Author Topic: Forbes says: The Cheapest President since Eisenhower is..... (Read 4817 times)

TM7 · « **on:** July 15, 2012, 01:36:02 AM »

myth vs facts,,,,no I'm not BHO supporter, but facts is facts......fyi...TM7 .
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?[/b] [/font] Doug McManus [font=].[/font]
It’s 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.
Who knew?
Check out the chart –

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20^,2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) 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.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching
.
Page 2 of 2
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com

Cabin4 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2012, 02:47:35 AM »

Very easy, look what has happened to the annual budget deficit and the national federal debt levels since obama has taken office. Anyone that would conclude he is not spending more than any prez prior is simply removing facts off the table with the specific intent of wanting to arrive at this farce of a conclusion.

magooch · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2012, 03:45:50 AM »

Well I know that I feel so much better now about the debt and deficit. For crying out loud, who needs a federal budget when you've got a miser like Obama monitoring the spending?

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #3 on:** July 15, 2012, 05:39:49 AM »

This P resident needs a few more years and we'll be awash in cash. Me? I'm putting strainers on the storm drains to catch it before it washes into the sewers if it rains again.

If I were able read that jumble of words throughout, I believe the take away would be this. Just because you say it don't make it true. These are the same clowns who tell me there is virtually no inflation too.

I hope the point in posting this is to inflame the sensibilities of those capable of individual thought.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:59:03 AM »

I'm not an Obama fan but what happened to the huge surplus we had when Bushy boy became president?

wncchester · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:09:02 AM »

"...what happened to the huge surplus we had when Bushy boy became president? "

That "surplus" was the same kind of lie that BozO is a penny pincher; it was a theoritical projection that no one who knew anything expected to see. And, after the hit our economy took following 9-11, it wasn't even a theoritical possiblity. Then came I-rock and the Afgannies ...

So, BozO, in typical innerlecshul libbrul detached from economic reality manner, took a still bad economic situation and made it worse by passing out wads of borrowed money to "spread the weath around" to Democrat supporter businesses and big union voters which has neither done any good, nor has it made many of his bought and paid for voter base happy because they want much more; as always!

Pollyticians learned long ago that if they wanted less of anything they should tax it AND if they wanted more of anything they should subsidize it. So, they tax working and subsidize not working and we get the results we deserve for electing them!

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:40:09 AM »

TM7--sir, you cannot believe that. I know your mind is set against what's going on in the nation, and that you have your own beliefs that you feel are the truth. 'Tis commendable that you try and make us see what you really do believe. But to say Obama is thrifty? Good grief. He's spent more gov't money than all other presidents put together. So much in fact, that if he gets another term, our downfall is assured.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:05:30 AM »

Quote from: muznut 54 on July 21, 2012, 04:59:03 AM

I'm not an Obama fan but what happened to the huge surplus we had when Bushy boy became president?

What happened is obama policies made it worse. What took bush 8 years to do, obama did in 3. Thats what happened.

Swampman · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:13:38 AM »

Maybe they meant the most worthless.......

wareagleguy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:34:00 PM »

I know you will never believe this but it is true. All you have to do is READ and stop watching Fox News.

Swampman · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:42:48 PM »

Then what news would we watch? Fox is the only true news.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2012, 03:00:55 PM »

Yea' in la-la land. You know the same company that owns fox owns Forbes, right?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2012, 03:24:25 PM »

Did you know that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times are all in Obama pocket? So what news should people listen to?

wareagleguy · « **Reply #13 on:** July 27, 2012, 03:49:24 PM »

And what has that got to do with this topic? Still doesn't change the facts.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2012, 04:06:23 PM »

Did you say this or was that the other Wareagleguy

"I know you will never believe this but it is true. All you have to do is READ and stop watching Fox News"

It does not I suppose have much to do with the subject, your correct about that. But the fact the story being reported here about obama being frugal is just a flat out patently misleading pile of liberal excrement.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #15 on:** July 28, 2012, 01:55:16 AM »

All you need to do is find it in the congressional record. It's for all to see. Again, Forbes is not liberal and owned by the same group as Fox News. So, if you believe Fox news why do you not believe Forbes? I think it's just Fox provides you the ammo to find justification to hate the man sitting in the White House. I am not a Obama guy either, I just don't care to continually hear form people that spew the same lies I hear on talk radio and Fox.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2012, 02:37:42 AM »

Ahhhh lets see, the annual budget deficit is in excess of $1trillion, our debt has ballooned to near $16trillion. So how can you claim obama is this frugal spender? A budget has 3 basic math components: revenue/income, spending & a balance. Even if we accept your premise that he is spendling less, then we should see a higher balance, correct? Then why is the annual budget deficit and debt the highest in history under O?

wareagleguy · « **Reply #17 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:45:13 AM »

Did you read the article? Yes it is high but Obama rate of GROWTH is the slowest! The budget is set the year BEFORE. So in 2009 we were under BUSH approved federal budget. You can count that year on Obama but you and Fox want to try to count it. Twist facts. Again, I don't want to be a defender of Obama but I just have to clear the facts. I see so many that think Romney is "The Man" just because he is running for the GOP. The GOP is the main reason we are in this mess!!!

