IGX

The Crawdaddy wrote:Fats:

Link the source please. Thanks.

Pinky wrote:No one who actually supports small government is a fan of the Republicans.

Or the Democrats.

Liberal bloggers have been passing around a piece by Rex Nutting at Market Watch arguing that although “almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending,” in fact, “it didn’t happen.”

Except, well, it did.

Nutting’s evidence consists of the a chart showing that the annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is 1.4 percent, compared with 7.3 percent from 2002-2005 during George Bush’s first term and 8.1 percent from 2006-2009 during Bush’s second term.

Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s historical spending data. That’s a steep enough rise. But it’s nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.

But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.

So even if you absolve Obama of responsibility for the initial growth spike, he still presided over unprecedented spending that was out of line with the existing growth trend. Obama’s average spending is far higher than under Bush or Clinton on both adjusted dollar levels and as a percentage of the economy. James Pethokoukis of The American Enterprise Institute has a handy graphic comparing annual Obama’s spending as a percentage of the economy to George W. Bush’s average spending as a percentage of GDP:

Make no mistake: George W. Bush was a tremendous spender, and he deserves some of the non-credit for making Obama’s federal budget binge possible, especially during Obama’s first year. But Obama and his fellow Democrats share the responsibility for allowing a spending spike to continue on at newly high levels, for posting record outlays and running record deficits — and for taking few if any effective steps to get the nation’s economic and fiscal houses in order.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Reason's graphic is deliberately misleading.

Fat Cat wrote:True, but for the champions of small government that they pretend to be, the Republicans as shown on your graph ALWAYS ramp up public spending. Whereas, both Clinton and Obama have reduced spending over their terms.

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Reason's graphic is deliberately misleading.

The entire article is doublespeak and obfuscation, like most political clap-trap. Something both sides are entirely too talented at. At least the article Fattie posted is relatively plain-text, if politicized to show one perspective.

The Crawdaddy wrote:Fats:

Link the source please. Thanks.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: in this case, one side of the argument is bonkers and the other is mostly correct
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II.... Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II.... Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Reason's graphic is deliberately misleading.

The entire article is doublespeak and obfuscation, like most political clap-trap. Something both sides are entirely too talented at. At least the article Fattie posted is relatively plain-text, if politicized to show one perspective.

Not really. in this case, one side of the argument is bonkers and the other is mostly correct
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I read it. It's again misleading.

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II.... Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

GDP contracts during a recession. So it's not "part of this," unless his spending increases over Bush were also binge-like. Which they weren't.

Spending is too high, but the GOP is lying on this particular issue.

protobuilder wrote:arguing who spent more, Bush or Obama, is like 5 year olds rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

"He did it!"

"No, HE did it!!"

Nutting's piece employs several abuses of the numbers (including some underhanded switching between projected and actual spending data), but his most productive sleight of hand is to assign all of fiscal year 2009's spending to President Bush. Nutting doesn't start the clock on Obama's spending until fiscal 2010.

In most cases, that would be fair, because presidents typically sign the next year's spending bills in the calendar year before they leave office. But not in 2009. The Democratic Congress, confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009's 12 appropriations bills (Defense; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them, and Obama signed them.

So whereas Bush had proposed spending just $3.11 trillion in fiscal 2009, for a 3 percent increase, Obama and the Democrats ended up spending $3.52 trillion, for a 17.9 percent increase in spending -- the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.

By the end of Obama's first year in office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 25.2 percent, the highest it has ever been since World War II. As Obama's stimulus spending has receded, spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, but only slightly. Under President Bush, spending averaged 19.6 percent of GDP. Under President Clinton, it was 19.8 percent. The historical pos/world/ War II average is 19.7 percent. In 2012, after four years of Obama's fiscal leadership, it is expected to be 24.3 percent.

Turdacious wrote: The GOP and the Dems spend in different areas. A lot of GOP spending can be contracted pretty quickly.

Andy78 wrote:Obama is an anorexic fucktard with a tiny head and looks stupid as hell when he prances down the steps of AF1. Doesn't know how to salute the Marine and is a lying homosexual foreign born criminal