News flash! Obama most frugal president since Ike
From the Marketwatch column at the Wall Street Journal:
“Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s…..
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%.”
The column makes many of the points made on this blog in the past. For example, it points out that when Obama took office in 2009, the fiscal 2009 budget year was already four months underway, driven by spending and revenue programs put into place under President Bush.
If we rank spending increases for presidential budgets since 1980, it looks like this:
Reagan, 1982-85: Annual increase of 8.7 percent
Reagan, 1986-89: Annual increase of 4.9 percent
Bush I, 1990-93: Annual increase of 5.4 percent
Clinton, 1994-1997: Annual increase of 3.2 percent
Clinton, 1998-2001: Annual increase of 3.9 percent
Bush II, 2002-2005: Annual increase of 7.3 percent
Bush II, 2006-2009: Annual increase of 8.1 percent
Obama, 2010-2013: Annual increase of 1.4 percent
(It should be noted that in the interest of fairness and accuracy, the above numbers attribute increased 2009 spending from the Obama stimulus to Obama, who initiated it and signed it into law, rather than to Bush. That’s why the annual increase in the chart — 1.4 percent — is higher than the 0.4 percent mentioned in the column excerpt.)
I understand that this data strike directly at the heart of the GOP caricature of Obama. They contradict the foundation of the conservative rant against this president, not to mention the idolatry directed at Ronald Reagan. And since the data cannot be rebutted — the plain numbers are there for all to see — they will simply be ignored lest millions of heads explode simultaneously.
In that light, I thought I would close with this last little bit of data from the Wall Street Journal article:
“After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.
In per-capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).”
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
813 comments Add your comment
Brosephus™
May 23rd, 2012
8:45 am
Well, when you add up AFL-CIO, NEA, Teachers Union, Municipal and Federal Employess, SEIU, Electrical Brotherhood, you get a pretty big number wouldnt you agree?
if I remember correctly, less than 12% of the entire workforce is unionized, and that includes public union members. Compare that with the defense industry, and you’ll understand why I say there is no comparison. Especially when you factor in that some of the very union workers are also employed by defense contractors.
Also, your charts does not break down lobbying to show what area the lobbyists represent. Therefore, you don’t have an accurate picture of the money flowing from the defense industry. On the other hand, there is no attempt to hide money from labor in the same manner. Give that some thought for a minute.
Paul
May 23rd, 2012
8:45 am
Thank, Jay. I’m really enjoying this.
About the only decision that comes to mind is that action could have been taken would be to reduce spending to reflect the cut in revenues. But if I remember correctly, no one knew from the beginning the magnitude of the recession and how resistant it was to traditional remedies (which were implemented). Then there is the difficulty of cutting or eliminating programs whose existence mitigates the effects of recession and the reluctance of Congress to eliminate programs that benefit their constituencies. So it’s really not an Obama ‘fault.’
Okay, back to see what other creative deflections and denials have been posted.
Thanks again!
GT
May 23rd, 2012
8:46 am
Jay don’t confuse em with the facts. The GOP try to be like the old tobacco industry, all hat on no cattle. A real man is a Republican and women go where there are real men. And the results of this fiction is the health ads being run in showing smokers with tubes hanging out of them, flat on their backs in beds to weak to get on their feet. When macho becomes brains I am buying an elephant but for now I use them to point out the weakness in our system. Wall Street, health care, bigotry, whatever they are flying around is a sign something is dead underneath it. If I can tell so can our enemies. Follow the agenda of a right winger and you will be given the keys to this country’s weaknesses. .
Paul
May 23rd, 2012
8:46 am
Sorry
About the only CRITICISM that comes to mind is…”
“
Steve
May 23rd, 2012
8:46 am
LOL @ Jay!
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
8:46 am
TBone, regarding your hypothetical question, it pretty much answers itself.
Unless, of course, you care to expound and clarify…
Jay
May 23rd, 2012
8:49 am
Step right up, Tbone. The floor is yours. Show us what you’ve got.
stands for decibels
May 23rd, 2012
8:49 am
Do you see any GOP War on Women?
a side note, but I feel like going there:
I’m not fond of using the term “war” for anything but actual wars.
However, far as I can tell, it’s actual women who coin this more recent terminology and began using it publicly, and if that’s what they want to call it, that’s their business.
