Who is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower?
summertime_girl
Posts: 3,945 Member
Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
From Forbes and Marketwatch:
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.
Who knew?
Check out the chart –
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
From Forbes and Marketwatch:
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.
Who knew?
Check out the chart –
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
0
Replies
-
Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
From Forbes and Marketwatch:
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.
Who knew?
Check out the chart –
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Really? Obama is the smallest spender and yet he has been able to increase the national debt more in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8 years. How many trillion dollar budget deficits did Bush have in 8 years? How many did Obama have thus far? It's disingenuous, at best, to think Obama has been fiscally responsible during his tenure.0 -
Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
From Forbes and Marketwatch:
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.
Who knew?
Check out the chart –
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Really? Obama is the smallest spender and yet he has been able to increase the national debt more in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8 years. How many trillion dollar budget deficits did Bush have in 8 years? How many did Obama have thus far? It's disingenuous, at best, to think Obama has been fiscally responsible during his tenure.
I bolded the answer for you.0 -
It's disingenuous to copy a couple of random talking points, with no context, and attempt to present them as some kind of "proof".
What is the source of the national debt you ask? Here ya' go:
I know everyone wants to pretend now that the years 2001-2009 did not exist, but reality doesn't fit neatly into arbitrary time slots. It would be like blaming GWB for the huge increases in spending on homeland security without ever mentioning 9/11.
People also want to pretend that the great recession of 2008 was just an ordinary event, no big deal. Again, reality tells a different story.
This is what happened:
From what I can tell looking at reports, the real drop in GDP during Q4 2008 was the largest since the great depression. It was followed by a 5.2% drop in Q12009.
The net result on unemployment? This:
Note: the lowest part of the red line is when Obama took office.
Now we can argue all day about the appropriate responses to an economic downtown, the effect of republican obstructionism, the effect of garden-variety attempts by congressmen of both parties to divert stimulus money to constituents, etc, etc. There are Noble Prize winners who strongly favor stimulus spending in a recession and Nobel laureates who oppose it.
But as numerous articles and books about the Obama administration have shown, this administration--after having this financial calamity dumped in their laps even before the election--has worked to do whatever was necessary to ease the suffering of those impacted by the downturn, get the country moving again, and invest in our future.
Have they made mistakes? Absolutely. But I think to dismiss the efforts of the Obama administration as "fiscally irresponsible" deliberately ignores reality.0 -
Didn't the Bush era tax cuts get extended by Obama? I suppose he could have just let them lapse. At what point do they become the Obama tax cuts?
For what it's worth, I was against the Bush tax cuts when they were passed in 2001 and I fully expected Obama to let them lapse. He disappointed me.
One more point about the Bush tax cuts. They passed the Senate with support from 45 Republicans, 1 Independent, and *12* Democrats. It shouldn't have even hit Bush's desk.0 -
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.0
-
Didn't the Bush era tax cuts get extended by Obama? I suppose he could have just let them lapse. At what point do they become the Obama tax cuts?
For what it's worth, I was against the Bush tax cuts when they were passed in 2001 and I fully expected Obama to let them lapse. He disappointed me.
One more point about the Bush tax cuts. They passed the Senate with support from 45 Republicans, 1 Independent, and *12* Democrats. It shouldn't have even hit Bush's desk.
Maybe you were out of the country for a couple of years and missed all the drama. If you want to catch up on what you missed, "Showdown" by David Corn is a good place to start.0 -
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.
It's both, but you have a point. We tend to assume presidents have more power in this country than they do.
We also forget that these adminstrations build on each other and flow into each other, and that as far as policy and economics are concerned, 20 years ago is not ancient history. Decisions made now can affect generations.
I say we throw them all out and start over. 0 -
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.
Which would mean a Republican controlled congress is the smallest government spender as of now... Hmm.
Wasn't the majority during the Bush years liberal?0 -
Didn't the Bush era tax cuts get extended by Obama? I suppose he could have just let them lapse. At what point do they become the Obama tax cuts?
For what it's worth, I was against the Bush tax cuts when they were passed in 2001 and I fully expected Obama to let them lapse. He disappointed me.
One more point about the Bush tax cuts. They passed the Senate with support from 45 Republicans, 1 Independent, and *12* Democrats. It shouldn't have even hit Bush's desk.
Maybe you were out of the country for a couple of years and missed all the drama. If you want to catch up on what you missed, "Showdown" by David Corn is a good place to start.
I didn't miss that Obama is for keeping a large part of the tax cut in place.0 -
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.
Which would mean a Republican controlled congress is the smallest government spender as of now... Hmm.
Wasn't the majority during the Bush years liberal?
The majority during the Clinton years was Republican. I see a pattern!0 -
Check out the chart –
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
Even if Obama could, he wouldn't spend much more because the majority of the public disagrees about how government is suppose to work. Obama is truly a remarkable leader for his ability to swim so "nicely" with the sharks. But the context of his not spending as much as others before him is that the President can't spend what doesn't exist! He'd like to spend more because Democrats want government to work and are willing to compromise but Republicans (held hostage by conservative ideology) do not. When the government doesn't work like now, it proves the anti-gvt contention that only the private sector can make things happen. Yet, no one understands what gvt spending is about. The infrastructure we are suppose to be building is NOT happening so in 25 yrs the U.S. is f**cked. Pot-holed interstates, anyone, or an impotent military?
Conservatives say that gvt's tax because they want power and are corrupt. Liberals say we tax because we want to redistribute the wealth. YET IN REALITY, taxes are to build infrastructure - smooth roads, take out the trash, keep the peace, put out the literal fires. Think about this: Capitalists don't build roads, schools, take out the trash - capitalists only build factories where there is adequate infrastructure. Capitalists won't build factories where there is little to know infrastructure, i.e. Africa. If the US lets its infrastructure go the way of the capitalists, in a decade or two, not many new factories will be built here either. It's a Catch 22, like outsourcing jobs to the cheapest country, that greedy corporations choose to ignore to the nation's peril!
Neo-liberals, today's conservatives, want gvt spending too small to where it might hurt individuals but will protect the markets. So, neo-liberals say along with their cohorts at the World Bank and IMF, stop subsidizing your poor and infrastructure (austerity measures like they are doing in Europe right now) and help instead your corporations and the trickle down will eventually help individuals through providing jobs. And that's really working here and in Europe, right? NOT.
The sad thing to me that the spending graph above shows is that Americans cannot even agree on spending for basic infrastructure! Yet, there are many things that gvt does better than the private sector because the gvt isn't focused solely on the bottomline but on safety and security. Gvt appreciates the world-class productivity of the American worker and wants to keep those jobs here, but the corporations the American works for doesn't and instead outsources to the cheapest country and puts the most productive people on the planet out of work. The United States gvt is spending too little!!! To buy into the lie that the conservatives will help the worker get back to work is a lie and to cast a vote that way in this economic system only shoots oneself in the foot. The 1.4 spending for Obama is too small.
-Debra0 -
Um... no it's not conservative ideology... it's bat **** high jacked tea party ideology... The conservatives haven't been truly conservative since before the Neo-Cons like Bill Kristol took over because they weren't happy with how the Democrats were turning into around the late 70's early 80's....
btw, before anyone gets on the Tea Party bent... the Tea Party was a grassroots movement back in 2006 that was much like the Occupy movement (sans the camping out and riot police)... we have the Koch brothers to thank for what it has turned into... Hell, the Cato institute is trying to fight them off too before they try to spin the Cato Institute into the same bat **** crazy crap that the Tea Party turned into...
And when I talk about any specific party or ideology... I'm not talking about those at the individual level.. I'm talking about the leaders and groups as a whole...0 -
Um... no it's not conservative ideology... it's bat **** high jacked tea party ideology... The conservatives haven't been truly conservative since before the Neo-Cons like Bill Kristol took over because they weren't happy with how the Democrats were turning into around the late 70's early 80's....
btw, before anyone gets on the Tea Party bent... the Tea Party was a grassroots movement back in 2006 that was much like the Occupy movement (sans the camping out and riot police)... we have the Koch brothers to thank for what it has turned into... Hell, the Cato institute is trying to fight them off too before they try to spin the Cato Institute into the same bat **** crazy crap that the Tea Party turned into...
And when I talk about any specific party or ideology... I'm not talking about those at the individual level.. I'm talking about the leaders and groups as a whole...
I used the division (conservative / liberal) to then show another path and to get away from label or idealogical identification. Most people in these discussions fall to one extreme or the other and over-simplify the challenge. It's not a political ideology issue - it's an American issue - poor, middle, upper - doesn't matter. Crosses lines yet the polemics have created imaginary lines that really don't matter one whit to the real issue of infrastructure.
-Debra0 -
YET IN REALITY, taxes are to build infrastructure - smooth roads, take out the trash, keep the peace, put out the literal fires. Think about this: Capitalists don't build roads, schools, take out the trash - capitalists only build factories where there is adequate infrastructure.
This isn't exactly true... yes taxes do build infrastructure and do all the things you listed... but largely at the local level... yes there are federal grants here and there, but it's up to the muncipalities, counties, and states to build and maintain this infrasructure..... And I don't know were you live, but here the city contracts with private companies to take out the trash and the recycling... it's private companies that build and maintain the electricity grid... toll roads ARE capitalists building roads... Here we even have one city that has a privatized water company... And capitalists do build schools, they are called private schools... but since there are public schools that we already pay taxes to send our children to, there isn't that big of a need for such schools... with the exception of the religious private schools or prep schools... But there are indeed private for profit schools from K-12.
Here is an article about for-profit elementary schools... most of it talks about charter schools which are a hybrid between the two... but it also talks about for-profit schools: http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_06/b3667001.htm0 -
YET IN REALITY, taxes are to build infrastructure - smooth roads, take out the trash, keep the peace, put out the literal fires. Think about this: Capitalists don't build roads, schools, take out the trash - capitalists only build factories where there is adequate infrastructure.
This isn't exactly true... yes taxes do build infrastructure and do all the things you listed... but largely at the local level... yes there are federal grants here and there, but it's up to the muncipalities, counties, and states to build and maintain this infrasructure..... And I don't know were you live, but here the city contracts with private companies to take out the trash and the recycling... it's private companies that build and maintain the electricity grid... toll roads ARE capitalists building roads... Here we even have one city that has a privatized water company... And capitalists do build schools, they are called private schools... but since there are public schools that we already pay taxes to send our children to, there isn't that big of a need for such schools... with the exception of the religious private schools or prep schools... But there are indeed private for profit schools from K-12.
Here is an article about for-profit elementary schools... most of it talks about charter schools which are a hybrid between the two... but it also talks about for-profit schools: http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_06/b3667001.htm
I beg to differ. Federal infrastructure includes but is not limited to interstates, clean water, agriculture, food, health. And it is the federal money spent that most people think of when they think of government spending. Yes, those things are also addressed by most states and some local municipalities and counties, but Federalism and the New Federalism that guides justices like Roberts, also plays a huge hand.
It has been to the great advantage of neo-liberals who would like to run the government the way Henry Ford ran Detroit (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Hunger_March ) and Pullman ran Pullman, IL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike just to get you started on these two little and unknown but important aspects to history) to muddy up the waters and get people to think it is something other than what it really is.
-Debra0 -
That would be James Madison. He was 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighed under 100 pounds.0
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:That would be James Madison. He was 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighed under 100 pounds.0
-
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.
Which would mean a Republican controlled congress is the smallest government spender as of now... Hmm.
Wasn't the majority during the Bush years liberal?
Not that I think it is germane to the discussion, but republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007.0 -
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.
Which would mean a Republican controlled congress is the smallest government spender as of now... Hmm.
Wasn't the majority during the Bush years liberal?
Not that I think it is germane to the discussion, but republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007.
Unless Im reading this wrong, you are incorrect. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
2001 or the 107th congressional session was a senate controlled by Democrats and in 2003 and 2005 It was both republican but in 2007 it was back to being the Dems taking both houses. so really only 2003 and 2005 tenures. Or 4 years0 -
Wait. I thought it was Congress that gets the ultimate say in how money spent. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Obama's Congress" is the smallest government spender? Correct me if I'm wrong but the President proposes a budget, sends it to congress, congress does its thing with committees and voting, sends it to the President, who than signs or vetoes it... If vetoed the congress could essentially pass it with a 2/3 majority.
Which would mean a Republican controlled congress is the smallest government spender as of now... Hmm.
Wasn't the majority during the Bush years liberal?
Not that I think it is germane to the discussion, but republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007.
