FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#1346837 --- 05/28/12 08:34 AM WSJ and Forbes Say...
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Obama spending binge never happened
Rex Nutting
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
ShareEmailPrint

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.

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.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — 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.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-...-drunken-sailor

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
261 comments, 76 called-out + Comment now
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.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1346840 --- 05/28/12 09:05 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: twocats]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim


WASHINGTON — The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars.

To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation.

The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 spending look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, it's counted as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?

First, there's the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama's spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama "cut" spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama's record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration's reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.

There's also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president's spending since the incoming president usually doesn't change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But Obama's role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don't jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there's a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.

As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO's annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:

--$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.

--Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.

--The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are "scored" as spending in federal ledgers.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57442013/fact-check-obama-off-on-thrifty-spending-claim/
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1346876 --- 05/28/12 04:04 PM Re: WSJ and Forbes Say... [Re: twocats]
Josephus Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 08/25/00
Posts: 11561
Loc: NYS
Shsss... you'll confuse the righties with facts.
_________________________
I don't want my country back... I want my country forward!

Top
#1346877 --- 05/28/12 04:09 PM Re: WSJ and Forbes Say... [Re: Josephus]
Cuzi Sedso Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/06/11
Posts: 1428
Loc: NY
How interesting -- a liberal citing the conservative editorial pages of the WSJ and a die hard conservative relying on a "lame stream media" outlet like CBS news. Look out for flying pigs.

Top
#1346879 --- 05/28/12 04:22 PM Re: WSJ and Forbes Say... [Re: Cuzi Sedso]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: Cuzi Sedso
How interesting -- a liberal citing the conservative editorial pages of the WSJ and a die hard conservative relying on a "lame stream media" outlet like CBS news. Look out for flying pigs.



PS I think of my beliefs as more progressive than liberal. \:\)
http://prorev.com/proglib.htm

How to tell the difference
between a progressive and a liberal
Progressives, as liberals did before Reagan, emphasize doing the most for the most – which is how we got socio-economic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and a minimum wage. Today’s liberals favor expanding health insurance company profits over expanding Medicare and strongly support Democratic presidents who undermine the very programs that earlier liberals created such as social welfare and Social Security.

Progressives don't act like prudes and prigs.

Progressives don’t think the commerce clause of the Constitution should be used just because you feel like doing something, such as avoiding single payer health insurance. There is a huge difference between using the commerce clause to guarantee human rights and using it to subsidize health insurance companies.

Progressives recognize the Green Party and its members as part of a broad coalition. Most liberals act as though Greens were a new kind of HIV.

Progressives try to convince people with whom they disagree, not just scold them.

Progressive oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq; liberals like them as long as a Democratic president is running them.

Progressives oppose the war on drugs, America’s most masochistic and deadly battle since Vietnam. Liberals treat it with utter indifference.

Progressives believe what people do is more important than how politely they talk about it.

Progressives don't think you should have to go to grad school to have an important role in government.

Progressives respect state and local government; liberals often act like they're a Republican plot. Progressives understand the importance of the devolution of power to the lowest practical level.

Progressives worry about locked doors, liberals about glass ceilings, which is why liberals thought Obama's election would create a post-racial society.Too many liberals are infatuated with symbolism such as electing a black president, while ignoring the real problems most minorities face in everything from the job market to dealing with the law.

Even progressives who don't own guns respect the right of others who do. Besides, why piss them off the way liberals have done, when they could be allies on a host of other issues, beginning with civil liberties?

But then, progressives still defend civil liberties. Liberals seem to have forgotten about them and ignore Obama's abuse of them.

Progressives pursue issues; liberals support candidates.

Progressives don't give up an issue just because the candidate they voted for is now in office and opposes it.

Liberals love Clinton and Obama while despising the Bushes who preceded them. They don’t seem to notice that our government continued to move to the right under both Democrats and that neither repealed any significant policies of their GOP predecessors

Progressives don't think bailing out banks is an economic stimulus, but that helping to create jobs and stop foreclosures is.