I just find conservatives’ collective right turn toward restricting not just abortion access but contraception access to be disgusting, and if this nation has any collective self-respect whatsoever, they’ll turn these filthy liars out in November.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
May 23rd, 2012
8:51 am
The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html
kayaker 71
May 23rd, 2012
8:51 am
Jam Vet 8:43,
I don’t give a flying f— in hell what the Wall Street Journal has to say. Someone is not paying attention. And Bookman is just “passing along data ” from this”right wing rag”. Yeah, right. Along with the typical Bookman spin, leaving out the obvious. One more time….. look at the debt clock and tell me that we are not not further in debt than we have ever been and that the American taxpayer owns more of a debt obligation than ever before in our history. Tell me that projected spending on this health care fiasco is not going to add significantly to our debt which has not even been added to the totals yet. Tell me that the majority of this insane spending didn’t happen on Bozo’s watch. Bookman’s figures and the Journal’s just don’t match reality.
Brosephus™
May 23rd, 2012
8:51 am
And all of those pesky stats about how much money we are spending have not even included Bozocare which will cost about 2X original estimates, according to the CBO who massaged the numbers to allow Bozo and the gang to get the votes they needed to pass this fiasco.
LOLOLOL!!!!!! So now we’ve fallen back to counting spending that has not even happened yet??? Hell, in that case, Romney’s already said he’s for increased defense spending. He’s already looking like the prototypical GOP President already.
——————————-
You guys really DO think he should be the Messiah, don’t you? Because that’s the only person who could possibly accomplish what you claim to think Obama should accomplish.
Dammitt Jay!!!!! That was a very tasty mouthful of coffee I just lost reading that. I think you owe me a cup now.
Paul
May 23rd, 2012
8:52 am
kayaker 71
“And all of those pesky stats about how much money we are spending have not even included Bozocare which will cost about 2X original estimates,”
It’s a timeline thing.
See, the data reflect what has happened. In the past. Already done.
You’re looking in a crystal ball and speculating what might happen.
Try this: take estimated spending under Obama when ACA comes on line. Take that new number, bottom-line total federal spending, and compute the increase from the prior year.
Wanna bet it’s still less than spending increases under Reagan?
Don't Forget
May 23rd, 2012
8:52 am
B
O
O
M
!
Steve
May 23rd, 2012
8:52 am
I’m still fuming about the War against Christmas!!!!!! We need to stop taking the Christ out of this consumer driven holiday for the retailers!!!
What WAR on women?
May 23rd, 2012
8:53 am
Maybe the GOP is just trying to rewrite LAWS that directly effects women?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kH_EZF0XqM&ob=av2e
bob
May 23rd, 2012
8:54 am
How does he stack up against Ike when it comes to deficit spending ?
Rightwing Troll
May 23rd, 2012
8:54 am
Like I said… Unhinged…
What WAR on women?
May 23rd, 2012
8:54 am
directly effects women?
should be
directly EFFECT women?
Rightwing Troll
May 23rd, 2012
8:55 am
Wingnuts + facts = unhinged
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
8:56 am
RWT, I did read an article where one of the GOP women in the house took up the clarion call to fight back against this high profile legislative assault against women’s rights and predictably she said damn near nothing!
Seriously.
Republican Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington: “I felt compelled to stand up and try to counter this myth” of a Republican “war on women”.
Interestingly, she voted AGAINST the Lilly Ledbetter Law.
The stoogette’s “reasoning”?
A focus on free-market enterprise runs through McMorris Rodgers’ conservative voting record, which she says reflects her stance that all women, like men, are better served when businesses can flourish without being too burdened by government.
That is how she justifies votes that draw her the most criticism from Democrats, such as her opposition to a 2009 bill that made it easier for women to sue for pay discrimination.
But go ahead you so-called conservatives, read the article and tell me EXACTLY where she makes any forceful or compelling counter-points that discredit the label that her party has earned.
Good luck…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-usa-campaign-rodgers-idUSBRE84H0YD20120518
bob
May 23rd, 2012
8:57 am
I thought the constitution granted congress spending authority ? I wonder how Obama can claim credit in the area of budgeting when in the past two budgets submitted to the senate, not on senator, dem or repub, voted yes on the budgets submitted by Obama.
