SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: spending and Obama< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 24 2012, 2:16 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This goes against the tea party conservative narrative

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05....-sailor

and politifact rates it as mostly true

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o....owest-s


Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw
dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously
backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant
shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending
was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly
True.


About Republicans in congress taking some of the credit with constraining spending. Ok but if
they get to take some credit for restraining Obama/dems spending then its only fair they
also deserve the blame for obstructing & weakening legislation designed to help the economy
via all their unprecedented filibustering which is of course is true.

Also if a Republican was President would these congressional Republicans try and constrain
spending from that Republican president? After all they didn't do it with Bush. See of course
Republicans will bitch and complain about spending when a Democrat is in power but when a
Republican is president?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19360
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 24 2012, 7:34 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 24 2012, 8:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ May 24 2012, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.

Sorry to break this to you lame - tarp was Bush.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 24 2012, 12:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ May 24 2012, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.

So you take Ann Coulter's word over politifact's? Like LR pointed out Tarp was BUSH and
should be credited to Bush not Obama


The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to
purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector
that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a
component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

oh and under Obama?


The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost
the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion.[1] The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

See the part in Bold?

and nutting always counted the last fiscal year of the previous administration to the
previous administration FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE COMPARISON as he should have so
he was consistent. However, as politifact points out, he did assign $140 billion in
stimulus to Obama.


Nutting did, however, attribute a portion of fiscal 2009 spending to Obama rather than
Bush. He reassigned about $140 billion, covering spending made that year through the
stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations
bills passed in the spring of 2009.

"If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush," Nutting wrote,
"we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting
to a 1.4 percent annualized increase."



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o....owest-s


Why just 140 billion rather than the rest? Well because it wasn't all spent during Bush's
last fiscal year as I understand it but Coulter says


That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and
spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't
spend much either.)

Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes
only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending. And
he's testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama "is responsible (along with the
Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus
bill."


Coulter is so dishonest that she claims that Nutting puts the entire cost of the stimulus
under Bush when he not only didn't but then contradicts herself by then asserting
Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He
includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's
spending.


So Coulter starts out saying that Nutting put the entire 825 billion of the stimulus(
some other sources put the # at 787 billion or 831 billion) then contradicts herself in
the very next paragraph by admitting that at least 140 of that was attributed to Obama.

Of course in reality Nutting doesn't attribute ANY OF THE STIMULUS TO BUSH but does attribute
the 140 billion of the stimulus to Obama BEFORE Oct. 1, 2009 not after
Oct. 1, 2009 like Coulter claims

from nutting

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the
Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the
stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other
appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that
spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4%
annualized increase


2009 fiscal year would be before  Oct. 1, 2009 or as politifact correctly states Nutting
did, however, attribute a portion of fiscal 2009 spending to Obama rather than Bush. He
reassigned about $140 billion, covering spending made that year through the stimulus bill,
the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations bills passed in
the spring of 2009.


and again 140 billion and not the entire 878 billion(or 831 billion depending on your source)
because it wasn't all spent before Oct 1, 2009.

and then ironically Coulter's titles her article "Figures don't lie: Democrats do" and says
that Nutting is dishonest.


So Lame why did you use Coulter as a source again? I mean you know who she is right? One of
the most irresponsible demagogues around. You know this right? Maybe not.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43821
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 24 2012, 12:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ May 24 2012, 5:47 am)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ May 24 2012, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.

Sorry to break this to you lame - tarp was Bush.

Oh, sure, facts again.

So mean.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 24 2012, 12:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ May 24 2012, 9:42 am)
QUOTE

(Land Rover @ May 24 2012, 5:47 am)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ May 24 2012, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.

Sorry to break this to you lame - tarp was Bush.

Oh, sure, facts again.

So mean.

As Admiral Ackbar says, "It's a TARP!"

And Lame fell right into it.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 7
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 6:28 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The truth is full of detailed facts and takes some mental effort to understand. It is a lot easier, and more fun, to just blame the debt on Obama. Who really cares if it is a lie?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 6:49 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....ive.php

The President keeps proposing more spending, but not even his own party will vote for his crazy budgets

If you are going to tout any any spending restraint then you should probably credit those obstructionist republicans


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6606
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 7:05 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ May 25 2012, 5:49 am)
QUOTE
The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old

FY2009 was Bush, not Obama.

Not "blame" ... just fact.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24405
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 7:06 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ May 24 2012, 11:57 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ May 24 2012, 9:42 am)
QUOTE

(Land Rover @ May 24 2012, 5:47 am)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ May 24 2012, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.

