Obama spending spree never happened?

[TexasWife25]

http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2012/05/21/Photos/ME/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uuid=3666ead6-a384-11e1-827e-002128049ad6


http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...2270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

• 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%.


Also, I stole this article from Phrodeau so thanks


Miles has already stated, the numbers lie. So, opinions?

Edit - I should add, Im on the fence about it.

 

[Adre]

The patron saint, Ronnie, was a notorious taxer and spender. Try to get a RW whackadoodle to admit that.

 

[busybody..]

MarketWatch rebuttal infographic: How to make Obama’s spending look small


posted at 5:21 pm on May 24, 2012 by Political Math






It’s been going around Facebook and the Twitters.

It’s been rated “mostly true” by Politifact.

It is the MarketWatch piece on how Obama hasn’t really increased spending all that much.

And I’m damn tired of picking it apart 140 characters at a time, so I put together this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.

http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MarketWatchObamaSpendingInfographic.jpg

There are two things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it’s really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a “best estimate of what Obama inherited”, but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is  $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

References:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file. Easy to work with.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

 

[busybody..]

STFU, A DRECK!

and you too

BIG BLOB "WOMAN"

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Texas:

As much as it pains me to admit, but BB's C&P is about 90% more accurate than yours.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It simply depends on how you want to define spending. Is Obama to be held responsible for the wars? For the TARP program (that he clearly would have signed), for the tax cuts? Is it his fault we're in a recession and thus pulling in less revenue from taxes? All this stuff shows up on his bill but is how much of it is his fault?

 

[Adre]

Texas:

As much as it pains me to admit, but BB's C&P is about 90% more accurate than yours.

Ok, I'm willing to wait a couple of minutes for your answer. Tell me how many times taxes were raised under Reagan, and the same for the current President. and then tell me how my statement was inaccurate as well.

 

[phrodeau]

Whom to believe, PoliticalMathBlogger, or the Wall Street Journal?

 

[TexasWife25]

Texas:

As much as it pains me to admit, but BB's C&P is about 90% more accurate than yours.

you made me view post, which I normally dont do.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/

Two final clarifications. One, contrary to what many e-mailers and Twitter and Facebook users appear to believe, neither Nutting’s column nor our analysis assigned the entire $787 billion stimulus to Bush.

First, the stimulus was not all spending; it was roughly one-third tax cuts, which wouldn't be attributed to either president in a spending chart. Second, the measurement we used was outlays, which refers to money actually spent during that fiscal year. Only a portion of the stimulus was spent in fiscal 2009. Finally, as we noted, Nutting did reassign $140 billion in 2009 spending from Bush to Obama.

Also, our item was not actually a fact-check of Nutting's entire column. Instead, we rated two elements of the Facebook post together -- one statement drawn from Nutting’s column, and the quote from Romney.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Ok, I'm willing to wait a couple of minutes for your answer. Tell me how many times taxes were raised under Reagan, and the same for the current President. and then tell me how my statement was inaccurate as well.

A: That was addressed to Texas and not to you.

B: Your post has nothing to do with her post or my post

C: Your post is incorrect

D: I do not try to have real conversations with partisan left wingers or right wingers who put no thought behind their post, but simply follow the party line. While I have not decided yet, you seem to fall in that category.

 

[TexasWife25]

It simply depends on how you want to define spending. Is Obama to be held responsible for the wars? For the TARP program (that he clearly would have signed), for the tax cuts? Is it his fault we're in a recession and thus pulling in less revenue from taxes? All this stuff shows up on his bill but is how much of it is his fault?

It does seem to be all about how you slice a very complicated pie.

I find myself in more of a middle ground. I don't fully agree with how either article cuts it. But then, its the normal way of things to assign everyone else 100% of the blame

 

[VaticanAssassin]

It does seem to be all about how you slice a very complicated pie.

