Forbes: Smallest Govt spender since Eisenhower? Obama.

[Dogbone34]

He mentions the stimulus in the article...

A desperate attempt to mislead.

[Valandui]

Does this include military spending?

[Tetragrammaton]

It isn't so much a positive of Obama than it is an indictment of the massive spending overseen by the Bush Administration.

The biggest problem with the administration, and the reason the deficits keep growing so hugely, is the continued tax cuts. Obama and the Congress have passed far too many in a time when revenue is already low thanks to the recession. Until tax rates are normalized, a surplus will always be impossible.

[Locke]

A desperate attempt to mislead.

I like you dog, I really do. But this is ridiculous. I'd love to hear some actual substance to your opinions. How is this an attempt to mislead? Personally, I see some logic behind his article, but it is also a very subjective way to measure...

[jared81]

I like you dog, I really do. But this is ridiculous. I'd love to hear some actual substance to your opinions. How is this an attempt to mislead? Personally, I see some logic behind his article, but it is also a very subjective way to measure...

Without scouring the internet for graphs and charts I assume there is some truth to this. However, for every claim like this, there are 10 more that say Obama is a big spender. All I know is, Obama has increased the debt 5 trillion in his first term. You can fudge the numbers all you want.

[Dolphins9954]

So basically Obama expanded an already unfundable and bloated government by a little while adding 5 trillion to the debt so let's give him a cookie.

[Dolphins9954]

Here's a good read disputing this.....in short classic Washington fuzzy math.


FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim

The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.
"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

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 MarketWatch analysis.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Locke]

Here's a good read disputing this.....in short classic Washington fuzzy math.


FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks man. This is the kind of stuff I was looking for...

[ohall]

stop

this is silly. it does not include stimulus.

^^^^ We have a winner!!!

[SnakeoilSeller]

I make it a point not to comment the political forum anymore. It is too loaded with ignorant liberal bs to the point where even commenting is a waste of my time and effort. However, this is just ridiculous Pro Obama pandering, nothing is his fault, garbage that the media has been spinning. Here is the best retort I have seen about the ridiculous article that was psted in Marketwatch:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(You just have to enlarge it.)

How anyone with any amount of intelligence can blame the last 3 plus years all on George Bush with a straight face is beyond ridiculous.