Sorry to break this to you lame - tarp was Bush.

Oh, sure, facts again.

So mean.

As Admiral Ackbar says, "It's a TARP!"

And Lame fell right into it.

And what did we learn from this?

'Dont trust a talking fish!'

LoLz


--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 11
dnlskier Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1187
Joined: Jun. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 9:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

2009 Budget is Mostly Mr Obama's?  No?

Link

another link to GPO?

I haven't clicked on all the links of this MW story nor read folks that go against Mr Rex Nuttings article.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 10:03 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ May 25 2012, 6:49 am)
QUOTE
The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....ive.php

The President keeps proposing more spending, but not even his own party will vote for his crazy budgets

If you are going to tout any any spending restraint then you should probably credit those obstructionist republicans

Bill. If you know something isn't true, then why do you post it. Are you this dishonest in the real world? Or are you of the view that anything is justified as long as conservatives win?

It's actually a genuine question. You seem like a smart guy. Surely your views are based on something real rather than whatever the anti-Obama talking point of the day is.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 10:06 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ May 24 2012, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Sure, if you don't consider tarp, etc.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

That's like me saying "I spend less this year than last year.....if you don;t count that new Mercedes I bought in January."

Oh, and BTW, I don't own a Mercedes, I drive a 2000 Camry with 278,000 miles on it.

Actually it's more like you saying, "I spent less this year than last year...if you don't count that new roof I had to put on my house as a one-time extraordinary expense that was necessary to prevent the rain from getting into my house and damaging the contents inside, which would've resulted in even higher spending the following year, had i not replaced the roof, when it needed replacing"

AND your accountant would agree with that statement.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 10:57 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ May 25 2012, 3:49 am)
QUOTE
The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....ive.php

The President keeps proposing more spending, but not even his own party will vote for his crazy budgets

If you are going to tout any any spending restraint then you should probably credit those obstructionist republicans

Hinderaker conveniently ignores the fact that Nutting did break out stimulus spending from the 2009 budget, and assign it to President Obama.

Remember, BillBab: reading is fundamental.

ETA: This bit of Hinderaker's piece is pretty hilarious:

QUOTE
Moreover, it was largely because of the incredible explosion in federal spending in the first year of the Obama administration that the Tea Party movement sprang up, the GOP swept the 2010 elections, and federal spending has been relatively stable (although not declining, of course) since then.

Some people perceived the President as a big spender, therefore it must be true! Um...yeah...let us know how that kinda logic works out for ya.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 15
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43821
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 11:02 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ May 25 2012, 3:49 am)
QUOTE
The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old
.....

FY2009?

The budget BUSH crafted, passed and signed into law? THAT FY2009?

Reality getting old for you is no new thing is it?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 1:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

TehipiteTom said
QUOTE

Hinderaker conveniently ignores the fact that Nutting did break out stimulus spending from
the 2009 budget, and assign it to President Obama.

Remember, BillBab: reading is fundamental.


BillBab also said this
If you are going to tout any any spending restraint then you should probably credit those
obstructionist republicans


when it was addressed in the first post when I said

About Republicans in congress taking some of the credit with constraining spending. Ok but if
they get to take some credit for restraining Obama/dems spending then its only fair they
also deserve the blame for obstructing & weakening legislation designed to help the economy
via all their unprecedented filibustering which is of course is true.


yes reading is fundamental for BillBab as it always seems to be.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 1:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Billbab said
QUOTE

The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old


FY2009 is the last fiscal year of the Bush administration(Oct 2008 -> September 2009).
The last fiscal year of an administration always goes into the start of the next
administration.

You know what is getting old? Bush apologists that whip out this tiresome "Blame Bush"
response whenever people remind people of the correct context. Remind people that Obama was
handed him the bad economy that started with the recession starting officially on December
of 2007 and then you get the knee-jerk "blame bush" response from the Bush apologist. Remind
people that FY2009 was the last fiscal year under bush then you get the knee-jerk "blame
bush" response from the Bush apologists. Convenient slogan for those who want others to
believe that Obama wasn't given the worst economy since the depression
and of course if
you can do that you can dupe people into believing the bad economy was the fault of Obama.

Some of these same people that pull this "blame bush" slogan every time people correctly
remind people of the correct context of what was given to Obama as far as the economy goes
I'm sure had no problem blaming Clinton for a number of things long after he was president
when their guy(bush) was president.