Aquagirl
May 23rd, 2012
8:57 am
Someone is not paying attention.
Kayaker nails it. Unintentionally.
Lord Help Us
May 23rd, 2012
9:00 am
Call me shocked…Not even one ‘Attaboy’ from the conservatives to Obama for reeling in spending better than any of his predecessors in the last 30 years…
Brosephus™
May 23rd, 2012
9:00 am
I wonder how Obama can claim credit in the area of budgeting when in the past two budgets submitted to the senate, not on senator, dem or repub, voted yes on the budgets submitted by Obama.
He can claim credit because he’s done the exact same thing every previous president has done. Once the budget APPROPRIATION bills passed both houses, he signed them into law. If every previous president gets credit for their spending that was signed into law in the same manner, why should Obama not get the same credit?
TBone
May 23rd, 2012
9:01 am
Really don’t have all the time that some do on these things; gotta make a living you know. But suffice it to say that baseline budgeting as opposed to zero-based budgeting can be credited with your “hard factual” data. If you start from an inflated base, budget amounts swell even more with lower increments of increase. It’s a math thing.
Paul
May 23rd, 2012
9:01 am
kayaker 71
” look at the debt clock and tell me that we are not not further in debt than we have ever been and that the American taxpayer owns more of a debt obligation than ever before in our history.”
Well of course it is!
And why are we in debt?
Because we spend more than we take in.
Did the onset of the recession cut what the government takes in by a lot? Sure it did. We’ve had columns on that.
So what Obama did was pretty much maintain overall spending levels, without the big increases of his predecessors, at the same time revenue had fallen, at the same time coping with massive increases in mandated spending to aid those hit by the recession.
For that you criticize him?
What else would you have wanted him to do?
Let’s already stimulate “no stimulus and no ACA.”
Now what should he have done to bring spending in line with revenue while not lengthening the recession?
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:02 am
Jay is starting a new division of comedy central
This is propaganda of the first order
If a helicopter drops me off at the top of Mt McKinley and I walk down, did I climb it? No.
The author at marketwatch despite being paid by a biz publication, is full of garbage and is as biased as they come.
Another recent column of his: Investors demanding larger government deficits
This guy is an expletive and so is jay for drinking his own koolaid
Moderate Line
May 23rd, 2012
9:02 am
Jay
May 23rd, 2012
8:44 am
Moderate, as I pointed out, the additional money appropriated under Obama has been assigned to Obama in the data.
And the data says what it says: Spending under Obama has increased more slowly than under any president since Eisenhower, and after adjusting for population growth and inflation, has actually decreased on a per capita basis.
Only because the year before he took office was the highest spending year since 1946,
Your attempt to blame him for not reversing all the spending growth of previous presidents — especially the Republicans — is pretty weak, given that he’s had three years in office and is trying to manage the aftermath of the worst economic crisis in 80 years.
No I do not. I blame him as much as blame every President since Johnson for not reversing the spending. Prior to 2009 Bush spending prior to the recession average 20.1% of GDP. Does not seem like statistical manipulation to compare to 2009 during the heart of a recession or to compare it to prior to the recession. The current recession has been over since June of 2009.
You guys really DO think he should be the Messiah, don’t you? Because that’s the only person who could possibly accomplish what you claim to think Obama should accomplish.
You have no facts on your side so you resort to insults. So be it. The facts are very simple. Obama has two of three of the highest spending years since 1946 and will soon have 3 of 4.
The only way you can make an argument is massive manipulation of data.
The Fresh Prince of BIll Ayers
May 23rd, 2012
9:05 am
Wow. All the accolades to Obama whom did this without ever getting a budget passed….
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:05 am
Come on Republican’s it is YOUR party that claimed………… ” Deficits don’t matter “…… it wasn’t the Democrat’s, now was it ?
But hey a vote for Romney is like going back to George Bush.
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:06 am
Jay is starting a new division of comedy central
This is propaganda of the first order
The author at market watch despite being paid by a biz publication, is full of garbage and is as biased as they come.
Another recent column of his: Investors demanding larger government deficits
This guy is an idiot and so is jay for drinking his own koolaid
If a helicopter drops me off at the top of Mt McKinley and I walk down, did I climb it? No.
lovelyliz
May 23rd, 2012
9:06 am
People who don’t believe in science history and facts aren’t going to be bothered with economics and research.
