Contributors

Friday, May 25, 2012

A Really Big Lie

These days, when someone from the right will make a statement, the first thing that pops into my head is a question.

"Do I really want to waste my time researching this when I know it's likely completely bullshit?"

Take, for example, the assertion by Mitt Romney and virtually everyone on the right that President Obama has been spending like crazy. An "inferno" is what Mr. Romney called it.

Well, a new piece by Marketwatch has this to say.

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

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.

There damn well better be some numbers to back that up!

• 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. 

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%

Huh. I guess we can put the lie away now along with the raising taxes and apologizing to everyone nonsense.

This would be why I don't like to waste my very valuable time. It always turns out to be another bullshit lie.

19 comments:

juris imprudent said...

This is somewhat true - Congress has not spent nearly as wildly since 2010 as they did from 2001-09.

Hey M, maybe you finally spotted a good reason for not passing and executing an annual budget the last 3 years!

GuardDuck said...

Really?

Take a gander at this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.

GuardDuck said...

Oh, and lifted from another blog because it made me laugh:

You see they have apparently accepted the premise that massive government spending and debt is a very bad thing. Why else try to blame Bush for it? But i(t) is so easy to prove that the massive spending and debt is entirely Obama's doing that they are essentially going to wind up condemned out of their own mouths.

Another aspect of the trap they have fallen into is that the only thing that Obama can run on (other than the way he personally parachuted into Osama's compound, defeated his legion of elite mujahedin guards in hand-to-hand combat and then brought down Osama's fleeing Hind helicopter with a handful of carefully placed shots from his Bren-Ten handgun) is the fact that his "stimulus"spending saved the nation from a second Great Depression and began the long road to economic recovery.
But now, according to the timeline which they are doing everything in their power to make the official party line for Democrats and their lickspittle allies in the press all of that spending which saved the nation from economically collapsing and becoming a Mad Max-style distopia was due to the visionary planning of George W Bush. All little Barry did was sit passively in the White House and slavishly follow the road map to recovery laid down by his smarter, more capable predecessor.
Is that really what the left want's to do?
I have trouble believing that even Joe "The Halfwit" Biden could have come up with something this stupid.

last in line said...

Why didn't the author of that piece include the first stimulus bill of 2009 in his numbers?

Mark Ward said...

Ah, but last, you forget that a third of the stimulus was tax cuts.

Hey, GD, is the president a big spender or not? Compared to other presidents?

last in line said...

The author of that piece is talking about spending, and you are talking about spending, so that is what my question (that you didn't answer) was about - spending.

6Kings said...

Not only sloppy but using numbers all over the place to try and shoehorn Democrat incompetence and idiocy into respectable numbers. Well, here is a better view...Fun Math Facts

6Kings said...

and me sloppy for reposting...sorry

Mark Ward said...

I know, last, and what I'm saying is the spending from the stimulus can't be counted as all spending because a third of it is tax cuts. So when you are looking at 3.46 trillion for fiscal 2010, you have to include a different number in your calculations when you figure in the tax cut part of the stimulus. What numbers do you get?

GuardDuck said...

Hey, GD, is the president a big spender or not? Compared to other presidents?


Silly question Mark.

The president doesn't have the checkbook, congress does.

puzzled in cincinatti said...

But, but, but... I thought Democrats chant the mantra that all tax cuts must be "paid for", so doesn't that mean they equate tax cuts and spending with regard to the deficit/debt?

last in line said...

What does “my” number have to do with anything here? The fact is that this guy didn’t include anything from that bill in his analysis. My number could be $20...doesn’t make a difference because my number doesn’t have anything to do with my point here. Why do you need my number anyway...to “prove me wrong”?

If you want my number – it’s $748 billion. I got that number from a new report your friends at the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of_ARRA.pdf

Quote from page 1 - When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $831 billion. By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of March 2012.

As I do the math from the material quoted in this CBO report, the cost of the program between 2009 and 2012 is 90 percent of $831 billion, or about $748 billion.

Quote from the article – They increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million and 1.5 million,

So without the stimulus, there would be anywhere from 200,000 to 1.5 million fewer people employed right now? That means the current cost-per-job created is somewhere between $4.1 million and $540,000.

Charming!

Back to my original point - why don’t you tell us why he oh so conveniently forgot to include an item that (according to the cbo) impacted the budget by $748 billion between 2009 and 2012? You jot down peoples motivations all the time – do it again here.

Mark Ward said...

Because he was talking about spending exclusively. He didn't include the full 787 billion because a third of that was tax cuts. So, the president didn't "spend" 787 billion. Now you have to go back and figure in the new amount (around 500 billion) and see if he included that in his estimates. I realize that you lose all reason and give in to your emotions when it comes to the stImulus, but it worked. Deal with it. And while you are at it, explain what you think would have happened without it.

Why is it so difficult to admit that the president isn't really the big spender that the right makes him out to be?

juris imprudent said...

I realize that you lose all reason and give in to your emotions when it comes to the stImulus, but it worked.

It isn't so ridiculous that you yourself operate on blind faith, but it surely is when you lie about yourself and those who differ with you. You almost never have command of a single fact, and yet you try to shout down those who do. At least be honest about what you are doing - is that really too much to ask?

Mark Ward said...

I am, juris. President Obama is not as big a spender as the right makes him out to be. In fact, when you compare him to other presidents, he ranks very low. These are the facts. Rather than do your usual dialog on me, refute them with evidence. Thought the stimulus was a bad idea? Fine. Offer an alternative plan as to what you would've done and what you think would've happened. Otherwise, learn to live with the disappointment of reality.

last in line said...

Thank you. You, and nobody else here, can tell why Rex Nutting left the first stimulus bill out of his piece. You're talking about "my" number, how much of it is tax cuts, that you think it worked, what would have happened without it, offer an alternative plan, yadda yadda. You simply cannot explain why Rex left it out of his piece and you can't tell us his motivations for doing so.

I don't "have" to go back and do anything. Read my quote from page 1 I just posted above - my number came from the CBO. My number could have been $20 - still doesn't change the fact that you can't tell me why he didn't put that in his figures.

No emotions here - just numbers from the CBO and a point that has yet to be refuted.

Mark Ward said...

You, and nobody else here, can tell why Rex Nutting left the first stimulus bill out of his piece.

Seriously, are you having some sort of problem understanding English? I've answered your question accurately several times now. This is why I get so frustrated with this ideology...don't like the answer? Well, just make up something and pretend that that was the answer. Sheesh....

juris imprudent said...

I've answered your question accurately several times now.

If that were true you should simply quote what you said. Funny how everyone but you has a comprehension issue, isn't it?

rld said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

Three Pinocchios for Jay, Rex and Markadelphia.