# Obama - the lowest spending POTUS since Coolidge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339 "2012-06-07T01:05:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/81 "2012-06-18T18:05:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, yes. The point is that the baseline isn’t really that high if you can put the 2009 figures wherever you like. Look at it this way: if, as Politifact does, you move most of the 2009 bailout stuff into Obama’s column, Bush’s final budget is presumably no longer artificially high. Even so, Obama’s year-on-year increases (including the inflated first year increase over Bush’s final year) _still_ put him at the low end of the spenders. In other words, he either inherited an _already_ bloated federal budget from Bush, or is spending more or less what he’s supposed to. No, no and no! Bush’s proposed budget was NOT artificially high. \*\* Spending \*\*in 2009 was artificially high. Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion budget. Spending in 2009 was above 3.5 trillion. So, between 2008 and 2009 spending increased from 2.9T to 3.5T or a 20% increase. Most of that increase is for stimulus, auto bailouts, TARP, etc. and should not have been part of any budget baseline period. Obama no doubt inherited a bloated budget from Bush and added to it in 2009. Government has continued spending at that bloated level since then. I don’t think it matters at whose feet you place all the one-time spending. It was never removed from the budget baseline which does, in effect, make year-over-year increases since then small by comparison. None of this changes the fact that there was a huge **artificial** spike in spending in 2009 due to one-time programs that should have been removed from future budgets. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/82 "2012-06-18T18:19:42Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I don’t think it matters at whose feet you place all the one-time spending. It was never removed from the budget baseline which does, in effect, make year-over-year increases since then small by comparison. None of this changes the fact that there was a huge **artificial** spike in spending in 2009 due to one-time programs that should have been removed from future budgets. Okay, I see your point. In that case, I am willing to concede that Obama has maintained an artificially high level of spending. I am curious about one thing, though: how much of that is attributable to putting the cost of the Iraq War “back on the books”? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/83 "2012-06-18T18:49:05Z")
Whenever you’re talking about increases/decreases/growth, you almost always need to look at: -Relative figures -Absolute figures Not just-one-or-the-other, because either one can be made to look good or bad depending on context. I see this _all the damn time_ and it’s infuriating when people make arguments without uniting the two. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/84 "2012-06-18T19:35:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, I see your point. In that case, I am willing to concede that Obama has maintained an artificially high level of spending. I am curious about one thing, though: how much of that is attributable to putting the cost of the Iraq War “back on the books”? Total spending in 2009 is total spending in 2009…this includes the budget, all one-time expenditures, appropriations, etc. The wars were not “on the books” in 2009. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 funded the wars. Since then there have been no “books” as we have not passed a budget since 2009. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/85 "2012-06-18T19:48:58Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/86 "2012-06-18T21:07:35Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Ergo, spending has increased dramatically over the last few years. Yes, yes, but that **still** leaves Obama near the bottom, by spending-increase, of the list of presidents going back to Eisenhower. > [@](#): > > That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last. This is the third time I’ve posted the above. **Read for comprehension, for Og’s sake!** ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/87 "2012-06-18T21:15:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] This is the third time I’ve posted the above. Read for comprehension, for Og’s sake! [/QUOTE] You should follow your own advice, as it seems to be you that’s not grasping yorick’s argument here. Seriously. -XT ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/88 "2012-06-18T22:23:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, yes, but that **still** leaves Obama near the bottom, by spending-increase, of the list of presidents going back to Eisenhower. > > This is the third time I’ve posted the above. **Read for comprehension, for Og’s sake!** You seem to be incapable of comprehending this very basic point. I covered that in #1 in my numbered post to you. Did you read that? If not please do. When you finish reading that please read the rest of my post instead of snipping one sentence to argue with. One last time…caveman style: Big increase in 2009 contain one-time spending. One-time spending not removed. Obama spend at 2009 level in 2010 and 2011. Spending increase small because large amount from 2009 still in budget. If you are trying to prove that year-to-year increase in spending is low and nothing more then, yes, that has already been established. I’m trying…really trying…to show you why that is a meaningless number. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/89 "2012-06-18T23:21:25Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You seem to be incapable of comprehending this very basic point. I covered that in #1 in my numbered post to you. Did you read that? If not please do. When you finish reading that please read the rest of my post instead of snipping one sentence to argue with. > > One last time…caveman style: Big increase in 2009 contain one-time spending. One-time spending not removed. Obama spend at 2009 level in 2010 and 2011. Spending increase small because large amount from 2009 still in budget. > > If you are trying to prove that year-to-year increase in spending is low and nothing more then, yes, that has already been established. I’m trying…really trying…to show you why that is a meaningless number. I think what you’re missing is this: The 2002 budget was 2 trillion. The 2009 budget was 3.1 trillion. So over Bush’s terms he averaged 6.8% of increase a year. Since you want to discount the stimulus and tarp and all, assume Obama’s term begins with the 2009 budget, or 3.1 trillion. In 2013 the budget is 3.8 trillion. That’s 4.5% a year increase. If you ignore the extra cost of the recovery stuff. Is my math off on this? I don’t have time to check it right now. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/90 "2012-06-19T01:40:09Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You seem to be incapable of comprehending this very basic point. I **understand** it, but, even taking that into account, the RW critics are still **wrong** here. Knock off your [PRATTing.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT) ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/91 "2012-06-19T01:58:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I think what you’re missing is this: > > The 2002 budget was 2 trillion. > The 2009 budget was 3.1 trillion. So over Bush’s terms he averaged 6.8% of increase a year. > > Since you want to discount the stimulus and tarp and all, assume Obama’s term begins with the 2009 budget, or 3.1 trillion. In 2013 the budget is 3.8 trillion. That’s 4.5% a year increase. If you ignore the extra cost of the recovery stuff. > > Is my math off on this? I don’t have time to check it right now. Spending in 2009 was over 3.5 trillion. 2013 spending is still an unknown. Where do you get that I’m discounting stimulus, tarp, etc? The % increase is a meaningless number. I’ve been over this too many times to count. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/92 "2012-06-19T02:00:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I **understand** it, but, even taking that into account, the RW critics are still **wrong** here. Knock off your [PRATTing.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT) Wrong about what exactly? If you are still saying that Obama had the smallest increase in year-to-year spending in 2010 and 2011 I’ve already said that is correct. I assume you must have some point to make. So…make it. ---
