Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

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

Interesting.

**Jihadin**

How far powerful was the dollar throughout the year. Actually How much to the dollar were we borrowing all the way up to today.

This week, Mercatus Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy illustrates the fraction of every dollar of federal government spending that contributes to our debt.

Above, data from the President’s FY2012 budget shows historical amounts of federal government borrowing on the dollar from fiscal year 1980 to present day. Positive amounts represent budget deficits or the amount by which total government spending exceeds total revenues during a specified period.

Today, 43 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed; this amount is about 4 times the rate in 1980. Between 2007 and 2011 alone, the rate has increased 38 cents per dollar. At this pace, the historical trend of deficit spending continues at a distressing rate.

The government ran a budget deficit in every year from 1980 to 1997, and continued this trend in 2001 and onward. The surplus that finally emerged in 1998 was produced by increased tax revenues that a sustained economic expansion generated; and without the aid of increases in tax rates.

As critical debate over the debt ceiling continues, the amount of spending that is borrowed should be put in proper perspective. A continued proliferation of federal spending won’t help to contain the debt.

Veronique de Rugy discusses the current debate over raising the debt ceiling at the Daily Caller.

http://mercatus.org/publication/how-much-federal-spending-borrowed-every-dollar

Is the grapth

**rubiksnoob**

Jihadin wrote:

Is the grapth

Oh no, it's the grapth! Grab your vorpal swords boys; the slithy toves are gyring in the wabe, and mome raths are on the loose.

**Jihadin**

Alien Conspiracy!

**LordofHats**

Awww. I was hoping they'd have the guys between Regan and and Eisenhower too. What about Lyndon, Nixon, and JFK? They were real too

I hope.

**broodstar**

While fact checking this article. (a few colemnist, politifact, and factchecker) I came across this article rebutting those numbers.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

**Chowderhead**

You also found those numbers from the Heritage Foundation. You know, an organization with Rush Limbaugh as it's public figurehead.

All I'm saying is, don't put too much weight into it.

**d-usa**

broodstar wrote:While fact checking this article. (a few colemnist, politifact, and factchecker) I came across this article rebutting those numbers.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

You had to look at a few articles, politifact, and factchecker to come across an article rebutting those numbers?

Makes me wonder if you actually read the article since this section in the article contains the very link and rebuttal that you had to go to 3+ websites to find.

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.

**broodstar**

Wait a sec, weight?

So, one columnist's number are upheld without question while another columnist's number are dismissed without review?

Sounds to me like "arguing from authority".

**Chowderhead**

broodstar wrote:Wait a sec, weight?

215 lbs. Not sure why you asked, but alright.

So, one columnist's number are upheld without question while another columnist's number are dismissed without review?

Sounds to me like "arguing from authority".

Well, actually, one columnist actually looked at the proper facts with sources cited and the article came from a well known objective writing establishment, while the other used wrong ones to further their political agenda, and came from a website that is a well known Conservative hype-factory.

Let's guess which one!

**Stormrider**

Chowderhead wrote:
Well, actually, one columnist actually looked at the proper facts with sources cited and the article came from a well known objective writing establishment, while the other used wrong ones to further their political agenda, and came from a website that is a well known Conservative hype-factory.

Let's guess which one!

If you're going to claim that bills signed in 2009 with Obama's hand are somehow Bush's doing, be a bit more subtle about it. That is both hilariously wrong and intellectually dishonest.

**youbedead**

broodstar wrote:Wait a sec, weight?

So, one columnist's number are upheld without question while another columnist's number are dismissed without review?

Sounds to me like "arguing from authority".

Because one of them used faulty methods for data analysis and has a history of doing just that. While Forbes is extremely trusted and for the most part apolitical

**Chowderhead**

Stormrider wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:
Well, actually, one columnist actually looked at the proper facts with sources cited and the article came from a well known objective writing establishment, while the other used wrong ones to further their political agenda, and came from a website that is a well known Conservative hype-factory.

Let's guess which one!

If you're going to claim that bills signed in 2009 with Obama's hand are somehow Bush's doing, be a bit more subtle about it. That is both hilariously wrong and intellectually dishonest.

Erm... I never did...

I was talking of this small graph:

And the fact that Bush signed the budget for Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran aid. Now, if we consult this chart here:

We can see that Bush spent most of the money.

**broodstar**

Chowderhead wrote:
And the fact that Bush signed the budget for Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran aid. Now, if we consult this chart here:

We can see that Bush spent most of the money.

question: How does one sign a spending bill when they arn't in office?

EDIT:
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, Pub.L. 111-8) is an Act for the United States government that combines bills funding the operations of each of the Cabinet departments, except Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs into a single appropriation bill. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Appropriations_Act,_2009

**agnosto**

Federal fiscal year begins October 1. So, October 2012 will be the start of FY 2013.

Most states use July 1, so right now we're already in FY2013.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:

EDIT:
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, Pub.L. 111-8) is an Act for the United States government that combines bills funding the operations of each of the Cabinet departments, except Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs into a single appropriation bill. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Appropriations_Act,_2009

Did you actually read what you quoted....here, I'll bold it for you.

**broodstar**

agnosto wrote:Federal fiscal year begins October 1. So, October 2012 will be the start of FY 2013.

Most states use July 1, so right now we're already in FY2013.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:

EDIT:
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, Pub.L. 111-8) is an Act for the United States government that combines bills funding the operations of each of the Cabinet departments, except Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs into a single appropriation bill. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Appropriations_Act,_2009

Did you actually read what you quoted....here, I'll bold it for you.