Cabin4 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:08:09 PM »

Quote from: wareagleguy on July 28, 2012, 11:45:13 AM

Did you read the article? Yes it is high but Obama rate of GROWTH is the slowest! The budget is set the year BEFORE. So in 2009 we were under BUSH approved federal budget. You can count that year on Obama but you and Fox want to try to count it. Twist facts. Again, I don't want to be a defender of Obama but I just have to clear the facts. I see so many that think Romney is "The Man" just because he is running for the GOP. The GOP is the main reason we are in this mess!!!

I guess that proves my point. Obama is mismanaging the tax payers money worse than Bush. He's not slowing the rate of spending fast enough to reduce both the annual budget deficit and the debt. That's what we have to do in the household and its what we should expect professionals to do in the work place and the same goes for the politicians managing our tax dollars.

His economic policies are not working. They are making things worse. Go ahead, keep using Bush and any former presidents record as your benchmark. That's like using your most recent bad restaurant experience and concluding since it was not as bad as the prior, your going back there for another meal.....

BTW: Romney is not "The Man". He's just the man that's not as bad as obama.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #19 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:11:17 PM »

Yep and you proved mine. Blind eye!

Swampman · « **Reply #20 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:20:14 PM »

Quote from: wareagleguy on July 28, 2012, 11:45:13 AM

Again, I don't want to be a defender of Obama

Then why are you defending the fool?

wareagleguy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:39:23 PM »

For the very words you just used. I have never seen such blind hate as I have seen. I believe Bush was the worst president this nation has ever had. However, if I ever had the chance to meet him I would give him the respect as a leader of our country. Right or wrong he was the president. However, the under handed low life things that have been going on from the GOP is downright sinful. This is supposed to the the party of values but I am not seeing it. So, use words like you do and if you think that is the Christian thing then power to you.

Swampman · « **Reply #22 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:42:54 PM »

I couldn't care less if it's the Christian thing to do. I don't hate Obama. He's a horrible racist traitor but I don't hate him. George Bush is a great man and a great American. I'd love to have him as a personal friend.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #23 on:** July 28, 2012, 01:36:05 PM »

I find it funny you calling Obama racist. I feel confident that when you called him a fool it was your second choice for a description. Did the n word come to mind? I know without a drought who the real racist are. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Have a good day.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 28, 2012, 01:49:05 PM »

I agree, obama is a racist and full of hatered for most of the peoples way of life in this country.

Swampman · « **Reply #25 on:** July 28, 2012, 02:06:24 PM »

Quote from: wareagleguy on July 28, 2012, 01:36:05 PM

I find it funny you calling Obama racist. I feel confident that when you called him a fool it was your second choice for a description. Did the n word come to mind? I know without a drought who the real racist are. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Have a good day.

Over 1/2 my family is black.....without a drought? What does the weather have to do with this?

wncchester · « **Reply #26 on:** July 29, 2012, 03:03:12 PM »

Duplicate, deleted.

wncchester · « **Reply #27 on:** July 29, 2012, 03:15:37 PM »

"Over 1/2 my family is black.....without a drought? What does the weather have to do with this?"

Fergit it Swamp, it don't mean nothing; innerlecshul librulers always pull their standby 'racist' switch when they don't have anything rational to say. Such slanders prompt me to use the big 'n' word; 'nutcase'.

When they do have 'facts' they distort them; meaning the reported 'tight wad' thing is a lie. Such data is always based on desired spending levels and after large automatic 'inflation adjustments' have been factored in as a zero change and excepting large chunks of established spending; meaning BO and company have laid on rivers of money the 'experts' are ignoring to make things look rosey. NOT!

muznut 54 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 30, 2012, 04:05:15 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 28, 2012, 12:42:54 PM

I couldn't care less if it's the Christian thing to do. I don't hate Obama. He's a horrible racist traitor but I don't hate him. George Bush is a great man and a great American. I'd love to have him as a personal friend.

Thanks for the laugh Swampy. The great one is the biggest buffoon that ever walked on the white house steps. If you you count the huge surplus that was blown and dept that bushy boy caused not to mention lives lost and screwed up planet he makes Obama look like a frugal Einstein.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 30, 2012, 04:10:36 AM »

Quote from: muznut 54 on July 30, 2012, 04:05:15 AM

Quote from: Swampman on July 28, 2012, 12:42:54 PM
I couldn't care less if it's the Christian thing to do. I don't hate Obama. He's a horrible racist traitor but I don't hate him. George Bush is a great man and a great American. I'd love to have him as a personal friend.
Thanks for the laugh Swampy. The great one is the biggest buffoon that ever walked on the white house steps. If you you count the huge surplus that was blown and dept that bushy boy caused not to mention lives lost and screwed up planet he makes Obama look like a frugal Einstein.

Unfortunately for you the economic numbers don't match your obama political rhetoric. Thats the one thing politics & the economy. The math just tends to get in the way of the truth your trying to make up......