Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Forbes: Obama: Biggest Government Spender in the History of the World


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

That's kind of what I was getting at here. I'd like to learn more about stuff like this but I don't know what the hell to believe.

So is stuff like this...

...just being made up? Or is that fact? Or is it not telling the entire story?

2 wars, Bush tax cuts, a banking industry that fouled up and dragged the economy into the mud and a stimulus package that IMO was needed to keep the economy on life support... Sounds like more circumstance than a grand plan to create a "huge government".

Look up Peter Ferrara and you will find him to be a right wing zealot invested heavily in seeing Mitt Romney win the white house...

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-conservative-cultu

Mitt Romney, Conservative Cultural Icon

Obamunistas are saying that Obama is cool, and Romney is not. But cool to whom? Cool is in the eye of the beholder.

I have to admit that if you are an aging hippie who never grew up, still think that the counterculture of the 1960s was the highwater mark of American civilization, reject America's capitalist economic system as inherently unfair and uncool in the grubby pursuit of profit, see America's historic world-leading prosperity as crass materialism causing global poverty, and regard America's world dominating superpower military as the tool of global imperialism, you would see Obama as very cool for bringing your values into the White House. Ditto that if you are a mental infant throwback stuck in the last century who thinks global socialism and Che T-shirts are cool.

Not exactly an unbiased mind. :doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true Obama has passed Bush Jr. as the President with the highest national debt to GDP ratio. But the biggest reason for this is the huge tax cuts that the prior administartion passed. The second biggest factor is growing social security / unemployment benefits.

http://zfacts.com/node/450

Obama has the slowest growth in Federal Spending since IKE in the 1950's.... He inherited these deficites and he has refrained from cutting them while the economy has been recovering and we have had such high unemployment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note that Bang is right -- no source can be trusted anymore.

I recall only a couple of weeks ago an op/ed by a certain progressive that claimed Obama's deficit spending was significantly lower than Bush's, and that op/ed was embraced and lauded by many despite being entirely bereft of factual information (it intentionally misguided the reader, claiming that all of FY 2009 was to be laid at Bush's feet [which WOULD have been the case in normal circumstances] when, in fact, Obama signed the vast majority of the spending into law in March 2009).

The ONLY sources that decried this blatant and intentional lie were op/ed pieces from the right.

The myth of objective news sources needs to be dispelled. If you believe that ANY "news source" does not have an agenda, you need to seriously examine your information. The only way to get close to the bottom of what is actually going on in politics is to take every truth claim made by either side and research it. Try to strip it of its filters, and, failing that, attempt to distill the information through right and left filters. Yes, it is time consuming -- but if you're going to have an opinion that matters, you need to divorce yourself from the intentional misinformation you are fed.

If you believe a significant contingent of conservatives are racists who want to screw the poor and kill all the old people, you've bought a lie. If you believe all liberals are socialists who want to sit on their rears and leech off the system, you've bought a lie.

That being said, I do NOT believe that the truth lies in the middle. I am an unabashed conservative :cool:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick note that Bang is right -- no source can be trusted anymore.

I recall only a couple of weeks ago an op/ed by a certain progressive that claimed Obama's deficit spending was significantly lower than Bush's, and that op/ed was embraced and lauded by many despite being entirely bereft of factual information (it intentionally misguided the reader, claiming that all of FY 2009 was to be laid at Bush's feet [which WOULD have been the case in normal circumstances] when, in fact, Obama signed the vast majority of the spending into law in March 2009).

The ONLY sources that decried this blatant and intentional lie were op/ed pieces from the right.

The myth of objective news sources needs to be dispelled. If you believe that ANY "news source" does not have an agenda, you need to seriously examine your information. The only way to get close to the bottom of what is actually going on in politics is to take every truth claim made by either side and research it. Try to strip it of its filters, and, failing that, attempt to distill the information through right and left filters. Yes, it is time consuming -- but if you're going to have an opinion that matters, you need to divorce yourself from the intentional misinformation you are fed.

If you believe a significant contingent of conservatives are racists who want to screw the poor and kill all the old people, you've bought a lie. If you believe all liberals are socialists who want to sit on their rears and leech off the system, you've bought a lie.

That being said, I do NOT believe that the truth lies in the middle. I am an unabashed conservative :cool:.

The United States ran a 1.85 Trillion dollar deficit in 2009... Obama's economic recovery act passed in 2009 was $750 billion dollars, which accounted for $185 billion of that $1.85 Trillion bush saddled us with.