**Author:** ![Linden\_Arden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@Linden\_Arden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linden_Arden)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/93 "2012-06-19T02:04:54Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Spending in 2009 was over 3.5 trillion. 2013 spending is still an unknown. Where do you get that I’m discounting stimulus, tarp, etc? The % increase is a meaningless number. I’ve been over this too many times to count. Spending for FY 2009 BEFORE Bush left was projected at $3.52 trillion (CBO). I will happily link if requested to the CBO report since I started this mess. It is up only ONEish percent as stated. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/94 "2012-06-19T02:07:05Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Spending in 2009 was over 3.5 trillion. 2013 spending is still an unknown. Where do you get that I’m discounting stimulus, tarp, etc? The % increase is a meaningless number. I’ve been over this too many times to count. Check this out: 2008’s budget was 2.9 trillion. 2009 was 3.1, but it got pushed up by one time costs due to the economy getting destroyed, right? So Bush increased by an average of 6.8% a year over his term if you ignore the economic downturn costs (tarp and whatnot). His spending per year\* goes higher\* if you use the 3.5 trillion number. And Obama’s increases _are lower_ if you start him at 3.5 trillion. I was going by the budget for 2013 which is listed at 3.8 trillion. So your argument is that the stimulus numbers raise Obama’s first year enough to make his small increases meaningless, makes no sense. If you ignore the stimulus and just use the number Bush wanted for 2009, Obama raised the budget spending from 3.1 trillion to 3.8 trillion. This is much, much less than Bush did on average, since bush over eight years raised the budget from 2 trillion to 3.1. Again, if you count 2009 at 3.5 trillion, you make Bush look worse and _Obama look better!_ ---
**Author:** ![Linden\_Arden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@Linden\_Arden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linden_Arden)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/95 "2012-06-19T02:11:07Z")
Both the Obama stimulus and Bush TARP were supplemental budget items IIRC. Much like the Iraq war was for so long. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/96 "2012-06-19T02:44:58Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Total spending in 2009 is total spending in 2009…this includes the budget, all one-time expenditures, appropriations, etc. The wars were not “on the books” in 2009. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 funded the wars. Since then there have been no “books” as we have not passed a budget since 2009. Total spending includes appropriations, but the 2009 appropriations aren’t included? You’ve lost me. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/97 "2012-06-19T02:55:37Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Spending for FY 2009 BEFORE Bush left was projected at $3.52 trillion (CBO). > > I will happily link if requested to the CBO report since I started this mess. It is up only ONEish percent as stated. Can you understand that 2009 was that unusual year that we had to save the economy? The spending increase from '08 to '09 was something like 18%. Wanna blame it all on Bush? Okay. The big increase was for one-time spending as I’ve stated at least a hundred times in this thread alone. That one-time spending was never removed from the budget baseline and we continued to spend at the same level. I really don’t understand what is so complicated about this. As an aside, Bush submitted a budget of 3.1 trillion in '09. My understanding is that the total spent in 2009 was 3.5 trillion. If you have a link that says total spending was even higher then please provide it. It still doesn’t make a difference to my argument. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/98 "2012-06-19T02:59:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Total spending includes appropriations, but the 2009 appropriations aren’t included? You’ve lost me. Sorry if that was not clear. Total spending, of course, includes all the appropriations. You wondered what the numbers would look like with the war spending “on the books”. I was explaining that the war spending in 2009 was an appropriation just as it was during the Bush years. Since then we have not had a budget so, by definition, the war spending is not in the budget. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/99 "2012-06-19T03:06:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Check this out: 2008’s budget was 2.9 trillion. 2009 was 3.1, but it got pushed up by one time costs due to the economy getting destroyed, right? > > So Bush increased by an average of 6.8% a year over his term if you ignore the economic downturn costs (tarp and whatnot). His spending per year\* goes higher\* if you use the 3.5 trillion number. > > And Obama’s increases _are lower_ if you start him at 3.5 trillion. So what? As I’ve stated over and over again it doesn’t matter who you blame the spending on. The spending was not supposed to be added to the annual budget. \*\*PLEASE \*\* read my posts on this page so I can quit typing the same thing over and over. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I was going by the budget for 2013 which is listed at 3.8 trillion. > > So your argument is that the stimulus numbers raise Obama’s first year enough to make his small increases meaningless, makes no sense. > > If you ignore the stimulus and just use the number Bush wanted for 2009, Obama raised the budget spending from 3.1 trillion to 3.8 trillion. This is much, much less than Bush did on average, since bush over eight years raised the budget from 2 trillion to 3.1. > > Again, if you count 2009 at 3.5 trillion, you make Bush look worse and _Obama look better!_ Good lord man…read my posts on this page and try to keep up. I’ve been through this like 3 times already. If you are just trying to wear me down by making me answer questions I’ve already answered three times then I give up. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/100 "2012-06-19T03:07:37Z")
I was under the impression that war spending prior to 2009 was “off budget” and that Obama put it back into the budget. Please correct me if I’m wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339.md?page=6)