Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Republicans are Wrong When They Say Government Spending is the Problem (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the part you missed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    katiec

    The whole article you posted was making the point that Obama isn't responsible for the humongous spending! It was "fact-checking" the claims that Obama is responsible for the highest levels of spending per GDP!

    From your FactCheck link:

    Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year.
    (Emphasis my own.)

    And in the own introduction in case you missed it:

    The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
    So thanks for the link. It actually details just how much Bush was responsible for the mess and not Obama!

    Cheers

    Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

    by aguadito on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:24:33 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Please read your own link (0+ / 0-)

      That says that FY 2010 did not go up much over FY 2010.  

      FY 2010 started in October 2009.  FY 2009 started in October 2008.  That means that FY 2009 overlapped the Presidents.  

      The President was inaugurated in spring of 2009, and AFTER he came into office, he passed the stimulus, the CHIP increase, etc. -- some $300 billion to $400 billion in additional spending.  Your chart attributes that to FY 2009, and then attributes ALL of FY 2009 -- even the part passed by Obama -- to Bush, because the original FY 2009 budget -- the part without President Obama's additions -- was passed under Bush.  It essentially says,

      whatever increase in spending President Obama passed from January 20, 2009 to October 2009, we are going to count as a "Bush" increase in spending
      .  That's the misleading part, as the WaPo says.    

      What that link says, is that if you attribute ALL of FY 2009 -- even the part passed by Obama after he came into office --  to Bush and to Bush alone, your chart is correct.  But as the WaPo link says, all the independent fact checkers agree that it's misleading to attribute all of  the spending increase for FY 2009 -- like the spending increases passed after January 20, 2009 -- to Bush.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site