GOP/Romney Liars finally BUSTED for calling Obama "Big Spender" !

13 posts / 0 new

Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent presidentSource: PolitiFact

On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, "Obama spending binge never happened." Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that -- contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president.

The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook that paired a line from Nutting’s column with a quote from Mitt Romney’s campaign website.

Under the heading, "Romney’s World," the Facebook post quoted a Romney Web page saying, "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." (That accurately quotes Romney.)

Immediately to the right, under the heading, "Real World," the Facebook post provided a retort using a caption from Nutting’s key chart: "Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." (The post cited the quotation to the Wall Street Journal; technically, Nutting writes for MarketWatch, which is an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal.)

Read more: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/ Original Market Watch article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 9:44 am

Comments

The filthy lying unicorn Romney will do and say anything to deflect from the real issues!

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Their attempt to sell this crap makes me concerned that Romney might actually have a chance.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This Rex Nutting analysis has been talked about a lot and has been widely discredited for a variety of reasons. Nutting relies on the usual economic truism that all budgets are written the year before, so that Fiscal 2009 must have been written and signed by Bush before he left office with his tail between his legs.

As such he attributes the $800+ Billlion dollars of Obama Stimulus passed in Feb 2009 to Bush! Also recall that while Bush had pushed through TARP before leaving, which was $750 Billion in deficit spending. Nutting, like most commentators, adds this to Bush's deficit in 2008, when it passed. Mistake Number Two. In fact, Bush spent $400 Billion of TARP. He left $350 Billion for his successor.

Essentially Bush spending in 2008 is left in the 2008 column, and Obama stimulus in 2009 is transfered back to the 2008 column.

That certainly is one dishonest way to "smooth" out a graph.

To set the record straight, Obama more than doubled the deficit his first year, and has fiddled around the margins of debt in the two years since.

To put Obama's largesse in context, the total deficit for the eight Bush years was 2.2 trillion dollars. The total deficit for Obama’s first two years was $2.75 trillion dollars, even if you leave out the TARP $350 Billion that was his.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Quote Calperson:That certainly is one dishonest way to "smooth" out a graph.
I've been suspicious of this claim since it popped up a few day ago. I haven't looked at the article, but after working with budget tables long enough, this sounds plausible. But then you go from reasonable to more of your typical rabid Right political nonsense.

To set the record straight, Obama more than doubled the deficit his first year, and has fiddled around the margins of debt in the two years since.
Gee, when Right wing policies implode the banking sector and take down the economy, savage the tax base, and fund two wars on the credit card... one REASONABLY might expect the deficit to go up especially if the federal government is the spender of last resort trying to keep the economy from going into a death spiral.

To put Obama's largesse in context, the total deficit for the eight Bush years was 2.2 trillion dollars.
Really? And by what sort fairy dust are you using to get this number down? Pretending that off-budget money wasn't spent in lieu of taxes? It's still borrowing and has to be paid back. Bush increased the debt by about $5.5 trillion… and these were in relative "good" economic times except for his last 4 months.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Also it achieves this by counting the tarp spending as part of the base line spending when it was a one time expenditure. Once you count the repayments the actual cost of tarp is around $5 billion.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am
Quote Calperson:

This Rex Nutting analysis has been talked about a lot and has been widely discredited for a variety of reasons. Nutting relies on the usual economic truism that all budgets are written the year before, so that Fiscal 2009 must have been written and signed by Bush before he left office with his tail between his legs.

As such he attributes the $800+ Billlion dollars of Obama Stimulus passed in Feb 2009 to Bush! Also recall that while Bush had pushed through TARP before leaving, which was $750 Billion in deficit spending. Nutting, like most commentators, adds this to Bush's deficit in 2008, when it passed. Mistake Number Two. In fact, Bush spent $400 Billion of TARP. He left $350 Billion for his successor.

Essentially Bush spending in 2008 is left in the 2008 column, and Obama stimulus in 2009 is transfered back to the 2008 column.

That certainly is one dishonest way to "smooth" out a graph.

To set the record straight, Obama more than doubled the deficit his first year, and has fiddled around the margins of debt in the two years since.

