Amazing isn't it. St. Reagan was the biggest spender. Also note, it has been Republicans who are the leaders in spending.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barac
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Amazing isn't it. St. Reagan was the biggest spender. Also note, it has been Republicans who are the leaders in spending.
This is the source of the op. Go figure huh.
Rick Ungar Is Wrong: Obama Is The Biggest Spender In World History
...Ungar’s analysis proceeds by not counting as part of Obama’s record all this precedent shattering fiscal 2009 spending, attributing that instead to Bush. But as I have just shown, Barack Obama was directly and personally responsible for the 2009 spending explosion. Of course from those stratospheric heights, the pace of further spending increases may seem slower, just like if Jack in the Beanstalk and the Jolly Green Giant both eat the same feast, the percentage weight gain for the Giant will be so much smaller than for Jack....
...After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4%, the highest for any Presidential term in American history, except for World War II. Even with a Republican Congress holding him back for half his term, President Obama still managed to increase the federal government by close to one-fourth during that one term, as compared to the average during the entire 60 plus years of the postwar era.
In sharp contrast, when Eisenhower came into office in 1953, he cut federal spending that year of $76.1 billion, already just 2% of Obama’s spending this year, to $70.9 billion in 1954, and again to $68.4 billion in 1955. Federal spending did not really climb above the 1953 level until 1958. During his first term, Eisenhower slashed federal spending from 20.4% of GDP when he came into office in 1953 to 16.5% of GDP in 1956. President Obama as noted above did just the opposite in increasing federal spending by roughly the same amount as a percent of GDP in his one term.
Moreover, unbounded by the Republican House in his 2013 budget proposal for the future, President Obama’s 2013 budget actually proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the highest in world history by far. Indeed, in that 2013 budget, President Obama proposes to send federal spending soaring by 2022 to $5.820 trillion for that one year, the highest government spending for one year for any nation in world history. Even Obama’s own OMB scores spending under the President’s 2013 budget as soaring to 30% of GDP by 2022, 50% above the long run, postwar, historical average of 20% of GDP. So Obama aims in his 2013 budget to increase the federal government by half above the postwar, bipartisan consensus.
CBO projects that on our current course, under current policies, federal spending would soar to 30 percent of GDP by 2027, 40 percent by 2040, 50 percent by 2060, and 80 percent by 2080. President Obama, by vociferously opposing any entitlement reform to reduce spending, instead vastly increasing entitlement spending with Obamacare and expanded SCHIP, would not do anything to take America off this path to third world oblivion. But the Left tells us that President Obama is tighter with a buck than any President since Eisenhower. That is why leaving liberals alone to play with numbers is like leaving small children alone to play with matches.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bama-is-the-biggest-spender-in-world-history/
...Ungar’s analysis proceeds by not counting as part of Obama’s record all this precedent shattering fiscal 2009 spending, attributing that instead to Bush. But as I have just shown, Barack Obama was directly and personally responsible for the 2009 spending explosion. Of course from those stratospheric heights, the pace of further spending increases may seem slower, just like if Jack in the Beanstalk and the Jolly Green Giant both eat the same feast, the percentage weight gain for the Giant will be so much smaller than for Jack....
...After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4%, the highest for any Presidential term in American history, except for World War II. Even with a Republican Congress holding him back for half his term, President Obama still managed to increase the federal government by close to one-fourth during that one term, as compared to the average during the entire 60 plus years of the postwar era.
In sharp contrast, when Eisenhower came into office in 1953, he cut federal spending that year of $76.1 billion, already just 2% of Obama’s spending this year, to $70.9 billion in 1954, and again to $68.4 billion in 1955. Federal spending did not really climb above the 1953 level until 1958. During his first term, Eisenhower slashed federal spending from 20.4% of GDP when he came into office in 1953 to 16.5% of GDP in 1956. President Obama as noted above did just the opposite in increasing federal spending by roughly the same amount as a percent of GDP in his one term.
Moreover, unbounded by the Republican House in his 2013 budget proposal for the future, President Obama’s 2013 budget actually proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the highest in world history by far. Indeed, in that 2013 budget, President Obama proposes to send federal spending soaring by 2022 to $5.820 trillion for that one year, the highest government spending for one year for any nation in world history. Even Obama’s own OMB scores spending under the President’s 2013 budget as soaring to 30% of GDP by 2022, 50% above the long run, postwar, historical average of 20% of GDP. So Obama aims in his 2013 budget to increase the federal government by half above the postwar, bipartisan consensus.
CBO projects that on our current course, under current policies, federal spending would soar to 30 percent of GDP by 2027, 40 percent by 2040, 50 percent by 2060, and 80 percent by 2080. President Obama, by vociferously opposing any entitlement reform to reduce spending, instead vastly increasing entitlement spending with Obamacare and expanded SCHIP, would not do anything to take America off this path to third world oblivion. But the Left tells us that President Obama is tighter with a buck than any President since Eisenhower. That is why leaving liberals alone to play with numbers is like leaving small children alone to play with matches.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bama-is-the-biggest-spender-in-world-history/
Rev. typical response of your type of liberalism. Mix apples and oranges and blame the other fellow. Your quoted author is subtly deflecting the argument and is not arguing truthfully. He switched the topic. Nice, dishonest tactic. There is also a neat fact concerning spending in the originally quoted article that helps Obama's figures, but I expect it is too obscure for you to figure it out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your typical response is make a claim, like you just did, but refuse to support your claim by showing point by point how your claim is back up in the article. More emotionalism from you.
As Sgt Joe Friday would say:
"JUST THE FACTS"
a) TITLE OF THREAD: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
B)Title of Graph Annualized Growth of Federal spending.
Crab - you are comparing apples and oranges.
We'll discuus this further over coffee next June
"JUST THE FACTS"
a) TITLE OF THREAD: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
B)Title of Graph Annualized Growth of Federal spending.
Crab - you are comparing apples and oranges.
We'll discuus this further over coffee next June
I would never tell.
On the OP, I simply copied the chart from the article.
My feeling is that all of those presidents, past and present, have spent far too much money. The interest on the debt will kill us at some point in the future ... probably after my lifetime. Of course both parties also hold a lot of responsibility for the spending.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Crabby, yours and Unger's eyes are brown.
On that my friend, I fully agree
saturneptune
New Member
Amazing isn't it. St. Reagan was the biggest spender. Also note, it has been Republicans who are the leaders in spending.
What a croc. Your graph left out Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. Obama is the biggest spender in American history along with his Republican Congress, and coming in second is Bush the Second and his Democrat Congress.
That is the way with statistics. It all depends on what you are measuring. I did not created the chart. Your argument is with the author of the article.
That's the rub with statistics. It depends on what and how the measurements are taken and shown. One method used puts him Obama last. Another method would put Obama. Can you see why from the data given why this is true? It is there.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
All you've "proven" is that, given the right statistics, it can be shown that Rhode Island is bigger than Alaska. S/N is right. It's a crock!
Nope. The only fact more certain than Obama's economic terrorism is that you lie.
As a former BB contributor often put it:
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Reagan always said that he never spent a dime--Congress spent all the money. Reagan had a Democrat Congress that spent a great deal more money than he wanted to.