn't include 2009, the first year of the Obama presidency?

Because of the way our budget years work.

Too difficult to understand why actual year 2009 was a Bush budget created in 2007 and passed (effectively renewed, let's be frank) in 2008 and in-service in 2009?

Then go with it's a Kenyan Muslim Communist conspiracy, "Handsome Boy"

They did give him credit for his own rather large budget item, didn't they? Just as Bush gets credit for all the spending he caused - no matter the year it occurs within.





I rest my case. You boys have fun :-)

Here's the link for the second article, which provided the above two charts (one the same as WSJ), based upon the Wall Street Journal info but expanded to include the deficit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...l?ref=politics

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Referring to this. Claiming any of this is due to Carter or Obama is ridiculous. Riding the wave of the bubbles that all burst after Clinton and letting Democratic presidents of the last 50 years take credit is bunk.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Referring to this. Claiming any of this is due to Carter or Obama is ridiculous. Riding the wave of the bubbles that all burst after Clinton and letting Democratic presidents of the last 50 years take credit is bunk.

Well, I think you have to take it for what it is (and not more), a generalized average via those metrics, using those sources, and compare to other sources of information about those years if it raises questions in your mind.

Why would you not think Carter's presidency or Clinton's presidency should be included?

For example, I found this regarding "Income growth", from Slate, covering from 1948:

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, I think you have to take it for what it is (and not more), a generalized average via those metrics, using those sources, and compare to other sources of information about those years if it raises questions in your mind.

Why would you not think Carter's presidency or Clinton's presidency should be included?

For example, I found this regarding "Income growth", from Slate, covering from 1948:

The Clinton years are the benchmark for untenable economic growth, the numbers have little to nothing to do with any democratic policies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

The Clinton years are the benchmark for untenable economic growth, the numbers have little to nothing to do with any democratic policies.

Just to be clear: you are saying the Clinton years economic growth - the best we've had in the past 40 - in this country was bad? Or just not sustainable forever?