| Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? |
| FORBES is a conversative magazine, but this article does not lend support to the lies put forth by the Right. |
| RICK UNGAR - Forbes |
| It’s 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. I’ll 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. The first year of any incoming president term is saddled-for better or ... |
Read More - |
by
Clarke M.
Member since:
July 20, 2006 Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
August 18, 2012 10:57 AM UTC
views: 0
|
2 people recommend this
|
comments: 14
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
||||
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.






Comments: 14
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg
Reagan Budgets 82-85 Average Percent Increase 8.7
Reagan Budgets 86-89 Average Percent Increase 4.9
Bush I Budgets 90-93 Average Percent Increase 5.4
Clinton Budgets 94-97 Average Percent Increase 3.2
Clinton Budgets 98-01 Average Percent Increase 3.9
Bush II Budgets 02-05 Average Percent Increase 7.3
Bush II Budgets 06-09 Average Percent Increase 8.1
Obama Budgets 10-13 Average Percent Increase 1.4
Note that each President is operating under the last budget of the President before during his first year in office. Thus, Obama's first budget was the 2010 budget
Note that each of the last three Republican Presidents increased their budgets by more than any of the Democrat Presidents. History shows the Republicans to be the big spenders while the Democrat Presidents spend less. Looks like if you want to reduce government spending you should vote Democrat for President.
So not just WTF? - butt WTKinkyF?!
"Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: 'I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.' Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an 'inferno' of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."
The estimates for FY 2013 are provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. If you had read the article, you would have known that.
That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
Lebrea, do you have to be angry with every single word to me. I do not fully understand your motivation...
That was not anger, but a frank observation based on your record and articles , which your comment here is consistent with . Which you probably don't appreciate, which is your loss if you don't.