REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Right-Wing Media: Obama spending binge never happened

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Thursday, May 24, 2012 20:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1112
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)





Obama spending binge never happened


By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal)


Quote:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.


The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.



Full story at

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2
012-05-22?pagenumber=1








"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:18 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


"Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

That sums it up pretty nicely.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.



Bush was president in the 2009 fiscal year from Oct. 01, 2008 to January 22, 2009, or just short of four months.

Obama was president from January 22, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2009, or just over 8 months.

Not sure how all spending in fiscal 2009 suddenly becomes Bush's spending, considering that at least $825 billion was the economic stimulus package Obama signed in Feb. 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.



Bush was president in the 2009 fiscal year from Oct. 01, 2008 to January 22, 2009, or just short of four months.

Obama was president from January 22, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2009, or just over 8 months.

Not sure how all spending in fiscal 2009 suddenly becomes Bush's spending, considering that at least $825 billion was the economic stimulus package Obama signed in Feb. 2009.



From the article:

Quote:

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved.






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:56 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


From the article:

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved.



But you can't trust the WSJ-- they're part of the " vast lib'rul media conspiracy", aren't they? Yanno, that "Lame stream " one?


Seriously, the WSJ--? Either they've decided that Obama is a lock for re-election, so it's time for them to suck up; or they know something about Romney that scares them; or they've got some even worse nefarious motive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:09 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
"Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

That sums it up pretty nicely.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



That, and a whole shitload of talking heads telling them what to think.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:10 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

But you can't trust the WSJ-- they're part of the " vast lib'rul media conspiracy", aren't they? Yanno, that "Lame stream " one?



LOL. Yeah, that bastion of Liberal ideology, owned by Murdoch. Makes perfect sense!

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:31 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This is news? The mere volume of lies told by candidates on the right, FauxNews, etc., about Obama would fill a barn...and still they get away with it, their audience swallows it whole and applauds enthusiastically, while none in their party EVER question their lies. Been going on for a while now, "the stimulus created no jobs", "Obama's entire administration has failed", and many, many more specific lies have bombarded us for three years now...what's one more? (/sarcasm)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.



Bush was president in the 2009 fiscal year from Oct. 01, 2008 to January 22, 2009, or just short of four months.

Obama was president from January 22, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2009, or just over 8 months.

Not sure how all spending in fiscal 2009 suddenly becomes Bush's spending, considering that at least $825 billion was the economic stimulus package Obama signed in Feb. 2009.



From the article:

Quote:

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved.





Not talking about the bank bailout (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008), but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Obama in February 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:02 PM

KPO

"Love is natural and real. But not for you my love. Not tonight my love..."


Geezer check the article, the author goes on to reassign the 2009 stimulus to Obama, and all his graphs reflect that.

Quote:

[Obama] is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.



It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Geezer check the article, the author goes on to reassign the 2009 stimulus to Obama, and all his graphs reflect that.

Quote:

Obama is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.






But the stimulus package ended up being $800 billion plus, and the plan was to spend 75% of it by Sept. 30, 2010 (per the Washington Post), so not sure where the "$200 billion over four years" figure comes from.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009
020100154.html


Looks like more research.

Then again, it might be more useful to find if there are that many articles about an Obama spending binge.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:56 PM

KPO

"Love is natural and real. But not for you my love. Not tonight my love..."


Quote:

But the stimulus package ended up being $800 billion plus, and the plan was to spend 75% of it by Sept. 30, 2010


It didn't happen. As I understand it, supposed 'shovel-ready' jobs encountered delays and so didn't go through until later. In any case, we're talking about JUST 2009. $140 billion for 2009 sounds about right to me, if you can find another figure I'd be interested to see it.

Quote:

not sure where the "$200 billion over four years" figure comes from.

He doesn't make it obvious. Subtract $140 billion from the 2009 Bush budget - you get $3.38 trillion. Compare that to the 2013 Obama budget (CBO projected) of $3.58 trillion - a difference of $0.2 trillion = $200 billion.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:44 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




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





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:53 PM

KPO

"Love is natural and real. But not for you my love. Not tonight my love..."


Oh, I missed this:

Quote:

Then again, it might be more useful to find if there are that many articles about an Obama spending binge.

Do you not think that accusation has been levelled a lot at Obama?

?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I DO have issues with his recent defense spending conduct, but that was a payout for certain electoral votes, alas.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Oh, I missed this:

Quote:

Then again, it might be more useful to find if there are that many articles about an Obama spending binge.

Do you not think that accusation has been levelled a lot at Obama?

?

It's not personal. It's just war.




From Mitt Romney's own website:

Quote:

Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history...



Maybe he meant to say DEcelerated. Or maybe he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


From Mike's link:
Quote:

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."

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.

Shouldn't surprise anyone; the lies out of the right have been coming fast and furious for some time now, and their base/audience will never know the difference.

Just to show the vast difference, here's a chart:



Or, put another way:



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:15 AM

KPO

"Love is natural and real. But not for you my love. Not tonight my love..."


I would love to be a fly on the wall inside Auraptor's brain as it processes/dismisses this information.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You think he CAN even "process" it? Or would he go straight to "dismiss"? I'm betting on the latter...finding some way to diss the source or something...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:59 AM

STORYMARK


More than likely, he'll just ignore it entirely. Wait a couple weeks - then start new threads complaining about "unprecedented spending" or some simmilar bullshit.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:06 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Facts are to Rappy as Garlic and Crosses are to Vampires.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:43 AM

DREAMTROVE


I know I'll catch some flack from the fanboys for this, but there was a small matter of the up to $40 trillion in extra budgetary spending.