Unless Im reading this wrong, you are incorrect. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
2001 or the 107th congressional session was a senate controlled by Democrats and in 2003 and 2005 It was both republican but in 2007 it was back to being the Dems taking both houses. so really only 2003 and 2005 tenures. Or 4 years
I you are more corect. I went back and double checked, since I well into my dotage. It looks like the 107th Senate was at the start a 50-50 split. Which would mean for a couple of weeks, it was technically controlled by Dems, since VP Al Gore had the tiebreaker, but, after two weeks, Cheney held that position. I forgot about the whole Jim Jeffords switch. But, after about 16 mos, it appears that the repubs had a majority of members but they did not reorganize the Senate, so Reid remained as Majority Leader.0 -
One more thing to note...all of Obamas spending is set to take place after he leaves office most of his legislation is set to take full effect after he is gone...Brilliant political move. It makes him look like he spent nothing but in reality his spending will be More than all of the presidents combined0
-
Where in the world did you hear this?? If "all of Obama's spending takes place after he leaves office" then I guess we're dealing with Bush spending right now so the GOP being upset about spending are really ticked at Bush right? His tax cuts for the rich are certainly a huge reason for revenue decrease too.One more thing to note...all of Obamas spending is set to take place after he leaves office most of his legislation is set to take full effect after he is gone...Brilliant political move. It makes him look like he spent nothing but in reality his spending will be More than all of the presidents combined0 -
Where in the world did you hear this?? If "all of Obama's spending takes place after he leaves office" then I guess we're dealing with Bush spending right now so the GOP being upset about spending are really ticked at Bush right? His tax cuts for the rich are certainly a huge reason for revenue decrease too.One more thing to note...all of Obamas spending is set to take place after he leaves office most of his legislation is set to take full effect after he is gone...Brilliant political move. It makes him look like he spent nothing but in reality his spending will be More than all of the presidents combined
The most expensive portions of the Affordable care act dont take place until after this upcoming election. Looking for a reference to this I know Ill find it
FTA http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.htmlThe Treasury Department’s “Debt to the Penny” Web site makes it easy to track the growth of the national debt during Obama’s presidency. There are two key figures — for publicly held debt and for gross debt, which includes bonds that the government owes to itself (such as Social Security trust fund bonds.)
As of Jan. 20, 2009, the publicly held debt was $6.31 trillion and the gross debt was $10.63 trillion. As of May 14, 2012, the publicly held debt was $10.92 trillion and the gross debt was $15.68 trillion.
So, the publicly held debt has grown by $4.61 trillion, and the gross debt has grown by $5.05 trillion. Thus it’s certainly correct that the national debt has grown by about $5 trillion under Obama.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said that the $5 trillion figure came from these Treasury Department figures.
“We’re using the same standard that Obama used during his campaign in assigning blame to President Bush for the increase in debt that happened under his watch,” he said, pointing to a speech that then-Sen. Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign.0 -
Our government is NOT spending enough money. Seriously. This is a problem that is only getting worse. Arguing about who spends the most or least implicitly assumes that taxes are bad and I find this counterproductive. Taxes. . .for all intents and purposes, spending. . .need to be at the appropriate level to achieve the goals the country has decided on.
If our goal is to be competitive with China and Europe in the coming decades, then yes, spending needs to be raised to build the infrastructure both in terms of human capital (education) and physical facilities (internet networks, roads, air traffic, etc.) needed. Think about who invented the Internet? CERN and DARPA did, both are government entities (CERN is Swiss). I'm old enough to remember working for a NASA subcontractor on the shuttle and using the very first email system - anyone remember black screens and green letters? Husband beats me in that he actually used the prototype - yes, we are old!!! Yet, these "hated" and "reviled" government agencies then allowed private entities to use that technology, FOR FREE, to make money. But private groups did not invent the Internet - thank god, for if they did it would be stratisfied, expensive, and out of reach for most of us.
This is a great example of how government spending fuels private gains.
If our goal, however, is to reward the rich at the expense of the poor, then no, we don’t want to raise spending levels. This has always been understood in the past, but Reagan broke the mold by campaigning against taxes and government spending (except on defense) in general, and ushered in neoliberalism which is fair for corporations but not for, I argue, democracy.
Two sides of a divide with no secure bridge between. Perhaps the answer is in focusing our argument on assumptions more favorable to us and discuss goals. What do YOU want the United States to be in the next 2 decades? If the answer is a world leader and competitive, then ask how do we do that without investing capital and spending currency? As Aesop once said, “It is thrifty to prepare today for the wants of tomorrow.”
Here’s a history of tax revenue in the US. As you can see, most revenue increases have been at the state and local levels. Federal revenue has held relatively steady for decades. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
Also, here is a history of tax rates (not revenue) in the US: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
-Debra0
This discussion has been closed.