It is YOU that needs to read for comprehension. I have covered this several times but I’ll try once more. I’ll number the points so it is easier for you to understand.
Yes, the percent increase year-to-year since 2009 has been very low.
Spending in 2009 was unusually very high due to one-time spending intended to save the economy from collapse…not an annual year-over-year increase in the budget. I don’t care who you assign the 2009 spending to the conclusion is the same.
In 2010 and 2011, we continued to spend at the 2009 rate plus a little more. Of course this was after Obama’s bloated budget proposal requesting even more spending was laughed out of the house and senate.
Conclusion: Year-to-year increase in total spending since 2009 is low. This is because of all the one-time spending that is now being spent every year. All of that one-time “lets save the economy” spending has been folded into the baseline year-over-year budget. Ergo, spending has increased dramatically over the last few years.
I would think a kindergartener could understand this very basic point. I assume you are trying your best to make this ridiculous argument out of pure partisanship. Low year-to-year increase is not at all the same as low spending…especially when you start with an artificially high mark due to **ONE-TIME spending
Look at it this way. Let’s say you normally spend $50K a year. You buy a home in 2009 for $100K. So, in 2009 you spent $150K. In 2010 you spend $150K again but claim that there is no increase over 2009. Yes, there was not an increase in year-to-year spending. But that is a far cry from saying you are low spending. Saying that Obama is a low spending POTUS is absurd.
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the same people who think big government spending is the key to “stimulating” the economy are simultaneously saying Obama should get credit for not being a big spender?
I mean, if spending is a good thing, and the 2009 spending jump was attributable to Bush, then it stands to reason that Bush was the one who heroically tried to save the world, that Obama has failed to build on those efforts, and the thread should be something like “Obama, that bastard, is the lowest spending POTUS since Coolidge – and we need someone like 2009 George Bush back.”
[ul]
[li]We need a big deficit to get the economy moving.[/li][li]We have a big deficit[/li][li]The economy is still not doing very well[/li][li]Therefore, it’s Bush’s fault[/li][/ul]
Regards,
Shodan
My guess as to the responses would be A) GW got us into the mess, B) GW didn’t spend enough or enough on the right things, C) the Republican’s in Congress have tied things up so much that Obama hasn’t been able to get the spending he really wants, and D) Obama is just a Republican-lite president anyway, so no surprise. Or something along those lines.
Of course, regardless of the excuses it sort of highlights both the disconnect (in liberals touting that Obama has spent less than any POTUS since Coolidge, etc etc) and the reasons WHY he’s had the ‘lowest spending’ (after the baseline was raised in 2009 per yorick73’s point). You aren’t the only one to see the irony inherent in the system…help, help we’re being redressed!
Remember all the complaining that Bush put the wars on the credit card and that unfunded Medicare part D? I would think that would have stimulated the economy and created jobs!
Where’s the part where fiscal conservatives cut funding for hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs, and urge even deeper budget cuts to force even greater layoffs, then feign ignorance on why the unemployment rate is high? That part doesn’t seem to be in your list.
The point of the thread is that the figures show that Obama is not spending wildly, which puts the lie to the Republican claims that he is. Twisting that around to use against Obama supporters is dishonest, but dishonesty seems to be an accepted part of the game now, so congratulations. Well played.
Do you find it hilarious that the same conservatives who think big government spending is death to the country are simultaneously criticising a president who isn’t spending?
yorick, your posts in this thread are excellent. That said, you appear to be deliberately avoiding the “adjusted” figures- which credit much more of the 2009 increase to Obama- in the PolitiFact quote.
Thank you. I don’t quite get your point. I have stated that it doesn’t matter who is responsible for the increased spending. Even if you credit Bush for ALL of the 2009 spending it would not change a thing. If you subtract out all the one-time spending from 2009 THAT should be the budget baseline. Spending in 2010 matched the 2009 level and 2011 was a little higher. The point is the Obama administration continues to spend at those inflated levels while claiming that the percent increase is the smallest since Coolidge. Am I missing something?
It should be noted that those figures apply the spending of the Stimulus in 2009 to Obama, and that a third of the Stimulus was tax cuts to appease the Republicans, so those don’t show up on spending.
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.
[ul]
[li]We need massive tax cuts, mostly for the rich.[/li][li]We have a big deficit[/li][li]The economy is still not doing very well[/li][li]Therefore, it’s Bush’s fault[/li][/ul]