OK, so it was passed be Democrat house and senate October 2008 it was passed by a Democrat house and senate and signed in March 2009 by Obama. I fail to see where you get Bush signed it.

**agnosto**

You fail to realize that the Defense, Homeland Security and Veteran Affairs budgets were signed by Bush. Congress can, and often does, pass bills in piecemeal form.

It doesn't matter either way and only matters in that it helps the chart that was put forward because those are the biggest portion of the US budget anyway.

**youbedead**

Because the budget for homeland security, veteran aid and defense was signed under bush, everything else was signed by Obama

**broodstar**

agnosto wrote:
It doesn't matter either way and only matters in that it helps the chart that was put forward because those are the biggest portion of the US budget anyway.

ummm, No it's not. This piegraph is the whole budget for FY2009, the whole defense budget (that's military, homeland security, veteran pentions, etc) is only 13% of the budget, which equals 800 billion. The biggest spending is in healthcare at 17% or 1 trillion.

**d-usa**

I am pretty sure that broodstar doesn't really read much of what he is posting. Considering that he had to go to numerous conservative websites to find the rebuttal to the article even though the rebuttal was actually included in the original article.

**sebster**

This is just stupid political games, from both sides.

The GFC happened. While all kinds of people made all kinds of politcally motivated noise to appeal to various voting demographics, there was no doubting that a large stimulus bill was going to get passed. Whether there was a Democrat or a Republican in office, that bill would have happened, and so would TARP, and everything else that followed. Basic governance demands that you stop the economy from completely tanking, no matter who you are.

You can claim 'Obama grew spending by lots' or 'this was really Bush's bill', but ultimately anyone who reached office would have done the same thing.

Even if nothing had been done the deficit would have blown out, because you were entering recession and that means less tax revenue in, and more social services payments out.

**Melissia**

Reagan also had the greatest per capita increase in taxes in US history when adjusted for inflation.

Just don't tell Republicans that. They'll get upset that you're besmirching the honor of their hero.

**broodstar**

d-usa wrote:I am pretty sure that broodstar doesn't really read much of what he is posting. Considering that he had to go to numerous conservative websites to find the rebuttal to the article even though the rebuttal was actually included in the original article.

Actually the opposite, numerous liberal sites praising the opening article and I had to track down the conservative site to come back with rebuttal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Reagan also had the greatest per capita increase in taxes in US history when adjusted for inflation.

Just don't tell Republicans that. They'll get upset that you're besmirching the honor of their hero.

That's a problem I've seen in the party, everyone claims they are a "Reagan Republican" yeah he ended the cold war and all, but Lincoln was even more awesome of a president. That's what I want to know, where are the "Lincoln Republicans".

**youbedead**

Because Lincoln had very little to do with the modern Rep. party. His policies don't match any republican policies

**Jihadin**

Lincoln was also in a way different situation compare to today.

**LordofHats**

Chowderhead wrote:You also found those numbers from the Heritage Foundation. You know, an organization with Rush Limbaugh as it's public figurehead.

All I'm saying is, don't put too much weight into it.

Heritage Foundation is fairly reliable for accuracy of facts (as reliable as any other think tank anyway), but their rebuttal isn't really a rebuttal. They're says that Bush started something but Obama finished it, so its Obama's spending not Bush's, which I think is a little silly. At the same time, how does one appropriately place spending begun in one presidency and finished in another? I don't think "He who started it did it" is the wrong way to go when playing a this silly little game.

But of course, Bush's last months were spent signing off on and organizing huge bail outs and plans to combat the recession, so maybe it's a little unfair to hold that against him, cause honestly Obama would have probably done something similar.

**Melissia**

LordofHats wrote:Heritage Foundation is fairly reliable for accuracy of facts

Unless the facts don't suit their argument, in which case they're glad to fall back on age old propaganda attacks instead.

**LordofHats**

Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Heritage Foundation is fairly reliable for accuracy of facts
Unless the facts don't suit their argument, in which case they're glad to fall back on age old propaganda attacks instead.

Indeed. But that's the nature of the beast. Shame too, cause sometimes Heritage Foundation actually dregs up really interesting facts, and they take those facts into left field with some bizarre interpretation of them. They have a great research team. Their writing team... not so much...

**d-usa**

broodstar wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am pretty sure that broodstar doesn't really read much of what he is posting. Considering that he had to go to numerous conservative websites to find the rebuttal to the article even though the rebuttal was actually included in the original article.

Actually the opposite, numerous liberal sites praising the opening article and I had to track down the conservative site to come back with rebuttal.

The conservative rebuttal that you had to track down was a part of the opening article. The author of the article linked to the rebuttal in his article. The fact that you had to go through at least 4 sites to track down something that was actually posted in the opening article makes it pretty obvious that you didn't read it.

**broodstar**

d-usa wrote:
broodstar wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am pretty sure that broodstar doesn't really read much of what he is posting. Considering that he had to go to numerous conservative websites to find the rebuttal to the article even though the rebuttal was actually included in the original article.

Actually the opposite, numerous liberal sites praising the opening article and I had to track down the conservative site to come back with rebuttal.

The conservative rebuttal that you had to track down was a part of the opening article. The author of the article linked to the rebuttal in his article. The fact that you had to go through at least 4 sites to track down something that was actually posted in the opening article makes it pretty obvious that you didn't read it.

You're right, it was on the last page. I could have saved a whole bunch of effort if I had just clicked his link, I am sorry.

Ya happy.