Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$31.461 trillion dollars over the Obama Spendapalooza™ tour.
Quote:
2002 - 2,010,894
2003 - 2,159,899
2004 - 2,292,841
2005 - 2,471,957
2006 - 2,655,050
2007 - 2,728,686
2008 - 2,982,544
2009 - 3,517,677 - We'll be generous to Obama and say all of 2009 was Bush's doing. Forget the stimulus and OMNIBUS.
One way to address this claim is to ask, where are the huge new federal programs? The Affordable Care Act has not yet kicked in; the stimulus, such as it was, is fading out; where is this big government surge?
In answer, the peddlers of this myth point to the fact — which is true — that federal spending as a share of GDP has risen, from 19.6 percent in fiscal 2007 to 23.6 percent in fiscal 2010. (I use 2007 here as the last pre-Great Recession year). But what’s behind that rise?
A large part of it is a slowdown in GDP rather than an accelerated rise in government spending. Nominal GDP rose at an annual rate of 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007; it only rose at a 1.7 percent rate from 2007 to 2010. How much would the ratio of spending to GDP have gone up if spending had stayed the same, but there had not been a slowdown? Here’s the answer:
So about half of the rise in the ratio is due to a fall in the denominator rather than a rise in the numerator.
That still leaves a significant rise in spending. What’s that about? Here’s one way to look at the federal budget; I compare growth rates in spending from 2000 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2010:
“Income security” is unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits — in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged — because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.
What we’re seeing isn’t some drastic expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump.
...
And the left continues to embarass themself by posting the same old memo thats been already proven a lie..
Arent you at all embarassed by not realizing that $2.9T to $3.8T in only 3 1/2 years does not equal 1.4% increase? I'd be hiding my head in shame if I tried to put that out, but here ya are.. not at all embarassed..
And the left continues to embarass themself by posting the same old memo thats been already proven a lie..
Arent you at all embarassed by not realizing that $2.9T to $3.8T in only 3 1/2 years does not equal 1.4% increase? I'd be hiding my head in shame if I tried to put that out, but here ya are.. not at all embarassed..
I almost feel sorry for you..
You don't even know what you're talking about. Nobody said that the difference is 1.4%. You either misunderstood or are being intentionally dense. Perhaps you should read this:
Special Bulletin: Fractions Have Denominators
What the post CLEARLY said was that much of the rise in the ratio is due to a fall in the denominator rather than a rise in the numerator.
Also, increased spending on “Income security,” which is largely automatic, caused the rise in spending due to a bad economy. As Krugman asked, if the the peddlers of this myth are right and Obama has expanded big government, where are the huge new federal programs? As we know, there aren't any.
So, unless you are saying that the government should cut back on unemployment benefits and Medicaid for the newly unemployed during a slump -- exactly when people need it the most, we have do accept federal spending should rise during economic downturns -- and that's exactly what happened -- not 'Obama is a big spender.'
As Krugman asked, if the the peddlers of this myth are right and Obama has expanded big government, where are the huge new federal programs? As we know, there aren't any.
Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Expansion of IRS...
Quote:
Beginning in 2014, major coverage expansions from the Affordable Care Act will take effect. These expansions are expected to increase the number of people with health insurance; the demand for health care (particularly prescription drugs and physician care); and the share of total health spending sponsored by federal, state, and local governments.
The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.
The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.
Track the progress of more than 200 proposals and rules that will be written by various federal agencies as part of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
Obama is slowing the growth in spending better than any other President in 60 years! The growth in the federal budget has grown 1.4% in President Obama’s first term, compared to President Reagan who increased the rate of spending by 8% in his first term
The cost of all those social programs are adding up.
Let's see, where to start with this thread. First, the United States has the largest economy in the world and thus every President for as long as most people have been alive have been the "Biggest Government Spender" in the world. That includes W, Clinton, H W Bush, Reagan, etc.
Thus, the entire point of that stupid article and this whole thread if flawed.
To boot, there really haven't been that many expansions of social programs under Obama. There was healthcare reform and some temporary extensions of unemployment benefits. Neither are remarkably different than the prescription drug reform passed by Republicans in the 2000's.
Bull.. Spending jumped from $2.9T to $3.8T.. thats not 8%
Your ideas and reality begs to differ, so do the numbers you want to cling onto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And the left continues to embarass themself...
Says a shameless someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
I would agree that Bush was a big spender. But your numbers are flawed. Try using some math.
I used your numbers.
Do you now disagree with them?
Quote:
Obama increased spending 17.9% in his first year, and has established a level of spending way beyond any other president in history.
Show me the numbers, and your math. Not that you would learn or accept anything but what you want to preach, solely as a political hack.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
