Obama spending binge never happened - true or false?

[WakeandBake]

We are now longer in a massive recession.

The Pubs always have a good reason why it is never a good time to raise taxes and the Dems always have a good reason why it is never a good time to cut spending, particulary on entitlements.

Not only that, but Obama pushed through another giant entitlement program when the ones we have currently are on shaky fiscal ground during an economic crisis.

I agree with those generalizations. But in the context of the economic situation it would have been very unwise to have cut spending in his first two years, when we were in the throes - the period in the piece in question.

 

[Go]

Lets keep this an issue until November!

Please don't throw me in that briarpatch

 

[Shooshmoo]

Dems always have a good reason why it is never a good time to cut spending, particulary on entitlements.

This dem is ready to cut all entitlements for baby-boomers who vote Republican.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

My position is that this nation's spending priorities are a disgrace. Spending $750 billion per year on the military is a disgrace. We should be spending money on things that benefit our citizens: food, healthcare, housing, jobs, etc....

Ah...I was waiting for this. It isn't about cutting spending for the left. It is about cutting spending for one thing so that the same money can be spent elsewhere-- hence their misplaced focus on tax increases before "a decrease in the increase of the rate of spending." I always laughed when Democrats ranted on about how Bush was spending money on a needless war that could be better spent at home. My thought was always when the war is over, we won't have to spend that extra money AT ALL. That's how people should think, regardless of political affiliation. It is a helluva lot easier to cut funding for a war that no longer exists than it is to cut funding for more social programs. In fact, one is very possible and the other damn near impossible.

Spending needs to be frozen at the very least, and then have cuts off the top all across the board.

 

[siff]

Republicans kill baby seals, and spend a lot of money doing so. It's fact. I'm pretty sure they torture kittens, too.

 

[silk]

I love the changing population demographics in this country. It's like a huge political tsunami.....and there isn't a thing the Republican Party can do to stop it.

Nor the Democrats.
Baby boomers are now hitting retirement and they vote. Entitlements are likely to go up not down.
Non baby boomers gonna be paying the freight. Looks like a rough ride ahead. Hope the US is learning from the Greece/Italy/Spain etc meltdowns (but I doubt it).

 

[WakeandBake]

Mittens the businessman even agrees


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...on_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline

"I don't want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget," he said. "I'd like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline."

Romney's reasoning accepts the basic premise that government spending adds to GDP and leads to economic growth, at least during times when consumer spending and private-sector demand is down.

The economic assertion is supported by the post-recession job creation numbers. Under President Obama, government spending has grown at its slowest rate since the Eisenhower Administration, according to Politifact. Predictably, that has led to a slower recovery and -- ironically for a president who called for belt-tightening as a political response to the Tea Party -- political trouble for his reelection.

In fact, adjusting for inflation, Obama has actually cut spending by 0.1 percent, according to a Politifact analysis.

While rival schools of economic thought have never agreed on each other's fundamental principles, over the past several decades, the notion that more government spending helps during a recession had gained broad acceptance. But it has been rejected by Tea Party members of Congress and conservative interest groups like the Club for Growth, who have bemoaned Obama's stimulus package and other efforts to boost the economy as job-killing government spending. Club for Growth declined to comment for this article.

The rhetorical thrust of a sharp distinction between the Tea Party's demand for big cuts and Obama's supposed propensity to spend has been a central tenet of the GOP's political messaging over the past two years. And Romney has run afoul of budget-cut purists before, recently over comments he made during a campaign stop in Michigan.

"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," Romney said, according to MSNBC.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

KEYNES STRIKES AGAIN! Obama is actually the austerity candidate

 

[WFFaithful]

If Romney wins, he's just going to bring in a bunch of Bush guys and work with pretty much the same Republicans who were in Congress 6 years ago and claim things will be different.

 

[deacdiggler]

I agree with those generalizations. But in the context of the economic situation it would have been very unwise to have cut spending in his first two years, when we were in the throes - the period in the piece in question.

So what's stopping him now?

 

[84Deac]

Surprisingly, a Washington Post Fact Check takes issue with a number of assumptions and calculations in the MArketWatch article cited by the OP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fact-check-obama-claim-of-thrifty-spending-falls-short-of-reality-bailout-skewers-numbers/2012/05/26/gJQA8fgzrU_story.html