Faux News Has Tricked People Into Thinking Obama Is A Big Spender

[nitroz]

Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

When I recently posted an analytical news story, “The Claim that Barack Obama Is a Big Spender Is a Big Lie,” numerous conservatives countered by citing commentaries from conservative News sources, such as Eric Bolling of Fox News, and an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily.

Those commentaries featured headlines designed to attract conservatives, such as “Stop the Madness – the Truth about Obama and Our National Debt,” and “CBO Refutes Obama’s Slippery Spending Claims.” All of these commentaries equated deficits with spending, implying that the two are the same.

However, deficits and spending are very different from each other, and this will be seen with particular clarity if you will click on the well-documented Wikipedia article “History of the United States Public Debt,” at the end of which is an informative one-page table titled “Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP.” This table is the clearest summary of the U.S. fiscal situation for each year from 1977 to the latest that I have seen anywhere.

If you will look there at the latest reported year, 2010, you will see that the “Adjusted” “Federal Spending” declined 2.4% in that latest year, but that the “Federal Debt” soared by 12.5% in that year, which rise was unprecedented except for Ronald Reagan’s 15% in 1983, 12.3% in 1985, and 13.9% in 1986. By contrast, for example, the Federal Debt declined in Bill Clinton’s last year, 2000, when federal spending actually went up by 2.5%. (The largest annual increase in spending, incidentally, was Ronald Reagan’s 1985 figure, 7.4%.)

Why is there this enormous discrepancy between spending and deficit, such that they can even go in opposite directions? The reason is that deficits result not just from too much money going out (“big spending”), but from not enough money coming in (too little in taxes). Republican propaganda-vehicles (such as Fox News and IBD) hide this reality, and pretend that deficits result directly from “too much spending.” They do this so as to fool conservative voters into thinking that the fiscal problem is not too little in taxes but too much in spending. This deceit of the public enables these propaganda-vehicles and their very wealthy owners (their ultimate bosses) to block Obama from getting his proposed tax-hikes on $250,000+ annual earners (the top 2%) passed in Congress. It’s a self-interested deceit of the public by those owners.

All of this is acknowledged in policy-circles that are not themselves thoroughly corrupted by big money, but our craven News media have not pointed it out to their publics, because they don’t want to seem “partisan,” even if the facts in this matter are entirely “partisan.” Thus, this crucial reality, of the difference between federal spending and federal deficits, remains effectively hidden from the general public. (Of course, the News media on the political right are just propagandists, and so they don’t merely hide the difference; they actively pump the Republican lie on this, saying that more spending equals more deficits; they’re not passive about this lie at all.)

Read more: Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

When I recently posted an analytical news story, “The Claim that Barack Obama Is a Big Spender Is a Big Lie,” numerous conservatives countered by citing commentaries from conservative News sources, such as Eric Bolling of Fox News, and an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily.

Those commentaries featured headlines designed to attract conservatives, such as “Stop the Madness – the Truth about Obama and Our National Debt,” and “CBO Refutes Obama’s Slippery Spending Claims.” All of these commentaries equated deficits with spending, implying that the two are the same.

However, deficits and spending are very different from each other, and this will be seen with particular clarity if you will click on the well-documented Wikipedia article “History of the United States Public Debt,” at the end of which is an informative one-page table titled “Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP.” This table is the clearest summary of the U.S. fiscal situation for each year from 1977 to the latest that I have seen anywhere.

If you will look there at the latest reported year, 2010, you will see that the “Adjusted” “Federal Spending” declined 2.4% in that latest year, but that the “Federal Debt” soared by 12.5% in that year, which rise was unprecedented except for Ronald Reagan’s 15% in 1983, 12.3% in 1985, and 13.9% in 1986. By contrast, for example, the Federal Debt declined in Bill Clinton’s last year, 2000, when federal spending actually went up by 2.5%. (The largest annual increase in spending, incidentally, was Ronald Reagan’s 1985 figure, 7.4%.)

Why is there this enormous discrepancy between spending and deficit, such that they can even go in opposite directions? The reason is that deficits result not just from too much money going out (“big spending”), but from not enough money coming in (too little in taxes). Republican propaganda-vehicles (such as Fox News and IBD) hide this reality, and pretend that deficits result directly from “too much spending.” They do this so as to fool conservative voters into thinking that the fiscal problem is not too little in taxes but too much in spending. This deceit of the public enables these propaganda-vehicles and their very wealthy owners (their ultimate bosses) to block Obama from getting his proposed tax-hikes on $250,000+ annual earners (the top 2%) passed in Congress. It’s a self-interested deceit of the public by those owners.