The CBO estimated that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, and by $134 billion in 2011, or $787 billion over the 2009–2019 period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Congressional_Budget_Office_reports

Even if you only charge Bush with 1.6 trillion budget deficite.. Obama's as the refferenced article does, Obama's still held spending increases down more than any other presdient since Ike. Granted he's still accumulating a lot of debt, but it's economic suicide to cut spending in a recession and Obama is wise to maintain government spending until we are back on our feet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keynesian's believe you spend your way out of financial woe. The President and most of the left are Keynesian's. That's news to who? A war that should have been over 5 years ago doesn't help though, he deserves taking **** for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick note that Bang is right -- no source can be trusted anymore.

I recall only a couple of weeks ago an op/ed by a certain progressive that claimed Obama's deficit spending was significantly lower than Bush's, and that op/ed was embraced and lauded by many despite being entirely bereft of factual information (it intentionally misguided the reader, claiming that all of FY 2009 was to be laid at Bush's feet [which WOULD have been the case in normal circumstances] when, in fact, Obama signed the vast majority of the spending into law in March 2009).

The ONLY sources that decried this blatant and intentional lie were op/ed pieces from the right.

The myth of objective news sources needs to be dispelled. If you believe that ANY "news source" does not have an agenda, you need to seriously examine your information. The only way to get close to the bottom of what is actually going on in politics is to take every truth claim made by either side and research it. Try to strip it of its filters, and, failing that, attempt to distill the information through right and left filters. Yes, it is time consuming -- but if you're going to have an opinion that matters, you need to divorce yourself from the intentional misinformation you are fed.

If you believe a significant contingent of conservatives are racists who want to screw the poor and kill all the old people, you've bought a lie. If you believe all liberals are socialists who want to sit on their rears and leech off the system, you've bought a lie.

That being said, I do NOT believe that the truth lies in the middle. I am an unabashed conservative :cool:.

Totally agree with this. And with limited amounts of time on my hands, it is indeed too time consuming. And tiring.

I feel like I should be more informed but I already work too hard at my job and my side job to have enough energy to do all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/fact-check-some-skewed-accounts-as-obama-and-romney-size-up-economic-record-and-each-other/2012/06/14/gJQATbvBdV_story.html - Post thought to be a liberal source, but it questions many of the same things Drtdrums says only conservatives mention

The questioning of which numbers should be used has been a frequent issue of the fact check column for months, and it has blasted both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's kind of what I was getting at here. I'd like to learn more about stuff like this but I don't know what the hell to believe.

So is stuff like this...

...just being made up? Or is that fact? Or is it not telling the entire story?

It's partly being made up. You got to remember that with Bush, military spending for two wars wasn't counted. It was on a second set of books. Imagine how artificially deflated the numbers must have been if you didn't count operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. More, the largest spending during the Obama administration (I think) is the stimulus which he outlined quite specifically in size and scope during the campaign... a stimulus that most economists believed was necessary to keep the country from completely capsizing.

So, the truth is squiggly. That said, Obama hasn't been aggressive enough in cutting taxes or raising revenue, especially in those first two years when he had the super majority. We can argue about whether he should have cut spending more, let the Bush tax cuts elapse, add other tax revenues, etc. but he didn't do enough.

I will say that the economy is a somewhat better place than in 2008, but it is far, far from a good place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keynesian's believe you spend your way out of financial woe. The President and most of the left are Keynesian's. That's news to who? A war that should have been over 5 years ago doesn't help though, he deserves taking **** for that.

Bush was a Keynesian too then as well as Bernaki and Paulson the chairman of the fed he appointed and his Secretary of Treasury... Because when the collapse was imminent in 2008 all those guys ran to congress and desribed the most dire concequences if they dind't open up the purse strings...

And congress responded with 700 bilion in stimulus spending.

---------- Post added June-15th-2012 at 02:39 PM ----------

Take away the partisan "it's all their guy's fault" and the bottom line is this:"W was the most wasteful big gov't spender in history, and Obama has been throwing gas on the fire." I miss Clinton/Gingrich.

Obama has been treading water. He inherited a 1.6 trillion deficite, and we still have about a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

---------- Post added June-15th-2012 at 02:44 PM ----------

That's kind of what I was getting at here. I'd like to learn more about stuff like this but I don't know what the hell to believe.

So is stuff like this...

...just being made up? Or is that fact? Or is it not telling the entire story?