Brosephus™
May 23rd, 2012
9:07 am
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Now our Bloomberg/WSJ business warrior, jm, is attacking the WSJ for their message. Hilarious…..
Jay
May 23rd, 2012
9:07 am
jm, just a note of assurance: I see that a couple of your posts were blocked for reasons I cannot explain. The most recent one has been freed.
In other words, you haven’t been banned. Please try to post something else, so that I can see whether it was something in your first post that caught you up or whether it’s something else.
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:07 am
Yes to this,…..kayaker 71
” look at the debt clock and tell me that we are not not further in debt than we have ever been and that the American taxpayer owns more of a debt obligation than ever before in our history.”
Tell me how much of that debt is the Iraq War and the interest from the Iraq War ?
Those Republican’s can start a War, can’t Finnish, or ever find a way to fund it can they ?
Mr. Snarky
May 23rd, 2012
9:08 am
Boom!
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:09 am
Bro aka not too bright
I’m attacking the author, notthe publication
Sweet jeebus liberals are dense
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
9:09 am
BTW, the article linked, authored by Jonathan Chait, in that first 8:51 is OUTSTANDING.
One of the many highlights is the correct observation about the racial paranoia of a Rush Limbaugh or an Andrew Breitbart. Both of whom, the author of that derided National Review article, Kevin Williamson defends.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/300432
He, in fact, eviscerates pretty much the entire blog entry as the nonsense that it is.
And that segues perfectly off of this thread and the GOP’s forty year laughably transparent penchant for inanely trying to rewrite history. And their disgraceful and embarrassing legacy in these matters.
These neocons live in a fantasy world more bizarre than that created by Jonathan Swift…
Mary Elizabeth
May 23rd, 2012
9:10 am
From the link below:
“Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:10 am
Perfect…………People who don’t believe in science history and facts aren’t going to be bothered with economics and research.
Kind of like how George Bush…….. “Prayed to his GOD, before attacking Iraq “.
RB from Gwinnett
May 23rd, 2012
9:10 am
It looks like the Republicans taking control of the house has worked! Good job Boehner!
Tundra Dude
May 23rd, 2012
9:11 am
JohnnyReb 7:56 am
I can see this one will have all the Moonbats drunk with delight by 8:30. Enjoy and good day.
Only 14 minutes from the first comment…..JB scores his first knockout!!
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:11 am
Jay 9:07
Warning: don’t type “market watch” as one word
We all know why that doesn’t go well
Same as sweet water
Steve
May 23rd, 2012
9:12 am
Jm – you’re not very convincing with your stomping of feet and pouting.
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:14 am
kayaker 71. How much of the debt and interest is because of the Iraq War and interest ?
Use a credit card much………kind of like George Bush did with the US Treasury…… How did those Cost plus contracts work out for US citizens ?
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:14 am
Steve maybe if I make facile jokes all day long like liberals then you’ll be convinced
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:15 am
JM how did those cost plus contracts work out for US Citizens ?
Steve
May 23rd, 2012
9:16 am
We can only laugh at you, not with you Jm. But thanks for making me laugh today.
Adam
May 23rd, 2012
9:16 am
I feel like I should tally the number of posts that deny this is all true, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. Plus, I have had a lot of work to do this week so I don’t actually have time.
But still, gotta love it when people simply refuse to accept reality. They truly believe they live in a different reality, with a President that has a record they made up for him instead of his actual record… but it’s ok, people know them there. And they are safe… except for when they’re not (which is almost always).
Cognitive Dissonance says, “What?”
Paul
May 23rd, 2012
9:17 am
bob
“I thought the constitution granted congress spending authority ? I wonder how Obama can claim credit in the area of budgeting ”
Which means Obama can’t be praised or criticized for spending levels, it’s Congress to be blamed, right?
Brosephus™
May 23rd, 2012
9:17 am
jm
Attacking the source of the message is still attacking the source. If he had posted that from MoveOn.org, you’d still be attacking the source. Parsing does not fit well.
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
9:18 am
If a helicopter drops me off at the top of Mt McKinley and I walk down
It is a descent of anywhere from 17,000 to 19,000 ft.
I doubt you would make it. Even with no pack. For a variety of reasons – altitude sickness or falling into a crevasse among them. Those same pilots would probably have to cart your ass off of that mountain using the same helicopter.