The irony is that about 2-3 weeks ago Romney essentially said if gets elected he will be
cleaning up Obama's mess but if Obama says he is cleaning up Bush's mess(which would be
much more on the mark than Romney having to cleanup "obama's mess") then the same
Bush/Romney apologists(who would agree with Romney's characterization of having to supposedly
clean up "Obama's mess" if he gets elected) would respond with "blame bush" if anyone dares
remind people what kind of economy was handed to Obama,

dnlskier said
QUOTE

2009 Budget is Mostly Mr Obama's?  No?

Link

another link to GPO?


Other than the stimulus, which was factored into what Nutting wrote, what part of the
FY2009 was Obama's that makes FY2009 as a whole mostly Obama's?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43821
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 25 2012, 1:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(dnlskier @ May 25 2012, 6:16 am)
QUOTE
2009 Budget is Mostly Mr Obama's?  No?

Link

another link to GPO?

I haven't clicked on all the links of this MW story nor read folks that go against Mr Rex Nuttings article.

Oh I think I see the source of your mistake. The budget written in 2009 is labeled the "FY 2010" or whatever, budget as the process is over the preceding year (really between March and October). So the "2009 budget", meaning usually the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, started in the Fall of 2008 and was written, rewritten, voted on past and signed into law during the calendar year 2008. During which time President Bush was the president.

The first budget proposed, drafted, negotiated, amended, voted on and signed into law by President Obama was the Fiscal Year 2010 budget.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
walkaboutcreek Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 539
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 9:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and keeping spending at that already sky high 2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  Please help me understand...  

Below are the numbers from the OMB (with my additional columns added)



edit: "Outlays" is the column you want to look at.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
kyle2193 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4507
Joined: May 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 10:00 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

DTM wrote:
QUOTE
FY2009 is the last fiscal year of the Bush administration(Oct 2008 -> September 2009).
The last fiscal year of an administration always goes into the start of the next
administration.



While this is true, it doesn't tell the whole truth. Obama shares some responsibility for FY2009.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html
As you can see, half the budget was passed under him, in addition to Cash4Clunkers, Supplemental Defense, and the Recovery/Reinvenstment Act


--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43821
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 11:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(kyle2193 @ May 31 2012, 7:00 am)
QUOTE
DTM wrote:
QUOTE
FY2009 is the last fiscal year of the Bush administration(Oct 2008 -> September 2009).
The last fiscal year of an administration always goes into the start of the next
administration.
While this is true, it doesn't tell the whole truth. Obama shares some responsibility for FY2009.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html
As you can see, half the budget was passed under him, in addition to Cash4Clunkers, Supplemental Defense, and the Recovery/Reinvenstment Act

Why not show the totals and make your case for HALF the 2009 fiscal year budget being formulated during President Obama's first year in office, because I really don't see it. The specific items his administration and the new Congress originated are a very small fraction of the total, not "half". Remember the ARRA of 2009's total is spread over a number of years of outlays (and as much of that total is actually tax cuts and not spending...) so it doesn't all contribute to the FY 2009 total, I'd be surprised if the Cash for Clunkers, ARRA and war supplemental totaled much beyond ten percent of the FY 2009 total and probably less. While a continuing resolution to simply keep the lights on using the budgets previously passed  is rather a stretch to put on Obama.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 12:52 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

walkaboutcreek said
QUOTE

In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and
keeping spending at that already sky high 2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  
Please help me understand...


Unless you or kyle2193 can show otherwise, most of FY was from Bush. As far as the rest of
the spending(and this was the entire point of the thread), as politifact points out, spending
Under Obama has been the slowest of any president using raw dollars, and it was the
second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
.

Now as is typical of those on the right, Do you not ask the question why spending increased
so much for FY2009? Do you rememember what happened in the fall of 2008? We had the
financial crisis in the fall of 2008 but actually the recession started almost a year
earlier(December of 2007). What happened when he made spending cuts during a recession and
subsequent downturns? What happen in 1937 when we did that? What is happening in Europe now
with these Austerity measures? Heck even Romney knows this


Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and
propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years
in office?  Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of
the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.  That is by definition throwing us into
recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]


http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-ro....-2012-5

So debt shouldn't be the priority now until the economy is at least close to normal IMO
although it should be noted that even if we decided to make debt the priority, cutting
spending probably wouldn't help improve our debt situation because while we would take care
of the spending the revenue side of the equation would be even worse.

Edit: I see you have 2013 estimate as "Romney/Obama". Well that estimate would be using
projections from Obama's budget so Until and IF Romney is elected and IF Romney decides
to add to FY2013 from Obama it doesn't make sense to label that "Romney/Obama"


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 12:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

(kyle2193 @ May 31 2012, 7:00 am)
QUOTE


DTM said
QUOTE


Billbab said
QUOTE

The latest efforts to paint Obama as some kind of fiscal conservative are ignoring FY2009

Blame Bush is getting kind of old


FY2009 is the last fiscal year of the Bush administration(Oct 2008 -> September 2009).
The last fiscal year of an administration always goes into the start of the next
administration.

While this is true, it doesn't tell the whole truth. Obama shares some responsibility for FY2009.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html
As you can see, half the budget was passed under him, in addition to Cash4Clunkers, Supplemental Defense, and the Recovery/Reinvenstment Act


well that was a response to BillBab but having said that the part about how Obama shares
responsibility has already been covered in this thread and in the original article

from me in this thread
. However, as politifact points out, he did assign $140 billion in stimulus to
Obama.


from the article
Nutting did, however, attribute a portion of fiscal 2009 spending to Obama rather than
Bush. He reassigned about $140 billion, covering spending made that year through the
stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations
bills passed in the spring of 2009.p


But you're saying more than that 140 billion should have been assigned to Obama but like HSF
I don't see it in your link. I don't see any budget #'s in that link and how much should be
assigned to Bush as opposed to Obama.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
kyle2193 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4507
Joined: May 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 2:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog....olution

--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
walkaboutcreek Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 539
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 2:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ May 31 2012, 12:52 pm)
QUOTE
walkaboutcreek said
QUOTE

In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and
keeping spending at that already sky high 2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  
Please help me understand...


Unless you or kyle2193 can show otherwise, most of FY was from Bush. As far as the rest of
the spending(and this was the entire point of the thread), as politifact points out, spending
Under Obama has been the slowest of any president using raw dollars, and it was the
second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
.

Now as is typical of those on the right, Do you not ask the question why spending increased
so much for FY2009? Do you rememember what happened in the fall of 2008? We had the
financial crisis in the fall of 2008 but actually the recession started almost a year
earlier(December of 2007). What happened when he made spending cuts during a recession and
subsequent downturns? What happen in 1937 when we did that? What is happening in Europe now
with these Austerity measures? Heck even Romney knows this


Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and
propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years
in office?  Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of
the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.  That is by definition throwing us into
recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]


http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-ro....-2012-5

So debt shouldn't be the priority now until the economy is at least close to normal IMO
although it should be noted that even if we decided to make debt the priority, cutting
spending probably wouldn't help improve our debt situation because while we would take care
of the spending the revenue side of the equation would be even worse.

Edit: I see you have 2013 estimate as "Romney/Obama". Well that estimate would be using
projections from Obama's budget so Until and IF Romney is elected and IF Romney decides
to add to FY2013 from Obama it doesn't make sense to label that "Romney/Obama"

Did I say anything about who and what FY 2009 spending was attributed to?  

the point of the original article is "Government outlays (are) rising at slowest pace since 1950s"

One more time: In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and
keeping spending at that already sky high 2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  i.e. Outlays were HIGH when he took office -- he kept spending at those historically high levels.  He didnt have to increase spending much when using 2009 as the base...

Wake up and try again.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 2:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(walkaboutcreek @ May 31 2012, 2:13 pm)
QUOTE

(Dennis The Menace @ May 31 2012, 12:52 pm)
QUOTE
walkaboutcreek said
QUOTE

In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and
keeping spending at that already sky high 2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  
Please help me understand...


Unless you or kyle2193 can show otherwise, most of FY was from Bush. As far as the rest of
the spending(and this was the entire point of the thread), as politifact points out, spending
Under Obama has been the slowest of any president using raw dollars, and it was the
second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
.

Now as is typical of those on the right, Do you not ask the question why spending increased
so much for FY2009? Do you rememember what happened in the fall of 2008? We had the
financial crisis in the fall of 2008 but actually the recession started almost a year
earlier(December of 2007). What happened when he made spending cuts during a recession and
subsequent downturns? What happen in 1937 when we did that? What is happening in Europe now
with these Austerity measures? Heck even Romney knows this


Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and
propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years
in office?  Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of
the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.  That is by definition throwing us into
recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]


http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-ro....-2012-5

So debt shouldn't be the priority now until the economy is at least close to normal IMO
although it should be noted that even if we decided to make debt the priority, cutting
spending probably wouldn't help improve our debt situation because while we would take care
of the spending the revenue side of the equation would be even worse.

