So wait, Obama has significantly slowed the growth of government spending?

[Gus McCrae]

Interesting article. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Here is the basic story:

I post because this directly contradicts some of what the GOP and mouth pieces tell us. Anyone got some data saying the opposite?

 

[jimdana1942]

I see the data came from the Cong. Budget Office.

Never believe anything any govt. agency says. Never.

 

[Sugarbug]

Interesting article. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Flattens? More like is held constant.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Flattens? More like is held constant.

Same difference.


Jim, I'm going to let that slide..... only because I know you are part of the tin foil hat crew.

 

[Robhic]

Read an article about how Rex Nutting (guy who did that ridiculous "budget") used 'FISCAL' dates for figuring the money. $8B stimulus was on GW's desk and he refused to sign it. O comes into office and signs the bill -- but they give GW the hit for the $8B and O no credit for the spending because it was, technically, in the 2008 fiscal budget, GW's fault. And some other sleight of hand BS to put $$$ in Bush's term and no credit to the current poseur.

Here's the link to Neal Boortz's article: http://goo.gl/2Lcpi

 

[DAUC]

Well, from what I am reading, it is a little misleading. He only slowed the growth of spending. He still spent more each year than anyone else.

The first chart is the growth from previous terms. so yes, his 1.4 looks small to Bush's 8.1, but it was still more spending. Second chart shows that his spending was constant, but again, still more than previously. Plus the article presents the data in a way that makes it favorable for Obama of course:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — 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.

What does it all mean? I have no idea, but there has to be a ceiling somewhere... Plus, thankfully there are a few checks that keep some of his policies more in line. Had he been able to do everything he wanted to do, the way he wanted to, we would be looking at different charts...

 

[Gus McCrae]

Well, from what I am reading, it is a little misleading. He only slowed the growth of spending. He still spent more each year than anyone else.

The first chart is the growth from previous terms. so yes, his 1.4 looks small to Bush's 8.1, but it was still more spending. Second chart shows that his spending was constant, but again, still more than previously. Plus the article presents the data in a way that makes it favorable for Obama of course:



What does it all mean? I have no idea, but there has to be a ceiling somewhere... Plus, thankfully there are a few checks that keep some of his policies more in line. Had he been able to do everything he wanted to do, the way he wanted to, we would be looking at different charts...

Well if inflation is 4%, that low of growth in spending is significant. The article does make it clear that it's less growth in spending though.

 

[my-rifle]

Curious isn't it?

The problem with articles like this is they only convince those who already think Obama's doing a good job. People who want to hear that he's failing will not believe them. We all hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest. Simon and Garfunkel, wasn't that?

 

[Gus McCrae]

Curious isn't it?

The problem with articles like this is they only convince those who already think Obama's doing a good job. People who want to hear that he's failing will not believe them. We all hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest. Simon and Garfunkel, wasn't that?

I worry that we are exactly the same though.

 

[Russo]

this also doesn't calculate the pension and retirement expenses, which Congress has purposely taken it off the budget figures since forever... in any fashion, the "cuts" government talks about is only on proposed increases.. reality is that politicians haven't cut anything, then they talk about these "cuts" in 5,10,15 year incraments because they are too chicken to say: "i am only elected four or six years, so i want to make cuts for what i was elected for".. only when a real president starts cutting budgets in less than four years, should you take him/her seriously..

 

[jimdana1942]

Same difference.


Jim, I'm going to let that slide..... only because I know you are part of the tin foil hat crew.

Okay, but I only speak from decades of watching and listening.

 

[Captain_Morgan]

First, I think it's important to note that the charts are rates, i.e. derivative of the curve. A good way to think about it is acceleration vs. velocity. Velocity (spending) is still increasing but acceleration (the rate of the spending) is remaining constant (second chart). This tells us that each year more is spent, just spent at a consistently higher amount.

Secondly, the second chart shows that Obama's spending more than Bush during his first term and as much as Bush during his second. I think most can agree that the government spending under Bush was excessive. The fact that government spending under Obama is only at a slightly higher rate than Bush isn't a good thing.

EDIT: I would also like to add a note with respect to the first line in the article:

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

While I'm no Romney fan, to me, the shear amount of debt incurred (particularly if Obamacare remains) and spending problems in this country are no laughing matter. They are quite excessive. The author of the article seems to try to gloss over the fact that spending is still increasing, yet it's no big deal.

 

[Yrdawg]

Y'all are worrying about nothing, this has gone on for ever and everything will be fine in the end.

Was there a giant sale on tin foil over the Memorial Day Week-end ???