It's not made up that Bush never had a deficit over 500 billion... It's just misleading... Bush loved to hide his spending. He regularly left large expenditures off budget thus they never showed up in his deficite numbers... Katrina relief, both wars, his economic stimmulus package of 2008, His 800 billion dollar healthcare plan of 2006 never hit his deficit numbers. Smoke and mirrors..

One of the first thing Obama did was to put all federal spending on budget.. Thus if you go by the published whitehouse numbers the deficite jumped by about 1 trillion when Obama took over with his first budget in 2010. However if you go by the actual increase in the federal debt.. Obama has basically maintained, with modest cuts the huge deficit which he inherited.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing to look at is National debt to GDP. (The classic debt to income calculation) This takes out the who is the biggest spender in whole dollars question (what the last few posts have pointed out about each subsequent President being the biggest spender) and accounts for inflation.

It's true Obama has passed Bush Jr. as the President with the highest national debt to GDP ratio. But the biggest reason for this is the huge tax cuts that the prior administartion passed. The second biggest factor is growing social security / unemployment benefits.

http://zfacts.com/node/450

Actually, a day or so ago, I was looking into the budget requests that Obama had submitted to Congress. Went to this Wiki article to look at his proposal for FY2010.

And I saw something on this page.

Seems that back in 2001, the CBO produced a forecast for Congress, that predicted federal budget surpluses stretching out as far as the eye could see. (This forecase was used to sell the Bush tax cuts, in fact. The claim was that it would be immoral for the government to run surpluses like that, and the government should give the people their money back, rather than run those surpluses.)

Well, it seems that the CBO did another study, in preparation for the 2010 budget, that supposedly looked into why the CBO had predicted, in 01, that in 10, we'd be running a surplus of $850B, but now, we're running a deficit of $1.3T, instead. And they produced this chart, to explain where the surpluses went:

800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

Link (I think) to the actual page.

---------- Post added June-15th-2012 at 03:24 PM ----------

It's not made up that Bush never had a deficit over 500 billion... It's just misleading... Bush loved to hide his spending. He regularly left large expenditures off budget thus they never showed up in his deficite numbers... Katrina relief, both wars, his economic stimmulus package of 2008, His 800 billion dollar healthcare plan of 2006 never hit his deficit numbers. Smoke and mirrors..

One of the first thing Obama did was to put all federal spending on budget.. Thus if you go by the published whitehouse numbers the deficite jumped by about 1 trillion when Obama took over with his first budget in 2010. However if you go by the actual increase in the federal debt.. Obama has basically maintained, with modest cuts the huge deficit which he inherited.

Bush left things like the war spending out of his budget forecasts.

But the claims about the huge increase in the deficit, and in spending? Things like this chart?

usgs_line.php?title=Federal%20Deficit&units=b&size=l&year=1998_2013&sname=US&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b_b&spending0=-69.27_-125.61_-236.24_-128.23_157.75_377.59_412.73_318.35_248.18_160.71_458.55_1412.69_1293.49_1299.59_1326.95_901.40

Those are the actual deficits. Not projections. (Well, the red columns, for 2012 and 2013 are projections, because those years aren't over, yet.)

Yes, Obama put things like the wars "on budget". But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the spending/deficit explosion. Those increases are real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take away the partisan "it's all their guy's fault" and the bottom line is this:"W was the most wasteful big gov't spender in history, and Obama has been throwing gas on the fire." I miss Clinton/Gingrich.

I think that's somewhat fair, though most of Obama's problem has been inherited.

What needs to happen is about a 20% reduction in the size of our military budget, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and belt tightening everywhere else.

I am excited to see Obama/Panetta at least trying to take a chunk out of the military

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an insane article. He takes the last Bush budget (which really sent us into unmarked territory) and places gives it to then Senator Obama. Then he ignores that Obama moved much of what Bush had off-budget on budget. Basically, he takes the majority of Bush's spending, assigns it to Obama, and says "Look at the big spender here."

This is like giving you a speeding ticket for being in the passenger seat of your friend's car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's probably true that Obama has run the largest deficits (in non-inflation adjusted dollars) in world history. Prior to that, George W. Bush had the record. Before that, George H.W. Bush had the record. And Reagan before that. Probably Carter before that. Clinton is probably the only one of our recent Presidents who didn't get that title (and he probably just got lucky). If Romney is elected, there's a good chance he will become the new record holder.

Budget deficits don't seem to favor either political party.

yeah, this is true

but there is a big problem in America with it, and who benefits off these things. Until that changes, every president will run big budgets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's somewhat fair, though most of Obama's problem has been inherited.