Progressives support local public schools and their teachers; liberals go along with the Bush-Obama attack on public education.

Progressives are not afraid of criticizing Israel for its abusive treatment of Palestine. Liberals either support Israel's criminal actions or are afraid of being called anti-Semites so don't say anything.

Progressives have new ideas; liberals come up with new compromises with the right.

Progressives believe that change is produced by broad coalitions brought together on specific issues, but not necessarily agreeing on all policy. Liberals believe change will come when everyone acts like they do.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1346928 --- 05/28/12 10:38 PM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: sands]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: sands

average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

Let's see...how does an average of 3% compare with recent past presidents??

_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1346933 --- 05/28/12 11:31 PM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: twocats]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5586
Loc: Greeneville, TN
The president cannot spend a nickel unless congress approves it. All spending is initiated in the House of misrepresentatives.

I believe this has been hashed out more than once showing that both parties are to blame.

But likewise the American voters are just as gullible tending to vote for those that are backed by the largest war chest.

Top
#1346938 --- 05/29/12 12:32 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
Many of them simply vote for the one who promises to give them the most free stuff.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1346947 --- 05/29/12 12:52 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: twocats]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.



Let's see... how does a 10% increase in 2009 compare with recent past Presidents?

[/quote]
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1346950 --- 05/29/12 12:57 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: sands]
MeRightYouWrong Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/30/11
Posts: 1597
Loc: Mountain of Truth
If we used real money instead of fiat currency, issued to our government with credit which is created out of thin air.....


You don't kill a weed by attacking it's branches.


Top
#1346960 --- 05/29/12 01:52 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: sands]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS

The (sub) title of the chart is annualized growth of federal spending. Your article says Obama's annualized spending growth is 3%. Get it yet?
[/quote] [/quote]


Edited by twocats (05/29/12 01:53 AM)
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1346972 --- 05/29/12 02:46 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: twocats]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.


Originally Posted By: twocats
The (sub) title of the chart is annualized growth of federal spending. Your article says Obama's annualized spending growth is 3%. Get it yet?


The article says Obama's annualized growth of federal spending for the period of 2010-2013 was "just more than 3%". Obama's growth of federal spending for 2010-2013 was 13% which makes his annualized growth of federal spending for 2010-2013 3.25% (13 divided by 4 (years) = 3.25) or "just more than 3%".

Obama's annualized growth of federal spending was 10% for 2009. (10 divided by 1 (year) = 10)

They obviously are not including 2009 in the 3% figure as 13 divided by 5 (years) = 2.6 not the "just more than 3%" figure in the article. Get it yet?
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1346976 --- 05/29/12 03:00 AM Re: WSJ and Forbes Say... [Re: twocats]
Hot Burrito Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/00
Posts: 767
Loc: Tiajuna Flats
Originally Posted By: twocats
Obama spending binge never happened
Rex Nutting
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch.


It's an editorial from Marketwatch, not a news story from WSJ or Forbes...why should we believe anything you said if you had to lie about the source?

Top
#1347054 --- 05/29/12 08:21 PM Re: WSJ and Forbes Say... [Re: Hot Burrito]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: Hot Burrito
Originally Posted By: twocats
Obama spending binge never happened
Rex Nutting
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s
May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch.


It's an editorial from Marketwatch, not a news story from WSJ or Forbes...why should we believe anything you said if you had to lie about the source?


Please look at the 2 articles provided before you call me a liar.
The second article is from Forbes.
Here's the link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2...eeble-recovery/

You can google the other one for yourself.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1347055 --- 05/29/12 08:22 PM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: sands]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: sands

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.


Originally Posted By: twocats
The (sub) title of the chart is annualized growth of federal spending. Your article says Obama's annualized spending growth is 3%. Get it yet?


The article says Obama's annualized growth of federal spending for the period of 2010-2013 was "just more than 3%". Obama's growth of federal spending for 2010-2013 was 13% which makes his annualized growth of federal spending for 2010-2013 3.25% (13 divided by 4 (years) = 3.25) or "just more than 3%".

