Obama’s Deficit Reelection Spending, The One Spends More in June Than Took In … Should We Expect Less from Obama?


Barack Obama’s deficit reelection spending …

It looks like Barack Obama is running his 2012 President reelection campaign like he is America, Obama’s deficit reelection spending in June 2012 shows that “The One” spent more than he took in. Guess what Obama did the same thing in May. Also, for the second month in a row, Mitt Romney brought in more money than Barack Obama; however, that did not stop Obama from spending more. Any one sensing a patter here? Obama just can’t help it, he cannot stay within any budget. Of course like the fact that he has not passed a budget in years for the United States, his campaign problem does not have one either.

Amid a heavy barrage of advertising by opposing “super” political groups, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign spent more than it collected in June. While outraised again by Republican Mitt Romney, Obama ended the month with a hefty $97.5 million in the bank.

Obama tried to answer the super PACs supporting Romney by spending $38.2 million on television advertising. Romney spent less than a third of that – $10.4 million – on TV time.

Romney’s campaign nearly doubled its spending in June compared with the previous month, underscoring the close proximity of the November general election in which Republicans hope to unseat Obama and, in part, dismantle the president’s signature health care overhaul.

As stated by Wake Up America, picking the next President is as simple as this, Obama spends more than he takes in, Romney stays within budget. Who do you think would make a better administrator of the American economy? With the economy being the number one issue, how can America elect a president is cannot seem to spend more than he takes in?

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • 73% of Americans Believe that Wasteful Governemnt Spending to Blame for Federal deficit
  • Up, Up and Away … Budget deficit rises to $120 billion in October
  • Remember This … Obama Lecturing McCain on Spending During Campaign … White House Now Sees Higher Deficits Than Expected
  • President Barack Obama’s New Budget: $1.65 Trillion Deficit for This Year
  • President Barack Obama Weekly Address, “We Need a Government That Lives Within Its Means”

  • Comments

    6 Responses to “Obama’s Deficit Reelection Spending, The One Spends More in June Than Took In … Should We Expect Less from Obama?”

    1. A Texas Grandfather on July 21st, 2012 10:34 pm

      Barry will spend everything he can get his hands on whether it is tax payer money or campaign money. This guy has taken a free ride at the expense of others long enough. It is time to send him home.

    2. rightknight on July 22nd, 2012 9:04 am

      He’s an OPM addict!

      (other people’s money)

    3. RK on July 25th, 2012 3:39 pm

      I don’t get the issue of spending more in one month than was collected in the same month. What makes these numbers connected as you describe?

      Are you saying that anyone that gets money, such as a campaign or an income, can only spend the same amount on a monthly or other similar time period?

      Can’t there be savings, a positive bank balance, from which to spend later on as needed?
      SM: LOL, you can’t see the comparison between the deficit spending President to the deficit campaigning one, really? You cant’ see it or you do not want to? Also the fact that all the Obama spending on negative ads did not move the needle. Sounds like wasted govt money to Obama’s failed green energy.

      Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    4. RK on July 26th, 2012 9:35 am

      Of course, I see the comparison you are making. Do you see the comparison I’m making?

      Is there some kind of established premise that monthly campaign receipts need to match monthly campaign outlays? Using your terminology, the only “deficit campaigning” that I’m aware of would be to spend beyond the total funds collected.

      And AFAIK, that is not the story presented here.
      SM: you missed three points that were made. This was the second month in a row that Obama had deficit campaign spending. Two, all Obama’s spending accomplished nothing in the polls. Three, if he is deficit spending now, what is his war chest going to look like when it matters?

      Thus, you have missed the entire 3+ years of the Obama administration, out of control spending, out of control federal debt and it accomplished nothing. we still have a poor economy, high unemployment and record number of people on food stamps and disability.

    5. RK on July 26th, 2012 9:54 pm

      By now its clear you don’t want to see the comparison I’m making as it has apparently been ignored.

      From my perspective, it isn’t important how many months have had outlays exceeding receipts (#1).

      As far as the effect of spending vs. poll results; that is not a topic I’ve chosen to discuss (#2). Am I forced to comment on every sentence in an article to be allowed to make comments on any part of it?

      As far as future events (#3), speculation is inherently inexact, and I’m not interested in possible predictions for discussion sake.

      As far as discussing events of the 3+ years of this president, that seems to be a different and wide-ranging topic in my mind, needing a different set of facts to be reviewed and such. It also is off topic from my intent to make comments here.

      To be clear; I simply disagree with the premise from the title: “Obama’s Deficit Reelection Spending”. I personally perceive the idea presented to be without merit from my understanding, and not indicative of anything in particular.

      My initial comment included an analogy of personal spending, where one saves money early on so as to be able to spend it later. Monthly comparisons of receipts and outlays are irrelevant as far as the overall financial picture is concerned. I feel this is the perfect parallel to campaign funding, and shows a different pattern to what you describe.

      Clearly we disagree. So be it. I see your point clearly, but am unclear of the reverse. My aim is not to attempt to disagree as the goal of my comments, but to add pertinent information to allow consideration of alternative perspectives.
      SM: Do you really not see the irony of a deficit spending President as compared to a deficit spending campaigner when there are no results from the spending? That’s the point of the post. Some times deficit spending is required and occurs, but the goal is to have a positive outcome. In both cases with Obama, the outcome was nothing more than a waste.

    6. RK on July 27th, 2012 8:52 am

      Define: deficit spending (http://goo.gl/0PHTn)

      def·i·cit spend·ing

      Government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation


      The concept of “deficit spending campaign(er)”, “deficit reelection spending” or whatever this “thing” is called, is not real, IMO. It seems to have been made-up in order to find something to talk about and speak of Obama in negative terms. Numerous conservative blogs were apparently sent this talking point and have posted very comments. A quick Google search finds plenty of usages of these exact phrases.

      But I see the concept is a false one. Using donated funds received in one time period (month) in a later time period is merely “spending from savings” or “spending from prior receipts”, in common language. Millions of Americans know what this is, and have practiced it at one time or another (think vacation spending, or house buying, or hundreds of other examples). Businesses as well.

      However, a government typically doesn’t accumulate funds for future expenditures, so they spend on an ongoing basis. A campaign, is not organized like a government as far as funding, and is free to accumulate now, and spend later. Or, like Newt Gingrich did, they can spend now, and hope to get receipts later to pay off campaign debt.

      BTW, one case where a government has saved funds for later use is in our SSA accounts. From the extensive changes made in the 1980′s, SSA has accumulated money to save for the coming boomer retirement. Recently, the SS fund (one of several specific accounts) began using some of the accumulated $2.3T to send monthly checks to recipients, just as it had been planned decades ago. Even this benign activity has been excoriated, but it is not extraordinary, it was expected, and is running basically as envisioned so long ago. An example of good fiscal responsibility, IMO.


      BTW, as I said last time; I do see the comparison you are making, and therefore I understand the point of the post. I just can’t agree that these “numbers” have any significant meaning; they are business as usual, and of no material concern.

      Conversely; I’m still not sure you see the point of my comments. Although we are free to disagree, I respect your ability to make a point, and fully explain it. That is something we all share, as far as I’m concerned.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It