http://news.yahoo.com/president-obam...-politics.html


So, this appears to be the administration's new strategy and the numbers bear it out. Republicans always talk about debt, but that was caused mostly by a loss of revenues associated with the recession, not new spending.

I expect the Republican reaction will be rage mixed with denial. Oh, and to keep lying about Obama's spending.

Here's the original Marketwatch analysis.

Inb4 100 post debate about dates.

That wasn't what I was trying to say (you'll find out soon in this thread) but you're right. Every president on this list fought wars, which is a pretty scary thought.

You realize every single time a president spends even .01% more than their predecessors they bear the burden of all the spending increases of the past? Obama is spending MORE than Bush. Bush was incredibly idiotic and irresponsible on spending (let's not get into the rest for the sake of this thread) so the idea that Obama is one upping that even just 1% (if these numbers are correct) is certainly not an argument that he is fiscally responsible. It means he is just 1% worse on spending than one of the worst presidents of all time.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-skinflint.php

This is actually super interesting if you get into the spreadsheets behind the numbers.

For example, there is the observation that spending went down in the first fiscal year of Obama's presidency. Which is true, but what is interesting is that the breakdown in spending by function is as follows:

Defense spending: Up
Human resources: Way Up
Physical resources: Way Down
Net interest: Up
*Other functions: Up
*Undistributed offsetting receipts: Up

*No idea what these are, it's from the federal government documents

Looking into Physical Resources sub-categories more to see what went down:

Energy: Up
Natural Resources and Environment: Up
Transportation: Up
Community and Regional Development: Down a little
Commerce and Housing Credit: Way, way down

Overall, federal spending went down $60 billion, which was the Commerce and Housing Credit outlay going down (roughly) $375 billion and everything else going up $315 billion.

In fact, the Commerce and Housing Credit program cost Bush $291 billion in fiscal 2009 but the program made $82 billion for Obama in fiscal 2010! I think this probably has more to do with market guarantees than actual budgeting / managing of expenditures, but I would defer to someone that knows more about the subject.

Fun stuff.

Federal budgets, how do they work?

So, what would be the "fair" way to divide the 2009 budget between Bush and Obama. Serious question.

Edit: The chart in the OP already gives the stimulus to Obama.

From 13ball's link:
This would seem to be at odds with your quote. Is there anyone who can clear this up? Who is responsible for the 2009 spending?

According to Wiki. President Bush submitted a 2009 budget proposal of 3.1 trillion. The actual budget was signed by Obama in 2009 at 3.5 trillion. Wiki doesn't say if the 2009 budget signed included the stimulus bill (passed about one month before.) If the stimulus is the reason for the difference (And the stimulus bill did provide about 550 billion in spending) then Powerline's complaints are moot--since the analysis supposedly assigns the stimulus to Obama.

Debunked already. Obama signed the 09 spending bill in March, and it was larger than what Bush proposed. Not making him responsible for that is ****ing dumb. He had a solid majority in the house and near supermajority in the senate.

Obama spends what big business tells him to spend.

Oh and assuming that this graph is accurate, it's still a ******ed defense of Obama. This would make Obama a relief pitcher who comes in after the starting pitcher sucked, and continued to give up just as many runs.

He has sustained spending as a % of GDP is higher than any post war president, and he's already contributed more debt than any president before him. Picking budget sanity to defend Obama on is the dumbest thing you could really do.

GDP was lower because of a recession during Bush's term. You're trying to say the relief pitcher is responsible for the guys on first, second and third when he comes into the game.

And even if Bush had passed his proposed budget, Obama's annualized increase would be just below 6%--not the mega spender he is made out to be by only looking at deficits.

This is like the newly appointed football coach claiming victory because his team only lost by 17 points this week but under the previous coach they lost by 21.

Victory!!!

Thread title is horrible.

He overspent, it's just a matter of how much.

And inb4 he cuts the national debt in half during his first term...

Sorry not enough to make up the difference. Although after embarrassingly posting that graph I'm not surprised.

just couldn't resist a response to a May 2012.

Cold war? dude go back to school and learn something. Reagan turned up the heat on what was already winding down.

You mean the line in the sand, fart in a wind storm that should have been paid for by the Kuwaitis

Agree with you there, go to war and lower taxes to the wealthy, ie get the grunts to pay Haliburton = double profits. But how that fits the topic is ?

100% content free.

First Obama's overspending is just and needed.
Second Obama did not overspend.

It the affirmative action ploy.
First rewarding some for their skin color is just and needed.
Second, no one ever got rewarded for their skin color because affirmative action does not exists.

Perfect for Obama!

You think about Affirmative Action a lot, don't you?

Racists probably think about skin color all day long.

Thread title is misleading, would be better with an accurate title

So how much does 1.4% (lol) on top of astronomically unjustifiably too much when when are completely broke work out to be?