Obama's lies on spending less than in 60 years obliterated.

[Soul Crusher]

http://blog.american.com/2012/05/the-stunning-chart-that-shows-the-obama-spending-binge-really-happened



More lies from the marxist maggot destroyed. 

[Soul Crusher]

The stunning chart that shows the Obama spending binge really happened

By James Pethokoukis
May 24, 2012, 12:35 pm
A A A




In a column on Tuesday, Rex Nutting of MarketWatch ran some budget numbers and concluded the following:
 

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. 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.
 
And here is Nutting’s graph:
 


The shocking, contrarian piece was widely circulated in liberal circles and was even cited on Wednesday by White House spokesman Jay Carney.
 
But there were a few problems with Nutting’s numbers. Nutting’s methodology assumes spending in the first year of a presidential term should be credited to the previous president. OK, fine. But he attributed a $410 billion spending bill in March of 2009 to George W. Bush even though it was signed by Barack Obama. Nutting also didn’t use inflation adjusted numbers.
 
But I did both of those and got wildly different results from Nutting, as seen in the chart at the top of this post. (Note: I looked at absolute spending as opposed to the rate of increase.)
 
My numbers show that spending under the ’10-’13 Obama budgets far outstrips spending by a generation of presidential predecessors. This should not be surprising since spending as a share of GDP under Obama is the highest in U.S. history outside of World War II.
 
We can disagree about whether all of Obama’s massive spending is a good idea or not. But we can’t factually argue about whether it happened or not. It did.
 
The Obama spending binge really did happen.

[GigantorX]

The original Marketwatch article was a joke and a farce.

It's hilarious and sad that Obama and his propaganda drones (Chris Matthews, Axlerod etc) are actually going on TV/Radio and puking this stuff out. It isn't true, just look at the numbers.

Plus, Obama hasn't had an actual budget yet, all the spending has been done by continuing resolutions.

Also, the article in Marketwatch states that Obama came in under Bushes budget....which isn't really at all true either. If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong) Bushes final budget was whacked by the Democrat controlled Congress.

This has to be one of the medias worst performances in recent history. And it really shows you just how far in the tank they are for Obama.

[Soul Crusher]

The original Marketwatch article was a joke and a farce.

It's hilarious and sad that Obama and his propaganda drones (Chris Matthews, Axlerod etc) are actually going on TV/Radio and puking this stuff out. It isn't true, just look at the numbers.

Plus, Obama hasn't had an actual budget yet, all the spending has been done by continuing resolutions.

Also, the article in Marketwatch states that Obama came in under Bushes budget....which isn't really at all true either. If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong) Bushes final budget was whacked by the Democrat controlled Congress.

This has to be one of the medias worst performances in recent history. And it really shows you just how far in the tank they are for Obama.

you know whats funny - the obama drones on my facebook page all immediately posted that article and were a real hot mess on that marketwatch article.  i posted the AEI and WAPO breakdown of that ridiculous article and they are melting down all over the place. 

[dario73]

HEHEHEHE!!

Romney is going to have a field day destroying Obama when they debate.

[Soul Crusher]

MarketWatch rebuttal infographic: How to make Obama’s spending look small
 Hotair ^ | 05/25/2012 | Political Math



It's been going around Facebook and the Twitters.

It's been rated “mostly true” by Politifact.

It is the MarketWatch piece on how Obama hasn't really increased spending all that much.

And I'm damn tired of picking it apart 140 characters at a time, so I put together this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.



There are two things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it's really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a "best estimate of what Obama inherited", but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

References:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file. Easy to work with.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

[GigantorX]

Bump.

[Hugo Chavez]

Bump.

thanks

[Soul Crusher]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Soul Crusher]

May 30, 2012
Spending? What Spending?
By Rich Lowry


Franklin Delano Roosevelt never denied that he created Social Security. Lyndon Baines Johnson didn’t forswear any responsibility for Medicaid. Ronald Reagan never argued that his defense buildup didn’t happen.
 