What needs to happen is about a 20% reduction in the size of our military budget, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and belt tightening everywhere else.

I am excited to see Obama/Panetta at least trying to take a chunk out of the military

I agree (no surprise). Amazing how the GOP still tries desperately to paint Obama as soft on defense despite what I would call a steller display of resolute toughness, and now whine because we may go from spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense to "only" spending as much as the top 50 countries combined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Oh look, an article with something that looks like, you know, actually facts, and numbers, and math and stuff.

facts, and numbers, and math and stuff, but starting with a terribly flawed premise.:ols:

the biggest bailout in history should not be used as the normalised spending mark in a sane world.

garbage in.garbage out

Link to post
Share on other sites
facts, and numbers, and math and stuff, but starting with a terribly flawed premise.:ols:

the biggest bailout in history should not be used as the normalised spending mark in a sane world.

garbage in.garbage out

There are lies, dirty lies, and statistics.... Yes Obama Is the biggest Government spender in the history of the world... So have been all of our last 10 presidents dating back to FDR in their time.

Yes Obama's decision to put all spending on budget, rather than leave a lot of spending off budget as Bush had done before him has made transparent the US deficit problem which Obama inherited along with one of the weakest economies since the great depression. Yes it would have been great if he would have been able to cut some of that deficit, in theory. In practice though with 15% unadjusted unemployment, it's a good thing he's not tried that else we could be looking at 20-25% unemployment and a contracting GDP.

Let's look at Obama's spending another way.... The % increase in the national debt by President...

Carter - 42%

Reagan - 188.6%

Bush Sr. - 55.6%

Clinton - 35.6%

Bush Jr - 90%

Obama - 41.4%

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another brilliant insight from Peter Ferrara, the Heartland Institute guy who was paid by dirty lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write "objective" op-ed pieces that lauded Abramoff's clients. Google the Heartland Institute if you want to know what he is all about.

In essence, he's an extreme libertarian (which is fine) and a dishonest hack (which is not fine).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time someone is trying to make a point about the best/worst ever and is using unadjusted raw dollars as numbers, you know they're intentionally feeding you a load of BS. Ferrara is a hack and makes no effort to hide his biases.

Considering that his other articles linked from that page are titled, "The Ongoing Disgrace That Is Obamanomics", and "Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling" I shouldn't be surprised. The global warming article is embarrassing to read, very light on facts or data, very heavy on talking points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush left things like the war spending out of his budget forecasts.

But the claims about the huge increase in the deficit, and in spending? Things like this chart?

Bush increased the national debt by about 4.5 Trillion dollars... of that he hid 2.7 Trillion dollars in spending off budget. Things like...

  • Katrina Relief
  • His 2003 Medicare Reform Act $600 billion
  • Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
  • Medicare reimbursements to physicians
  • TARP
  • His Stimulus Plan

http://zzzlist.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/wall-street-wasnt-the-only-one-using-off-budget-spending-bush-and-gop-congress-hid-27-trillion-deficit/

usgs_line.php?title=Federal%20Deficit&units=b&size=l&year=1998_2013&sname=US&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b_b&spending0=-69.27_-125.61_-236.24_-128.23_157.75_377.59_412.73_318.35_248.18_160.71_458.55_1412.69_1293.49_1299.59_1326.95_901.40

Those are the actual deficits. Not projections. (Well, the red columns, for 2012 and 2013 are projections, because those years aren't over, yet.)

Yes, Obama put things like the wars "on budget". But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the spending/deficit explosion. Those increases are real.

The spending is real, the increases are entirely fiction. Your graph shows Bush's deficit spending which was calculated leaving significant spending off budget.. I invite you to review the US Treasury historical record of our national debt by year..

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

To get a more realistic or normalized impression of Bush's deficit spending...

In reality Obama has increased government spending at the slowest pace since Eisenhower.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

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

Obama inherited a huge deficit, and he's basically maintained it....

Not that it helps us any we still have to pay off the debt. But it's much better to incure debt at 1-3% interest than to not and have the GDP shrink by 20-30% as what happened in the Great Depression.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at Obama's spending another way.... The % increase in the national debt by President...

Carter - 42%

Reagan - 188.6%

Bush Sr. - 55.6%

Clinton - 35.6%

Bush Jr - 90%

Obama - 41.4%

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Yes, A better way to look at it.... though the time in office differential would bring O up to W

IF you were gonna use annualized growth ,a average of the preceding term would seem more realistic than selecting a extreme aberration.

unless of course you intend to keep spending at that level :saber:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...