Hardly!

(05-23-2012 01:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hardly!

It is all a big lie!

You don't understand what this chart says. That's funny.

You're a total hack...that's sad.

(05-23-2012 02:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You're a total hack...that's sad.

Hey, I just respond to what's presented. You don't understand the difference between a rate and the absolute value. Seems like you're the hack since you continue to post nonsense even when it's pointed out to you.

Pffft.

(05-23-2012 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pffft.

Excellent. That's the one of your most intelligent posts. Keep up the good work, and do keep being my *****.

Stalk much?

It is you after all that comments on nearly every comment I make...you on the other hand...I could care less about your posts and universally ignored threads.

Now run along you poor little troll.

(05-23-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stalk much?

It is you after all that comments on nearly every comment I make...you on the other hand...I could care less about your posts and universally ignored threads.

Really?

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=571...pid7925009

So now you're a repeated liar and a *****.

HAND troll.

Seems that James Pethokoukis has a bone to pick with that presentation.

Quote:As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”



Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad.

Actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen

He has a different chart that shows it a bit differently, by % of GDP, which makes it look much different.

Figures don't lie: Democrats do

Quote:It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.

That's not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column.

Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending.

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn't come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch's Nutting says that's Bush's spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending

Frustrated that he can't shift all of Obama's spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House's numbers, the White House's estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting's counting Obama's nine-month spending binge as Bush's spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won't they do?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51706

I think it would be fair to give credit to Bush in regards to the aspects of the budget that weren't changed, but to attribute all of it to Obama is being intentionally misleading.

(05-23-2012 01:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hardly!

I feel dumber for reading this post.

It's not the percentage, it's the amount. Even with a reduction in spending, he would be spending more than any president in history.

At least you got the Thread title correct. Just like Obama, even when you do something right, it is by accident.

All I have to say to this thread is that we now have 1 trillion dollar deficits ever year. Case closed.

Did you also notice that, factored into his analysis was taxes Obama didn't collect because of the recession? You think he factored in taxes Bush didn't collect, or Reagan, or HW Bush? That'd be no.

Ask yourself this Tom. Could we have a 5 trillion dollar addition to our debt in the last 3 years, the same as the amount added the previous 8, if Obama [i]really[/] had spent as the chart implies?

Critical thinking is critical.

Deficits don't matter.

(05-23-2012 08:01 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Did you also notice that, factored into his analysis was taxes Obama didn't collect because of the recession? You think he factored in taxes Bush didn't collect, or Reagan, or HW Bush? That'd be no.

Ask yourself this Tom. Could we have a 5 trillion dollar addition to our debt in the last 3 years, the same as the amount added the previous 8, if Obama [i]really[/] had spent as the chart implies?

Critical thinking is critical.

The chart says spending growth. Meaning that the growth is less than his predecessors. You get an increase in the national debt because you aren't collecting revenue. Why because people lost their jobs, and..........tax cuts.

Ah, another lib who doesn't think SPENDING contributes to debt.

And why are you ignoring the fact that the chart is a bold face lie?

(05-23-2012 08:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Ah, another lib who doesn't think SPENDING contributes to debt.

And why are you ignoring the fact that the chart is a bold face lie?

Silly Paul, debt is a factor of how much you make and how much you spend.

That's better, you at least putting spending back in there.

But it's all about spending.