For doing the same thing that you do here at a blogging level.
Trying to write checks that your mouth, brain and body cannot cash…
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:21 am
Jay..Please no more actual statistics…….. makes the GOP head cluttered with reality…… They prefer to rant about homosexuals, and desire they all be put in a barbed wire enclosure……because they are Godly folks !
Mary Elizabeth
May 23rd, 2012
9:21 am
JamVet, 8:28
“The irony is that these people (in the Bush Dynasty and elsewhere) are the same ones who promote small government for the many less fortunate than they are financially, while at they same time they have been using our government, stealthily, to accrue personal financial gain for themselves.”
—————————————-
“Amen, sister!
Or as I call it socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us. (Including their self-destructive neer-do-well sycophants.)”
==================================
Amen back, brother!
Keep talking the truth, JamVet.
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:22 am
Jamvet
I’ve climbed several mountains in excess of 14,000 feet
I’d be fine
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 23rd, 2012
9:22 am
Just remember all y’all…jm is just exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech…which also guarantees his right to make an azz out of himself…but we are all guilty of that…hey?
Don't Forget
May 23rd, 2012
9:23 am
Jm, the mountain you speak of is the mountain of debt caused by Bush’s unpaid for policies. The tax cuts, the drug benefit, the wars and an economy collapsing with millions more people needing government assistance and most of those things continue to cost more and more every year. And it will only get worse under Romney and the “marvelous” Ryan plan which will give more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting 1.7 million seniors from meals on wheels! Yes, that’s right, they want to cut meals on wheels. I guess they think those lazy seniors need to get up on their walkers and cook for themselves so the billionaires can even more money home to either sit on like they are doing now. Unbelievable.
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
9:23 am
Please do list them, Jm…
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:23 am
“The irony is that these people (in the Bush Dynasty and elsewhere) are the same ones who promote small government for the many less fortunate than they are financially, while at they same time they have been using our government, stealthily, to accrue personal financial gain for themselves.”
Yes back to “Cost Plus Contracts “……. A real invention of the GOP to bilk the US Treasury.
Pat
May 23rd, 2012
9:23 am
Nothing makes a wing nut’s head explode like raw data.
Quick kiddies, turn to Fox News. I’m sure they’ll explain this away.
Oh wait, that’s right – this story will not be reported on any NewsCorps outlet.
Butch Cassidy
May 23rd, 2012
9:23 am
RB from Gwinnett – “It looks like the Republicans taking control of the house has worked! Good job Boehner!”
Oh good, so it’s all due to the GOP in the house. Well then, I guess there really is nothing that Romney can do despite his many speeches to the contrary. If that’s the case, he needs to stop lying about what he’ll do to bring the country back from the brink, because, afterall, it’s really the GOP house that pulls all the strings.
Thanks for clearing that up RB.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 23rd, 2012
9:24 am
R. W. Troll — “Neither of these figures is “more … than all those other presidents combined,” as Palin had said.”
We already knew she couldn’t read, so it comes as no great surprise to find out she can’t add, either.
Gordon
May 23rd, 2012
9:25 am
This is similar to Jay’s recent column about normalizing every president to a score of 100 based on the spending taking place when they take office, and then measuring from there. But here’s the problem with that: Spending sharply spiked just before Obama took office because of the Great Recession. Remember TARP? That level of spending was not considered normal, it was to deal with a very serious situation. But now that level of spending IS considered normal. Also, here’s the part of the article Jay left out:
“By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans, but many Democrats too) stopped him.”
I know that Jay knows all this, and has a bet with Kyle Wingfield that he is such a good writer that he can convice his readers that Obama is not a spending machine, especially given the fact he has added more to the debt than all other presidents combined with 8 months left in his first term. Based on what I am reading here, Kyle will be taking Jay to lunch.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of a Bookman blog reader.
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:25 am
Jamvet
Thanks for your sincere concern for my well being tho
Bro whatever dude. Nice dodge though
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 23rd, 2012
9:25 am
“I’d be fine”…
F: Freaked out
I: Insecure
N: Neurotic
E: Emotional
Yep…that’s our jm…
just funnin’ you, jm…
Moderate Line
May 23rd, 2012
9:26 am
Butch Cassidy
May 23rd, 2012
8:42 am
Moderate Line – “Here is what Jay has done. He is claim Obama is frugal because he is spending less than what was spent in 2009. ”
Actually, it was the Wall Street Journal that is making the claim. Jay is simply passing along the information with some of his own commentary.
