Is It True That Obama Has Spent More Money In His 1st Term Than All Presidents Combined Since George Washington?

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by cw30000

It is true. 8 years of Bush exceeded all the presidents before him. HOWEVER, less than 4 years of Obama already exceeded 8 years of Bush.

In math term

Previous presidents < Bush < Obama

No, it's false. It was stated by Sarah Palin, and we know how reliable her claims are.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...d-more-debt-p/

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

NO.....ALL our wars alone surpassed the current spending and deficits; let alone discretionary and other spending!

The reality behind Obama and Bush&rsquo;s &lsquo;spending binge&rsquo; - The Washington Post

[Glitch]

I would just like to point out that the President is immaterial. Presidents do not pass budgets, Congress does, in particular the House originates all budgets but the Senate may amend. Below is how all that panned out over the last almost 12 years.


Dollar amounts are in trillions of dollars.


You will note that in 2001 the Republicans began the year by controlling the Senate, but at the end of May 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords became an Independent and caucused with the Democrats. Which gave the Democrats the majority and control of the Senate from June 2001 until December 2002.

The spending problem began in 2009, with a Super Majority controlled Democrat Congress. In the span of just one fiscal year spending increased by a trillion dollars. More than doubling revenues. Which means that for every tax dollar we pay, Congress spends two. It also means that you can double the taxes on every taxpayer and it will still not be enough to cover the cost of Congress' spending.

Meanwhile we blame Obama or Bush or some other President that has absolutely nothing to do with passing the budget.

Source: Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 2011-2012 - Federal State Local Data

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Glitch

The spending problem began in 2009, with a Super Majority controlled Democrat Congress. In the span of just one fiscal year spending increased by a trillion dollars. More than doubling revenues. Which means that for every tax dollar we pay, Congress spends two. It also means that you can double the taxes on every taxpayer and it will still not be enough to cover the cost of Congress' spending.

First, the Democrats didn't have a super majority. The Dems didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.

The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
The statement that the Democrats has a super majority in the Senate is false.

Besides that, anything unusual occur in 2008-2009? Maybe a near depression? This have anything to do with spending, you think?

Originally Posted by cw30000

It is true. 8 years of Bush exceeded all the presidents before him. HOWEVER, less than 4 years of Obama already exceeded 8 years of Bush.

In math term

Previous presidents < Bush < Obama

First, Obama didn't create unemployment insurance, SNAP, nor Medicaid. These programs are part of the government we had long before Obama. They are need-based programs. Due to the economic decline, more Americans were applying for these programs. End of the story for "Obama spent more."

Second, what would you do during the worst economic decline since the Great Depression, cut these programs just when Americans need them the most?

Third, this economic decline cut revenues by $500 billion per year.

Fourth, during an economic decline, the worst thing you can do is cut spending -- unless you want to accelerate the economic decline. Focusing on short-term deficits is a distraction from the real problem, unemployment.

It's the economy, not Obama. If you want to fix deficits, get more people back to work, which Obama's programs are doing, which raises government revenues and decreases the need for safety net programs.