Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

[spanone]

Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

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 –

[IMG][/IMG]

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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

[BeyondGeography]

1. He was spending while black

[HopeHoops]

6. Just don't tell "Buford T. Justice" Apario about it.

[malaise]

2. Obama

by a distance

[leftstreet]

3. This isn't something Democrats should be proud of

Has the whole country gone crazy?

WE are the government and WE should be SPENDING - putting people to work and money in OUR pockets, not the pockets of the rich!

Good grief

[CabCurious]

4. Sure it is... given the total amount being spent

The 2009 budget dramatically increased spending via stimulus. Obama has effectively MAINTAINED that inflated spending rate.

Spending more wouldn't necessarily have gotten us "better" results, unless it had been targeted explicitly at patching up state and local government tax bases (which is where most of the 700,000 government jobs have been lost). But that would have been politically impossible.

[leftstreet]

8. Bailing out Wall Street is 'politically possible,' but not Main Street n/t

[CabCurious]

13. The statistics show...

That private industry has been growing for 30 months, including small business.

SPENDING more Federal money wouldn't help shift the economy from Wall Street to Main Street. It don't work like that.

The only additional thing they could have and perhaps should have done was provide bailouts to local governments who couldn't maintain teacher and police payrolls. But that would have been impossible, politically.

[sabrina 1]

19. A far bigger stimulus package was needed. There should have been no bailouts, they failed let

them fail. The one country that allowed them to fail, took them over and put their money into growing the economy is the only one now on the rebound, Iceland.

All this talk of things being impossible is nonsense. Everything depends on priorities. You have X amount of money, where you spend it is your choice. The US spent it on bailing out failure. Same thing in Europe, and there has never been a more failed policy on such a grand scale, in the history of the world. Austerity! It will go down in history as one of the biggest economic disastrous failures ever.

Failure should not be rewarded. All the slick talking points 'too big to fail' eg, that should have been applied to Main Street, not Wall Street. Main Street is too big to fail. Wall Street already failed so obviously it was not too big to fail.

[CabCurious]

22. Stimulus isnt necessarily the same as budget.

[sabrina 1]

24. Yes, but when money is flowing through the economy, that creates jobs.

That brings in more revenue for the government and the economy improves.

The idea that if we do something nebulous like giving tax breaks to the Wealthy and then trust them to return the favor could not be a more ridiculous economic strategy. Did they need to actually do it to know that it would be a spectacular failure? Are they really that stupid, or was it a deliberate plan to provide more money for the wealthy? I'm betting on the latter.

When there is money to spend, people spend it and other people get jobs to help deal with the demand. It's never been that difficult to figure out. What is difficult to understand is why our leaders are so resistant to doing these few simply things.

[CabCurious]

30. You do realize that's phony money based on IOUs to China, right?

The solution is not ALWAYS just to print more money. Sorry.

We needed stimulus, not blanket spending.

[sabrina 1]

36. No, it is backed by US Treasury Bonds and the US has never ever defaulted on its

creditors. If they were to default on the American people, China would never lend them money again, nor would anyone else.

I assume you're talking about the SS fund? It is safe. However those who borrowed from the fund do not want to pay it back, but they know the government cannot default, so they are struggling to find a way to avoid their responsibility without defaulting on US Bonds. That's their problem, ours to make sure that fund is not raided and that the money goes to the people who own it.

[CabCurious]

52. I'd rather cut military than just keep printing money (increasing govt spending as % of GDP)

[CabCurious]

34. Imagine a stack of 1 million dollars. Now imagine 3 million of those stacks of 1 million.

[Lucky Luciano]

33. Can't compare Iceland to the US. That is like

...comparing the economy if Buffalo with the entire US.

[sabrina 1]

38. I'm not talking about the economy, although I'm not sure I agree with you there either.

I am talking about the Rule of Law. They arrested the Bankers and politicians who were responsible for the corruption that brought down their economy. There was nothing on the face of the earth preventing the US from doing the same thing. But their attitude here is 'What Laws'? And our government is so enslaved to Wall Street that they got away with it.

[Lucky Luciano]

55. Point was that doing what was done in Iceland in the US would not work.

The economies are just not comparable for the purposes of saying, "well, it worked in Uceland, so it will work here too."

[sabrina 1]

16. Exactly, no wonder so many people are out of work. I don't get the cheering for this.

Seems to me Dems, rather than thinking of what is right for the country, are always worried about what the bullies on the Right will think. And no matter how much they do to try to impress them, they never get any credit, just a realization by the Republicans that if they keep taunting them, they can get even more.

Someone needs to teach Democrats how to deal with bullies.

[CabCurious]

17. Staying at $3.5 trillion isn't why people are out of work...

Spending more is not inherently good.

We should have been putting this money into local governments to keep teachers and police, rather than spending so much on MILITARY affairs.

[sabrina 1]

18. Yes, firing teachers and other public workers makes no sense.

All it does is contribute to a bad economy. When people are working they are spending. If it means spending more to keep them working, that is an investment that pays off over time. We only have to look at Italy and Greece, Ireland, Spain to see how well firing public workers has affected the economy.

I agree money should have been saved from the wasteful spending on the MIC.

[CabCurious]

21. I agree. That was 700,000 professionals put out of work...

However, it's far easier to see this all in retrospect.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well a lot of people did see at the time and were pretty horrified and said so.

And if we have elected officials are unable to assess these things in advance, they are not fit for the job frankly. Too much is at stake to be giving these jobs to incompetent people, assuming that is the problem.

[CabCurious]

27. The Fed govt pro-actively bailing out specific local governments... wasn't feasible

There are harsh political realities and that's one of them.

[sabrina 1]

51. What do you mean?

I am talking about bailing our failed Wall Street Institutions. That never should have happened. They have been taken over and broken up and Regulations restored so that it never happened again.

