Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 6:50:05 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Obama spending binge never happened -- Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

From Market Watch:

Under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• 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. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Obama spending binge never happened
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 6:51:49 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		That 16 trillion dollar debt really isn't there.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 6:55:30 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		We know it's there. Check out who put it there:



I think the WSJ is credibly on financial matters. And Forbes. Don't you?


< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 9/5/2012 6:56:18 PM >

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:00:31 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:23:43 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

That 16 trillion dollar debt really isn't there.


Two wars suddenly added to the books after two presidential terms of hiding it is costly, you're right. Maybe you're hoping Mitt will take those wars back off the books? A kind of Twilight Zone Economy, eh?

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:27:39 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		MM,

This "commentary" has been debunked quite well.

Basically, the Marketwatch guy twisted all the figures so hard they screamed in agony.

I think I even posted a detailed rebuttal, in some other thread.

As servant pointed out, how do you square the additional trillions in debt with reduced spending? On it's face, these claims don't pass any reasonable person's smell test.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:30:01 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		You also might indulge in reading both pieces.

Helps to know what your "rebuttal" would be refuting.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:36:22 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's telling that when presented with specific analysis from two right-leaning well-respected financial publications, instead of reading the pieces, you change the subject.



No, the two articles are from two admittedly leftists writers, and both articles are called "commentaries" and not analysis. For good reason.

No, Obama Is Not "the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower"

Just one summary of some of the writers' lack of truthfulness with the numbers.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:37:52 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You also might indulge in reading both pieces.

Helps to know what your "rebuttal" would be refuting.

I have. And I posted about them several months ago, when they first came out.

So, actually, you are kinda a day late, and a dollar short.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:38:46 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Ooh. A blogger sets the WSJ and Forbes straight.

Those liberal rags.


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:40:12 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ooh. A blogger sets the WSJ and Forbes straight.

Those liberal rags.



Obviously, by your posting times, it's clear that you didn't even read the link I gave you.

Horse, leading, water, and all that.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 7:57:48 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's telling that when presented with specific analysis from two right-leaning well-respected financial publications, instead of reading the pieces, you change the subject.



No, the two articles are from two admittedly leftists writers, and both articles are called "commentaries" and not analysis. For good reason.

No, Obama Is Not "the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower"

Just one summary of some of the writers' lack of truthfulness with the numbers.

Firm


Okay let me get this straight. You intend to contend that a lobbyist in the pocket of the Koch Brothers is superior or more honest in his presented case than America's PREMIERE financial news outlet?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 9:51:57 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

Okay let me get this straight. You intend to contend that a lobbyist in the pocket of the Koch Brothers is superior or more honest in his presented case than America's PREMIERE financial news outlet?



Do you understand the difference between commentary and analysis?

See, we can post commentary from Forbes too

Funny thing is, Fact Check doesn't think so either, in fact they think Nutting is a nutter.

< Message edited by subrob1967 -- 9/5/2012 9:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/5/2012 10:21:52 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

Okay let me get this straight. You intend to contend that a lobbyist in the pocket of the Koch Brothers is superior or more honest in his presented case than America's PREMIERE financial news outlet?



Do you understand the difference between commentary and analysis?

See, we can post commentary from Forbes too

Funny thing is, Fact Check doesn't think so either, in fact they think Nutting is a nutter.


How nice for you.
I find it odd the you seem unable to communicate your points without trying to be insulting though.

My contention remains 100% correct CEI is a phony think tank aka lobby group.

And I understand a lot more than you are willing to give me credit for. Here's a partial dump from my IE Favorites file concerning the affiliations of the "institute" offering "commentary":

http://www.disinfo.com/tag/competitive-enterprise-institute/

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/02/koch-brothers-media-beck-greenpeace
http://open.salon.com/blog/robert_greenwald/2012/03/26/koch_brothers_v_health_reform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
http://watchdogprogressive.com/2011/04/koch-juice-competitive-enterprise-institute-another-lobbying-front-group/
http://my.firedoglake.com/robertgreenwald/tag/competitive-enterprise-institute/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Moore_(economist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/6/2012 4:24:16 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ooh. A blogger sets the WSJ and Forbes straight.

Those liberal rags.



Obviously, by your posting times, it's clear that you didn't even read the link I gave you.

Horse, leading, water, and all that.

Firm

And again, you have dismissal, but not rebuttal. The pieces even answer your question. Here's what they have:

The Wall St. Journal and Forbes:
Under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• 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. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president

Firm and an Internet blogger:

Nuh-uh.



(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/6/2012 4:56:14 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/6/2012 4:58:22 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		The Earth is neither flat nor round.

No matter how hard you wish it to be.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/6/2012 5:26:25 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

MM,

This "commentary" has been debunked quite well.

Basically, the Marketwatch guy twisted all the figures so hard they screamed in agony.

I think I even posted a detailed rebuttal, in some other thread.

As servant pointed out, how do you square the additional trillions in debt with reduced spending? On it's face, these claims don't pass any reasonable person's smell test.

Firm

Easy to explain. When one is left with in imbalance it remains until such drastic steps are taken necessary to reduce it. To reduce some of history's biggest spenders (i.e. W's spending) it can take a long time.

Those wars and drug benefits didn't stop when Obama took office, they still required revenue or borrowing. Add to that those so-called 'temporary' tax cuts that have been a whole lot less than temporary thanks to repub spenders in congress.

The trillion dollar deficits began under W and Obama isn't breaking the bank or starving the pentagon trying to balance it so the increases are reduced but the deficits remain until more can be cut without throwing us back into deep recession.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 9/6/2012 5:27:37 AM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/6/2012 5:28:57 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Actually, the article itself answers his question. He just won't address it.


(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: WSJ--Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower - 9/6/2012 5:31:24 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

MM,

This "commentary" has been debunked quite well.

Basically, the Marketwatch guy twisted all the figures so hard they screamed in agony.

I think I even posted a detailed rebuttal, in some other thread.

As servant pointed out, how do you square the additional trillions in debt with reduced spending? On it's face, these claims don't pass any reasonable person's smell test.

Firm

Easy to explain. When one is left with in imbalance it remains until such drastic steps are taken necessary to reduce it. To reduce some of history's biggest spenders (i.e. W's spending) it can take a long time.

Those wars and drug benefits didn't stop when Obama took office, they still required revenue or borrowing. Add to that those so-called 'temporary' tax cuts that have been a whole lot less than temporary thanks to repub spenders in congress.

The trillion dollar deficits began under W and Obama isn't breaking the bank or starving the pentagon trying to balance it so the increases are reduced but the deficits remain until more can be cut without throwing us back into deep recession.

Nice words.

The math doesn't quite work, however.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> WSJ -- Obama spending slowest pace since Eisenhower Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094