Obama Is The Most Fiscally Responsible President In a Generation

Obama is slowing the growth in spending better than any other President in 60 years! The growth in the federal budget has grown 1.4% in President Obama’s first term, compared to President Reagan who increased the rate of spending by 8% in his first term.

In fact in fiscal year 2010, Obama’s first budget, the growth fell, 1.8%. If President Obama wasn’t facing the Bush era financial collapse, the outcome would be even better.

In fact let’s take the recession factor out of the Obama budgets, and see where that leads us.

In 2010, the federal budget increased unemployment insurance by 58%. If we take out the recession factor, it would have only increased by 2%, taking into consideration historical budgets. The same is true for Medicaid.

The baseline we are using is the 2009 budget which was passed in October of 2008 under George Bush. Unemployment insurance was about $360 billion and Medicaid was $224 billion. This is just in line with historical increases of about 2%.

So, in Obama’s budget for 2010, rather than $571 billion dollars, it would have only been $367 billion. ($360 billion + 2% = 367 billion)

That is already a $204 billion dollar savings! If we add on Medicaid, the 2010 budget for that was $290 billion. If we take out the recession, it would have only been about $230 billion, a savings of $60 billion. ($224 billion +2% = 230 billion)

Actually if we took out the entire stimulus package of $900 billion growth in spending would have DROPPED more than 2%, something that hasn’t happened in generations.

My point here is that President Obama is not a spending obsessed socialist, in fact contrary to what conservatives believe, he is very responsible. A drop in growth of 1.8% in 2010 during the height of crisis is pretty significant.

President Obama is turning out to be a very tight walleted leader, and more fiscally responsible, than George W Bush and Reagan, both of whom saw growth in federal spending of 7- 8% in their terms.

12 Replies to “Obama Is The Most Fiscally Responsible President In a Generation”

  1. Looking at the numbers. Romney makes his money on the Stock Market. The close of the bell on November 20,2008 closed at 7,552.29 yesterday may 23,2012 closed at 12,552.81. If I was Romney I would be voting for president Obama.

  2. Okay, except these are measurements of only one single value. This is like saying a man who spends only $10 is more fiscally responsible than a man who spends $20 without taking into account that the first man only had $5 and the second man had $1000. A more appropriate way to phrase the title of this article would be, “Obama is the least fiscally irresponsible president in a generation” However, these figures are relative figures and don’t look at actual values. They also don’t consider the income pool, existing debt, or how much the budget exceeded the income pool. Under Obama we have seen nearly $2 trillion in new debt and only a bit less than $40 billion in budget cuts.

    Tax Revenue: ~2,170,000,000,000
    Budget: ~3,820,000,000,000
    New Debt: ~1,650,000,000,000
    Total Debt: ~14,271,000,000,000
    Recent Budget Cut: ~38,500,000,000

    I’m not saying Obama is worse or better than the past presidents of this generation. I’m saying that he is, at least, just as bad. I voted for the guy and I regret it.

  3. I say vote for ROmney. According to the experts his plan will add 10 trillion to the debt and take away everything the seniors and children have now. Just think of the lower output of debt. Oh wait, he has said he will spend massively on the military and on top of that probably go to war with Iran if the GOP has their way with him which they will.

  4. Or we could stop stepping in-line with the system and letting them decide who we choose from. Forget parties, they are a distraction. They make you think you have a real choice, when the reality is that they are all the same choice. Romney wrote the basis for ObamaCare. Romney has agreed with almost everything Obama agrees with. The reality is that we are in a dangerous level of debt and have been for years. It keeps growing every year, that’s actually what this chart really shows. Every president has spent more than the last. The rate of increase in percent is mostly irrelevant since a 1.4% increase under Obama could easily be trillions of dollars more than the 3.9% under Clinton.(which it is) What this really shows is that NONE of them are doing anything to reduce the debt. ALL of them are increasing the debt. We are broke and we are just maxing out more credit. Look at the values I posted and let’s cut it down proportionately and consider it as a household budget.

    Household Income: $21,700
    Household Expenditure: $38,200
    Household Debt Increase: $16,500
    Household Total Debt: $142,710
    Household Budget Cuts: $385

    Do you understand what happens to people that accumulate debt like this? Do you think the government’s cuts are even useful here? It’s like they aren’t even trying. They just keep the information presented in a way that stops the majority of people from understanding. Maybe it’s because news reporters have journalism/writing degrees and not economics degrees, maybe it’s because politicians are usually lawyers and rarely are they economists. I don’t really know why this information is so neglected and why so many people are not comprehending how severe it is.

  5. Romney did not write the basis for Obama Care, the heritage Foundation did. And it was a republican approved program. Romney was the only one to put it into effect

    I agree with you on partys but that means you do not vote. And please sont day Ron Paul.

  6. Fiscal Spending in 2009 was $3.6 Trillion. This includes the $800 Billion Stimulus. This means that of the total spending, $2.8 Trillion was the Bush Budget.

    Spending for 2010 was $3.45 Trillion. This means the actual increase is not 1.4% as the article suggests but rather an increase of 23% for one year! The article takes its increase in only comparing the 2010 spending to 2011 as an increase of 1.4%…that part is accurate.

    However, the chart illustrated shows 2010-2013. The spending in 2010 was $3.45 trillion and the projected spending for 2013 is $3.8 trillion. This is a 10% increase and nowhere near 1.4%.

    I suggest people “check the math” before posting something that is so glaringly incorrect. This is BEYOND MISLEADING…this is an outright lie!

  7. Sorry, Steve, you are completely wrong on this. The 2010 budget also included a stimulus–the 2009 budget included Bush’s bailout, and the 2010 included the next one. You can’t retroactively add a stimulus to a previous budget. The following budgets after 2009 and 2010 both decreased spending dramatically, thus reducing the growth over Obama’s entire first term to 1.4% annualized. It is an average for multiple years, not just one.

    Since our deficit is smaller than GDP, if the deficit (aka extra spending) grows at a slower pace than the rate of economic expansion, then the debt/GDP ratio automatically goes down. Until our deficit is larger than GDP, having GDP grow slightly faster than deficit spending reduces your debt/GDP ratio over time. Governments and households, and governments and businesses are nothing alike, and do not work at all in the same way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png

    Look at the graph of CBO outlays here and then tell me that the HUGE jump in spending didn’t immediately end as soon as Obama took office.

Comments are closed.