I find myself in more of a middle ground. I don't fully agree with how either article cuts it. But then, its the normal way of things to assign everyone else 100% of the blame

You will notice I did not assign 100% of the blame to either side... closer to 90/10

Sorry for making you read BB. I will make it up to you by letting you touch me inappropriately.

 

[Adre]

A: That was addressed to Texas and not to you.

B: Your post has nothing to do with her post or my post

C: Your post is incorrect

D: I do not try to have real conversations with partisan left wingers or right wingers who put no thought behind their post, but simply follow the party line. While I have not decided yet, you seem to fall in that category.

A. Sorry, I missed that.
C. I am quite sure taxes were raised more times during the Reagan administration than under the current one.
D. As you wish. I am a lifelong registered independent, having voted for dems, pubs and others. I put thought behind all of my posts, except the dirty ones. My happiness will not depend on your decision about my "category."

 

[IrezumiKiss]

A. Sorry, I missed that.
C. I am quite sure taxes were raised more times during the Reagan administration than under the current one.
D. As you wish. I am a lifelong registered independent, having voted for dems, pubs and others. I put thought behind all of my posts, except the dirty ones. My happiness will not depend on your decision about my "category."

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll120/nextbestsuperstar_2008/GIFs/tumblr_lbznaw9G5g1qzllsr.gif

Boo-yah.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Texas:

As much as it pains me to admit, but BB's C&P is about 90% more accurate than yours.

TexasWife is doing year-to-year apples-to-apples comparison.

Busybody's derp charts are comparing nebulous predicted-vs-actual, apples-to-oranges.

Busybody's facts are technically true, however, they are roughly akin to comparing preseason baseball predictions to actual season results.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Adre]

Gee, race enters the thread. Surprised it took this long

 

[VaticanAssassin]

TexasWife is doing year-to-year apples-to-apples comparison.

Busybody's derp charts are comparing nebulous predicted-vs-actual, apples-to-oranges.

Busybody's facts are technically true, however, they are roughly akin to comparing preseason baseball predictions to actual season results.

Actually, both are comparing estimates to actual in a few instances. But yes both are technically true and technically wrong....it is all so very confusing. I think I will drink coffee and not think on it anymore.

And the saying' apples to oranges. It bugs me, not as much as soup to nuts, but it is still bothersome. Like listening to someone from Connecticut pronounce illustrative.

 

[Adre]

Worth noting that Bush didn't have to worry about a Depression. He got out just in time

 

[busybody..]

No A DRECK,

all he had to WORRY about was teh DOT COM collapse

9/11

Katrina

and

2006 DUMOH takeover

and worse

HO!BO! becoming the nominee......

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Gee, race enters the thread. Surprised it took this long

Just comes out of nowhere, you know?

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3655/3464176317_db44c9c06e.jpg

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.

The Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2010, 4 years.

The official budget does not include spending for social security and medicare. If it did recent deficits would be over 5 Trillion Dollars.

Fingerpointing is irrelevant as both parties keep spending and refuse to stop. Their elections depend on the paybacks they get from the spending.

Its all over. Government debt per household is about $560,000; the median income per household is $49,000.

Everyone who matters has bought gold, and will likely flee to Switzerland when the end comes. And when the end comes the Chinese will come here to force you to wade around in shit growing rice for them.

 

[richard_daily]

Glory! Thank God and TexasWife, we're finding out now that Reagan, Bush, et al were the true Socialists and that Barack Obama is the real cost cutting fiscal conservative. Just in the nick of time too, the first black President might have been maligned by History, a known racist.

You don't understand the definition of socialism, communism, or marxism. You use them interchangeably, and have no clue what any of them mean.

Also, what does Obama being black have to do with this discussion?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

You don't understand the definition of socialism, communism, or marxism. You use them interchangeably, and have no clue what any of them mean.

Also, what does Obama being black have to do with this discussion?

Deflectors to maximum!

The question should be, what does a naive under educated Chihuahua have to do with an intelligent discussion about anything except dog biscuits?