What is it with you guys? The WSJ is about as conservative as they come, but as soon that they dare write something that doesn’t fit neatly into your Obama bashing, you decide it’s nothing but liberal tripe. This type of tunnel vision is exactly why I don’t support either party.
++
1. I am not a conservative. I voted for Democrat in the last election for governor.
2. Jay seems to accept the argument of the WSJ.
3. I did not bash Obama. I merely reported the factual information that 2(the only two) of the three years in office are in the three highest years since 1946. Regan has 4 of the top 7. Is that bashing Reagan.
The facts are the facts.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 23rd, 2012
9:26 am
K71 — “Tell me that projected spending on this health care fiasco is not going to add significantly to our debt which has not even been added to the totals yet. Tell me that the majority of this insane spending didn’t happen on Bozo’s watch. Bookman’s figures and the Journal’s just don’t match reality.”
Translation: Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
9:27 am
And driving up or taking the cog railway to the top of Pikes Peak and stepping out at the parking lot doesn’t count!
LOL!
(Not that you have a veracity problem or anything like that here!)
BlahBlahBlah
May 23rd, 2012
9:28 am
If Obama’s spending started from a record high point that was deemed “temporary” and he makes little effort to end it’s “temporary” status, why should we be cheering?
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:28 am
Jamvet
CO – uncompaghre, Wilson, sneffels, wetterhorn
Not quite 14 – grand Teton
And dozens of lesser mts
Want my SS# next?
Brosephus™
May 23rd, 2012
9:30 am
jm
Name calling is always the first sign you’ve lost the argument. Hence, I knew you had given up as soon as you responded because you did not have a defense. Thanks for playing though. No dodge here. You’re just mad because you, of all people, got called out for attacking the WSJ, when any other time, you’d be toting their scrotum around the place here.
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:31 am
Gordon.
Please explain how the Bush Tax decrease, along with the Iraq War, and Cost Plus contracts, didn’t have a major effect on the US Debt.
Please explain how wonderful the US economy was in the last months of the Bush Administration, and why….. “Deficits don’t matter”.
Lord Help Us
May 23rd, 2012
9:31 am
The spectrum of the conservative response is hilarious.
All the way from, ‘these figures are manipulated…propaganda’ to ‘credit should be given to the GOP Congress.’
Can you say mutually exclusive…
Joe Hussein Mama
May 23rd, 2012
9:32 am
Brosephus — “any other time, you’d be toting their scrotum around”
TMI
jms
May 23rd, 2012
9:33 am
Great!!! So everything is fine.
We can all return our heads to the sand.
Gordon
May 23rd, 2012
9:34 am
Peter,
I don’t, and have never, claimed that Bush did a good job with the budget. He was horrible. So is Obama. Why can’t you admit that? You are stuck in the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” rut like so many others.
Tundra Dude
May 23rd, 2012
9:34 am
And to have President Obama compared to a fiscal conservative like President Eisenhower?
Ike was smart. He taxed the top at a whopping 91%!!
No, the purpose was not to confiscate wealth,,,,,
this high rate was to encourage re-investment in the economy, thereby avoiding the hi tax.
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:36 am
Bro
Yes, I’ll cite news I agree with
And I’ll attack opinion pieces I disagree with
So sue me
Liberals here obviously just buy everything they read
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:37 am
Bro btw I didn’t name call
I described you
Get over it
JamVet
May 23rd, 2012
9:37 am
Nah, I just find your claims of mountain climbing very hard to believe.
You’ve never once mentioned it and if you are as big a climber as you feign, it seems like it would have come up at least once.
And not because I’m a doubting Thomas, but because you have been caught lying here so often.
Either way, no big whoop.
But the kicker is when you talk about ‘walking down” Denali.
Any real climber would never use that term. It is NOT a walk up mountain, which obviously means it is NOT a walk down mountain.
(Climbing technojargon here – a walk up means that one does not have to use crampons, ice axes, ropes, usually among teams, etc. Only the most elite climbers even try to summit these mountains solo.)