 

[Just A Number]

**Written by Doug Powers

The *Obama the Frugal* reinvention probably won’t go over successfully with anybody who has spent the last few years, you know, conscious — but he’s trying:

At a fundraiser for his re-election campaign in Denver tonight, President Obama set out to upend conventional Republican wisdom that his administration has been defined by excessive government spending.

*I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,* he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. *My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.*

Obama was referring to an analysis released this week by Rex Nutting, a reporter for CBS MarketWatch who is also affiliated with the Wall Street Journal. Nutting concluded that Obama has presided over the slowest growth in federal spending in decades.
[...]
The Romney campaign noted that more than $5 trillion has been added to the debt during Obama’s first term, though in 2008 Obama called the $4 trillion added under Bush *unpatriotic.*

The Republican National Committee pointed out that while growth of spending and debt may have slowed, Obama has overseen the three largest deficits in U.S. history. (They also pass along fact-checker Politifact’s 2011 designation of Obama as the *undisputed debt king* of the last five presidents.)

Every White House suggestion I’ve seen to pay down the debt involves increasing the debt massively and then flinging it off the charts within a decade, along with the rest of the country. Somehow that saves money in the long run.

And since we’re talking actual deficits, we have this from the USA Today: Applying accounting practices the government insists we use in the real world but won’t apply to themselves, last year’s federal deficit wasn’t $1.3 trillion, but rather… $5 trillion (h/t Ed Morrissey):

The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

A U.S. household’s median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government’s books.

The White House, and much of Congress for that matter, should save any laughable braggadocio about frugality for *Inside the Beltway night* at the Improv.

Political Math has a good tutorial about the Rex Nutting analysis to which Obama is now referencing as evidence of his administration’s spend-thrift nature.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Okay, but I only speak from decades of watching and listening.

I don't disagree that anything the government tells you is suspect. I know they don't report the same way that they make private buisinesses report.... I do think you can get an idea that government spending has grown much slower than previous presidents.

People need to grasp this information and what it implies.

 

[Gus McCrae]

**Written by Doug Powers

The *Obama the Frugal* reinvention probably won’t go over successfully with anybody who has spent the last few years, you know, conscious — but he’s trying:

At a fundraiser for his re-election campaign in Denver tonight, President Obama set out to upend conventional Republican wisdom that his administration has been defined by excessive government spending.

*I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,* he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. *My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.*

Obama was referring to an analysis released this week by Rex Nutting, a reporter for CBS MarketWatch who is also affiliated with the Wall Street Journal. Nutting concluded that Obama has presided over the slowest growth in federal spending in decades.
[...]
The Romney campaign noted that more than $5 trillion has been added to the debt during Obama’s first term, though in 2008 Obama called the $4 trillion added under Bush *unpatriotic.*

The Republican National Committee pointed out that while growth of spending and debt may have slowed, Obama has overseen the three largest deficits in U.S. history. (They also pass along fact-checker Politifact’s 2011 designation of Obama as the *undisputed debt king* of the last five presidents.)

Every White House suggestion I’ve seen to pay down the debt involves increasing the debt massively and then flinging it off the charts within a decade, along with the rest of the country. Somehow that saves money in the long run.

And since we’re talking actual deficits, we have this from the USA Today: Applying accounting practices the government insists we use in the real world but won’t apply to themselves, last year’s federal deficit wasn’t $1.3 trillion, but rather… $5 trillion (h/t Ed Morrissey):

The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

A U.S. household’s median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government’s books.

The White House, and much of Congress for that matter, should save any laughable braggadocio about frugality for *Inside the Beltway night* at the Improv.

Political Math has a good tutorial about the Rex Nutting analysis to which Obama is now referencing as evidence of his administration’s spend-thrift nature.

I don't disagree with this, but the one thing they don't talk about is the fact that the previous presidents are compared in the same way. Since the playing field is equal, you could say that growth in spending has in fact slowed.... which is a good thing.

 

[FishingBack]

The nail was hit on the head earlier in the thread.

The report incorrectly puts the stimulus on Bush instead of Obama, then uses that peak of spending as a baseline to compare the other years.

The Fed gov under Obama has spent more than any other president. Look at the bottom line.

 

[Gus McCrae]

The nail was hit on the head earlier in the thread.

The report incorrectly puts the stimulus on Bush instead of Obama, then uses that peak of spending as a baseline to compare the other years.

The Fed gov under Obama has spent more than any other president. Look at the bottom line.

Not necessarily.

Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

 

[AFFS]

If he slowed down federal spending, it's because he ran out of money.

 

[Btl_Rkt_Sci]

Not necessarily.

It has increased, just not as rapidly.