To put Obama's largesse in context, the total deficit for the eight Bush years was 2.2 trillion dollars. The total deficit for Obama’s first two years was $2.75 trillion dollars, even if you leave out the TARP $350 Billion that was his.

Bush should get credit for the WHOLE $750 Billion TARP as his Treasurer is the one who scared Congress into passing it! Obama had NOTHING to do with that passing!

I wonder if they included the fact that Bush kept his 2 wars and Medicare Pt D off the books for 8 years. I dont think the GOP critics are at least.

Everybody knows that Bush DOUBLED the national debt from $5.5 Trillion to $12 trillion. Slightly more than $2 trillion as you claim.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 9:44 am
Quote Erik300:

Obama had NOTHING to do with that passing!

Yes, absolutely NOTHING

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Except of course his VOTE for it! One of the very few times he bothered to turn up to work to vote or to vote other than "Present".

Quote Erik300:

Bush kept his 2 wars and Medicare Pt D "off the books" for 8 years.

And again this strange leftist meme that Federal Spending can somehow be "off the books". What does this even mean? How is it even possible? Soldiers were paid, Humvees ordered and purchased, Gasoline and supplies consumed. Where did the money come from? Here let me show you.

http://vcnv.org/files/voting_records_supplementals.pdf

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
Quote Calperson:And again this strange leftist meme that Federal Spending can somehow be "off the books". What does this even mean? How is it even possible? Soldiers were paid, Humvees ordered and purchased, Gasoline and supplies consumed. Where did the money come from?
Grow the F*** up Cal. YOU are the one who gladly embraced this concept if you could shrink Bush's debt down from about 5 trillion down to 2.2 trillion. I didn't see you saying... HEY, that can't be right!

There's only one number in the budget worth looking at... and that's the ON-BUDGET deficit. It excludes money borrowed from off-budget accounts. No, this isn't some "leftist meme". Politicians in BOTH parties try to hide the true deficit numbers by using "unified" budget numbers.

BTW, your link proves nothing. But what do you care. You're quite content with the illusion of truth.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Calperson:

This Rex Nutting analysis has been talked about a lot and has been widely discredited for a variety of reasons. Nutting relies on the usual economic truism that all budgets are written the year before, so that Fiscal 2009 must have been written and signed by Bush before he left office with his tail between his legs.

As such he attributes the $800+ Billlion dollars of Obama Stimulus passed in Feb 2009 to Bush!

Not true, the Obama stimulus money is all creditted to Obama, the 2009 money gets moved to the 2010 FY.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Regardless of who stimulus and tarp was assigned to the main point is both somehow became part of the baseline spending in Nuttings analysis even though both were one time expenses and Tarp was paid back.

As far as "off budget" spending this also deals with the concept of base line spending. Some of the war spending was done as supplemental but was still part of the over all numbers. The idea was to not include them in the baseline figures as the wars would end eventually.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

Just to put In a nutshell without too many numbers:

Bush's last FY 2009 (Oct 1 2008 to Oct 1 2009) spending increase was very high because of his $700 billion TARP passed in Nov 2008 PLUS a big increase in unemployment and food stamps

and the revenue plunged from his depression at the same time.

This gave him a record $1.7 trillion deficit in Oct 1 2009.

Next year FY 2010 the spending was almost as high because of $700 billion Obamas stimulus and continued increases in unemployment comop and food stamps. Revenue remained low and expenses high so the deficit was still very high $1.6 trillion FY 2010.

For succeeding FY 2011 and 2012 expenses have remained high because of high unemployment comp and food stamps and welfare. And revenue has remained low because of the Bush depression.

The FY 2011 deficit was $1.2 trillion so its coming down at least.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 9:44 am

Wow, war of the accountants!

The question is how much stimulus spending was spent before Oct 2010. Probably not much if the bill was passed in March. Also remember, it was a two year bill (with a small amount in the 3rd year).

In a widely publicized estimate, the CBO put the estimated annual budget deficit when Obama took over at 1.2 trillion - or was it 1.3? That included the wars and TARP and estimates of the impact of the recession.

The end result is that, as always, Republicans are liars.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system