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 23rd, 2012
9:37 am
Been perusing the BBC and I gotta ask…Egypt, got Democracy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18167224
Brosephus™ - "Browning America Since 1973"
May 23rd, 2012
9:38 am
off topic:
Seems like the Census Bureau was trying to “Whitewash” the Browning of America in 2010 just a bit..
The findings show the 2010 census over-counted the total U.S. population by 36,000 people, or 0.01 percent, due mostly to duplicate counts of affluent whites owning multiple homes. That is an improvement from a census over-count of 0.5 percent in 2000.
However, the census missed about 2.1 percent of black Americans and 1.5 percent of Hispanics, together accounting for some 1.5 million people. The percentages are statistically comparable to 2000, despite an aggressive advertising and minority outreach effort in 2010 that pushed total census costs to an unprecedented $15 billion.
Also undercounted were about 5 percent of American Indians living on reservations and nearly 2 percent of minorities who marked themselves as “some other race.”
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/2010-census-missed-more-1443509.html
To quote Parliament Funkadelic…
“Gainin’ on ya… Movin’ in around ya.”
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot52
May 23rd, 2012
9:39 am
Just for a counterpoint the next time a wingnut spews how spending has skyrocketed under Obama, here are three changes he made to budgetary practices which his brave predecessor wouldn’t/couldn’t face up to …
1. Included war funding right up front (rather than as special appropriations later).
2. Included Medicare “reimbursements” which were mysteriously off-budget previously.
3. Removed bogus projections for AMT revenues which typically had never materialized.
The obvious, unavoidable result of this transparency was an apparent increase in the debt – “apparent” because it finally “appeared” yet had been there all along. I consider that forthright and honest on his part.
Tundra Dude
May 23rd, 2012
9:39 am
And to have President Obama compared to a fiscal conservative like President Eisenhower?
Ike was smart. He taxed the top at a whopping 91%!!
No, the purpose was not to confiscate wealth,,,,,
this high rate was to encourage re-investment in the economy, thereby avoiding the hi tax.
——————————————
Forgot to add;
Imo, the problem with low tax rates, or tax cuts, is they’re encouraged to “take the money and run”
as opposed to re-investing in the economy.
(my 2 farthings)
Jay
May 23rd, 2012
9:40 am
While I appreciate your kind words about my writing ability, Gordon, their impact is lessened by your inability to get even basic facts correct.
For example, Obama has NOT “added more to the debt than all other presidents combined with 8 months left in his first term,” and in fact it is not even close. The willingness of conservatives to keep spreading a lie that has been publicly exposed as a lie over and over again is further testament to the blithe and willful ignorance of truth that typifies their approach to such debates. If they want to believe it, they believe it, regardless of what the actual facts are.
BTW, we did have a president who actually DID increase the debt more than all the previous presidents combined. His name was Ronald Reagan. By the end of his eight years in office, he had almost TRIPLED the amount of debt that he had inherited from all the previous presidents combined.
Moderate Line
May 23rd, 2012
9:41 am
Mary Elizabeth
May 23rd, 2012
9:10 am
From the link below:
“Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).”
++++
The main driver of the deficit are:
1. Medicare – Johnson
2. Tax Cuts – Bush
3. Social Security – FDR
4. Military Spending – Bush & Reagan
5. Recession – Bush
6. Poor Recovery – Obama
Now, I find it hard to blame FDR for not predicting the affects of demographics on a program he started in the 30’s. Keep in mind I think President’s have somewhat limited control over the economy.
Brosephus™ - "Browning America Since 1973"
May 23rd, 2012
9:41 am
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:09 am
Bro aka not too bright
I’m attacking the author, notthe publication
Sweet jeebus liberals are dense
The abbreviation aka, also known as, is typically used to suggest or denote an alias. To call me otherwise known as “not so bright” would mean that you are indeed name calling. Describing someone would requre the use of adjectives, not aliases. For someone who’s supposedly not to bright, I seem to have a far superior knowledge and grasp of grammatical English than you do, so what does that make you????
