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"

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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

you know what promise this was during his last election..

[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

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?

Virtually every positive number on that chart is due to the Clinton presidency. That is like giving the weatherman in San Diego credit for it being nice outside.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Virtually every positive number on that chart is due to the Clinton presidency. That is like giving the weatherman in San Diego credit for it being nice outside.

There is a difference between federal spending growth and deficit legacy. Don't confuse them (like "Handsome Boy" did) The second isn't on that chart. It's spending growth per administration, only. Not underlaying obligations.

And Obama's is the lowest in decades. He only increased federal spending growth rate 1.4%. Yes, that's true. And last month? The USA took in more money than we spent. For the first time in years. Obama is frugal as hell.

Really, if you want to disagree, I'd contact the Wall Street Journal and tell them they are wrong. But it's pretty clear that Republicans are spending fools. Wars and unfunded tax cuts do that to a budget.

Here's another chart from the Wall Street Journal:

[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?

[Danzig]

Been reading the usa today this week whilst on vacation, since they provide iteach day...

At any rate, one of obamas promises was to cut the deficit...but according to usa t, its grown more in the four obama years than in the eight bush years. Thats just awesome.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Been reading the usa today this week whilst on vacation, since they provide iteach day...

At any rate, one of obamas promises was to cut the deficit...but according to usa t, its grown more in the four obama years than in the eight bush years. Thats just awesome.

Not exactly:

Not only is Mitt Romney telling his supporters that President Obama continues to spend out of control, but additionally that the president is responsible for doubling the budget deficit since he took office. This is not a new attack. Republicans who blindly greenlit trillions in Bush-era spending have been engaged in this nonsense practically since the minute the president was inaugurated.

I like to do this from time to time, so consider this a one-stop source for debunking what the Republicans are claiming about the Obama administration's fiscal record. Before I do, however, I'd like to note that Republicans often confuse the national debt with the federal budget deficit, not unlike the way they scramble the stimulus and the bailouts. (The "stimulus," passed by President Obama, is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the "bailout," passed by President Bush, is also known as TARP.) They're not interchangeable terms.

For example, Karl Rove's new and highly deceptive anti-Obama commercial somehow conflates the national debt and unemployment, calling it "job-killing debt," even though job-creation and the national debt are about as interdependent as Rove and The Truth. We can assume that Rove simply doesn't know what the debt actually is, or that he's deliberately lying to voters.

To be clear: the federal budget deficit is the annual difference between what the government spends and what it collects in revenue. It's often similar, higher or lower, than the previous fiscal year's deficit. The debt is the total amount of money the United States owes to creditors, and this much larger figure accrues from year to year. A lot of people don't know the difference, and I've even heard very serious cable news people mix them up, too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...l?ref=politics

The federal debt would continue to increase if Spongebob Squarepants was president, and spent zero money.

Obama has indeed markedly cut the federal budget deficit

The Congressional Budget Office noted that President Obama inherited $1.2 trillion of the total $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009.

And even though it's staring him in the face, Beauprez failed to note that the president has reduced the deficit nearly every year. Again, by Beauprez's own numbers, the president has cut the deficit every year except for one. Between 2009 and 2012, the president will have reduced the deficit by $312 billion. Put another way, the president has cut the deficit by nearly 25 percent -- so far.

[Danzig]

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...0f1eb0365720c1


here's a new ap story i came across just now when we got back to the room. interesting...but then, every admin uses some amazing math when they do their figuring. simply incredible...kind of like what the deficit really is compared to what the govt says it is-they don't have to figure retiree payouts in their budgets-so the true deficit is actually much higher. read that yesterday somewhere on the road between orlando and charleston.



ha, saw a great bumper sticker today. 'real change coming 1-20-2013'.


but then, it's depressing-because regardless of who wins, we're still screwed. still between a rock and a hard place, the frying pan and the fire. we are the grist in the mill.

The Clinton boom was false. An inflated market during the internet revolution. Kinda like how now Google and Apple are keeping the market afloat.

It's horses.hit. The banks make or break the market. Google and Apple are a diversion. If all it takes are Google ads and iPads to keep the world from crashing then we are truly f.ucked.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

Bad.

When things that are worthless are considered valuable by many and traded as such that is not a good thing. More "companies" went under during those years in silicon alley alone than have ever before. It was all fake and a major contributing factor to why we are where we are now.