General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
"SNIP...............
Its enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Who knew?
...............
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole Obama as big spender narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Ill bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives but you would be wrong.
...............SNIP"
applegrove
(118,778 posts)spanone
(135,874 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)cranking down government spending - i.e. "austerity measures" - is not helpful.
applegrove
(118,778 posts)But the point is the GOP narrative is falling apart because the truth is poking through. And the truth is Obama is not a spender.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of doing the right thing, they are actually wrong?
applegrove
(118,778 posts)in Forbes magazine. Those masters of the universe may say for one second "hey the narrative I have fed off of for six years is wrong" my side of the debate is not always truthful.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)do for the people who have suffered "Austerity" under "Quantative Easing (QE)" to bail out the big banks on Wall Street?
That's a bitter pill to swallow, dontcha think?
applegrove
(118,778 posts)future. Or to donate money. Or to spread hate.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)that saw economic recovery come faster as a result of an austerity spending measure.
The answer is none of them.
msongs
(67,441 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)of waste.
But, of course the republicons and other whiners say he's a big spending Dem and whatever other reasons they have for whinging about him..
Mahalo apple~
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Snarkoleptic
(6,001 posts)with food stamps, unemployment comp, a bloated and unnecessary Postal Service, public pensions, foreign aid and various other bugaboos.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So thats the Republican National Debt according to their own standard of balanced budgets.
Its quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.
Dpm12
(512 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)I wish more energy was out into what is right for the people of the country instead of worrying about what the stupid, wrong, and the enemies of peace and prosperity are going to be going on about.
The biggest down turn since the depression and people are cheering reducing spending? Stupid.
When are folks going to process the TeaPubliKlans are fucking wrong and not to be emulated or complied with because doing so means we'd also be fucking nuts.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)When did that happen? And why is it a good thing?
Wish our defense spending was down along with everything else. Or at least transferred to things like infrastructure, schools, or food stamps.