or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't let the truth get in the way of your talking points -- Government spending growth is the lowest under Obama since Eisenhower.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't let the truth get in the way of your talking points -- Government spending growth is the...

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

 

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg

 

Yes, Obama surely is Spendy McSpenderson alright.  Let's see the mental gymnastics and outright dishonesty in denying these facts.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 39
Quote:
Don't let the truth get in the way of your talking points

 

You won't.

 

( waits for the presentation of facts that paint a different picture to be characterized as "mental gymnastics" and "outright dishonesty" )

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 39
Quote:

International Liberty

Restraining Government in America and Around the World

 

lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #4 of 39

Isn't it amazing how the entire stimulus that Obama claims saved the economy and is one of his grand achievements is counted towards FY2009?

 

Do you really need to keep growing spending annually when you give it a trillion dollar increase in year one?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Isn't it amazing how the entire stimulus that Obama claims saved the economy and is one of his grand achievements is counted towards FY2009?

 

Do you really need to keep growing spending annually when you give it a trillion dollar increase in year one?

From BR's article :

 

 

Quote:

 

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

 

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

lol.gif

 

 Yes. We get it. You don't want any restraints on government.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

lol.gif

 

 Yes. We get it. You don't want any restraints on government.

Uh no. I was laughiing at the biased website.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Uh no. I was laughiing at the biased website.

 

Ohhhh...You weren't actually responding to the content, facts and reasoning presented in the website.

 

Got it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Uh no. I was laughiing at the biased website.

 

Ohhhh...You weren't actually responding to the content, facts and reasoning presented in the website.

 

Got it.

Well I was laughing at the source and the whole because it's obviously terribly biased toward one small group.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I was laughing at the source and the whole because it's obviously terribly biased toward one small group.

 

So...You aren't actually going to respond to the content, facts and reasoning presented in the website.

 

Got it.

 

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ohhhh...You weren't actually responding to the content, facts and reasoning presented in the website.

Got it.

That would require effort.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Isn't it amazing how the entire stimulus that Obama claims saved the economy and is one of his grand achievements is counted towards FY2009?

 

Do you really need to keep growing spending annually when you give it a trillion dollar increase in year one?

From BR's article :

 

 

Quote:

 

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

 

 

Yes and anyone who isn't an unbiased moron can understand that the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama inserted the stimulus.

 

Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending.  Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct.  If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct.  The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances.

 

Also....

 

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009:  Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security.  President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels.  President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills.  Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.

 

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills.  Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills.  CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.”  And they did.

 

If you trust CQ’s reporting, and I do, then this is damning.  Democrats in Congress purposely held off on pushing bloated appropriations bills because they knew President Bush would not sign the bill and Republicans in the Senate would block consideration of it.  You have to remember that the Senate went from 51-49 Democrat control under President Bush’s last year to 59-41 in the early days of President Obama.  On April 28, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat to give the Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  The House had a similar conversion from a 233-202 Democrat majority to 257-178 Democrat majority. Democrats were banking on a big enough majorities in the Senate and House that they could pass the bloated spending bill and they got it.

 

Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008.  CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.”  I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending.  The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

 

Also.....

 

Overall spending, mandatory and discretionary spending went from $2.98 trillion in FY 2008 to $3.52 trillion in FY 2009.  There were two of the big spikes in spending from FY’08 to ’09.  One was in Federal Payments for Individuals not including Social Security and Medicare from $758 billion in FY’08 to 918 billion in FY’09.  President Obama’s Stimulus spending bill included an increase in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits that should not be attributable to President Bush.  Also, the category of “Other Federal” spending spiked from $261 billion to $540 billion.  This includes TARP spending that was recovered on the back end by President Obama further distorting the Nutting analysis.

 

So how can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto?  Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis.  Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

 

We can also look here...

 

Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550

 

Don't let these facts get in the way of a campaign by our hopeful president Barack Obama who is changing the tone of Washington to nothing but smears and lies.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Isn't it amazing how the entire stimulus that Obama claims saved the economy and is one of his grand achievements is counted towards FY2009?

 

Do you really need to keep growing spending annually when you give it a trillion dollar increase in year one?

From BR's article :

 

 

Quote:

 

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

 

 

Yes and anyone who isn't an unbiased moron can understand that the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama inserted the stimulus.

 

Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending.  Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct.  If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct.  The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances.

 

Also....

 

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009:  Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security.  President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels.  President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills.  Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.

 

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills.  Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills.  CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.”  And they did.

 

If you trust CQ’s reporting, and I do, then this is damning.  Democrats in Congress purposely held off on pushing bloated appropriations bills because they knew President Bush would not sign the bill and Republicans in the Senate would block consideration of it.  You have to remember that the Senate went from 51-49 Democrat control under President Bush’s last year to 59-41 in the early days of President Obama.  On April 28, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat to give the Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  The House had a similar conversion from a 233-202 Democrat majority to 257-178 Democrat majority. Democrats were banking on a big enough majorities in the Senate and House that they could pass the bloated spending bill and they got it.

 

Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008.  CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.”  I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending.  The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

 

Also.....

 

Overall spending, mandatory and discretionary spending went from $2.98 trillion in FY 2008 to $3.52 trillion in FY 2009.  There were two of the big spikes in spending from FY’08 to ’09.  One was in Federal Payments for Individuals not including Social Security and Medicare from $758 billion in FY’08 to 918 billion in FY’09.  President Obama’s Stimulus spending bill included an increase in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits that should not be attributable to President Bush.  Also, the category of “Other Federal” spending spiked from $261 billion to $540 billion.  This includes TARP spending that was recovered on the back end by President Obama further distorting the Nutting analysis.

 

So how can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto?  Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis.  Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

 

We can also look here...

 

Obama-spending.jpg?h=428&w=550

 

Don't let these facts get in the way of a campaign by our hopeful president Barack Obama who is changing the tone of Washington to nothing but smears and lies.

Yes brought to you by " Reason Hit And Run " and " The Foundry " ( a lot of you read these out there in voting land? ).lol.gif Well most Libertarians I'll bet anyway.

 

Well that takes care of 10 to 20 % of the voting public's viewpoint.


Edited by jimmac - 7/16/12 at 8:10pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes brought to you by " Reason Hit And Run " and " The Foundry "

 

LOL. Priceless. Well thought out reasoning and presentation of facts by two organizations that've been around for about 40 years is a "hit and run".

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes brought to you by " Reason Hit And Run " and " The Foundry "

 

LOL. Priceless. Well thought out reasoning and presentation of facts by two organizations that've been around for about 40 years is a "hit and run".

Well I'm older than that. If that's your measurement FORBES has been around since 1917.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I'm older than that.

 

So am I. So what?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If that's your measurement FORBES has been around since 1917.

 

Yes, it has.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I'm older than that.

 

So am I. So what?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If that's your measurement FORBES has been around since 1917.

 

Yes, it has.

Well like I said if that's you measurement. You did mention that your magazine had been in operation for 40 years as if that would add weight behind your argument..

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well like I said if that's you measurement. You did mention that you magazine had been in operation for 40 years.

 

Well...again...I need to explain things... *sigh*

 

You implied that Reason and The Heritage Foundation (or at least content from them) was a "drive by" unworthy of consideration. Yet these two organizations have been around for a long time, are staffed by a number of people, supported by subscribers and donors for a long time suggesting that they are more than merely "drive by" organizations generating "drive by" content.

 

Ultimately though, you failed to actually address any of the content of the post.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well like I said if that's you measurement. You did mention that you magazine had been in operation for 40 years.

 

Well...again...I need to explain things... *sigh*

 

You implied that Reason and The Heritage Foundation (or at least content from them) was a "drive by" unworthy of consideration. Yet these two organizations have been around for a long time, are staffed by a number of people, supported by subscribers and donors for a long time suggesting that they are more than merely "drive by" organizations generating "drive by" content.

 

Ultimately though, you failed to actually address any of the content of the post.

 

Quote:

 

"drive by" unworthy of consideration.

 

Not at all however I trust FORBES viewpoint on the matter more than I do a publication or blog that speaks mainly to a small group.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not at all however I trust FORBES viewpoint on the matter more than I do a publication or blog that speaks mainly to a small group.

 

Of course that's how you determine who to trust. Because, for you, truth and rightness and validity is all about how many people share the same view.

 

What's interesting is that very often the truth starts out being only spoken to (and listened to) by a very small group of people. If you look, you see this repeatedly throughout history in politics, philosophy, economics, science, etc.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 39

Yes because facts are only facts if a large number of people believe them to be so. If a small number of people believe them to be so then they aren't facts anymore.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 39

I don't get these strange discussion about facts between left and right. Government spending is a monetary thing with numbers for everything. There should be exact facts somewhere detailing exactly how much money was spend by what administration and what percentage of the GDP these are.

 

Facts that can't be accused of being manipulated by the left or the right. So bring them up and decide this once and for all.

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

I don't get these strange discussion about facts between left and right. Government spending is a monetary thing with numbers for everything. There should be exact facts somewhere detailing exactly how much money was spend by what administration and what percentage of the GDP these are.

 

Facts that can't be accused of being manipulated by the left or the right. So bring them up and decide this once and for all.

 

The facts about FY2009 were put in here by me. There are 12 appropriation bills that need to be finished each year for a government budget to be completed. The Democrats knew Bush was a lame duck and also knew there was a good chance they would improve their position after the election. Three out of 12 bills were finished and signed by Bush. A continuing resolution was signed by Bush that kept the government running the same as the prior year without the almost trillion dollar increase. Obama was elected and the Democrats strengthened their majorities in both the House and Senate. They passed the other 9 bills, adding almost a trillion in new spending. These misleading claims attribute the entire increase in spending for FY2009 to Bush when he issued veto threats and signed a continuing resolution. They then declare that the huge continued increases in spending that were happening in the years that can only be attributed to Obama are not GROWTH in spending because they remained at the high trillion dollars a year deficits that Obama and the Democrats established in FY2009.

 

All it takes to establish responsibility is who signed it. Obama is responsible for everything he signed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 39

What's more is that often the "facts" are selected carefully (i.e., cherry picked) to make some point. One example is that economic and budget comparisons that try to make Obama (or Democratic Presidents look good) very often exclude FDR! Geez.

 

Furthermore people have tended to like to use overly simplistic, superficial and context-free "facts" (e.g., infant mortality rate) to prove some point (healthcare in the US sucks compared to some place else). Budget deficit was X during Republican presidencies but only Y during Democratic presidencies. GDP growth was only X during Republican presidencies but Y during Democratic presidencies. But they fail to look deeper into the numbers. They fail to look at lags between action and result. They fail to imagine that the world is not static (i.e., if you raise taxes on the rich...or anyone...they're behavior will not stay the same.)

 

I posted two blog posts by someone who's whole career appears to center around studying, analyzing and understanding government tax policy and spending. He presented a very thoughtful and well-laid out set of scenarios with the same budget facts and came to very different conclusions depending on how honest you chose to be about attributing responsibility. So far only jimmac has responded to those links...and he only to laugh without providing any real response to the content. But that's jimmac.

 

With the budget things get even trickier because it ain't all about the President. It's probably a lot more about who controls Congress. And this correlation doesn't look very good for Democrats (at least if they wish to claim any degree of fiscal responsibility and spending conservatism.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 39

I'm surprised that someone who is as seemingly intelligent as BR would actually dare to post this unbelievable bullshit.  The initial claim has been thoroughly dismantled and debunked.  It's only true when one engages in "mental gymnastics" as MJ states.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #26 of 39
Thread Starter 

No mental gymnastics necessary.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

 

Federal spending under Obama has grown by the lowest amount since Eisenhower.  Deal with it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #27 of 39

Tell that to the dumb Republicans who blame Obama on huge government spending.The truth shall prevail.
 

post #28 of 39

Maybe you read different facts than the truth I presume you do.

post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No mental gymnastics necessary.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

 

Federal spending under Obama has grown by the lowest amount since Eisenhower.  Deal with it.


You clearly don't read your own link.

 

Quote:

That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.

 

When we encounter a compound claim such as this one, we consider the accuracy of each part separately. During our internal discussions, we give a preliminary rating to each half of a claim, then average them to produce our final, published rating.

 

Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.

 

Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True.

 

You've clearly gone end stage.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No mental gymnastics necessary.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

 

Federal spending under Obama has grown by the lowest amount since Eisenhower.  Deal with it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


You clearly don't read your own link.

 

Quote:

 

You've clearly gone end stage.

 

 

Indeed he has.  As with many things, there is a way of looking at the claim that makes it true.  But anyone who doesn't seek to contort himself into some kind of fiscal pretzel realizes the truth.  Obama has accumulated nearly $6 trillion in debt while in office over 3.5 years.  Bush took 8 years to accumulate $4 trillion.  The FY 2008 deficit was $438 Billion.  The FY 2010 was $1.298 Trillion.  Additionally, the preceding Congressional budgets (to which the author refers) were authorized not by Republicans, but by Democrats (from 2007-2010).  

 

It's not just BR that's gone end stage...it's the entire Obamatron establishment.  One can only defend the indefensible for so long.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No mental gymnastics necessary.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

 

Federal spending under Obama has grown by the lowest amount since Eisenhower.  Deal with it.

 

 

Maybe not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

 

Indeed he has.  As with many things, there is a way of looking at the claim that makes it true.  But anyone who doesn't seek to contort himself into some kind of fiscal pretzel realizes the truth.  Obama has accumulated nearly $6 trillion in debt while in office over 3.5 years.  Bush took 8 years to accumulate $4 trillion.  The FY 2008 deficit was $438 Billion.  The FY 2010 was $1.298 Trillion.  Additionally, the preceding Congressional budgets (to which the author refers) were authorized not by Republicans, but by Democrats (from 2007-2010).  