Obama's annualized growth of federal spending was 10% for 2009. (10 divided by 1 (year) = 10)

They obviously are not including 2009 in the 3% figure as 13 divided by 5 (years) = 2.6 not the "just more than 3%" figure in the article. Get it yet?


Yeah, I get it. You want to use your own numbers while I was using the ones in your source. Whatever floats your boat.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1347067 --- 05/29/12 10:31 PM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: twocats]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: sands

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.



Yeah, I get it. You want to use your own numbers while I was using the ones in your source. Whatever floats your boat.



No. You mistakenly stated Obama had a annual growth of spending of 3% for the period of 2009 to 2013. I simply pointed out using simple math how the "just more than 3 percent" figure was for 2010 to 2013 and the rate for 2009 was 10%, just like Fact Check posted.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1347102 --- 05/30/12 03:17 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: sands]
Rascal Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 06/05/00
Posts: 17022
Loc: Brewerton, NY, USA
It's all about selective reading and comprehension...

Wasn't the TARP supposed to be a one time event. Not something to be used as a benchmark against all future Obama budgets?

The economy really started collapsing the moment it was clear that Obama was going to defeat Hillary. It snowballed into businesses firing employees proactively.

The new normal...

Top
#1347106 --- 05/30/12 03:47 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: sands]
Jeff Peters Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/04/07
Posts: 1005
Loc: Geneva
Where is the chart showing that first year of spending?

Top
#1347108 --- 05/30/12 03:52 AM Re: CBS News and Fact Check Say... [Re: Jeff Peters]
Rascal Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 06/05/00
Posts: 17022
Loc: Brewerton, NY, USA
Where is the pic of Obama and McCain urging on Bush to come up with some sort of solution...Any solution that simply involved massive new spending.

It sets a precedent for Obama to justify reckless spending and borrowing.

After all, it's not like the poor are going to be the ones to ever pay it back...

Top
#1347214 --- 05/30/12 10:12 PM Re: WSJ and Forbes Say... [Re: twocats]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY


Looks like the WSJ finally saw through the propaganda . . . . .




"Mitt Romney 'warned about a "prairie fire of debt." That's what he said,' Mr. Obama said on the Des Moines fairgrounds on Thursday, as if he couldn't believe it either. ... 'What my opponent didn't tell you was that federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.' ... [P]ress secretary Jay Carney chimed in [saying] ... to White House reporters that they should not 'buy into the B.S. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this Administration....' Mr. Carney the media critic deeply sourced his view to someone named Rex Nutting, who wrote an 856-word column for MarketWatch that argued 'There has been no huge increase in spending under the current President, despite what you hear.' ... His accounting methods are, er, unusual. Mr. Nutting claims that Mr. Obama is only responsible for $140 billion worth of spending in his hyperactivist first year in office because ... the fiscal year technically begins on October 1, 2009. Therefore he says Mr. Obama had no control over the budget, though in February 2009 he did famously manage to pass an $800 billion stimulus that was supposed to be a one-time deal. Mr. Nutting then measures Mr. Obama's spending growth rate against an inflated 2009 baseline that includes the spending Mr. Obama caused but which he attributes to Mr. Bush. ... The larger conceptual error of the Nutting-Obama-Carney troika is neglecting to compare the budget to the size of the economy. The best perspective on how outlays, tax receipts and deficits change over time is as a share of GDP. ... Prior to Mr. Obama, the U.S. had not spent more than 23.5% of GDP ... since the end of World War II. Yet Mr. Obama has managed to exceed that four years in a row: 25.2% in 2009, 24.1% in 2010 and 2011, and an estimated 24.3% in 2012, up from a range between 18%-21% from 1994-2008. ... As for that prairie fire of debt, Mr. Obama can fairly blame $1 trillion or so of the $5 trillion debt increase of the last four years on Mr. Bush. But what about the other $4 trillion? Debt held by the public now stands at 74.2% of the economy, up from 40.5% at the end of 2008 -- and rising rapidly." -- The Wall Street Journal


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304707604577426240727922340.html
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >