WP: Think Obama's A Huge Spender?

[108]

Seems the trick here is to sit on your hands while your elected leader is at the helm, and then bitch to no ends when the next person comes in during a massive recession and public sector spending is forced to offset the private sector's loss

Obama has not been a big spender in his own right, lack of revenue plus carry over programs, dramatically increased the debt under his watch


Link



The takeaway, Drum says, is that “total government spending didn’t go up much during the Clinton era, and it’s actually declined during under President Obama. In the last two decades, it’s only gone up significantly during the Bush era, the same era in which taxes were cut dramatically.”

But some said Drum’s chart was a trick, as it looked at total government spending rather than just federal spending. So on Wednesday, he posted a second chart. This one only included federal spending and it didn’t adjust for population growth. The only thing is adjusts for is inflation. Here it is:



Of the two charts, the second is considerably more misleading. For one thing, part of the reason federal expenditures rose is that state and local expenditures fell so sharply. If you miss that information, you miss a lot of the story. For another, the sharp rise in federal spending begins in late-2009 and is largely over by 2010. It’s ridiculous to attribute all that spending to Obama, who wasn’t in office when it began, rather than to the recession, which is the clear and obvious cause.

[mastoidbone]

Assuming data is correct---i think you are missing the important point. Bush spending involved 2 massive wars--one of which is now over and the other is winding down.
Despite successfully getting us out of wars---he has NOT reduced fed spending per capita----he has in effect SHIFTED the massive Bush spending to other uses.

Many of us would have wanted him to use those savings to reduce spending and debt and deficits---he has declined to do so. The result???when he took over our debt was 76% of GDP---which is already too high-----his policy has taken it to over 100%.

What many of us would have wanted was not to reduce the growth of govt---which he has done---but actually do what we need to do---which is CUT spending....and he does NOT want to do that. He is FINE with total govt spending as % of GDP climbing as long as that spending is in line with his agenda.

I would like spending to go DOWN to our historic norm. I would also, at same time, increase taxes to historic norms.

Obama has raises taxes (good) but has NOT done anything about our massive short term and long term spending.

[mastoidbone]

or---lets agre to disagree on his spending habits---lets just look at result of his choices.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

or---lets agre to disagree on his spending habits---lets just look at result of his choices.

Come on man Obama had to pull out the federal credit card because the Evil Bush recession! The GOV had to borrow more cash, money had to be spent! That's what you do when you have a cut in income, you spend more!

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

Assuming data is correct---i think you are missing the important point. Bush spending involved 2 massive wars--one of which is now over and the other is winding down.
.

Two massive and UNFUNDED wars. That's the whole trick to the whole stupid deficit argument right now. You can't have a war without raising taxes or finding some other way to pay for it. End of story.

[The_Graygator]

After about $6 trillion in spending in just four years? Yes, I'd say Obama was a big spender.

And don't even try to pass Obama's first year onto Bush... Bush didn't place his signature on any of that $1.3 trillion in deficit spending after Jan. 20, 2009, that was Obama's signature. Btw, None of Bush's deficits, even fighting two wars, were even half of what Obama's smallest annual deficit was.

[surfn1080]

So obama spends more thn bush while bush fought 2 wars? Amazing....

[GatorFanCF]

It seems like all Obama defending facts are comparatives - it's not how much you spent it's how much you spent....per capita....more than your predecessor...in the Chinese year of the pig...when the moon is in the seventh house....

For instance, there are less illegal aliens in the USA in 2013 compared to 2007 mainly due to the lack of labor required and some to aggressive deportation by the Obama administration (OA). So, let's make a chart showing the skyrocketing spending by the OA on a per capita basis with illegals as the basis. Why, that jump in spending would make Rachel Maddow blush! See, this stuff is easy to do...and fun. Pubs had their shot in 02-06 and blew it. Dems are doing the same and swallowing.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Two massive and UNFUNDED wars. That's the whole trick to the whole stupid deficit argument right now. You can't have a war without raising taxes or finding some other way to pay for it. End of story.

Yeah those two wars cost about 1.3 trillion(to date, mind you 4 yrs into Obama's reign), sorry that does not account for Obama's 6 trilllion in new debt or GWB's 5 trilllion in new debt.
Just look at yearly deficits to see where the big debt run up came.

Besides I thought I was told here Gov spending is good for the economy, so why does it not stand to reason paying soldiers, and companies to make tanks, bombs etc might help the economy?

Do Gov dollars only help the economy when it spends it on the programs we are in favor of? I know the answer..

[surfn1080]

Hey don't pass a budget in three years and you can't look like a bad guy. Is that what 108 is saying here?

