Who Is The Smallest Government Spender?

[Back]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/



It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama (http://www.forbes.com/profile/barack-obama/) being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor) is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States (http://www.forbes.com/places/united-states/) president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Who knew?

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

Is Forbes biased? I dunno. Numbers don't lie.

[~Rocktar~]

Is Forbes biased? I dunno. Numbers don't lie.

So, percent of budget increase right?

Reagan, auto bailout included, check.
Bush I, capitulation with Dems on largest increase in entitlement programs until Obamacare and let's go to war round 1 included, check.
Bush II, automatic spending increases along with let's go to war round 2 and 3 as well as liberal stimulus plans 1 and 2 included, check.

Obama, liberal stimulus plan 3 included, oops, not included due to deferred spending that in most cases is just now coming to pass. Obamacare included, oops again 10 years of taxes included to pay for the budget over the past couple years with real spending increases deferred to 2014 or later. Auto bailout 2 not marked since we "made money" by getting stock and options that will not likely be of value until a massive inflationary spike or the world comes to an end but hey, since we can balance the sheet now, it's not real spending.

Everyone is biased, the straw in that man is pretty thin.

And numbers can always be made to lie, let's talk WMD's shall we? I would say something witty about you and not being retarded but I know you are incapable of not going full on retard every time you pass by a keyboard.

[Thondalar]

Watch closely. Keep your eyes on the cup. Follow your cup.

Alright, which one has the ball?


Fact is, spending is ridiculously, stupidly out of control. Republicans and Democrats are both responsible. Until we stop this bullshit finger pointing and realize we're all to blame and start fixing it, it'll keep going this way.


-Thond

[Back]

Fact is, spending is ridiculously, stupidly out of control. Republicans and Democrats are both responsible. Until we stop this bullshit finger pointing and realize we're all to blame and start fixing it, it'll keep going this way.


-Thond

But republicans and democrats are not both responsible. Republicans are the bigger spenders by a longshot. The mantra "both are just as bad" is espoused by the republicans to justify their poor management of everything they do from spending to social issues.

[Latrinsorm]

So, percent of budget increase right?

Reagan, auto bailout included, check.
Bush I, capitulation with Dems on largest increase in entitlement programs until Obamacare and let's go to war round 1 included, check.
Bush II, automatic spending increases along with let's go to war round 2 and 3 as well as liberal stimulus plans 1 and 2 included, check.

Obama, liberal stimulus plan 3 included, oops, not included due to deferred spending that in most cases is just now coming to pass. Obamacare included, oops again 10 years of taxes included to pay for the budget over the past couple years with real spending increases deferred to 2014 or later. Auto bailout 2 not marked since we "made money" by getting stock and options that will not likely be of value until a massive inflationary spike or the world comes to an end but hey, since we can balance the sheet now, it's not real spending.

Everyone is biased, the straw in that man is pretty thin.

And numbers can always be made to lie, let's talk WMD's shall we? I would say something witty about you and not being retarded but I know you are incapable of not going full on retard every time you pass by a keyboard.Consider that $1.8t over 10 years (Obamacare) is only $180b per year, or about 0.5% of the $3.5t spending in recent years. You will find similar results for whichever cost estimate you like for the other plans. There is just no way to mathematically show that the rate of increase government spending under Obama is higher than that of recent Republican Presidencies.

Your only sensible partisan move is to try and credit this fact to Republican Congresses and hope no one remembers that there haven't actually been any Republican Congresses under Obama. Your most sensible play is to declare how this is yet another example of Obama not really being a liberal, but this may require reconsideration of some of your other tenets.

[Tgo01]

But republicans and democrats are not both responsible. Republicans are the bigger spenders by a longshot.

Oh really?

Well since it's Congress that makes the budget let's look at who controlled Congress during these terms.

Reagan:
House: Democrats 8 years
Senate: Democrats 2 years

Bush Sr:
House: Democrats 4 years
Senate: Democrats 4 years

Clinton:
House: Democrats 2 years
Senate: Democrats 2 years

Bush Jr:
House: Democrats 2 years
Senate: Democrats 4 years

Obama:
House: Democrats 2 years
Senate: Democrats 6 years

[Thondalar]

But republicans and democrats are not both responsible. Republicans are the bigger spenders by a longshot. The mantra "both are just as bad" is espoused by the republicans to justify their poor management of everything they do from spending to social issues.

I think the fact that we're arguing about WHICH SIDE INCREASES BY A LARGER PERCENTAGE is evidence enough. Just stop already. I'm not a republican, and I never said "both sides are just as bad". I said both sides are responsible.

-Thond

[Back]

I think the fact that we're arguing about WHICH SIDE INCREASES BY A LARGER PERCENTAGE is evidence enough. Just stop already. I'm not a republican, and I never said "both sides are just as bad". I said both sides are responsible.

-Thond

I'm sorry, but I do not subscribe to the mantra "both are just as bad". You implicated that in your first post.

We agree that we need to stop pointing fingers at each other. But that returns us to the actual facts. As displayed by Forbes publishing group.