But when Wall Street is running the Government, this is what we get, and the people get screwed. Why was it feasible to let the American people fail? What kind of logic is that?

[CabCurious]

53. I was talking about saving teacher & police jobs. You keep talking about wall street...

[sabrina 1]

54. Teachers jobs, the privatization of the public schools is related to Wall Street.

Everything in this country, anywhere there is a big public fund, such as SS, Education, Health Care, Wall Street is involved.

Which is why in order to have a decent country, the money must be removed from our elections. Until then, Wall Street will be writing policy.

[CabCurious]

57. Not at all.

Public education is locally and state funded.

You're really stretching here to make a vague point to spend more...

[progressivebydesign]

29. teachers aren't paid by the US Govt. n/t

[CabCurious]

31. Can you imagine the political fallout if the Fed had bailed out teacher salaries? :(

It's a shame to say it, but it is true.

[HopeHoops]

5. I was going to say Clinton, but yeah, Obama wins.

[CabCurious]

7. A cautionary note about wording: spending vs spending increase

It is true that Obama has GROWN spending the least since Eisenhower, but that doesn't mean he has "spent the less."

[spanone]

10. says who?

[CabCurious]

14. math?

[CabCurious]

15. One statement is FALSE. One statement is TRUE.

It's not accurate to say Obama spent the least since Eisenhower.

He was handed a $3.52 trillion budget in 2009 and basically maintained that high level.

It's true, however, to point out that he has INCREASED spending the least since Eisenhower. If we want to win arguments against the GOP, then we must be accurate.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. And also throw back in their faces how much Bush MK II grew spending, which that graph

clearly illustrates.

[spanone]

9. MUST READ paragraph following original op:

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.

[JoePhilly]

11. Oh, I thought that by "smallest" you meant by height.

I don't have the data, but I'm pretty sure Obama is taller than a few of those guys.

[deaniac21]

26. Height would be tallest

weight would be the determining factor

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. Oh boy, when the Liberal Media gets ahold of this they will tell EVERYBODY!

Oh, wait...

[Roland99]

25. Well and good except for one HUGE thing...

Bush inflated his last budget so much and Obama has not cut it back from there. Obama's added as much national debt in 4 years as Bush did in 8.

[CabCurious]

28. That is NOT true. Bush spent about the same amount in his last 4 years.

Do the math.

4 years of Obama is about 14.5 trillion

First 4 years of Bush is about 10.7 trillion
Second 4 years of Bush is about 14.2 trillion

Bush spending was 24.9 trillion.

[Roland99]

35. nope.

[CabCurious]

37. If you want to talk only deficit spending then...

Let's be honest about the trend. And let's be honest about Bush owning 2009's spending.

[Roland99]

40. see post 39

[CabCurious]

47. See FACTS: Obama has been reducing the deficit

[tabasco]

32. Where you getting your numbers? n/t

[Roland99]

39. From right here >>>>

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

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)[104]
2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)


So, Obama is spending $700 Billion *more* than Bush's last year for FY2013


And this:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 (Bush's last Fiscal budget ended here...Obama's started here)
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 (Bush's first Fiscal budget started here)

So, Bush added about $6.1 Trillion to the national debt over 8 years.

The current national debt is $15.9 Trillion ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np )

So, Obama has added $4 Trillion in only 3 Fiscal years (he still has one more Fiscal year starting this October)

[CabCurious]

42. 2009 is Bush's budget. There's barely a difference in total spending.

As for debt, yes, obviously the President in charge during the recession is going to have more debt.

But notice the DOWNWARD trend in deficit spending. It's a bogus talking point.

[Roland99]

43. Obama started $500 BILLION higher than Bush's last budget. That is *not* "barely a difference"

[CabCurious]

46. Ummmm. What's your point? We had a stimulus during a recession... started by Bush.

Obama has been REDUCING the deficit since then.

Do you deny this or are you here to play partisan talking points?

[Roland99]

48. The Fiscal Year deficit's dropped a whopping $100 Billion from Bush's last year

and Obama's projections are for much higher GDP than we're actually experiencing.

[CabCurious]

50. Obama has already reduced the deficit by about $600 billion since Bush.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2012USb_11s1li111lcn_G0f

[Roland99]

60. That graph is incorrect, though. WAY incorrect

It must have been based on the first 6-7 months of FY 2012


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43522-mbr.pdf

CBO estimates that the Treasury Department will report a deficit of $975 billion for the first 10 months of fiscal year 2012, $125 billion less than the $1.1 trillion deficit incurred through July 2011

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-team-projects-12t-deficit-this-year/1#.UCvuuKPAFzq

The Obama administration projects a budget deficit of $1.211 trillion this year, though that is $116 billion lower than an estimate released earlier in the year.

Puts 2012 right inline with the same deficit as last year.

[CabCurious]

49. There's barely a difference in TOTAL spending between Bush's last 4 years and Obama

That's what I said.

[Roland99]

59. and I showed that not to be the case.

he's spent an extra $3.5 Trillion over his four yrs vs Bush's last four yrs.

That's entire year's budget.

[tabasco]

56. You seem to have trouble cipherin'

Almost seems deliberate.

[CabCurious]

58. Yes... it does seem that way....

doesn't it.

[Zax2me]

41. He also added enough national debt in 4 years to equal 8 years of little bush.

He has been spending.

[CabCurious]

45. Since Bush's 2009 mega-spending budget, Obama has been reducing the deficit overall...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2012USb_11s1li111lcn_G0f

[Curmudgeoness]

44. What is that footnote about 2009 stimulus re-assigned to Obama?

If I read that correctly, they are giving Shrub's stimulus spending to Obama...which means that Obama has really spent less than this. Or am I reading this wrong?