It's not that Obama has increased spending, it is he has done nothing to reduce it since bush despite the fact that bush was also fighting 2 wars. Oh and let's see what happens at the end of 2014 with obamacare in..

[Gatoragman]

You said it Surf, no budget passed how can he possibly be responsible for the spending? You see the previous 8 years it was all Bush's fault even though some democrat control in Congress, now the last 4 years of Obama all The house's fault since it run by pubs for 2 of his 4 years. These lines of dimwit logic are hard to follow!

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

After about $6 trillion in spending in just four years? Yes, I'd say Obama was a big spender.

And don't even try to pass Obama's first year onto Bush... Bush didn't place his signature on any of that $1.3 trillion in deficit spending after Jan. 20, 2009, that was Obama's signature. Btw, None of Bush's deficits, even fighting two wars, were even half of what Obama's smallest annual deficit was.

Nonsense.

And Bush's wars were off budget so they affected the debt but not the deficit.

[PITBOSS]

very true OP. How many Tea Party/far right wing protests did you see under 'w'? all was quiet from them, including this site, regarding his spending on wars, signing the prescip. drug bill, etc. Only towards the end of his term when he agreed on TARP - and the far right wing was wrong on that also as it kept us out of a depression.

[mastoidbone]

There is not one fiscally serious person in the world who would defend Bush fiscal policy--or his tax cuts in the face of new wars. NONE.

THAT SAID---it does not absolve Obama of his own fiscal recklessness---of which there are TRILLIONS of examples.

He took savings from wars ending and spent it on govt programs, he failed to cut defense spending even as he concluded wars, he created new govt agencies which drove up spending, he did nothing about medicare/medicaid spending or SS.

He, like Bush, is a fiscal disaster---how do i KNOW???
the numbers dont lie---from FRED---you cant argue facts---fact is DEBT has BALLOONED under both--but at MUCH HIGHER rate under obama---facts are facts. The most disturbing thing is---not debt accrued DURING a recession---lets allow that----but 3 years AFTER recession Obamam has done nothing to slow it down---he is a drunken sailor chasing whores when it comes to spending---how do I know???FRED

[neisgator]

The dens on this thread continue to embarrass themselves

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by PITBOSS

very true OP. How many Tea Party/far right wing protests did you see under 'w'? all was quiet from them, including this site, regarding his spending on wars, signing the prescip. drug bill, etc. Only towards the end of his term when he agreed on TARP - and the far right wing was wrong on that also as it kept us out of a depression.

The Tea Party want's to cut the national debt and federal deficit spending, and you call the "right-wing" as if that's a bad thing.

Stealing money from the taxpayers to give freebies to the lazy that do nothing for it is a crime and should be treated as a crime.

[108]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

There is not one fiscally serious person in the world who would defend Bush fiscal policy--or his tax cuts in the face of new wars. NONE.

THAT SAID---it does not absolve Obama of his own fiscal recklessness---of which there are TRILLIONS of examples.

He took savings from wars ending and spent it on govt programs, he failed to cut defense spending even as he concluded wars, he created new govt agencies which drove up spending, he did nothing about medicare/medicaid spending or SS.

He, like Bush, is a fiscal disaster---how do i KNOW???
the numbers dont lie---from FRED---you cant argue facts---fact is DEBT has BALLOONED under both--but at MUCH HIGHER rate under obama---facts are facts. The most disturbing thing is---not debt accrued DURING a recession---lets allow that----but 3 years AFTER recession Obamam has done nothing to slow it down---he is a drunken sailor chasing whores when it comes to spending---how do I know???FRED

Mastoid, is context of the debt not important at all? Is all debt considered the same to you? While the wars are winding down, they are not over. The vast majority of debt under Obama did not come from his actual spending policies.

But yes, now that we are inching our way out of a massive recession, its time to start cutting, though it has to be done in a way that doesn't put us right back into a recession.

Ideally all of the Bush Tax Cuts should have been let to expire, but the lower end ones would have hurt demand too much in this fragile economy.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Hmmm...government spending per capita is higher under Obama THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Yet he is not a big spender?

That term, "big spender", might mean something different than the OP and the WP imagine.

[rivergator]

more charts:







link

[chemgator]

So the trick is to include gov't spending for state and local governments, which:

a) cannot print money, and therefore cannot spend whatever they feel like (generally).

b) Obama, Pelosi and Reid have no control over and no responsibility for.

You forgot to include spending by England, Germany and alien spaceships. Those groups also did not increase spending; therefore, Obama is doing a good job. Right?