[~Rocktar~]

I think the fact that we're arguing about WHICH SIDE INCREASES BY A LARGER PERCENTAGE is evidence enough. Just stop already. I'm not a republican, and I never said "both sides are just as bad". I said both sides are responsible.

-Thond

Don't try and argue with back. You know that old saying about teaching a pig to sing? Well, Back is harder headed and less responsive than the pig.

[Jarvan]

Don't try and argue with back. You know that old saying about teaching a pig to sing? Well, Back is harder headed and less responsive than the pig.

A pig would likely win an Oscar, an Emmy, a CMA, a Grammy, and a Moon Man all in the same year, then Back ever conceding a point.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Is Forbes biased? I dunno. Numbers don't lie.

Next.. graph spending under each President as a percentage of GDP.

Then, graph the increases is national debt by year.

Statistics are fun.. because they can manipulate lower life forms.

[Methais]

Backlash never disappoints.

[Latrinsorm]

Next.. graph spending under each President as a percentage of GDP.See Rocktar, this is another thing you could have done. Abandon the point at hand entirely, and hope no one notices that "spending" is not "increase in spending". You also would more solidly entrench your ability (if only in your own mind) to blame Obama by tying the GDP to the President: if people suggest that that is silly, you say "a real leader would be able to lead our GDP by leading"; if people suggest that the GDP was decreasing before Obama took office, you say "BLAME IT ON BUSH!!! you libtards are all the same".
Then, graph the increases is national debt by year.Another way to concede the point, in this case you're hoping (rather inexplicably) that people look at raw increases rather than % ones.

The key here is that PB is not wrong, because PB never disagrees with the point: government spending under Barack Obama has increased at a rate slower than any of the past 4 administrations. He could also respond a post like this by pointing out how technically he never claimed that Obama was the worst in either of his fields, therefore he's still not wrong.

The bottom line is that if you're going to be silly, it would be better to be silly in a well-contrived way rather than mulish recalcitrance. See how much fun it was to deconstruct PB's defense mechanisms? That was way more fun than reminding you of arithmetic.

[Parkbandit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_20 01-2010.png/800px-U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_20 01-2010.png

[Jarvan]

See Rocktar, this is another thing you could have done. Abandon the point at hand entirely, and hope no one notices that "spending" is not "increase in spending". You also would more solidly entrench your ability (if only in your own mind) to blame Obama by tying the GDP to the President: if people suggest that that is silly, you say "a real leader would be able to lead our GDP by leading"; if people suggest that the GDP was decreasing before Obama took office, you say "BLAME IT ON BUSH!!! you libtards are all the same".Another way to concede the point, in this case you're hoping (rather inexplicably) that people look at raw increases rather than % ones.

The key here is that PB is not wrong, because PB never disagrees with the point: government spending under Barack Obama has increased at a rate slower than any of the past 4 administrations. He could also respond a post like this by pointing out how technically he never claimed that Obama was the worst in either of his fields, therefore he's still not wrong.

The bottom line is that if you're going to be silly, it would be better to be silly in a well-contrived way rather than mulish recalcitrance. See how much fun it was to deconstruct PB's defense mechanisms? That was way more fun than reminding you of arithmetic.

I have a question for you.

If person A has a budget of 1,000 but spends 1,300. They increased spending by 30% correct? But if Person B then has a budget of 1,300 but spends 1,625 they only increased it by 25%.. which is lower then the 30% increase, even though they spent more total money... and somehow this is a good thing?

[Latrinsorm]

That's another good one, changing the time period, and in this case combined with using raw instead of %. Good times!

[Latrinsorm]

I have a question for you.

If person A has a budget of 1,000 but spends 1,300. They increased spending by 30% correct? But if Person B then has a budget of 1,300 but spends 1,625 they only increased it by 25%.. which is lower then the 30% increase, even though they spent more total money... and somehow this is a good thing?I don't recall anyone saying "good", and indeed your post is the first occurrence of that word in this thread. If you were merely asked which person increased less, you have already said it is person B.

The numbers are also suggestive if you happen to know that inflation is on average 3% per year. With that in mind you would estimate that there was hardly any real increase under either Democratic President listed, although especially in Obama's case it would be better to get the actual inflation %s first. The usage of the word "real" here is meant to distinguish from "nominal". This would obviously not be the case if we were talking 25-30% instead of 2-9%.

[Jarvan]

I don't recall anyone saying "good", and indeed your post is the first occurrence of that word in this thread. If you were merely asked which person increased less, you have already said it is person B.

The numbers are also suggestive if you happen to know that inflation is on average 3% per year. With that in mind you would estimate that there was hardly any real increase under either Democratic President listed, although especially in Obama's case it would be better to get the actual inflation %s first. The usage of the word "real" here is meant to distinguish from "nominal". This would obviously not be the case if we were talking 25-30% instead of 2-9%.

Well, you could argue that since the Repubs are holding the purse strings right now, they are limiting how much Obama can increase spending by. I am sure if he didn't have them restricting him, he would be much much higher.

Of course, once the Repubs has a Repub in the white house, they will no longer be "fiscally conservative".