Recon 0311 2533
May 23rd, 2012
9:41 am
This thread documents how easy it is for the left to brainwash their faithful and divert attention from reality. Here’s the reality, the Congressional Democrats in the Senate haven’t passed a budget in over 3 years and Obummer can’t govern sufficiently enough to get them to do so. Now we’re heading for disaster in 013.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/22/cbo-says-us-likely-to-fall-fiscal-cliff-if-bush-era-tax-cuts-allowed-to-expire/
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:42 am
Gordon … I trust Obama at his worst, more than any GOP out there.
The mantra of WAR and zero financial plan is the main reason, along with the unwillingness to help America’s here at home, unless of course you are cutting taxes for the super wealthy.
The infrastructure of America has fallen apart, and the GOP still wants to run around and invade all, and be world police for Corporate America.
We have been told so my Romney wanting to increase the Military budget, which is way out of control to start with.
The GOP has never ever come up with a plan to pay off the War debts…..just cut help to American’s in need.
Mary Elizabeth
May 23rd, 2012
9:42 am
Please listen to Bruce Bartlett, former Deputy Treasury Secy. under President George H.W. Bush, and former policy advisor to President Reagan, explain the reasons for the deficit. I have often posted a chart on this blog which shows the itemized causes of the deficit. The facts for that chart came from this interview with Bartlett. It is well worth waiting past the commercial to hear Bartlett’s cogent words.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#43917503
Peter
May 23rd, 2012
9:43 am
Moderate Line……… Please tell us the time frame it will take the US to recover from Bush, because I was thinking a minimum of 10 years.
Jm
May 23rd, 2012
9:43 am
I’m getting harassed about my mountain climbing skills by a guy who has probably only watched K2 movies
Hilarious
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
May 23rd, 2012
9:44 am
“Gainin’ on ya… Movin’ in around ya.”
So what is the point of that statement? Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?
williebkind
May 23rd, 2012
9:45 am
As I look a the list Jay provides I see republicans in office during times of war and the liberals in office during times of the war drawing down or ending. Numbers sure are funny sometimes, especially when they are put in evil’s hands.
Misty Fyed
May 23rd, 2012
9:46 am
hahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahhaha lol lol lol lol. Jay you’re too much….Tooooo much…absolutely delusional. Of course your article fails to mention the coming affect of Obamacare years after Obama is gone. But…you’ve never been one to paint a complete picture anyway.
Mary Elizabeth
May 23rd, 2012
9:47 am
Here’s that chart again, which breaks down the sources of the deficit, taken from the Bruce Bartlett interview that I linked in my 9:42 post.
=============================================
“Yesterday (7/28/11), on the Chris Matthews Show, a former U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary by the name of Bruce Bartlett gave the specific breakdown – in chart form – for that 14 trillion dollar debt. Here it is:
—————————————————————–
Recession Expenses = 2.0 Trillion
Obama’s Policies = 1.4 Trillion
Bush’s policies = 4.0 Trillion (wars, drugs’ entitlement)
Bush’s tax cuts = 3.0 Trillion
Social Security, etc. = 3.6 Trillion
—————————————————————
Total Debt = 14.0 Trillion
———————————————————————————-
Notice that 1/2 of the 14 trillion debt has come from Bush’s tax cuts and policies; only 1.4 trillion has come from Obama’s policies.
Bartlett also said that under Reagan capital gains’ tax was at 28%, and that today it is only at 15%.
Bartlett recommended returning to Clinton tax rates, as had Alan Greenspan, earlier.
TaxPayer
May 23rd, 2012
9:47 am
I see the Republicans are just trickling down all over themselves on this topic. Good show, Jay.
Gordon
May 23rd, 2012
9:48 am
Sorry Jay. You’re absolutely correct. Although Obama has added more to the debt than any other president, it is only if his spending is projected through the end of two terms can it be said that he he will have spent more than all other presidents combined. Reagan DID server two terms, Obama has served just over 3 years. And that is with a Republican Congress in place to curb his spending after his first two years. As the article you cited pointed out, Obama WANTS to spend a lot more than he is able at this point.
BTW, you didn’t address the main point of my post, which is that spending had sharply spiked just before Obama took office. Most people would think that would make statistics about increases in spending less relavent.
getalife
May 23rd, 2012
9:48 am
There ya go again using facts the cons ignore.
Adam
May 23rd, 2012
9:48 am
Misty Fyed: hahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahhaha lol lol lol lol. Jay you’re too much….Tooooo much…absolutely delusional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection