Obama spending binge never happened

[heironymouspasparagus]

If they were to go with it, how would they explain the exploding deficit.

You mean the "exploding deficit" that is down to almost 1/2 what it was under Bush's last budget?  

He talked about that $1.9 trillion and said he would get it down to $1 trillion in his first term.  Well, he did miss it a little bit - maybe - we are on pace to be at about $1.1 trillion for this fiscal year.  That would be very close to half....just think how much better it would have been if he hadn't turned Republican...

Check the Federal Debt History site.  Enlightenment in the form of truth will hurt your head, though, so maybe better not....

[erfalf]

Let's do. Because we could play the numbers game all day long.


Baseline for this exercise is FY01

           Debt         Def    Def (1983 $)
FY01    5,807B      133B       75B

FY02    6,228B      421B      234B
FY03    6,783B      555B      302B
FY04    7,379B      596B      315B
FY05    7,933B      554B      283B
FY06    8,507B      574B      285B
FY07    9,008B      501B      241B
FY08   10,025B   1,017B      472B
FY09   11,909B   1,885B      879B

FY10   13,562B   1,652B      758B
FY11   14,790B   1,229B      549B

Considering the horrendous downturn in the economy we had in 2008, I don't think it is a big surprise that spending shot up (that and spend happy Dem's took over in 07). You also see the uptick after the FY01 more than likely due to mini crashes (tech & 9/11). It seems that the emergency spending always becomes permanent. Yes, it would appear that Obama has presided over a historic reduction in deficit spending (which one might attribute to the standstill in Congress due to the wave election of 2010, but who's counting), however he is still averaging more than double what Bush did over his entire Presidency and if one were to be completely honest and attribute some of FY09 to Obama's admin (as he did sign it and increase what Bush requested) the outlook would be even worse.

The admin has also made it impossible to predict the spending in the future due to the propensity to just go with continuing resolutions or omnibus spending bills. So basically, this article by nutting is using the baseline budget for Obama's spending. Of course it is going to be low.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let's do. Because we could play the numbers game all day long.


Baseline for this exercise is FY01

           Debt         Def    Def (1983 $)
FY01    5,807B      133B       75B

FY02    6,228B      421B      234B
FY03    6,783B      555B      302B
FY04    7,379B      596B      315B
FY05    7,933B      554B      283B
FY06    8,507B      574B      285B
FY07    9,008B      501B      241B
FY08   10,025B   1,017B      472B
FY09   11,909B   1,885B      879B

FY10   13,562B   1,652B      758B
FY11   14,790B   1,229B      549B

Considering the horrendous downturn in the economy we had in 2008, I don't think it is a big surprise that spending shot up (that and spend happy Dem's took over in 07). You also see the uptick after the FY01 more than likely due to mini crashes (tech & 9/11). It seems that the emergency spending always becomes permanent. Yes, it would appear that Obama has presided over a historic reduction in deficit spending (which one might attribute to the standstill in Congress due to the wave election of 2010, but who's counting), however he is still averaging more than double what Bush did over his entire Presidency and if one were to be completely honest and attribute some of FY09 to Obama's admin (as he did sign it and increase what Bush requested) the outlook would be even worse.

The admin has also made it impossible to predict the spending in the future due to the propensity to just go with continuing resolutions or omnibus spending bills. So basically, this article by nutting is using the baseline budget for Obama's spending. Of course it is going to be low.

The baseline is 1791.  Looks like you have the data source - Federal Debt History.

The missing part is how the spending has been dead flat for the last few years, while skyrocketing from about 1980 to 2008 - spending on, but not paying for those pesky little wars that the "you know who" are so fond of.  Table 1.1 here;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Continuing resolutions are NOT made by the President - but you know that - ALL spending originates in the House.

[erfalf]

Continuing resolutions are NOT made by the President - but you know that - ALL spending originates in the House.

I do. Throw out the dems! Seems to be working so far.

[Hoss]

I do. Throw out the dems! Seems to be working so far.

Wow, really?  Gimme some of what you're smoking...

[heironymouspasparagus]

I do. Throw out the dems! Seems to be working so far.

Really?  Your real standard of living has gone up over the last 30+ years?

(If you say yes, you are lying or a CEO.)

[Conan71]

Really?  Your real standard of living has gone up over the last 30+ years?

(If you say yes, you are lying or a CEO.)

My standard of living has and I’m not a CEO.

[erfalf]

Wow, really?  Gimme some of what you're smoking...

Joke, seriously?

But, in all seriousness, the timing correlates pretty well. Dems come in, deficit spending sky rockets. R's in spending def spending decreases. Coincidence, I don't know. Personally, I think the split Congress has more to do with the decrease in deficit spending than anything. That and no one could sell keeping all the bailout level spending going forever. Just a hypothesis, mind you.

And yes, the standard of living has gone up over the last 30 years. The last 5, probably not. But the last 30, definitely.

Standard of living is not strictly a measure of income you know right?

[erfalf]

And it even seems the Washington Post is backing off this one. Talk about Bizarro World.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

Thought this info graphic was pretty good too.

[patric]

Right off the bat, the first line is bogus.

A history lesson:
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613, enacted February 13, 2008) was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day.  It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

[Hoss]

And it even seems the Washington Post is backing off this one. Talk about Bizarro World.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

Thought this info graphic was pretty good too.

Ah yes, Gaspar of Washington county....

[nathanm]

You also see the uptick after the FY01 more than likely due to mini crashes (tech & 9/11).

This is a counterfactual statement sometimes advanced by Republicans. The uptick in the deficit then was due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars, a vastly enlarged security state, Medicare Part D, the second round of Bush tax cuts, and at least a hundred billion a year in illegal tax shelters that continue to this day because we don't appropriate enough money for IRS enforcement.

You may want to read David Cay Johnston's 2004 book entitled "Free Lunch" to get more information about the last bit there. It's rather informative, and makes it quite clear that both Republicans and Democrats have been dissembling on taxes since 1980. The sad thing is that most of the scams he talks about in his book are still going on today.

Edited to add: The actual deficit numbers might help. Note that FY12 is not yet complete, so it's an OMB estimate. The remainder are the actual numbers from Treasury.

[erfalf]

Not to be picky, but fiscal year 2001 ended in June of 2001. Bush had only been in office for all of 5 1/2 months. None of that stuff you mentioned had occurred yet. And if you look at the deficit spending it stayed relatively constant until FY 2008. And everyone knows why it spiked up then.

[nathanm]

Not to be picky, but fiscal year 2001 ended in June of 2001. Bush had only been in office for all of 5 1/2 months. None of that stuff you mentioned had occurred yet. And if you look at the deficit spending it stayed relatively constant until FY 2008. And everyone knows why it spiked up then.

None of that is true. The first Bush tax cuts were passed in June 2001. Refund checks were going out by July. Moreover, the federal fiscal year begins October 1st, not July 1st. And let's do look at the deficit spending record since FY00.



The deficit increased every year between 2001 and 2005, when the housing bubble spiked the economy.

[guido911]

Beat me to it erfalf on the graphic.The jobs graph is the one that stood out to me.

Analysis.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/24/how-to-make-obamas-spending-look-small-marketwatch-rebuttal-infographic/