Obama's fuzzy math about his spending

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

You can find video of Obama at the podium claiming that he increased spending at the lowest rate in decades. Then compare that to how the deficit relative to GDP is way up and you'll know he's full of crap.

I can't find any such video. Can you?

I can. I'm not going to. I'm not trying a federal case for you. And I'm not going to get into your source game. This isn't some obscure headline. This was Obama's narrative on the day I posted it (and the market watch story coincided with his speech claim). He said it, it's out there. Deal with it. Or should I say, spin it. like you're already trying to do.

 

[ladyliberal]

^^^

Nice finds. Crazy how Obama makes all these huge promises and then the media never calls him out. And they should be calling him out for his low spending claims. But what do we get? <Crickets>

He did get three Pinocchios for telling this whopper about his spending from the Washington Post Fact Checker. Biggest whopper of his yet and leading Romney big time in racking up more and bigger Pinocchios -another proud moment for Obama. UNBELIEVABLE but the man knows no shame, has no real conscience. To me this shows the level of contempt he has for people knowing full well this is a monster of a lie -he still thinks people are so stupid they will just believe whatever they are instructed to believe. For some of his own supporters, they really are that stupid but most people are not. Apparently Obummer never heard of PT Barnum while growing up in Indonesia. LOL With every passing day listening to this man literally rant against traditional American values and spew his anti-capitalism venom and vomit out yet another distortion, exaggeration or outright lie -I find the man increasingly creepy and disturbing. He isn't a nice guy.

Not to split hairs, but you seem to be confusing the President of the United States with Jay Carney (The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post). More to the point, as I read the rating, it applies to Carney's claim that reporters were guilty of "sloth and laziness" for failing to accept Nutting's analysis, not to Carney's description of Nutting's analysis itself. I think this is an overly aggressive rating; I don't see how the fact-checker identified "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.". The text of the analysis only identifies what it describes as problematic methodology. The fact-checker also takes Carney to task for failing to note the role Congress played in curtailing spending-- yet Carney used the careful phrasing "under Obama" which avoids attributing credit/blame.

Politifact's rating gave Nutting's original analysis a "mostly true" noting correctly (even in the face of some criticism: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/) that while Nutting's methodology was debatable it was not false.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Do I really have to explain why this is nonsense? Or are you going to apologize for being your hack self and then we can move on?

 

[ladyliberal]

^^^

You can find video of Obama at the podium claiming that he increased spending at the lowest rate in decades. Then compare that to how the deficit relative to GDP is way up and you'll know he's full of crap.

I can't find any such video. Can you?

I can. I'm not going to. I'm not trying a federal case for you. And I'm not going to get into your source game. This isn't some obscure headline. This was Obama's narrative on the day I posted it (and the market watch story coincided with his speech claim). He said it, it's out there. Deal with it. Or should I say, spin it. like you're already trying to do.

I don't know what to tell you. I've looked for the video and I can't find it. I find it a bit frustrating that you accuse him of being imprecise "fuzzy math" and yet you are yourself relying on an anonymous, unsourced and thoroughly ungrammatical paraphrase of his alleged comments.

 

[Ragnar]

MarketWatch&#8217;s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic) « 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.

See full size at link.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I can't find any such video. Can you?

I can. I'm not going to. I'm not trying a federal case for you. And I'm not going to get into your source game. This isn't some obscure headline. This was Obama's narrative on the day I posted it (and the market watch story coincided with his speech claim). He said it, it's out there. Deal with it. Or should I say, spin it. like you're already trying to do.

I don't know what to tell you. I've looked for the video and I can't find it. I find it a bit frustrating that you accuse him of being imprecise "fuzzy math" and yet you are yourself relying on an anonymous, unsourced and thoroughly ungrammatical paraphrase of his alleged comments.

Fine. Watch and laugh.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C3sgA58Jqc]Obama: I've "Cleaned Up" GOP's "Wild Debts"--My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years - YouTube[/ame]

Krauthammer: Obama Claim Of Fiscal Discipline Is "Whopper Of The Year" | RealClearPolitics

P.S. Ungrammatical? You're really going to play that card. I knew that you were trolling. That's why I wasn't over anxious to spoon feed you. Next time follow the news son and stop trolling.

