A pretty good President after all...

[peggy]

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

Frankly I'm not surprised. Part of the genius of republican branding is the meme that democrats are big spenders and republican are not. Well, this chart shows that in fact it's the Republicans who are the big spenders.
It's time to push back on these constant lies about President Obama.
He isn't the big spender they say he is.
Taxes have NOT gone up under him.

[Alan]

Except that those claims have been debunked by multiple sources since they first appeared in Market Watch (http://www.marke****ch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1)last week.

It seems that in order for the claim to work, you have to attribute all of 2009 spending to the Bush administration and forget the fact that the Democrat controlled House refused to pass a budget for FY'09 and that all spending during Obama's first year in office was off budget and the result of continuing resolutions during the last 4 months of Bush's term, then by spending bills approved by Pelosi and Reed for the remainder of the fiscal year. Then you have to use FY 2009 as a base for increases during subsequent years, only attributing the increases to the current administration.

Granted, the previous administration spent money like they could actually print it, but it's successor has been worse, so far.

Maybe this chart from the American Enterprise Institute will tell the story better even if you insist on attributing all of 2009 spending to Bush:

http://media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2012_05/Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550


Taxes have NOT gone up under him.
But annual debt has exploded.

[freein05]

I will take Forbes numbers over the American Enterprise any day. Numbers can be fiddled with and the American Enterprise Institute is good at doing what conservatives/neocons want.

The following is from this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

"Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second rrrrrBush administration's public policy.[7] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. !Splat!John Bolton"

[redfox]

So many ways to present statistics & data, so many interpretations.

[Zoebird]

I remember my least favorite book on feminism. What was it called. It is so popular, but it was so annoying. The first three chapters were "statistics are often either improperly calculated or misunderstood and misused." followed by the rest of the book going "statistics show. . ." I wish i could remember the title. I remember being completely annoyed by that. At the same time, I had to read a book called Woman at Ground Zero -- and that was *awesome*. A novel about a woman in a muslim country. . . really cool.

[bae]

These two books should be required reading for all citizens:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics.jpg/350px-How_to_Lie_with_Statistics.jpg

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/vdqi_bookcover.gif

[Gregg]

Taxes have NOT gone up under him.

Basically true, at least for most individuals. The current administration has been quite adept at using debt to kick that can a little farther down the road.

[dmc]

Basically true, at least for most individuals. The current administration has been quite adept at using debt to kick that can a little farther down the road.

Well he did cut Social Security taxes, it is in sound financial shape isn't it.

[bunnys]

Regardless of who's in the White House uncontrolled spending is a two way street--unless both Houses of Congress are also held by the same party with the Senate having a MINIMUM of 60 seats. Even that number of Democratic senators wasn't enough during Obama's first 2 years in office bc blue-dog democrats (from conservative leaning districts) wouldn't vote for any progressive legislation, afraid they could lose their seats for any such vote.

Candidate Romney's plan is for increased tax cuts for the "job-creators," cuts in entitlements and continued full-push spending on defense. His plan also increases debt. Current republicans want austerity-type cuts (paid for by more tax cuts to the job-creators) like the kind that are working so well in Europe right now.

The current minority party has stated unequivocally and repeatedly that their number one goal is to defeat B. Obama in this election. When that is the stated goal of the minority party, how can we ever hope to any significant, meaningful legislation passed?

Personally, I think there are many good Republicans who want the best for the country. Unfortunately, Grover Norquist and his tea-party ilk have most of them squeezed in a vice and so they are forced to walk, lock-step with the most extreme members of the party.

The system is completely broken because of the unregulated flush of money into campaign spending.

[Alan]

I will take Forbes numbers over the American Enterprise any day. Numbers can be fiddled with and the American Enterprise Institute is good at doing what conservatives/neocons want.


Luckily, there's plenty of other sources to back up the AEI numbers. Perhaps they're a little more palatable.

Associated Press:
(http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CbkUcBPaDsADQ7QtDMD)

So how does Obama measure up?
If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:
—A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.
—A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the Marke****ch analysis.




Or the Washington Post's Fact Checker:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker)
One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product): 2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent

[Alan]

Well he did cut Social Security taxes, it is in sound financial shape isn't it.

Well, according to Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (http://news.investors.com/article/559548/201101111852/trouble-with-reality.htm), just last year, it is:


Interviewed Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Reid said he's bothered that people "run to Social Security" when "we start talking about the debt." "Social Security is a program that works and it's going to be, it's fully funded for the next 40 years. (So) stop picking on Social Security," he said.
When host David Gregory asked if the program was in crisis, Reid replied: "No, this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government." Then he reiterated his opinion that "Social Security is fine."



Unfortunately for Mr Reid:


The entitlement, established in 1935, has historically run surpluses. But payouts have begun to exceed revenue. Last year, the program ran a temporary deficit of $41 billion, and this year it will also pay out more than it takes in.
Temporary becomes permanent, however, in 2015, when the red ink returns one year sooner than the government's previous projection. From there on out, Social Security is projected to pay out $7.9 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in tax revenues.

[Rogar]

As the election heats up the numbers will probably be reworked in many different variations. I think the real point is that much of our current deficit that is blamed on Obama had roots in the Bush administration. A useless war in Iraq was enormously expensive and dribbled into the Obama administration. The Bush tax cuts reduced the government's ability to pay off debt. And whether TARP should or shouldn't be included, it started in the Bush administration and is a budget item that Obama tends to get sole credit..or blame.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html

[Gardenarian]

Criminy, are taxes the only thing people care about?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Criminy, are taxes the only thing people care about?

+1000, really, and we wonder why this country is circling the drain. I caught myself thinking: "that's not how I'd evaluate a pretty good president after all".

And even taking the analysis, there are so many things wrong with it that I don't know where to start. Does it matter at all, what the money is spent on? Shouldn't liberals, I don't know, be willing to spend money if it's for say Social Security or environmental protection or something? No analysis at all of where this savings (assuming it is real), is coming from. Break it down: Military, entitlements, farm subsidies, whatever. What about the effect of things like record low interest rates. Seriously, record low interest rates, spending grows in part based on interest on the debt, what is the effect of this on spending growth (significant, immaterial, what?). The implementation of Obama's major program - healthcare (and he has enacted no other major spending programs - unless you want to count, and you probably should, started a few more wars), doesn't even really go into effect for a few years.

[Alan]

No analysis at all of where this savings (assuming it is real), is coming from.
There are not now, nor have there been any savings. Real federal dollars spent during the period are as follows:

2008: $2.98T
2009: $3.52T
2010: $3.46T
2011: $3.60T
2012: $3.80T
2013: $3.80T (projected)

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com
(http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)
Forget all the partisan analysis of who spent what where. Look at the numbers.