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

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Then Bush was continuing Clinton’s policies and so forth down the line…

What are you trying to accomplish

Apparently you do not understand either…

I really don't think you understand the topic.

The topic is who has INCREASED spending the least...that is Obama.

Yes...Bush had to take over what Clinton put into place...but then he INCREASED a lot onto that. Obama had to take all of that...but he has only had a very very small increase...in fact the smallest increase since Eisenhower.

These are facts...they are non-negotiable.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Do me a favor and tell me what 3% of 3.5 trillion dollars is?

Now take 8.7% of 50 billion dollars.......Which is more?? (Sorry I don't have exact numbers, but you get the jist of what I am saying, right?)

"They" post this because the percentage number is lower, but after simple mathmatics, the higher the spending is, the lower the percentage needs to be to equal more money....

Does this make sense to anyone? I tried explaining it the way I am thinking it anyways...


I found an excellent post from another member here. tallcool1....Great post!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read this and you will see exactly what I am talking about!! The numbers are wrong until you read this!!

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The actual title of this article is quite misleading and is used to grab the sensationalized driven reader. The growth rate of actual spending is SLOWER than any other president. However, no other president in history has spent more actual dollars. A more appropriate title should be "Amidst the largest governmental spending in history, Obama administration cut spending growth."

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Whatever you say bud. Appeal to Authority.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

refuted your sources by braking them down and explaining to you what they really where.

No, what you did was tell me what you THINK they were. You have not actually shown anything other than your opinion.

Im telling you what they are. you are not reading them correctly and trying to turn it into something its not. There is no opinions here. It reads as it reads and it is what it is.

This is helpless. I dont know how to brake it down for you anymore.

you win, obama is the greatest of all time. In fact the most fiscally conservative president this nation has even had hands down.

some how magical under his watch the debt has grown by 5.2 trillion dollars by the end of his term. He even ended up getting our credit rating downgraded for the first time in history but trust me, hes a real penny pushin, "the buck stops here" type of guy. he really know how to strech that dollar.

What am i even talking about. he just has the FED just print those dollars, thats real stimulus there.

does that sound about right?

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Do me a favor and tell me what 3% of 3.5 trillion dollars is?

Now take 8.7% of 50 billion dollars.......Which is more?? (Sorry I don't have exact numbers, but you get the jist of what I am saying, right?)

"They" post this because the percentage number is lower, but after simple mathmatics, the higher the spending is, the lower the percentage needs to be to equal more money....

Does this make sense to anyone? I tried explaining it the way I am thinking it anyways...

edit on 8/1/2012 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)

Give it up! The redistribution/tax-and-spend liberal mouth-breathers see what they want to see in this. They want to parade this heavily manipulated statistic around to make themselves feel better and to support a belief that they know, deep in their hearts, is WRONG!

I have a degree in Statistics, among others, and can tell you that this "Graph" is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the facts - as you have just described. Sadly, most people are too dim to understand that numbers are like prisoners - they will tell you anything if you torture them enough!

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? 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.

Obama, the fiscal conservative.

Read the comments after the article, for the typical counter-arguments used to try and deflate this article's premise.

You've got to be kidding. I almost have to take my hat off to them for presenting it this way.

Ok, so under Obama, the spending has been pretty consistent... Let's ignore the fact that that spending has been astronomical. If we don't mention it, maybe no one will notice. He's fiscally conservative alright.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

refuted your sources by braking them down and explaining to you what they really where.

No, what you did was tell me what you THINK they were. You have not actually shown anything other than your opinion.

Im telling you what they are. you are not reading them correctly and trying to turn it into something its not. There is no opinions here. It reads as it reads and it is what it is.

This is helpless. I dont know how to brake it down for you anymore.

you win, obama is the greatest of all time. In fact the most fiscally conservative president this nation has even had hands down.

some how magical under his watch the debt has grown by 5.2 trillion dollars by the end of his term. He even ended up getting our credit rating downgraded for the first time in history but trust me, hes a real penny pushin, "the buck stops here" type of guy. he really know how to strech that dollar.

What am i even talking about. he just has the FED just print those dollars, thats real stimulus there.

does that sound about right?

You have been provided proof that there were indeed budgets for those years. You have not given ANY real arguments for why they cannot be considered that. Another poster provided the same argument with wikipedia articles clearly stating what they were.

Why cant you admit you were wrong?

reply to post by kozmo


If you haven't read my edited version with a link, please do so now. The numbers in the post I put into my response will blow your mind!!


It is a few posts above yours on this same page!

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


Brilliant! Exactly!!!

But again, those TRUTHS get in the way of what the liberals want to represent as "Facts" when, in fact, they are NOT at all factual!

None-the-less... I'll let them look foolish gloating over a non-fact!

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

refuted your sources by braking them down and explaining to you what they really where.

No, what you did was tell me what you THINK they were. You have not actually shown anything other than your opinion.

Im telling you what they are. you are not reading them correctly and trying to turn it into something its not. There is no opinions here. It reads as it reads and it is what it is.

This is helpless. I dont know how to brake it down for you anymore.

you win, obama is the greatest of all time. In fact the most fiscally conservative president this nation has even had hands down.

some how magical under his watch the debt has grown by 5.2 trillion dollars by the end of his term. He even ended up getting our credit rating downgraded for the first time in history but trust me, hes a real penny pushin, "the buck stops here" type of guy. he really know how to strech that dollar.

