PDA

View Full Version : Obama's spending bonanza never happened?



pghin08
05-31-2012, 10:42 AM
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

This thing went pretty crazy on the interwebs last week. There's some faults with it, but on the whole, it's actually kind of accurate. Politifact.com naturally puts it better than I could.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 11:07 AM
This is nonsense. Obama can't claim that he merely maintained Bush's record levels of spending that we were all incensed about and claim that keeping spending at that level is not out-of-control spending. Additionally, Bush gets credit for a huge chunk of 2009 spending that ought to be credited to Obama. Furthermore, all of the insane spending in Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014, which this graph does not show.

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 11:13 AM
All politicians regardless of political party spend taxpayer's money freely and without a second thought. It's not their money why would they care? Until we find some way to hold them accountable this type of behavior will unfortunately continue without end.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 11:29 AM
All politicians regardless of political party spend taxpayer's money freely and without a second thought. It's not their money why would they care? Until we find some way to hold them accountable this type of behavior will unfortunately continue without end.

Like a debt ceiling limit?

pghin08
05-31-2012, 12:34 PM
This is nonsense. Obama can't claim that he merely maintained Bush's record levels of spending that we were all incensed about and claim that keeping spending at that level is not out-of-control spending. Additionally, Bush gets credit for a huge chunk of 2009 spending that ought to be credited to Obama. Furthermore, all of the insane spending in Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014, which this graph does not show.

Ooh, I have many things to say!

1. Who was "incensed" about Bush's spending? I didn't hear 1/10th as much about our fiscal problems during Bush's reign as I do during Obama's.

2. They credit Obama with the second stimulus, I believe. Truly though, they're right, the prior President passes the budget for the incoming one. If Romney were to win in November, I'd still give credit/blame to Obama on the 2013 budget.

3. I think you're spot on with Obamacare. Truly, no matter who becomes President, and even if Obamacare never existed, this chart is bound to get further out of whack with all of the retiring baby boomers hoovering up SS and Medicare.


I think the point they were trying to make is that Obama hasn't increased spending as much as people think, and not so much the point that the spending isn't out of control.

duane1969
05-31-2012, 12:37 PM
I am just grasping at straws here, but I imagine that someone did some fancy work with numbers to make things look more favorable than they really are.

For example, were the $345 billion in tax breaks that were included in the Obama stimulus counted as government spending? My guess is no, even though those tax breaks added to the national debt.

Another example. Was the repeated extensions to unemployment benefits counted as government spending or were they factored as an expense that falls outside of the normal scope of government spending and not used to calculate the increase?

My point is this. The government and the spin doctors are masters at twisting words and numbers to make the general public buy into whatever they want them to believe. Osama bin Laden being killed was not a government sanctioned assasination, it was a military action in the interest of international security. Your taxes are not increasing, the amount of deductions you can take is decreasing. Your civil rights are not being taken away, you are being protected.

I know one number and this is it. $1.407 trillion. That is the yearly average increase to the National Debt under Obama's watch. Under Bush the yearly increase average was $594 billion. Under Clinton it was $140 billion. I don't need a wordsmith or a spin doctor to sell me some twisted story, I can see the reality for myself.

And the kicker that most people don't get...that $1.407 trillion is not how much the government spent, it is how much the government overspent.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 12:55 PM
I am just grasping at straws here, but I imagine that someone did some fancy work with numbers to make things look more favorable than they really are.

For example, were the $345 billion in tax breaks that were included in the Obama stimulus counted as government spending? My guess is no, even though those tax breaks added to the national debt.

Another example. Was the repeated extensions to unemployment benefits counted as government spending or were they factored as an expense that falls outside of the normal scope of government spending and not used to calculate the increase?

My point is this. The government and the spin doctors are masters at twisting words and numbers to make the general public buy into whatever they want them to believe. Osama bin Laden being killed was not a government sanctioned assasination, it was a military action in the interest of international security. Your taxes are not increasing, the amount of deductions you can take is decreasing. Your civil rights are not being taken away, you are being protected.

I know one number and this is it. $1.407 trillion. That is the yearly average increase to the National Debt under Obama's watch. Under Bush the yearly increase average was $594 billion. Under Clinton it was $140 billion. I don't need a wordsmith or a spin doctor to sell me some twisted story, I can see the reality for myself.

And the kicker that most people don't get...that $1.407 trillion is not how much the government spent, it is how much the government overspent.

Yep, they are deficit spending over $100 billion per month and they have the gall to suggest that they have had any type of spending restraint? Do people really fall for this blatant lie?

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 12:56 PM
All politicians regardless of political party spend taxpayer's money freely and without a second thought. It's not their money why would they care? Until we find some way to hold them accountable this type of behavior will unfortunately continue without end.

There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s more than 40% of our national income.

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 12:58 PM
Ooh, I have many things to say!

1. Who was "incensed" about Bush's spending? I didn't hear 1/10th as much about our fiscal problems during Bush's reign as I do during Obama's.

2. They credit Obama with the second stimulus, I believe. Truly though, they're right, the prior President passes the budget for the incoming one. If Romney were to win in November, I'd still give credit/blame to Obama on the 2013 budget.

3. I think you're spot on with Obamacare. Truly, no matter who becomes President, and even if Obamacare never existed, this chart is bound to get further out of whack with all of the retiring baby boomers hoovering up SS and Medicare.


I think the point they were trying to make is that Obama hasn't increased spending as much as people think, and not so much the point that the spending isn't out of control.

The rate of increase has nothing to do with whether or not the spending was out of control, unless you are willing to concede that it wasn't out of control under Bush.

pghin08
05-31-2012, 01:06 PM
The rate of increase has nothing to do with whether or not the spending was out of control, unless you are willing to concede that it wasn't out of control under Bush.

You're right, the rate of increase has nothing to do with whether or not the spending is out of control, it's only an indicator of how much MORE out of control it's getting. Bush spent a ton, and Obama spends a ton.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 01:09 PM
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what youíre doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then Iím not so careful about the content of the present, but Iím very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody elseís money on myself. And if I spend somebody elseís money on myself, then Iím sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody elseís money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody elseís money on somebody else, Iím not concerned about how much it is, and Iím not concerned about what I get. And thatís government. And thatís close to 40% of our national income.

The biggest thing I don't comprehend about liberals is that they know that the government is wasteful and corrupt yet they continually support policies that require ever greater extraction of wealth from taxpayers to give to a group of wasteful/corrupt politicians to do as they please.

Shockingly, when their favored politicians are no longer in control, they get upset when taxpayer money gets redirected to areas they don't like.

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 01:19 PM
The biggest thing I don't comprehend about CONSERVATIVES is that they know that the government is wasteful and corrupt yet they continually support policies that require ever greater extraction of wealth from taxpayers to give to a group of wasteful/corrupt politicians to do as they please.

Shockingly, when their favored politicians are no longer in control, they get upset when taxpayer money gets redirected to areas they don't like.


Fixed that for you buddy. :thumb:

pghin08
05-31-2012, 01:25 PM
The biggest thing I don't comprehend about liberals is that they know that the government is wasteful and corrupt yet they continually support policies that require ever greater extraction of wealth from taxpayers to give to a group of wasteful/corrupt politicians to do as they please.

Shockingly, when their favored politicians are no longer in control, they get upset when taxpayer money gets redirected to areas they don't like.

No, as a liberal, I get upset when Democrats are tagged as being "reckless spenders", when history has shown that Republicans spend just as much. If Democrats are reckless spenders (and I'm not arguing that they're not), then so are Republicans.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 01:26 PM
Fixed that for you buddy. :thumb:

Yeah, it was those darn Conservatives fighting to raise the debt limit.

JustAlex
05-31-2012, 01:41 PM
No, as a liberal, I get upset when Democrats are tagged as being "reckless spenders", when history has shown that Republicans spend just as much. If Democrats are reckless spenders (and I'm not arguing that they're not), then so are Republicans.

The hypocrisy of Republicans is too much to bear....

And just like you said in another post, I didn't hear ANYONE complain when Bush was literally splurging money like there was no tomorrow.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 02:08 PM
No, as a liberal, I get upset when Democrats are tagged as being "reckless spenders", when history has shown that Republicans spend just as much. If Democrats are reckless spenders (and I'm not arguing that they're not), then so are Republicans.

Historically? No. Recently? To some extent, but that is being remedied. Big spending establishment Republicans are getting kicked out of office by conservatives led by the Tea Party.

Funny, how one side is trying to demonize the Tea Party as crazy, evil, etc while the other is trying to co-opt the movement with their favorite social issues while pandering to them for their vote.

ensbergcollector
05-31-2012, 02:42 PM
i think there are a few reasons why we didn't hear about this as much under bush. for starters, just because bush overspent, doesn't mean obama gets a free pass. he is spending 2-3 times more than bush. we don't get to pretend that isn't fact.

secondly, for right or wrong, most people tend to give a pass on spending when at war. (not saying the wars were right or wrong). People are more forgiving of things like war then the stimulus plan that built frisbee golf courses and restaurants.

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 02:44 PM
The hypocrisy of Republicans is too much to bear....

And just like you said in another post, I didn't hear ANYONE complain when Bush was literally splurging money like there was no tomorrow.

Why do you think the tea party got started? Hint: it wasn't because of Obama.

pghin08
05-31-2012, 02:53 PM
i think there are a few reasons why we didn't hear about this as much under bush. for starters, just because bush overspent, doesn't mean obama gets a free pass. he is spending 2-3 times more than bush. we don't get to pretend that isn't fact.

secondly, for right or wrong, most people tend to give a pass on spending when at war. (not saying the wars were right or wrong). People are more forgiving of things like war then the stimulus plan that built frisbee golf courses and restaurants.

First off, frisbee golf is awesome.

I just think that Democrats are much less bold than the Republicans. Democrats weren't strong and united enough to bring up Bush's spending habits.

JustAlex
05-31-2012, 02:56 PM
Why do you think the tea party got started? Hint: it wasn't because of Obama.

Sorry, I don't believe that for one second.

pghin08
05-31-2012, 03:15 PM
Sorry, I don't believe that for one second.

Technically, he's right. I'm pretty sure the Tea Party started amping up whenever they bailed out the banks. However, it became a national movement against the Obama administration as time has worn on.