Edit: I see you have 2013 estimate as "Romney/Obama". Well that estimate would be using
projections from Obama's budget so Until and IF Romney is elected and IF Romney decides
to add to FY2013 from Obama it doesn't make sense to label that "Romney/Obama"

Did I say anything about who and what FY 2009 spending was attributed to?  

the point of the original article is "Government outlays (are) rising at slowest pace since 1950s"

One more time: In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and
keeping spending at that already sky high 2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  i.e. Outlays were HIGH when he took office -- he kept spending at those historically high levels.  He didnt have to increase spending much when using 2009 as the base...

Wake up and try again.


and by historical standards Obama didn't "increase spending much when using 2009 as
the base"(which is the point of the damn OP once again) and in fact the following Fiscal
year showed a decrease as your own table shows.

as far as your question One more time: In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94% over
2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and keeping spending at that already sky high 2009
level, this is touted as a good thing?  i.e. Outlays were HIGH when he took office -- he
kept spending at those historically high levels.


What didn't you understand about when I wrote

QUOTE

Now as is typical of those on the right, Do you not ask the question why spending increased
so much for FY2009? Do you rememember what happened in the fall of 2008? We had the
financial crisis in the fall of 2008 but actually the recession started almost a year
earlier(December of 2007). What happened when he made spending cuts during a recession and
subsequent downturns? What happen in 1937 when we did that? What is happening in Europe now
with these Austerity measures? Heck even Romney knows this


Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and
propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years
in office?  Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of
the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.  That is by definition throwing us into
recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]


http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-ro....-2012-5

So debt shouldn't be the priority now until the economy is at least close to normal IMO
although it should be noted that even if we decided to make debt the priority, cutting
spending probably wouldn't help improve our debt situation because while we would take care
of the spending the revenue side of the equation would be even worse.


Let me add something else from a conservative Harvard economist Martin Feldstein


"Countering a deep economic recession requires an increase in government spending to offset
the sharp decline in consumer outlays and business investment that is now underway,"
Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Without that rise in government
spending, the economic downturn would be deeper and longer."


http://articles.latimes.com/2009....lysis17

Do you understand yet? Let me guess. You still don't do you?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 2:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(kyle2193 @ May 31 2012, 2:10 pm)
QUOTE

are you posting that source as evidence in support of your previous assertion
half the budget was passed under him("him" being "Obama")?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
walkaboutcreek Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 539
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 2:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ May 31 2012, 2:30 pm)
QUOTE
Let me add something else from a conservative Harvard economist Martin Feldstein


"Countering a deep economic recession requires an increase in government spending to offset
the sharp decline in consumer outlays and business investment that is now underway,"
Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Without that rise in government
spending, the economic downturn would be deeper and longer."


http://articles.latimes.com/2009....lysis17

Do you understand yet? Let me guess. You still don't do you?

Let me get this straight, the point of the article (and your OP) is this: "Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s"

But you then you come back with this in your last post:
QUOTE
Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Without that rise in government
spending, the economic downturn would be deeper and longer."


So with that, you admit, the article you quoted is misleading in that the Obama crew is spending a **** ton, but the increased spending is not displayed in the article because of the 2009 base being a historically high percentage increase spend year?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 3:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN.

No I don't admit, the article you quoted is misleading

the point of the article isn't that Obama isn't spending a **** ton(that is your
dishonest spin) but that once again Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in
spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for
inflation.


So there is no contradiction between Feldstein's "Without that rise in government spending,
the economic downturn would be deeper and longer." and the fact that Obama has indeed
presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was
the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.


But more to the point you said One more time: In FY 2009, spending increased by 17.94%
over 2008.  So, with Obama staying the course and keeping spending at that already sky high
2009 level, this is touted as a good thing?  i.e. Outlays were HIGH when he took office --
he kept spending at those historically high levels.  He didnt have to increase spending much
when using 2009 as the base...


So in other words you acknowledge that FY 2009(that was BUSH'S last fiscal year where
most of the budget was under Bush) set the stage for the high spending and then further
acknowledge that Obama wouldn't have to increase spending much at all to keep at those
levels when you said Outlays were HIGH when he took office -- he kept spending at those
historically high levels.  He didnt have to increase spending much when using 2009 as the
base...


Yet you then respond as if there was contradiction between what Feldstein wrote and
the slowest growth in spending

There obviously isn't


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
kyle2193 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4507
Joined: May 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 31 2012, 3:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ May 31 2012, 2:35 pm)
QUOTE

(kyle2193 @ May 31 2012, 2:10 pm)
QUOTE

are you posting that source as evidence in support of your previous assertion
half the budget was passed under him("him" being "Obama")?

Can you honestly blame Bush for spending he did not sign? You could infer that he would have done the same, but Bush only signed spending until March09, not Sept 09.

--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
52 replies since May 24 2012, 2:16 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply spending and Obama
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions