Obama Spends More Than He Raises as Aides See Romney Advantage

[Big Don]

[h=1]Obama Spends More Than He Raises as Aides See Romney Advantage[/h] By Julie Bykowicz and Jonathan D. Salant - Jun 20, 2012 BLOOMBERG EXCERPT:



President Barack Obama spent more on his re-election effort last month than he raised, ending May with $109.7 million cash on hand, according to U.S. Federal Election Commission reports filed today.
The $39.1 million his campaign took in was outpaced by $44.6 million it paid for television advertisements, employees, offices and other expenses, the reports show. The spending rate is a reversal from the past three months, when the campaign was taking in millions more than it was spending.
In a sign the campaign is intensifying, the $44.6 million that Obama’s re-election campaign spent in May is more than the $42.9 million he spent in the previous three months combined.
The reports were filed as Obama’s political advisers said in a briefing today that they expect Republican challenger Mitt Romney to have a money advantage as outside political action committees supporting the former Massachusetts governor pour as much as $1 billion into the race.
END EXCERPT
At least he is consistent...

 

[MA-Caver]

Obama Spends More Than He Raises as Aides See Romney Advantage

President Barack Obama spent more on his re-election effort last month than he raised, ending May with $109.7 million cash on hand, according to U.S. Federal Election Commission reports filed today.
At least he is consistent...

Yep, a good president has to stay in practice for the next four years. But of course with other people's money.

Me thinks he's getting desperate.

 

[WC_lun]

Yes, Obama has the biggest defecit. He also had to pay for an economy that had tanked and two wars that weren't paid for previously. Both of those little tidbits seem to be forgotten by the blame Obama first crowd.

Here's another little tidbit for you;

Spending Growth by percentage

Eisenhower 3.2
Kennedy 6.6
Johnson 9.2
Nixon 10.4
Carter 13.5
Reagan 6.8
G H W Bush 5.4
Clinton 3.5
G W Bush 7.7
Obama 1.4

Sources: CBO, OHB, Marketwatch


So while he may not be cutting all the programs the right wants him too, he hasn't been exactly loose with the purse strings.


It is also not unusual for politicians to outspend thier donations. Take a look at the Republican nominees this year,, if you don't believe me. Does that mean the Republicans will automatically spend more than they take in if in power come 2013? I didn't think so...though they probably will because then they'll pass the jobs act as well as other legislation to actually help the economy instead of keeping it stagnated for political purposes. Oh, and they'll pass more tax breaks for the rich and exceptions for corporations.

 

[billc]

WC lun, if you could provide the actual link to those numbers it would be helpful. The last time we had numbers like that you looked at the bottom of the chart and it said DNC on the bottom of it...

Here is another set of stats. from the Wall Street Journal...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn't even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn't the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.
In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve. As the chart shows, government spending as a share of GDP fell, and taxes were not raised. But to attribute this drop in government spending to the president or congressional Democrats would be dishonest.
Slowing spending and the decision not to raise taxes may have prevented the Great Recession from becoming the next Great Depression. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley tariff was signed into law by another weak Republican president, Herbert Hoover. Smoot-Hawley was the largest single tax increase on traded products in U.S. history. Not surprisingly, the markets collapsed.

For emphasis...

The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve. As the chart shows, government spending as a share of GDP fell, and taxes were not raised. But to attribute this drop in government spending to the president or congressional Democrats would be dishonest.

 

[WC_lun]

umm You confuse me. I show you something that says Obama is not growing government spending at the rates many of you have claimed. In response to that, you post an article that seems to say that the decrease in government spending cannot be attributed to Obama or congressional democrats. You cannot have it both ways. If government spending is not growing at an all time high, as many of you seem to think, then Obama cannot be responsible for spending at an all time high, whether he is responsible for the restraints on spending or not.

Thank you for making my point though.