 

[Bigfoot]

If the Democrats repeat the lie enough doesn't it become fact? That is known as the Pelosi-Reed gambit.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If the Democrats repeat the lie enough doesn't it become fact? That is known as the Pelosi-Reed gambit.

It's not even that. They're hoping that their public indoctrination system has created enough zombies who can't do the math for themselves. If they can't do the math then who are they going to believe? Their homie, Obama or those evil one percenter republicans?

 

[ladyliberal]

Fine. Watch and laugh.

Obama: I've "Cleaned Up" GOP's "Wild Debts"--My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years - YouTube

Krauthammer: Obama Claim Of Fiscal Discipline Is "Whopper Of The Year" | RealClearPolitics

P.S. Ungrammatical? You're really going to play that card. I knew that you were trolling. That's why I wasn't over anxious to spoon feed you. Next time follow the news son and stop trolling.

Thanks for the video. The quote is

since I’ve been President, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.

Your ability to predict what I was going to do is made somewhat less impressive by your unwillingness to give voice to your predictions until after I've already done it. And I might note that I only criticized your paraphrase as ungrammatical after you'd already refused (temporarily, apparently) to provide the original quotation. As such, your claim that you only refused because you knew I was going to criticize your grammar creates a rather bizarre causal flow.

Now, then. To the points you made in your original post:

Apparently, Obama and is spouting how he has decreased spending at a lower rate than any president in decades.

I still think that you mean "increased", not "decreased", and I still think that grammatical errors impair readability.

He used 2009 as the baseline (year ends at end of June). That was the year that both Bush and Obama passed major stimulus bills. Then in subsequent years, he basically only slightly increased 'stimulus' level spending.

Obama seems to relying on Nutting's analysis, which attributed part of the 2009 stimulus spending to Obama, not Bush (Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch).

Now here's the real problem. How much has spending actually increased under Obama? Well; Bush's last submitted budget (which was already bloated with Dem crap and two wars) was $3.1 trillion. Obama's 2013 budget submission (with one war and military cuts) is $3.8 trillion. That's an 18 percent increase. That's a little bit different than the 1.4 percent he is claiming.

Obama didn't actually make any such claim, at least in the speech you reluctantly cited. The 1.4% comes from Nutting's analysis. It's the annualized rate. Given that 2013 will be more than one year after Bush's budgets, the increase per year is not equal to the total increase.

But here's the problem. He artificially rose the deficit as a level of GDP at a time when the interest on our debt was becoming an even bigger boon.

I don't really understand your point here, but if it is that deficit as a percentage of GDP has risen under Obama then I agree. That doesn't directly address the forum topic though, which is the truthfulness about Obama's spending claims.

 

[ShackledNation]

Actually, if you take away the Bush/Republican commitments, Obama has spent less than any president since 1929.

Course, the numbers aren't all that accurate. There has been more than 40,000 young Americans maimed in the Iraq fiasco. The majority of those will need medical help for decades. The billions Republicans lost in Iraq and the billions thrown away on overpaid no bid contracts could come in handy. But Republicans NEVER, EVER take a shred of responsibility for any of their catastrophes. In fact, how about a $10,000.00 BET that Republicans will try to figure out a way to deny those maimed Americans health care the way they did the first responders?

Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill

Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11.

A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year.

The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

---------------------------------------------

These terrible actions by this odious party can hardly be denied. Everything is documented by the Senate itself. This is the dirtiest and sickest political party in a hundred years.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP has increased. To say Obama has spent less than any president since the early 20th century is absurd.

It is equally deceptive to completley ignore 2009.

In addition, the report only looks at discretionary spending. As mandatory spending programs exponentially eat up the budget, there will be less room for discretionary spending whether the president likes it or not.

Economist Justin Wolfers tweets a graph from Mark Thoma that's very much worth talking about. It measures per capita growth in government spending for the last seven presidents' first term in office. This is what he finds:

Business - Derek Thompson - Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History? - The Atlantic

The question here is what has Obama spent the money on? We know Bush and his tax cuts and wars and drug program. But what has Obama spent?

That chart measures growth in spending. Bush increased spending dramatically, and then Obama increased it even more. All this talk about spending rates, etc. is quite silly. Fact of the matter is that Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever. I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

 

[BreezeWood]

All this talk about spending rates, etc. is quite silly. Fact of the matter is that Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever. I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans | Defense News | defensenews.com

Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans

ShackledNation: I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

Speak for yourself, it is the Republican Congress that is "today" not complying with the Budget Control Act of 2011 and is increasing the National Deficit ... (still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever)

 

[ShackledNation]

All this talk about spending rates, etc. is quite silly. Fact of the matter is that Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever. I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

ShackledNation: I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

Speak for yourself, it is the Republican Congress that is "today" not complying with the Budget Control Act of 2011 and is increasing the National Deficit ... (still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever)

First of all, I am speaking for myself, which is why I used the pronoun "I".

Second, I am not defending Republicans in any way shape or form. I am simply pointing out that the notion that Obama is somehow a small spender is absurd.

Third, Congress is not Republican. The House is Republican, and the Senate is Democrat. Congress is currently divided. Furthermore, Obama must sign the bills they pass.

Fourth, everything you said in your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I made and is a complete red herring. I was not talking about Republicans vs. Democrats. I was refuting the idea that spending under Obama is lower than it was during other presidencies. Nothing you put forth responded to that argument, and it is thus entirely irrelevant.

 

[BreezeWood]

ShackledNation: I am simply pointing out that the notion that Obama is somehow a small spender is absurd.

Third, Congress is not Republican. The House is Republican, and the Senate is Democrat. Congress is currently divided. Furthermore, Obama must sign the bills they pass.

Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever. I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

Obama must sign the bills they pass. - how then - "Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever".


today: Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans

Obama has said he will not sign their Bill - who then is - "still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever" ???

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

ShackledNation: I am simply pointing out that the notion that Obama is somehow a small spender is absurd.

Third, Congress is not Republican. The House is Republican, and the Senate is Democrat. Congress is currently divided. Furthermore, Obama must sign the bills they pass.

Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever. I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

Obama must sign the bills they pass. - how then - "Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever".


today: Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans

Obama has said he will not sign their Bill - who then is - "still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever" ???

Obama is. I don't think it could be much clearer.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Good points Lady Liberal. Now that I look at it, my grammar was incorrect. I did mean increase.

Would you agree that Obama's claim was a red herring? Even the Washington Post gave him three Pinochios.

 

[ShackledNation]

ShackledNation: I am simply pointing out that the notion that Obama is somehow a small spender is absurd.

Third, Congress is not Republican. The House is Republican, and the Senate is Democrat. Congress is currently divided. Furthermore, Obama must sign the bills they pass.

Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever. I am honestly disgusted at the dishonesty/ignorance going on here.

Obama must sign the bills they pass. - how then - "Obama is still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever".


today: Pentagon Rejects Budget Boost Proposed by Republicans

Obama has said he will not sign their Bill - who then is - "still spending more money than ever and running larger deficits than ever" ???

Obama. His budgets even with a democratic Congress in 2009 increased military spending. In fact, even his proposed 2009 budget increased military spending. Your example just shows Republicans would rather spend money that Obama is already spending in a different way. But Obama is still spending the money, government spending is still a greater % of GDP than it has been since WWII, and the deficit as % of GDP is 3 times higher than under Bush, despite how atrocious Bush's deficits were.

Are you quite done with this silly arguments?

 

[BreezeWood]

Your example just shows Republicans would rather spend money that Obama is already spending in a different way.

Corrected: Your example just shows Republicans would rather spend (more) money that Obama is already spending in a different way.


in a different way

is that Tea Party Republicans spending American Tax Dollars to pay back their Military Industrial Contributors - concentrated moneys going to a few individuals ... lets not look to deep.

Budget Control Act of 2011 Forces Real Cuts to Defense, and Difficult Choices

GOP hits back at Harry Reid threat on sequester - POLITICO.com

GOP hits back at Reid threat on sequester

GOP defense hawks struck back at the Senate majority leader Thursday for insisting he won&#8217;t stave off or delay $600 billion in automatic defense cuts unless Republicans budge on new revenues.

... unless Republicans budge on new revenues.

Today: in black and white - Republicans are attempting to driving up the National Deficit causing economic chaos the same way they caused the 07-09 Great Recession - Unfunded Spending.

 

[ShackledNation]

Your example just shows Republicans would rather spend money that Obama is already spending in a different way.

Corrected: Your example just shows Republicans would rather spend (more) money that Obama is already spending in a different way.


in a different way

is that Tea Party Republicans spending American Tax Dollars to pay back their Military Industrial Contributors - concentrated moneys going to a few individuals ... lets not look to deep.

Budget Control Act of 2011 Forces Real Cuts to Defense, and Difficult Choices

GOP hits back at Harry Reid threat on sequester - POLITICO.com

GOP hits back at Reid threat on sequester

GOP defense hawks struck back at the Senate majority leader Thursday for insisting he won’t stave off or delay $600 billion in automatic defense cuts unless Republicans budge on new revenues.

... unless Republicans budge on new revenues.

Today: in black and white - Republicans are attempting to driving up the National Deficit causing economic chaos the same way they caused the 07-09 Great Recession - Unfunded Spending.

Obama is spending more money on the military than Bush, and there were more drone strikes in 2009 alone than all of the Bush years combined. You really need to get out of the Republican-Democrat paradigm and wake up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But here's the problem. He artificially rose the deficit as a level of GDP at a time when the interest on our debt was becoming an even bigger boon.

Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2012 - 8.5
2011 - 8.7
2010 - 8.9
2009 - 9.9
2008 - 3.2
2007 - 1.2
2006 - 1.9
2005 - 2.6
2004 - 3.5
2003 - 3.4
2002 - 1.5
2001 - 1.3
2000 - 2.4
1995 - 2.2
1990 - 3.9
1985 - 5.1
1980 - 2.7
1975 - 3.4
1970 - 0.3
1965 - 0.2
1960 - 0.1
1955 - 0.8
1950 - 0.1
1945 - 21.5
1940 - 3.0
1935 - 4.0
1930 - 0.8

You see the difference between Bush, who Dems called a reckless spender and Obama? Aside from the stimulus year even with two wars he was never above 3.5. Obama has routinely exceeded him by about 250 percent.

And you'll notice that in 2003; the first budget year after 9/11 it still only went to 3.4. At that time, the politicians weren't giving us any phony bologna about a stimulus either. The increase was only war related.

That's fascinating, but you aren't acknowledging the huge declines in tax revenue that occurred when the recession hit.

 

[ShackledNation]

But here's the problem. He artificially rose the deficit as a level of GDP at a time when the interest on our debt was becoming an even bigger boon.

Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2012 - 8.5
2011 - 8.7
2010 - 8.9
2009 - 9.9
2008 - 3.2
2007 - 1.2
2006 - 1.9
2005 - 2.6
2004 - 3.5
2003 - 3.4
2002 - 1.5
2001 - 1.3
2000 - 2.4
1995 - 2.2
1990 - 3.9
1985 - 5.1
1980 - 2.7
1975 - 3.4
1970 - 0.3
1965 - 0.2
1960 - 0.1
1955 - 0.8
1950 - 0.1
1945 - 21.5
1940 - 3.0
1935 - 4.0
1930 - 0.8

You see the difference between Bush, who Dems called a reckless spender and Obama? Aside from the stimulus year even with two wars he was never above 3.5. Obama has routinely exceeded him by about 250 percent.

And you'll notice that in 2003; the first budget year after 9/11 it still only went to 3.4. At that time, the politicians weren't giving us any phony bologna about a stimulus either. The increase was only war related.

That's fascinating, but you aren't acknowledging the huge declines in tax revenue that occurred when the recession hit.

I'm not sure the declines were that huge. Revenue is still up from the early 2000s.
Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1950-2015 - Federal State Local Data

But you are right, it would have an effect on those numbers. But if you have a decline in revenue, you don't respond by increasing spending, which is what occured under Obama. If you are not taking in as much money, you can't keep on spending and then blame the resulting deficits on not being able to collect as much money. You have to cut back.