 

It's not just BR that's gone end stage...it's the entire Obamatron establishment.  One can only defend the indefensible for so long.  

You fail to understand that there are two parts to the calculation of deficits: spending and revenue.  It is incontrovertible that under Obama, the growth of government spending is at its lowest since Eisenhower.  The revenue took a sharp decline due to the Great Recession and refusal to touch top marginal tax rates.  The country being held hostage over the non-issue of the debt-ceiling, leading to a drop in our credit rating also didn't help.

 

Unfortunately, this idea that spending doesn't have to grow in order for deficits to grow is too complex for your addled conservative mind to handle.  I'm sorry that reality isn't so simple.  If only GWB were still in office, deficits wouldn't matter.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You fail to understand that there are two parts to the calculation of deficits: spending and revenue.  It is incontrovertible that under Obama, the growth of government spending is at its lowest since Eisenhower.  The revenue took a sharp decline due to the Great Recession and refusal to touch top marginal tax rates.  The country being held hostage over the non-issue of the debt-ceiling, leading to a drop in our credit rating also didn't help.

 

Unfortunately, this idea that spending doesn't have to grow in order for deficits to grow is too complex for your addled conservative mind to handle.  I'm sorry that reality isn't so simple.  If only GWB were still in office, deficits wouldn't matter.

 

It isn't incontrovertible. Your own links, the only links that support that contention still had concede Obama at 7th out of 10 presidents, not the lowest. Anyone who claims he is the lowest is a liar.

 

Stop trolling. You haven't addressed a single point made to you. Calling everyone names and repeating yourself isn't honest debate or discussion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes because facts are only facts if a large number of people believe them to be so. If a small number of people believe them to be so then they aren't facts anymore.

 Pleas tell me you don't believe this. Using this logic the planet used to accually BE flat.

post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

 Pleas tell me you don't believe this. Using this logic the planet used to accually BE flat.

 

If he's smart, he does. Facts do no become facts by majority vote. Nor do fact stop becoming facts by majority vote.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes because facts are only facts if a large number of people believe them to be so. If a small number of people believe them to be so then they aren't facts anymore.

 Pleas tell me you don't believe this. Using this logic the planet used to accually BE flat.

 

It's called sarcasm.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You fail to understand that there are two parts to the calculation of deficits: spending and revenue.

 

Actually, it seems you don't understand that.  

 

 

Quote:
 It is incontrovertible that under Obama, the growth of government spending is at its lowest since Eisenhower.  

 

No, it's not.  As I said, it depends on how it's looked at.  There is no "incontrovertible" proof here. 

 

 

Quote:
The revenue took a sharp decline due to the Great Recession and refusal to touch top marginal tax rates.

 

1.  Recession...yes. 

 

2.  Tax rates:  False.  Revenue did not decline as a result of the Bush tax cuts, particularly if one looks at the ten year period.  Secondly, resetting the top rates to the Clinton-era rates would gain very little revenue relatively speaking, even assuming such increases brought in the amount projected (which increases rarely do).  

 

 

 

Quote:

The country being held hostage over the non-issue of the debt-ceiling, leading to a drop in our credit rating also didn't help.

 

 

We actually agree here, though I blame both parties.  In fact, I'd rather have seen the GOP go for broke and refuse to raise it without offsetting cuts.  

 

 

Quote:
Unfortunately, this idea that spending doesn't have to grow in order for deficits to grow is too complex for your addled conservative mind to handle.

 

First, I've already shown where you are wrong in terms of Obama's spending.  Secondly, spending has been growing at an alarming rate (about 30% overall increase--or $1 Trillion since 2008). Third...I've shown that tax increases will not fix the problem.  

 

  

 

Quote:
I'm sorry that reality isn't so simple.  If only GWB were still in office, deficits wouldn't matter.

 

Right...an off the cuff comment from Cheney, which was made in a political context (i.e. who wins elections).  It was also made at a time when deficits were under $400 billion.  Our deficits today are 3-4X that amount.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 39

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Those light green bars in the 1990's were when the Republicans had control of Congress (which controls the budget) and Clinton was President. This is more important than people seem to realize. The light purple in the 2000's was (mostly) Republican control of both. The bars at the far right show Democratic control of both. In 1988-1992 it was split again with D's in control of Congress.

 

While not great, budget-wise, the best arrangement seems to be D prez + R congress.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't let the truth get in the way of your talking points -- Government spending growth is the lowest under Obama since Eisenhower.