Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

  1. -1
    DisturbedShifty's Avatar
    Wort-wort-wort!!!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,814
    vCash:
    2150
    Loc:
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Xbox LogoHalo LegendaryGalactic Empire medalPlaystation LogoNintendo Logo

    Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

    Itís 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?


    Source:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    dlockz's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2004
    Posts:
    32,291
    vCash:
    29930
    Loc:
    Tampa Fl
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Blog Entries:
    1
    People will believe whatever they want to believe. The right believes anything the right media spews at them and the same goes for the left.
    Anyone that believes this country just all of sudden got on bad road beause Obama became president is not basing it on single fact just propoganda.
    The sad thing is that many people just base their opinion off of what some media figure head says. I know some people that say something to me everyday about some terrible thing Obama is doing based on something said on radior or tv
    When death smiles upon you, the Infantry man smiles back. WV says Im not a patriot and Jeff Ireland is a Boss so it must be true.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,900
    vCash:
    19624
    Thanks / No Thanks
    There are two things which are attributed to Obama's spending:
    a) the stimulus and bailouts under Bush which hit the books in 2009, 2010 and 2011
    b) The Obama administration changed the Bush policy from 'play now, pay later' to 'play now, pay now'. Under this restructuring a lot of the Bush expenses slated for the next few years hit the books now.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    "You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
    "What's that? A criminal?"
    "Worse. A politician."
    Source: Under The Dome
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,624
    vCash:
    13390
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Although this is a bit shocking, it doesn't sound like it is altogether wrong. Regardless, I want Federal spending cut and I want Federal power subservient to the states. Whichever candidate advocates this, I will be happy to vote for. Among my circle of family and friends, Bush was seen as way too fiscally irresponsible and too socially active. Yes, I voted for him but only because I didn't have a better alternative in Gore or Kerry. I will have to take a closer look at the data provided above to see if I fully agree with the numbers but I will have to say that the Republican House has certainly curtailed Obama's ability to spend so I am reluctant to give him credit as it was certainly not he who was fiscally responsible. With that being said, I don't think the Republicans were always being responsible as much as being contrary.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,327
    vCash:
    30847
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Although this is a bit shocking, it doesn't sound like it is altogether wrong. Regardless, I want Federal spending cut and I want Federal power subservient to the states. Whichever candidate advocates this, I will be happy to vote for. Among my circle of family and friends, Bush was seen as way too fiscally irresponsible and too socially active. Yes, I voted for him but only because I didn't have a better alternative in Gore or Kerry. I will have to take a closer look at the data provided above to see if I fully agree with the numbers but I will have to say that the Republican House has certainly curtailed Obama's ability to spend so I am reluctant to give him credit as it was certainly not he who was fiscally responsible. With that being said, I don't think the Republicans were always being responsible as much as being contrary.
    You want the Constitution amended, in other words. Because it's clear on this point.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,900
    vCash:
    19624
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Although this is a bit shocking, it doesn't sound like it is altogether wrong. Regardless, I want Federal spending cut and I want Federal power subservient to the states. Whichever candidate advocates this, I will be happy to vote for. Among my circle of family and friends, Bush was seen as way too fiscally irresponsible and too socially active. Yes, I voted for him but only because I didn't have a better alternative in Gore or Kerry. I will have to take a closer look at the data provided above to see if I fully agree with the numbers but I will have to say that the Republican House has certainly curtailed Obama's ability to spend so I am reluctant to give him credit as it was certainly not he who was fiscally responsible. With that being said, I don't think the Republicans were always being responsible as much as being contrary.
    We should go back to pre-USA then correct?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,624
    vCash:
    13390
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    You want the Constitution amended, in other words. Because it's clear on this point.
    Ah, the crux of the matter...it is clear on some very specific matters that the Federal Government is primary but subservient on all others not specifically stated. Why can't it just be acted upon as such. Why the centralized power grab on issues that the constitution gives the FG no such authority. You know where I stand on this and what I meant, we have belabored the point enough.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Eshlemon's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,828
    vCash:
    1498
    Loc:
    Greensboro, NC
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Why is this article about a bloggers claim from last May being dredged up again with its distorted claims again? The biggest TAARP repayments counted as spending cuts.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...h6nU_blog.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...4d2U_blog.html


    By the AP’s calculation, repayments to TARP and reduced spending on Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bailouts shrink the official 2010 spending figure by $317 billion and the 2011 spending figure by $72 billion. In other words, the raw numbers give a distorted picture.

    We agree that those adjustments should be made, which really changes the picture of Obama’s spending, at least in the early years of his presidency. Bernstein, by contrast, argues that “MW’s using official budget numbers and by those numbers, the Obama administration legitimately gets credit for effective management of the TARP.”

    There are other ways to change this picture, such as excluding interest on the debt (on the theory that other presidents ran up those bills). Or one could look just at changes in discretionary spending, on the theory that much of the rest of government spending is on automatic pilot unless specific laws are changed. As we mentioned in our original column, looking at spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product puts Obama in the worst light.

    The most authoritative examination of this question would be by the experienced budget analysts at the CBO or the Office of Management and Budget. We continue to find it curious that the White House would rely on the work of bloggers for budgetary analysis rather than the career employees who do this for a living.
    The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

    So this is what we end up with:

    2008: $2.98 trillion

    2009: $3.27 trillion

    2010: $3.46 trillion

    2011: $3.60 trillion

    2012: $3.65 trillion

    2013: $3.72 trillion
    Significantly larger growth in federal spending than the bloggers 1.4% claim.

    Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.

    The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used.
    Neither side was innocent of financial budgetary shenanigans during last years campaign, not sure why one of the worst is being dredged up again. But as a poster said, people will believe what they want to believe and sadly the propaganda and not the facts.
    Last edited by Eshlemon; 10-21-2013 at 04:54 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    DisturbedShifty's Avatar
    Wort-wort-wort!!!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,814
    vCash:
    2150
    Loc:
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Xbox LogoHalo LegendaryGalactic Empire medalPlaystation LogoNintendo Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Eshlemon View Post
    Neither side was innocent of financial budgetary shenanigans during last years campaign, not sure why this one is being dredged up again. .
    Two reasons. One, I knew it would spark a conversation. Two. I didn't know it was an old article. My bad. Have fun.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,327
    vCash:
    30847
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Ah, the crux of the matter...it is clear on some very specific matters that the Federal Government is primary but subservient on all others not specifically stated. Why can't it just be acted upon as such. Why the centralized power grab on issues that the constitution gives the FG no such authority. You know where I stand on this and what I meant, we have belabored the point enough.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    The 10th amendment doesn't really say that. All it says is that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved for the states. But both implicitly and explicitly, the Constitution grants sweeping powers to the federal government and limits the powers of states. This idea of the federal government being subservient to the states is not a part of the Constitution, like at all. The whole point in replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to change the balance of power from the states to the federal government.

    But you're right in that we've been over this ground before. I just think it's important to reiterate that what you're looking for is not a change in the way the Constitution is interpreted, but for the Constitution to be -- in part -- rewritten. There would be no way for states to have the kind of power you want them to have without changing Article VI, for example, which establishes the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land", and demands that judges in every state uphold it, regardless of what state or local laws say.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Eisenhower's prophetic farewell speech
    By SkapePhin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-04-2013, 01:02 PM
  2. Forbes: Smallest Govt spender since Eisenhower? Obama.
    By Locke in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 08-23-2012, 02:01 PM
  3. Will the real tax-and-spender please 'fess up?
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2008, 01:15 AM
  4. Eisenhower: A vote for Kerry
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2004, 09:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •