Skip to comments.Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
Posted on 09/01/2012 5:57:29 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason
Its 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I heard that too but I can’t figure out how they could think that. The debt went up more than the other president’s combined. I would love to see the math on this.
... guess it all depends on how one defines the term “government spending” ....
What a load of sycophantic crap.
i remember when this came out...Carney evidently screamed at reporters on Air Force 1 about this report....it was debunked within 24 hours, hence that’s why we have not heard of it much since....
This is the crap where they claim that since the Fiscal Year started under Bush (10/2008), the stimulus that was passed in 2009 was Bush’s spending. All I know is the Paln lives in Unger mind rent free.
Is Marketwatch doing satire now? I too would like to see their math.
This has been extensively debunked by the WSJ, IBD, and others. It has no place at this point on this forum.
I guess it would be true if you took a hit of Acid every day!
“but I cant figure out how they could think that.”
Simple, he’s spent less of his own money than any president in history. All his vacations and campaign trips are on our dime.
Demagogic Party Talking Points ping. Thanks Major Matt Mason.
“Did you know this penny is larger than the sun?” (Holds coin to eye)
A couple things are missing from these calculations. First is that much of the discretionary spending in the 2009 fiscal year wasn't passed until March of 09, meaning they carry Obama's signature. Second is that Obama voted for TARP, signed the Stimulus bill, signed those Omnibus portions of the 09 budget, and hasn't had a budget passed since then. If spending in his administration was really flat (it isn't) then nobody can claim the credit because the democrats haven't passed a budget in the Senate since then.
Actually since Bush’s TARP was paid back, the net was zero.
These ‘Progressives’ are delusional. From 8/31/12
Read this nonsense in the post by the author of the article!!
“Obama is a Republican at heart, but he decided (probably in 1996) to enter politics as a Democrat, because there would be no way for him to become the first black President as a self-acknowledged conservative and Republican. As President, he negotiated in congress more with Boehner than with either Pelosi or Reid, and he did that right at the start, when Democrats dominated in both houses. Its too much to go into here; but, in any case, I nowhere said that Obama is liberal. I consider him fairly conservative, conservative enough to want the Republicans to control Congress, even though that requires him to negotiate much harder with Boehner and McConnell than he would have to negotiate with Pelosi and Reid if he were a liberal. But my interpretation of Obamas motivation isnt even part of this article; all it discusses about him is that the nation has veered even farther to the right during his Presidency, something that loads of polls document.”
When this 1st came out, I think I can remember that someone, maybe Eric Bolling, was saying that they attached Obama’s spending on to the Bush admin at the very beginning of the O admin.
I can’t remember details, but this was debunked.
The trick is to say Bush is responisble for all of FY 09 spending (not Obama), including the Stimulus, Clunkers, Stimulus Jr, etc.
You then have a new baseline. And so Obama has just maintained it.
It’s been thoroughly debunked... months ago.
ahhh When he took office debit was around $9 bil, now $16 bil, what are they drunk?
Put FY 2009 into Obama's column and he's the mad spender we know and... well, the one we know.
I cant figure out how they could think that.
Because he's got the value of the dollar down to only 3 cents.
Federal outlays for 2009 are attributed to Bush.
In 2007, the feds spent less than 20% of GDP. In 2009 that jumped to more than 25% of GDP. 2010-2011 outlays have held steady at a little over 24% of GDP, though I don’t believe the gov’t stats.
So Osama is credited with only a very small rise in outlays as a percent of GDP.
Second of all, he's discussing the percentage that spending INCREASED under Obama, not the spending itself.
So, yes, Obama is spending more, much more, but his spending increase percentage is relatively low. It's a very misleading argument.
Kinda like this:
Person “A” has a credit card debt of $100 and charged 20 more dollars. He increased his debt by 20%.
Person “B” has a credit card debt of $300 and charged 30 more dollars. He increased his debt by 10%.
So is Person B some sort of tightwad? I don't think so.
IMHO, the author just wanted to make Obama look good, and he twisted the data until he found something he liked.
Who is the greatest ballplayer of all time? Ty Cobb? Babe Ruth? Surprisingly, the answer is actually Bob Uecker.
Been debunked already.
Guess we are going to have to continue to put up with this crap until at least November.
Don’t forget the unprecedented, one-time bailout expenditure of 700 to 800 billion.
Looking at the “actual spending” graph where it jumps sharply up during lame duck Bush, jumps further at the beginning of Obama, then comes slightly downward from a new, unprecedented plateau... that takes a lot of spin to make Obama look clean.
Author: “Rick Ungar, Contributor
Writing from the left on politics and policy. “
That tells me everything I need to know.
Bush’s budget deficit in 2006 was $371 billion! Obama has had budget deficits of over $1.3 trillion dollars every year.
The Heritage Foundation explains the slight of hand the Dems are trying to do:
Setting Obama’s “Great Fiscal Restraint Record” Straight
I’m sorry, but we didn’t lose our AAA credit rating because Obama and this Congress were tight with the purse strings.
Fuzzy math ping!
Even some of the lefty fact checkers say this Marketwatch article is bull.
I’m sure this could be true in Bizarro World United States.
Whatr’s happened to Forbes? This is insane.
Obama inherited the Pelosi economy!
She had control of the purse strings 2 years before Obama showed up. Why is her name never mentioned when Obama talks about the mess he inherited? I'm sick of her getting away with being a well respected incompetent babbling nincompoop.
Thanks for the posting. The Forbes and the original Marketwatch articles have been making their rounds on FB. Having the Freeper brain trust generate and list all of the references for rapid refudiation is a great time saver.
Easy, the author attributes the 2009 spending to Bush. I’d like to see his explain the fact that in 2010 the National Debt was 93% of the GNP when in 2008 the Debt was some 64% of GNP. This ratio shows the collapse of the private sector Obama tells us is doing just fine.
If true all the money borrowed ON OUR CHILDREN DIME is going into coffers and bank accounts of the criminal enterprise locally and international including the UN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.