obama presided over the biggest drop in government spending in 50 years.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. The conventional wisdom that President Obama has overseen a dramatic surge in government spending has always been shaky. But it faces perhaps its starkest rebuttal in new figures that reveal the sharpest decline of the last half-century in real federal, state and local spending during this presidency.
    For a longer-term historical perspective, the drop in overall government spending after Obama’s stimulus funds expired in 2010 has been the sharpest since the 1950s, when the United States was demobilizing after the Korean War.

  2. [​IMG]
  3. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."

    But don't forget about this rule:

    RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

    But maybe a drag show depicting Obama's spending is just what's needed seeing as Obama is our first gay president.
  4. (CBS News) "The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

    The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

    If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."

    SO, how is it possible to be higher in debt when Obama is spending 6.7% less then Bush?

    Please do the math for us.

  5. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health


    The Bush Deficit

    Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.

    By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.

    In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.

    Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

    What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
  7. Why are the Bush tax cuts not included in Obama's "New Costs"?

    He singed a bill to extended them.
  8. Isn't that cute, so far I'd say the Austrians have it right.

    slowest recovery in what 70 yrs or so
    Slow to no growth due to bloated govt and market interference.

    Eventually the market and the economy will recover as long as the excuse for more & more govt intervention is ignored.
  9. you might want to read this a couple of times. its doubtful but maybe something can sink in:

  10. #10     Jun 5, 2012