The Obama White House, in contrast, wants to wish away the historic federal spending that is one of its signature accomplishments.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, whose job it is to dodge questions and elide facts without betraying any embarrassment, urged reporters the other day to steer clear of “the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration.” Not one to be outclassed by his press secretary, President Barack Obama kept up the edifying livestock theme by calling Mitt Romney’s attacks on his deficit spending “a cow pie of distortion.”
 
The White House has a deeply conflicted relationship to its own record. It is saddled with a bad case of spender’s denial, a rare psychological disorder afflicting committed Keynesians facing reelection at a time of record debt.
 
On the one hand, spending is the lifeblood of “Forward.” It saved us from another Great Depression. It is forging a glorious new future of green energy. It is the only thing standing between the American public and the untold devastation of the Paul Ryan budget. How do we know? Because President Obama says so.On the other hand, the deficits and the debt that come with all this spending are alarming and unpopular. So Obama calls himself the most fiscally conservative president in more than half a century. When the president isn’t extolling his transformative expenditures, he has a Walter Mitty life as the second coming of Dwight Eisenhower. He needs to consult an accountant and a therapist, and not necessarily in that order.
 
If you torture the numbers just the right way — the Office of Management and Budget meets the Spanish Inquisition — you can come up with a 0.4 percent rate of spending growth during the Obama administration. To get there, you have to ignore part of the stimulus (on grounds that Obama didn’t have complete control of the budget in 2009) and play games with the bailouts (crediting Obama with spending cuts when they are paid back). Even fact-checkers with mainstream-media outfits have merrily stomped all over the statistical legerdemain.
 
Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press writes that “Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.” Spending growth slowed after that, under the influence of the very same congressional Republicans that President Obama excoriates for not allowing him to spend more.
 
There’s no doubt that the president inherited a fiscal nightmare. Spending spiked as the economy tanked. His response has been to spend yet more every single year. Spending was $2.98 trillion in 2008, and the president’s budget calls for it to hit $3.72 trillion in 2013. As a percentage of GDP, spending has been at post–World War II highs throughout his term. If fiscal probity is truly his aim, President Obama is a miserable failure of a skinflint.
 
The laughable claim to fiscal restraint is meant to recapture some of Obama’s former ideological indistinctness. Back in 2008, he could say — with no direct evidence to contradict him — that he wanted a net cut in federal spending, in his guise as a post-partisan pragmatist. That was several $1 trillion deficits ago. Now, the president can say whatever he wants, but his budgets are a matter of public record.
 
He should embrace those budgets in all their Keynesian majesty. They are one of his most consequential contributions to our national life, and a true expression of his philosophical core and that of his party. In his tawdry denials, the president almost acts as if $5.5 trillion in new debt were something to be ashamed of.


Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.


© 2012 King Features Syndicate

[Soul Crusher]

Bump for 180. 

[MM2K]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

He didnt even debunk the most rediculous part, which is them trying to make George Bush responsible for fiscal year 2009.

[Soul Crusher]

President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents

 By Elizabeth Flock
June 1, 2012 RSS Feed Print



President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.
 
A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."
 
Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.
 
Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.
 
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would cut federal spending down to just 17 percent of GDP.
 
President Obama is facing some heat over the economy Friday after a depressing job report showed the jobless rate climbed to 8.2 percent in May.
 
Update, 5:19 p.m.:
 
Some readers have pointed out that although Obama passed the stimulus plan, federal spending under his administration has risen at a very slow pace -- the slowest pace, in fact, "since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950's," Marketwatch reported last month.
 
View the federal spending chart in a larger size here.
 •GOP Jumps on Obama For Poor Jobs Report
•GOP Stands Down on Social Issues, Focuses on Jobs
•Check out U.S. News Weekly, an insiders guide to politics and policy.
 
Elizabeth Flock is a staff writer for U.S. News & World Report. You can contact her at eflock@usnews.com or follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
 
Tags:economy,economic stimulus, Barack Obama,employment