U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:15 PM
 
1,212 posts, read 1,346,312 times
Reputation: 876

Advertisements

And this from a conservative website, Forbes.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?


Check out the chart –


So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:26 PM
 
69,198 posts, read 31,910,410 times
Reputation: 9199
So... where did over $5 Trillion go?
Quote:
Obama's National Debt Impact

Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
As of Jul 11, 2012:
$15,876,457,645,133
In 3.5 yrs Increased: $5,249,580,596,220

George Bush (8yrs): $4,899,100,310,609
Quote:
TheObamaDebt.com was created to track the National Debt on a daily basis from the inauguration and during the Obama administration - and provides a way to watch if the spending continues - increasing the debt - or if the promised "change" will occur without spending our great Nation into a deeper hole. At some point, one of our presidents must accept responsibility, be accountable, and be committed to change the direction of this graph. Will Obama be the one to make it happen - no matter what it takes?
The Obama Debt Monitor*|*Tracking the US National Debt through the Obama Administration (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:28 PM
 
16,546 posts, read 11,748,766 times
Reputation: 4231
Forbes is nothing more than an Obama propaganda machine lately. They were most likely paid off to write such articles.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 5,729,330 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by analyze_this View Post
And this from a conservative website, Forbes.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?


Check out the chart –


So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
They lie very loud and so some will believe anything the tea party tells them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:30 PM
 
16,546 posts, read 11,748,766 times
Reputation: 4231
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
They lie very loud and so some will believe anything the tea party tells them.
And you actually believe this! LMAO!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:33 PM
 
29,986 posts, read 37,959,657 times
Reputation: 12782
Default Obama has increased US debt by $64,000.00/taxpayer

The $64,000 Question: How Much Has Debt Increased Per Taxpayer Under Obama? | CNSNews.com

Quote:
...........If each of these 81,890,189 federal taxpayers were given responsibility for paying off an equal share of the new federal debt added since Obama was inaugurated, they would each need to pay about $64,219.88.

Quote:
.......The median household income in the United States in 2009, according to the Census Bureau, was $49,777. That means the median household would have needed to work all of one year and then the first 106 days of another year and then give all of their earnings from that time period to the federal government just to pay off the $64,219.88 in new federal debt per taxpayer piled up since Obama’s inauguration.........
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:35 PM
 
4,412 posts, read 3,431,397 times
Reputation: 2321
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That $5 Trillion was mostly created by lower revenues from tax cuts and the economic downturn. But that fact doesn't fit the narrative that it's "Obama's out of control spending."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 7,276,738 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
No.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Houston
23,604 posts, read 12,191,857 times
Reputation: 9641
Quote:
"I think if I had to tell you the probability, I'd say the chances are we are going over the fiscal cliff," Bowles said. "I hate to say it, but I think that's probably right."

Bowles, whom Obama appointed, along with Simpson, to create a bipartisan debt-reduction plan, said today that because debt reduction was "politically painful" and "really tough," it was not likely Congress and the president would make the tough choices to reform entitlements, cut spending and simplify the tax code, as the Bowles-Simpson plan suggests.

"I think that if we don't get these politicians to come together we face the most predictable economic crisis in history," Bowles said during this morning's interview in Sun Valley, Idaho. "I think it's absolutely clear that the fiscal path we are on is not sustainable, and for me, the best analogy is these deficits are like a cancer, and over time they will destroy the country from within."
We better stop worrying about who is to blame and do something.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 02:43 PM
 
1,212 posts, read 1,346,312 times
Reputation: 876
Not sure why, but it still shocks me how difficult it is to have a political discussion with conservatives in the Fox News era. They don’t make cohesive, fact-based arguments, they just angrily regurgitate Fox talking points, regardless of how few facts they have backing them. And when that doesn’t work, they do the same thing, but louder.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top