What am i even talking about. he just has the FED just print those dollars, thats real stimulus there.

does that sound about right?

You have been provided proof that there were indeed budgets for those years. You have not given ANY real arguments for why they cannot be considered that. Another poster provided the same argument with wikipedia articles clearly stating what they were.

Why cant you admit you were wrong?

those wiki articals, if you would read them, and you do not. they stat the budgets as "obamas" budget. here are some fact checks

•The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.

•Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.

•As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.

•Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.

•President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)

•The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

•In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).

•Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.

•By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

•Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.

•Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.
.

I sometimes wonder why all of you on here are so concerned about the national debt. They don't intend to "pay" it off. Not conventionally anyway.

No country that holds US debt is going to come knocking because there is a global understanding that we can simply keep printing and passing the debt around until we are united as a planet--then it won't matter anymore.*

*This is all purely opinion and speculation. Yadda333 reserves the right to completely back out of this opinion and/or provide no evidence to support it.

I just don't understand you guys at all.

Are you telling me that you ALL buy the cheapest stuff at the grocery store and come home patting yourself on the back for spending the least, whilst eating something disgusting?

Where did this obsession with quantity come from, surely it is the QUALITY that is important, or at least as important as the price. We will always spend, the important thing is spending the money wisely and spending it on something that will be of use.

So for me the question isn't who spends the most / least - the question is who spends (makes good choices) the money most wisely and who is least wasteful in spending money on something that can be got for cheaper, but it the same / similar quality.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The topic is who has INCREASED spending the least...that is Obama.

in fact the smallest increase since Eisenhower.

These are facts...they are non-negotiable.

classic!

Neato – two years ago the family budget was 100.00 a month and we were in debt about a year’s wages or 1200.00.

We make only 80.00 a month but we allowed ourselves to increase the budget to 120.00 per month for the next year which is a 20% increase in spending. Because, hey a man’s got to eat right? We can still borrow money.

Then a year ago the budget was 120.00 a month and we were in debt 17 month’s wages at 80.00 a month income.

So we allowed ourselves to increase spending to 140.00 per month which is still an increase of 20.00 but hey it’s less of an increase percentage wise so…hell yea - we are winning!

This year we will increase the budget by 20.00 again but it's even less in percentage of the previous year’s spending (that incidentally was still 40.00 more per month than we bring in but shhhh - nothing to see there.)

Look how great we are doing this year we have been the most frugal we have been in the last 2 years by only increasing our spending by the smallest percentage in 3 years.

I bet our creditors will jump all over themselves to loan us more money since we are not increasing our spending as much as we have in the past.

However, let’s not tip them off that we still spend more than we make and will have almost doubled our overall debt in the less time.

After all its an election year and Dad needs the good press… So let's just see if this flies and the kiddies will buy it as is. Seems many here are not buying it. Too sad for Barry, too sad.

This whole thing is smoke and mirror BS.

Wow Barry - so you increased the spending level less than the failures who preceded you but still spent more than you made and increased the debt twice as fast.

Only in Obamaland is this win…

reply to post by Golf66


Who is saying it is a "win"???

The OP is just exposing a Republican lie...and it seems like you bought it.

if it makes obama look better/worse how does that exactly help the country?? Obama the most frugal spender since eisenhower... great just great. Obama gets a nice feather in his cap for his accomplishment.

HOW DOES THAT HELP US NOW. He shows up and says yeah I inherited all of this. Great now fix it. if you can't own up and say yeah I couldn't get it done. Do not point fingers because if you take every president on that list you can probably argue and split hairs why those presidents spent so much.


The bottom line is regardless of who is president we are still getting boned. We still have central banks messign with our currency, big coporations buying out public servants and we are still having wealth siphoned away from the people.


This is really an asinine discussion, what is the point of it?

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Diisenchanted

 

Notice that Bushes term ended at the end of 08 and they have all of 09 tacked on ntro his spending. That is not even fuzzy math that is plain stupidity...

How many times does it have to be said? Bushes term ended January 2009, not in 2008. The 2009 budget was written by Bush and passed by the 110th congress. Scream all you want to about the budget but don't ignore the fact it was a Republican budget.

Then ask yourself, when the economy collapsed in 2008, WHOSE policies were in place? GOP policies.

Another view of government growth, by president:
Per Capita Government Spending by President

This isn't to defend Obama, but to point out the real danger that comes from the so-called "conservative" trickle-down policies and deregulation that have caused the most damage to the country's economy.

Bush only signed 3 of the 12 appropriations Bills for the 2009 FY.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.

www.cq.com...

reply to post by Bilk22
Hey they already no what he is going to spend in 2013...................go figure.

reply to post by jibeho


Excellent point

I can reiterate and add this link that effectively shoots holes in the "Nutting" case.
("Nutting" --- appropriately named )

Clever tricks indeed ......

Usually, the president in office prior to a new president would have helped craft and sign into law government spending bills applied to the first 9 months of spending the next year and a president’s new term. A fiscal year starts on October 1 of the year prior to the calendar year to September 30th of the calendar year. In other words the fiscal year starts three months early.

In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Truth about President Obama’s Skyrocketing Spending