All of this is acknowledged in policy-circles that are not themselves thoroughly corrupted by big money, but our craven News media have not pointed it out to their publics, because they don’t want to seem “partisan,” even if the facts in this matter are entirely “partisan.” Thus, this crucial reality, of the difference between federal spending and federal deficits, remains effectively hidden from the general public. (Of course, the media on the political right are just propagandists, and so they don’t merely hide the difference; they actively pump the Republican lie on this, saying that more spending equals more deficits; they’re not passive about this lie at all.)

Read more: Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

The idiot is trying to defend himself by blaming Fox for what he got wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

When I recently posted an analytical news story, “The Claim that Barack Obama Is a Big Spender Is a Big Lie,” numerous conservatives countered by citing commentaries from conservative News sources, such as Eric Bolling of Fox News, and an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily.

Those commentaries featured headlines designed to attract conservatives, such as “Stop the Madness – the Truth about Obama and Our National Debt,” and “CBO Refutes Obama’s Slippery Spending Claims.” All of these commentaries equated deficits with spending, implying that the two are the same.

However, deficits and spending are very different from each other, and this will be seen with particular clarity if you will click on the well-documented Wikipedia article “History of the United States Public Debt,” at the end of which is an informative one-page table titled “Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP.” This table is the clearest summary of the U.S. fiscal situation for each year from 1977 to the latest that I have seen anywhere.

If you will look there at the latest reported year, 2010, you will see that the “Adjusted” “Federal Spending” declined 2.4% in that latest year, but that the “Federal Debt” soared by 12.5% in that year, which rise was unprecedented except for Ronald Reagan’s 15% in 1983, 12.3% in 1985, and 13.9% in 1986. By contrast, for example, the Federal Debt declined in Bill Clinton’s last year, 2000, when federal spending actually went up by 2.5%. (The largest annual increase in spending, incidentally, was Ronald Reagan’s 1985 figure, 7.4%.)

Why is there this enormous discrepancy between spending and deficit, such that they can even go in opposite directions? The reason is that deficits result not just from too much money going out (“big spending”), but from not enough money coming in (too little in taxes). Republican propaganda-vehicles (such as Fox News and IBD) hide this reality, and pretend that deficits result directly from “too much spending.” They do this so as to fool conservative voters into thinking that the fiscal problem is not too little in taxes but too much in spending. This deceit of the public enables these propaganda-vehicles and their very wealthy owners (their ultimate bosses) to block Obama from getting his proposed tax-hikes on $250,000+ annual earners (the top 2%) passed in Congress. It’s a self-interested deceit of the public by those owners.

All of this is acknowledged in policy-circles that are not themselves thoroughly corrupted by big money, but our craven News media have not pointed it out to their publics, because they don’t want to seem “partisan,” even if the facts in this matter are entirely “partisan.” Thus, this crucial reality, of the difference between federal spending and federal deficits, remains effectively hidden from the general public. (Of course, the News media on the political right are just propagandists, and so they don’t merely hide the difference; they actively pump the Republican lie on this, saying that more spending equals more deficits; they’re not passive about this lie at all.)

Read more: Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

Faux News Has Tricked People Into Thinking Obama Is A Big Spender

His record high spending and record deficits creating our record debt has nothing to do with Fox News.

 

[Lovebears65]

Yeah, The deficient going up by 5 Trillion dollars in less then 3 years has nothing to do with Obama . .Its all Fox news fault

 

[freedombecki]

Business Insider claims it received a "webbey honoree" citation in 2009 for being an online business blog. Before that, the name was used by CNBC as a show until 1997. So their owners are painting Republicans as confused. What does that sound like?

 

[alan1]

Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

When I recently posted an analytical news story, “The Claim that Barack Obama Is a Big Spender Is a Big Lie,” numerous conservatives countered by citing commentaries from conservative News sources, such as Eric Bolling of Fox News, and an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily.

Those commentaries featured headlines designed to attract conservatives, such as “Stop the Madness – the Truth about Obama and Our National Debt,” and “CBO Refutes Obama’s Slippery Spending Claims.” All of these commentaries equated deficits with spending, implying that the two are the same.

However, deficits and spending are very different from each other, and this will be seen with particular clarity if you will click on the well-documented Wikipedia article “History of the United States Public Debt,” at the end of which is an informative one-page table titled “Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP.” This table is the clearest summary of the U.S. fiscal situation for each year from 1977 to the latest that I have seen anywhere.

If you will look there at the latest reported year, 2010, you will see that the “Adjusted” “Federal Spending” declined 2.4% in that latest year, but that the “Federal Debt” soared by 12.5% in that year, which rise was unprecedented except for Ronald Reagan’s 15% in 1983, 12.3% in 1985, and 13.9% in 1986. By contrast, for example, the Federal Debt declined in Bill Clinton’s last year, 2000, when federal spending actually went up by 2.5%. (The largest annual increase in spending, incidentally, was Ronald Reagan’s 1985 figure, 7.4%.)

Why is there this enormous discrepancy between spending and deficit, such that they can even go in opposite directions? The reason is that deficits result not just from too much money going out (“big spending”), but from not enough money coming in (too little in taxes). Republican propaganda-vehicles (such as Fox News and IBD) hide this reality, and pretend that deficits result directly from “too much spending.” They do this so as to fool conservative voters into thinking that the fiscal problem is not too little in taxes but too much in spending. This deceit of the public enables these propaganda-vehicles and their very wealthy owners (their ultimate bosses) to block Obama from getting his proposed tax-hikes on $250,000+ annual earners (the top 2%) passed in Congress. It’s a self-interested deceit of the public by those owners.

All of this is acknowledged in policy-circles that are not themselves thoroughly corrupted by big money, but our craven News media have not pointed it out to their publics, because they don’t want to seem “partisan,” even if the facts in this matter are entirely “partisan.” Thus, this crucial reality, of the difference between federal spending and federal deficits, remains effectively hidden from the general public. (Of course, the News media on the political right are just propagandists, and so they don’t merely hide the difference; they actively pump the Republican lie on this, saying that more spending equals more deficits; they’re not passive about this lie at all.)

Read more: Republicans Confused About Government Spending - Business Insider

Faux News Has Tricked People Into Thinking Obama Is A Big Spender

His record high spending and record deficits creating our record debt has nothing to do with Fox News.

this,

Why is there this enormous discrepancy between spending and deficit, such that they can even go in opposite directions? The reason is that deficits result not just from too much money going out (“big spending”),but from not enough money coming in (too little in taxes).

Another person thinks federal income (via tax) is endless. I guess the OP disagrees with my sig line.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well now, let's be fair. anyone who has watched the documentary, Orwell Rolls In His Grave saw Murdoch tell his staff to just keep saying the same lie over and over ...

Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced

He told his staff, ON CAMERA, that if they said that often enough, eople would blindly believe any lie they told. Don't believe me? WATCH THE FRIGGIN DOCUMENTARY. Its available from Netflix.

Fans of fux also know that a MUSLIM oil-rich ARAB is in charge of every single thing they see on fux.

See, that's the real rub. Its not that rw's don't know they're being lied to. They DO know it and they care so little about their own country and their own families that they're more than willing to swallow all the lies that fux feeds them.

WHY??

Because they hate that a black man is sleeping in the White House.

Damn fool idiots will happily sell their own families out for that hate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The annual $1.3 Trillion deficits just don't exist.

Oh, has Obama ever passed a budget?

 

[alan1]

Well now, let's be fair. anyone who has watched the documentary, Orwell Rolls In His Grave saw Murdoch tell his staff to just keep saying the same lie over and over ...

Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced

He told his staff, ON CAMERA, that if they said that often enough, eople would blindly believe any lie they told. Don't believe me? WATCH THE FRIGGIN DOCUMENTARY. Its available from Netflix.

Fans of fux also know that a MUSLIM oil-rich ARAB is in charge of every single thing they see on fux.

See, that's the real rub. Its not that rw's don't know they're being lied to. They DO know it and they care so little about their own country and their own families that they're more than willing to swallow all the lies that fux feeds them.

WHY??

Because they hate that a black man is sleeping in the White House.

Damn fool idiots will happily sell their own families out for that hate.

Appeal to faux racism.
Yawn.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

alan 1's sig

Voting for your brethren to pay more in taxes than you pay yourself is naught but legalized theft.

Using politicians as your means to enforce your theft may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Is it not true that voting for your "brethren" (they're not, but we'll play along for the moment) ... Anyway, voting for your brethren to pay LESS taxes than you (based on dollar amount) is stupidity, class warfare and a form of slavery.

And, its NOT right. Or rather, its "right" (as in GObP) but its immoral and unethical and exactly what we fought against almost 300 years ago.

That's really a dumb ass signature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rex Nutting Sec Tres! He can make Obama's deficits disappear!

 

[freedombecki]

Well now, let's be fair. anyone who has watched the documentary, Orwell Rolls In His Grave saw Murdoch tell his staff to just keep saying the same lie over and over ...

Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced

He told his staff, ON CAMERA, that if they said that often enough, eople would blindly believe any lie they told. Don't believe me? WATCH THE FRIGGIN DOCUMENTARY. Its available from Netflix.

Fans of fux also know that a MUSLIM oil-rich ARAB is in charge of every single thing they see on fux.

See, that's the real rub. Its not that rw's don't know they're being lied to. They DO know it and they care so little about their own country and their own families that they're more than willing to swallow all the lies that fux feeds them.

WHY??

Because they hate that a black man is sleeping in the White House.

Damn fool idiots will happily sell their own families out for that hate.

I don't believe a man's color has anything to do with the frivolous spending being discussed here. You're

 

[alan1]

alan 1's sig

Voting for your brethren to pay more in taxes than you pay yourself is naught but legalized theft.

Using politicians as your means to enforce your theft may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Is it not true that voting for your "brethren" (they're not, but we'll play along for the moment) ... Anyway, voting for your brethren to pay LESS taxes than you (based on dollar amount) is stupidity, class warfare and a form of slavery.

And, its NOT right. Or rather, its "right" (as in GObP) but its immoral and unethical and exactly what we fought against almost 300 years ago.

That's really a dumb ass signature.

I didn't say LESS.
Do you have a problem with everybody paying the exact same tax, either percentage or dollar amount? Pick one.

 

[freedombecki]

alan 1's sig

Voting for your brethren to pay more in taxes than you pay yourself is naught but legalized theft.

Using politicians as your means to enforce your theft may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Is it not true that voting for your "brethren" (they're not, but we'll play along for the moment) ... Anyway, voting for your brethren to pay LESS taxes than you (based on dollar amount) is stupidity, class warfare and a form of slavery.

And, its NOT right. Or rather, its "right" (as in GObP) but its immoral and unethical and exactly what we fought against almost 300 years ago.

That's really a dumb ass signature.

This is a free speech board. And you sir, cannot abide the truth. Keep hitting on conservatives to do something about the deplorable situation brought about by overspending, and we will indeed do something about it, but you're not liking it already.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The annual $1.3 Trillion deficits just don't exist.

Oh, has Obama ever passed a budget?

As you well know and al every single other rabid rw knows, an Obama "budget" will never ever pass because the sneaky, anti-American pubs and bags remove every single fact before they allow a vote to take place. No one could or would vote for a "budget" that shows only a dollar amount but not one FACT about how that dollar amount is to be spent.

These corrupt weasels have been doing this for years now and, although they were able to keep it secret for a long time, everyone knows it now.

Even idiot rw's.

LOOK IT UP.

 

[alan1]

alan 1's sig

Voting for your brethren to pay more in taxes than you pay yourself is naught but legalized theft.

Using politicians as your means to enforce your theft may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Is it not true that voting for your "brethren" (they're not, but we'll play along for the moment) ... Anyway, voting for your brethren to pay LESS taxes than you (based on dollar amount) is stupidity, class warfare and a form of slavery.

And, its NOT right. Or rather, its "right" (as in GObP) but its immoral and unethical and exactly what we fought against almost 300 years ago.

That's really a dumb ass signature.

Must be this,

Because they hate that a black man is sleeping in the White House.

Your accusation, prove it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yeah, The deficient going up by 5 Trillion dollars in less then 3 years has nothing to do with Obama . .Its all Fox news fault

I don't watch FoxNews but I knew that anyway. How the f*ck did THAT happen?

 

[Liability]

The spending by The ONE has been massive.

Where's the trick?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The annual $1.3 Trillion deficits just don't exist.

Oh, has Obama ever passed a budget?

As you well know and al every single other rabid rw knows, an Obama "budget" will never ever pass because the sneaky, anti-American pubs and bags remove every single fact before they allow a vote to take place. No one could or would vote for a "budget" that shows only a dollar amount but not one FACT about how that dollar amount is to be spent.

These corrupt weasels have been doing this for years now and, although they were able to keep it secret for a long time, everyone knows it now.

Even idiot rw's.

LOOK IT UP.

Obama had a Democrat majority and she still couldn't pass a budget

Stop lying

It makes you look like an idiot, I mean a bigger idiot than you already are

 

[nitroz]

The annual $1.3 Trillion deficits just don't exist.

Oh, has Obama ever passed a budget?

Obama only proposes budgets. Congress debates and approves/rejects all budgets. They always have.
And since the majority is Republican, you can guess where to shift the blame.