Obama's Spending

[flips333]

That graph is about growth in government spending over the previous year. And it credits 2009 to Bush.

So, the use of the stat is odd to me. Why not just use actual spending? And the article makes no attempt to explain why this measure is more important/accurate/better than measuring actual spending.

So I really think it's a meaningless point. As to why Democrats aren't running with it? They probably just think other lines of attack are more effective.

Doesn't take into account inflation, growth of the population, changes in economic social and security conditions. That is why spending change makes sense because it is likely that the two presidents year to year are dealing with relatively similar issues. Nothings going to be perfect. What we know for sure is that every president spent more than he took in every year except a few clinton years. I think we need the flexibility to do that in a recession or a war, but the restraint to save some money for those times as well.

[IndyFan]

I don't mean to speak for Indy, but I read his post to mean that the message that is clear and concise is more effective with the voting public, not necessarily that it is the right or better answeer.

it was and thank you

Ok then My tone is way over the top sarcastic and I'm wrong... Sorry indy.

not a problem,

[Shred003]

Here's the best way to put it, re: the OP's article...

Aside from stimulus spending, some of which was put in place under Bush, Obama has not seen an increased level of spending.

HOWEVER - this is important - without higher tax revenues or decreased spending, the government is seeing massive deficits year over year.

You can't really fault Obama for 'spending' - he's not nearly as bad as some would make him out to be - but you can certainly fault him for not getting enough bi-partisan support to forge deficit reduction policies.

Summary: He's not spending, but he's not getting tax revenues, either; in essence, he's not getting the job done in deficit reduction.

[Jeffy25]

People like you really get me... you pay attention for 2 months, base your opinions on some stuff you read from now until then, vote, and then do nothing and pay no attention for another 3years and 10months.

That's a lot more than the majority of this country.

Give this guy some credit, at least he is trying to make an informed decision with his vote.

Not everybody gives a **** about politics year round, it isn't interesting or vital to everyone. At least he doesn't want to waste his vote.

[ABOMB_56]

Thanks for sticking up for me guys, but I'm not even 18 yet. I'm 17 and won't get to vote until the next presidential election but I always like to stay informed.

Thanks to all for giving me a little more insight so I'm not leaning one way or another without proper information

[Jeffy25]

Thanks for sticking up for me guys, but I'm not even 18 yet. I'm 17 and won't get to vote until the next presidential election but I always like to stay informed.

Thanks to all for giving me a little more insight so I'm not leaning one way or another without proper information

I personally think that is the most mature and responsible course that you can take. Keep it up, ignore those that are rude.

[gcoll]

Doesn't take into account inflation, growth of the population, changes in economic social and security conditions. That is why spending change makes sense because it is likely that the two presidents year to year are dealing with relatively similar issues. Nothings going to be perfect. What we know for sure is that every president spent more than he took in every year except a few clinton years. I think we need the flexibility to do that in a recession or a war, but the restraint to save some money for those times as well.

Yeah, but you can adjust for those things.

The metric that compares you to your predecessor is kind of an odd curve.

[flips333]

Yeah, but you can adjust for those things.

The metric that compares you to your predecessor is kind of an odd curve.

I don't deny it...

[flea]

It's pretty well-known that Democratic Presidents have had a better record on fiscal responsbility in the last 30 years. The Romney campaign has decided that swiftboating is what they're going to base their campaign on this year. It's unfortunate, because the GOP has an important role to play and they're squandering it in favor of radicalism and obstinance.

[gcoll]

It's pretty well-known that Democratic Presidents have had a better record on fiscal responsbility in the last 30 years. The Romney campaign has decided that swiftboating is what they're going to base their campaign on this year. It's unfortunate, because the GOP has an important role to play and they're squandering it in favor of radicalism and obstinance.

Wait, what?

What are you referring to with "switfboating"?

And what do you mean by "the important role to play" for the GOP?

[Jeffy25]

It's pretty well-known that Democratic Presidents have had a better record on fiscal responsbility in the last 30 years. The Romney campaign has decided that swiftboating is what they're going to base their campaign on this year. It's unfortunate, because the GOP has an important role to play and they're squandering it in favor of radicalism and obstinance.

Couldn't one argue that the Republicans that have been in office for the last 30 years have all been in office during WAR?

Not arguing for or against, but wouldn't that be a contributing factor?

[flips333]

Couldn't one argue that the Republicans that have been in office for the last 30 years have all been in office during WAR?

Not arguing for or against, but wouldn't that be a contributing factor?

You could say that but then it would be true for all democrats as well. If you are counting the cold war (I'm assuming you are cause you got reagan in there then you go back to FDR. and they were all war time presidents. When you think about it the only presidents who haven't been in a WAR (non cold WAR) are Reagan, Carter and Ford. JFK you might claim wasn't involved in the vietnam war... but. I don't like to think about it but aparently We are a bloodthirsty lot.

[GGGGG-Men]

People like you really get me... you pay attention for 2 months, base your opinions on some stuff you read from now until then, vote, and then do nothing and pay no attention for another 3years and 10months.

You do realize people have been running for President for a year now and Obama's been President for 4 years? You didn't think to pay any attention at any point for any of that? What's the point of just paying attention for 2months and then doing nothing again?

Easy fella. Hope down off that high horse.

As if anyone paying attention to politics on a daily basis REALLY has any better of a grasp of the way things are. As if our sources for this info are really helpful and unbiased.

Why would you care about such a thing, especially in times like these? It's not like it's 1980 and you have to run to a library and do extensive research on the nation's politics over the last 4 years, pulling news reels and reading bios. People can learn everything they need to in a single night if they want to.

Enjoying politics year round is fine, but it takes a matter of hours to become a well informed voter....not that there really is such a thing.

[Jeffy25]

You could say that but then it would be true for all democrats as well. If you are counting the cold war (I'm assuming you are cause you got reagan in there then you go back to FDR. and they were all war time presidents. When you think about it the only presidents who haven't been in a WAR (non cold WAR) are Reagan, Carter and Ford. JFK you might claim wasn't involved in the vietnam war... but. I don't like to think about it but aparently We are a bloodthirsty lot.

I just realized that I capitalized WAR like it's an abbreviation for some baseball statistic

Also, JFK, Bay of Pigs is still there


Regardless, I just thought it was an interesting comparison, not getting in depth here. Just an observation, that may or may not be accurate at all.

[ugottabjoshinme]

Here's the best way to put it, re: the OP's article...

Aside from stimulus spending, some of which was put in place under Bush, Obama has not seen an increased level of spending.

HOWEVER - this is important - without higher tax revenues or decreased spending, the government is seeing massive deficits year over year.

You can't really fault Obama for 'spending' - he's not nearly as bad as some would make him out to be - but you can certainly fault him for not getting enough bi-partisan support to forge deficit reduction policies.

Summary: He's not spending, but he's not getting tax revenues, either; in essence, he's not getting the job done in deficit reduction.

I found this graphic that really expands on your point.

http://presidentialdebt.org/

The green numbers in the column for the yearly growth of debt shows that he isn't spending much.

To the right of that, the red numbers in debt as % of GDP show that he really isnt getting revenue at all. The debt as % of GDP is rising at a pretty good rate too.