Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:22 PM
Bill USA (3,961 posts)
Who is the smallest Government spender since Eisenhower? - Barack Obama - Forbes magazine
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.
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.
Also see EarlG's post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101790455
13 replies, 2700 views
Who is the smallest Government spender since Eisenhower? - Barack Obama - Forbes magazine (Original post)
|Bill USA||Jan 2013||OP|
|Bill USA||Jan 2013||#4|
|Bill USA||Jan 2013||#8|
|Bill USA||Jan 2013||#12|
|Bill USA||Jan 2013||#9|
|Bill USA||Jan 2013||#11|
|Stuart G||Jan 2013||#13|
Response to Bill USA (Original post)
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:30 PM
MannyGoldstein (33,332 posts)
1. Obama's bragged that he's even a smaller spender than Hoover was
Obama More Conservative Than Hoover? Someone Thinks So.
Which perfectly explains why we're still in a depression.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:14 PM
Bill USA (3,961 posts)
4. to understand why we are still in this Republican Economic Dystopia, you need a few more facts...
Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:21 PM - Edit history (2)
On the day of Barack Obama's innauguration, the leaders of the Republican party decided they would engage in a campaign of obstruction of everything Obama would try to do. Mitch McConnell declared that the top priority of the Republican party was to see that Barack Obama was not elected to a second term. To that end, the Republicans set records for filibustering legislation. They have fought everything Obama tried to do to produce a recovery from the economic disaster they created. (see "Why Washington is tied up in Knots" - Time http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1966451,00.html ) , (Republicans Filibuster Everything: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republicans-filibuster-ev_b_2018663.html )
President Obama's first legislative act to repair and rebuild the economy from the Great Recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), was filibustered by the Republicans such that Obama had to agree to downsize the stimulus by converting 38% of it to tax cuts in order to win two Republican votes to get the bill passed. At the outset of a depression, people worried about whether they would have a job in six months will not spend a tax cut, but will save it our use it to pay down their debt. Either way, that portion of the ARRA converted to tax cuts would not be stimulative to the economy. The Republicans knew this. That?s why they demanded a large portion of the stimulus be converted to tax cuts. This resulted in the original stimulus being smaller than it should have been (without the conversion of 38% of the stimulus to tax cuts the stimulus would have been 61% LARGER (1/(1-.38) = 1.61).
In the Budget Battle of 2011 the Republicans threatened to force a closure of the Government if the Democrats didn't agree to cuts to domestic programs. In the Debt Ceiling extension battle, the Republicans threatened to force a U.S. default on its debt if Obama didn't agree to significant cuts in Government programs - in that same fiscal year. These domestic spending cuts lead to states laying off policemen, fireman, teachers and other public servants - adding to the number of already unemployed. The Wall Street Journal published an article which pointed out that if it weren't for cuts to Government domestic programs, the unemployment rate would be a full percentage point lower than it was at mid-year 2012 ("Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%", WSJ, May 8, 2012).
The threat of a default on the U.S. debt lead Standard and Poor's to the extraordinary step - never before taken - of downgrading the United States Credit rating. (Standard and Poors cited among the causes for the unprecedented step "political brinksmanship and public policymaking being less stable, less predictable":
"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+'
The Republican party's threats of Government default and Government closure have so concerned businesses that they have held off hiring full-time permanent workers, keeping the unemployment rate elevated and restraining the recovery. Businesses have been sitting on a five trillion dollar hoard of cash and have refrained from hiring back more people. Businesses do not want to hire full-time permanent people, only to lay them off in six months. Not knowing how far the Republicans might go to kill the recovery, businesses rather than hiring more people, have been making more use of over-time and contract labor ("The $5 Trillion Stash: U.S. Corporations' Money Hoard Is Bigger Than the GDP of Germany", The Atlantic, July 18, 2012; "Cash-Hoarding Companies Neither Spend Nor Lend, Fouling Economy Further", Huffington Post, July 12, 2012).
Any appraisal of the success of President Obama?s economic policies that leaves out the fact that these policies prevented the economy from collapsing even further and reaching an unemployment rate of perhaps 11%, or higher, is incomplete and invalid. The Congressional Budget Office report concluded that President Obama?s economic policies, in fact did just that ("Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output From October 2009 Through December 2009", CBO, February 23, 2010 and ?CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus", USA Today, 2010-02-23).
The Republican filibustered and prevented President Obama's American Jobs Act from being passed. Moody's Analytics concluded this bill would have raised the GDP 2%, increased employment by about 2 million jobs and lowered the unemployment rate about 1% (Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan, Moody's Analytics, Sept 9, 2011). So, a decrease of the unemployment rate of 1% prevented by the Republicans and an increase in the unemployment rate of 1% caused by Republican demands for more domestic spending cuts to preclude a Government Default and Government shutdown had a significant negative impact on the recovery. The total impact of these acts of legislative sabotage is an unemployment rate that is 2% points higher than it would have been had Obama been able to more fully realize his policies of stimulating the economy out of this Republican Trickle Down Deregulation disaster. The cited efforts to sabotage the stimulus notwithstanding, the CBO has concluded that the unemployment rate without the ARRA, would be 3% points higher than it is now.
The Republicans filibustered and killed the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, which an independent economic analysis concluded would have created about 1 million jobs, most of which would have been created in small businesses, http://www.remi.com/remi-study-on-s-2237-small-business-jobs-and-tax-relief-act-for-democratic-policy-and-communications-center (See REMI study).
Were it not for the Republicans' strategy to go 'all out' to fight everything Obama tried to do to fix the economic disaster that they created we would have been well on our way out of this Republican Dystopia a couple of years ago.
More: Without GOP Unemployment would be below 6%: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/08/1107585/-Without-GOP-Unemployment-would-be-under-6
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:16 PM
Bill USA (3,961 posts)
9. Obama didn't "brag" his press secretary referred to an article in the New York Times which
noted that looking at the Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, Obama's spending went up only slightly.
However, Obama is definitely not entirely responsible for this as I pointed out in cmt 4 because the Republicans were filibustering everything he tried to do. they threatened to force a United States default on its debt and demanded cuts to discretionary spending as the price to not force a U.S. default on its debt. They also threatened a Government shut-down unless Obama agreeed to further cuts to government programs - which they got.
The Republicans also filibustered and killed several jobs bills which did reduce Government spending but which also torpedoed the recovery to their Trickle Down - Deregulation disaster. By one estimate Republicans obstructed 4.2 million jobs ("Natural Born Job Killers: : Republicans Obstructed over 4.2 million Jobs" http://www.politicususa.com/natural-born-job-killers-republicans-obstruct-4-2-million-jobs.html)
The threat of a Government default and Government shutdown scared business managers and has caused them to be very wary of hiring back full-time permanent employees further sabotaging the recovery (I gave you a link to an article in USA Today and the Atlantic pointing out that businesses are holding off hiring and sitting on a 'mountain of cash' estimated to be in the Trillions of dollars). I gave you a link to an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled "Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%" ( http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/ ) showing the impact to the recovery of cuts to Government programs forced by the Republican insurgency (see link in cmt 4 to "Let's Just say it: the Republicans are the Problem" - Ornstein and Mann).
That's why we are still in this REPUBLICAN DYSTOPIA.
Response to AMBUSMC (Reply #5)
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:52 PM
CaliforniaPeggy (116,474 posts)
6. Could be that Obama is doing more accurate accounting...
The money Bush spent on the illegal, immoral wars didn't go into the main accounting.
Enjoy your stay.