1) TARP and associated bailouts. The cash went out, and the toxic assets came in, and our govt. accepted some of this as "payment" for the cash, and some of it, well, it just took on as debt, but never added it to the debt. The total max liability here was $24 trillion. Of that we only know for certain that Obama swore the acceptance of the $8 trillion in mortgage bonds, as a new govt. debt, but we have an estimated $9 trillion in other bundled debts, plus student loans and healthcare

2) the discount window. Since Obama took office, the banks have "borrowed" over $16 trillion in no interest loans at the discount window, much of which disappeared into dark pools, never to be seen again. Thing is, a borrower can shuffle the money this way to some possessions at home or abroad which it controls indirectly, and then the initial debtor company or division can fold, erase the debt, and keep the cash.

It would take a very simplistic economic outlook to say that Obama hasn't been an economic disaster. I suspect the US dollar will never recover, because we now have a currency market in which any unknown player out there might hold untold trillions in shady capital, and thus the creatino of any wealth through conventional means is dwarfed. Ergo, the thief in chief can now just automatically even something like the facebook as soon as it goes public, in fact, Obama's secret friends are now the de facto financial public. With any luck this will put the concept of "publically held" to bed, but unfortunately I think this one is here to stay.


Face it, all the NWO types are your enemies, and you'd be wasting your time defending any of them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:22 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


There is a mark difference between federal spending levels and the total national debt.

Also things such as TARP are part of what has prevented the US in sliding into another recession like some other countries whom when the route of austerity.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:59 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


DT, do you have ANY kind of cites to back any of those claims?

Because from where I'm sitting, you sound about as credible as Romney on this issue. Any damn fool can pull numbers out of their ass - take PN and his 180 billion illegals pouring across the border, for instance...





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:01 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike, you know I don't care if anyone agrees, I'm just mouthing off. We've been over this one before, it's old news, and we were all here for it. Supposedly Dodd/Frank put an end to the greatest theft of all time, though it was weak, and didn't get any of the money back, and now congress, mostly republicans, are stripping it of any remaining power, which wasn't much because dodd and frank are two of the most corrupt dems in congress.

the $24 trillion was from obama's own inspector general, but it can be found anywhere. I'm not sure if we really hit that number, I suspect not, but I saw his logic. It wasn't the money we gave out, being around $3 trillion, it was the toxic assets we took on, and by we i mean they, thugs in DC.

The $16 trillion can be gotten anywhere, that discount window hijinks was big news, it's why we occupied, and everyone was calling for glass steagall back, that's really the main issue. I'm not saying Bush didn't help set up the whole mess, of course he did, but Obama executed it, or rather, he and his people, and I'm looking at you Tim and Ben. And Larry.

It was the biggest scam since '29, and everyone who was anyone was in on it. I really think it permanently destroyed the economy. We now live in a zen economy with demigods who can own everything, and where the banks vote all the shares, not just their own, it's absurd.

Thing is Mike, it's just one team, there are no opposing teams on the national level. Bush and McCain worked tirelessly to get Obama elected, and they were perfectly aware that's what they were doing. Romney's a shill candidate to keep Obama in power, just like Kerry was, just like Dole was. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama are all part of the ruling Reagan family.

In 2016, when Obama has completely and utterly sunk the economy to a level where Boris Yeltsin would be proud, and no one with two cents to rub together, being that will be all they will be good for, would vote for him, we'll see another staged national campaign, where Hillary will get the Dem nomination so she can do the McCain/Gore imitation and make her own party look bad and the other side look good, and then the face of JEB will rise, and people will tremble in their boots, and everyone and their brother will pile behind Rand Paul, who will just narrowly defeat the demon JEB, and then he will be swept into the whitehouse on a hero's welcome, and deliver on his promise of a gold standard hyper capitalist society and the whole thing will have been a set up all along by the same damn capitalists who know damn well they own all the gold, and Rand will just turn out to be another corporate crony for hire and the whole thing will have been a sham and it will take the sheeple 4 years to figure it out, and by that time they'll just be tuning into to Rand's reinaguration speech where he declare's we're going to war with Latin America, the precise agenda that they blocked JEB's nomination to prevent.

It never changes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:06 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

That's... quite a prediction.

--Anthony



Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:01 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I think it belongs on KPO's predictions thread.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Tue, September 2, 2014 09:55 - 4 posts
I don't even know what most of you are talking about anymore.....
Tue, September 2, 2014 09:55 - 29 posts
oddball question
Tue, September 2, 2014 09:51 - 19 posts
Backlash against rape drug detecting nail polish
Tue, September 2, 2014 09:45 - 13 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine
Tue, September 2, 2014 08:03 - 212 posts
It's growing, not melting.
Tue, September 2, 2014 07:10 - 46 posts
Mystery of crawling desert rocks finally solved.
Tue, September 2, 2014 05:31 - 20 posts
Another Unarmed Black Teen Killed
Tue, September 2, 2014 01:10 - 421 posts
For research, really ?
Tue, September 2, 2014 01:07 - 5 posts
Gun Incident Tax
Mon, September 1, 2014 18:15 - 15 posts
We don't get to see the real president until the last part of his second term. We saw Bush. Now let's look at Obama ...
Mon, September 1, 2014 17:38 - 1 posts
Remember the Snipers ?
Mon, September 1, 2014 17:35 - 4 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS