Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president



The next time someone tries to tell you Obama is an irresponsible, freewheeling tax and spend Democrat, forward them this article


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

 

I saw this on my wall. It also makes a note that the '09 stimulus package was reassigned to him. Just to make a point. That most "fiscally conservative" people will miss.

 

Oh boy patiently waiting like its Christmas. :-D

 

ssssssh dont say that too loud

let people think he's running up the bill like Andy Reid at Longhorn Steakhouse, for a little bit longer

 

The only reason his spending is down is because of blocks made by Republicans during his first term. Otherwise, his proposals would have skyrocketed spending.

Look at Obama’s record on debt. During the same time that spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. Because each year federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

Second, federal spending under Obama is higher as a share of gross domestic product than it has been in most of the previous 60 years. That, too is because of the economy, which has simultaneously slowed the growth of GDP and boosted government spending for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

 

Did this include $2 trillion in Obama/Healthcare spending that doesn’t kick in until 2014?


(not that I mind, mind you. I'm for it.)

 

lol

dunno..but 'affordable' healthcare is LONG overdue

that's just humane

years from now, generations will look back at us and wonder how we allowed people to not be covered by insurance

that's a fact

 

I come from a highly taxed country where it's always been "free". Loved the luxury of never having to worry. The waits were long sometimes for non-emergencies, but I always saw a doctor when I needed to.

But it's a misnomer to infer that in the U.S if you need to see a doctor, you can't without insurance.
Now you may not like the basic treatment doled out, but rarely are you denied care if you are sick.

 

Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.:smt045

 

Just in case you were not just kidding about repealing the healthcare reform bill...

"the law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding Medicaid. But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare. And, it generated revenues by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, fully repealing the law would also repeal mechanisms that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-repeats-claim-repealing-health-law-sav/

 

The big problem with Obamacare is that is doesn't help many. Existing federal laws already cover the poor, the elderly, and the roughly 60% of Americans who get their insurance through their employers. Those laws provide free or low-cost care to just about anyone who needs it, and ban practices like charging higher rates for people with preexisting conditions in employer-based plans. The law won’t help them much and could make them worse off, if you agree that the minimum standards for health insurance policies and broader access to subsidized healthcare by the poor will drive taxes and costs up instead of down.

The typical young person could be much worse off under Obamacare. On average, young people spend less than $900 a year in healthcare services but will be required to spend more than five times that much to buy an insurance policy with many bells and whistles, like low deductibles and pediatric care, that most young consumers don’t need.

It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else. It will be Social Security all over again.

 

This is one of the best infographics I have ever seen. Thanks for posting!

 

The only reason I would argue for a repeal of the health care law would be to add the public option but that's just me. I still can't figure why he chose to compromise on taking it out of the original bill in the first place.

 

Obama wimped out on healthcare reform.

He should have anted up with universal healthcare, then negotiated 'down' to the public option.

There is no diagnostic or treatment benefit provided by HMOs. Just like with student loans where banks are the middle men skimming profits off the interest owed on loans, all medical bills should be paid through one fund backstopped with our tax dollars.

There's something in the modern American character that has a problem with equity. The guy who earns 250K still has a problem knowing he's getting the same doctor who treats the homeless man who's being prescribed antibiotics for a skin infection.

We should tier doctor salaries based on outcomes, not how much they can charge IMO.

I still believe doctors should be able to afford an affluent lifestyle, but IMO it should no longer be a profession where one enters with the belief he or she can become RICH.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Health care in the United States should be a right, not a privilege.
The GOP still doesn't have a credible alternative to Obamacare that won't bankrupt this country in 50 years.

 

that's not the half of it

their profession is one where it costs A LOT to get into, keeping up barriers to entry to the upper-class. unless you're very bright and land scholarships, or have someone paying your room and board while you take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, you're shit out of luck.

if you look at other countries, the process of becoming an MD isn't so expensive. you still have to be bright, but you don't have to have a 'daddy Warbucks' at your side either. apparently the rich man with a problem knowing his doctor treats homeless people, also has a problem with homeless or poor people having a real shot at becoming doctors.

 

So true. Whatever happenes to actually helping people? God bless Canada

 

When it comes to Dolecare Bliss at least a child would have some heathcare. Obamacare is when a person has the public option. Oh yes Rommeycare in Mass is the same.