Wall Street Journal - "Obama spending binge never happened"

[Balt Observer]

The truth is not the objective here. Lies can be used to manipulate and confuse the masses. Even if the lies make no sense, they can be effective in raising doubt and suspicion for those too lazy to be skeptical or to seek the truth. Those are the very people the propagandist media seek.

You too?

Tell me you don't deny that the piece is an opinion piece.

Among the liberals, you were among the last of the rational.

[naive]

In my opinion, the grass is green..

Is that different from the facts?

[Creekman]

Shows how easy it is to debunk partisan hackery.

Who knows "partisan hackery" better than the Obfuscator?

[SalisburySage]

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


cont...


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.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.


......


But the mighty right-wing propaganda machine has cranked out the lies long and loud enough, they have become "truthy".

And "truthy" is good enough for Republicans.

Except it didn't happen and it wasn't Bush but Obama. The article was based on a chart Nancy Pelosi put out years ago, it failed then and its going to fail now and this guy, Rex Nutting, is going to look like a total ignoramus when the facts behind his silly article come to light.

The main stream media, Carney and Obama have latched onto this story like leeches on a vein but when the real truth is exposed they will be seen to once again back a losing theory, that has no real facts in it at all.

The whole article by Nutter is based on ignorance and a lack of understanding of baseline budgeting.

[NCBirdfan]

You too?

Tell me you don't deny that the piece is an opinion piece.

Among the liberals, you were among the last of the rational.

I was really making a generalized statement about people who argue using blogs or other peoples' opinions to back up their supposed opinion.

It used to be that people would opine based on facts. They would take the time to make sure their argument was valid and stable and plug up the holes if necessary.

Nowadays, people are so lazy, even their opinions are not their own. They repeat what someone says on a blog or radio or TV program and pass it off as their own.

People also believe someone's blog, opinion is proper backing for an argument. That's like if I said the moon is made of cheese and then back it up by using someone's blog that restates my premise that the moon is made of cheese. While I did provide backing for what I said, it doesn't make my first claim factual.

[veritas]

Notice how they subtly refer to the "pace" of Federal spending as opposed to the actual debt being created? Naturally, if you have a surplus you can spend at a much more rapid pace than if you have a large debt and it won't be nearly so much of a problem. This is semantic sleight of hand which is what is usually required to obfuscate Obama's record. I also chuckle at the "hapless Herbert Hoover" reference. Hoover was actually much more of a spender than the mythology we've all been given. He was also a vastly greater man than Obama will ever be.

[michiganjoe]

Politifact has looked at the piece and found it accurate. Their bottom line related to Willard's claim:

The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention.

[soulflower]

Notice how they subtly refer to the "pace" of Federal spending as opposed to the actual debt being created? Naturally, if you have a surplus you can spend at a much more rapid pace than if you have a large debt and it won't be nearly so much of a problem. This is semantic sleight of hand which is what is usually required to obfuscate Obama's record.

The pace of spending under Obama has grown at the slowest rate of the past 60 years. That's pretty significant don't you agree?

[veritas]

The pace of spending under Obama has grown at the slowest rate of the past 60 years. That's pretty significant don't you agree?

Depends on what you think is significant about it. The fact remains that debt has ballooned under Obama. I'm not sure I feel too much better simply knowing it could have been even worse.

[Phineas Finn]

Depends on what you think is significant about it. The fact remains that debt has ballooned under Obama. I'm not sure I feel too much better simply knowing it could have been even worse.

The debt has soared in large part because tax revenues are down -- there's been a recession in case you missed it.

[soulflower]

Depends on what you think is significant about it. The fact remains that debt has ballooned under Obama. I'm not sure I feel too much better simply knowing it could have been even worse.

The debt increase under Obama comes from a lack of tax revenue not new spending...

[veritas]

The debt has soared in large part because tax revenues are down -- there's been a recession in case you missed it.

Which would seem to suggest that maybe we should cut some non-essential spending, cut taxes, give incentives to small business, etc. I wonder why those ideas never cross Democrats' minds.

[soulflower]

Which would seem to suggest that maybe we should cut some non-essential spending, cut taxes, give incentives to small business, etc.

That's exactly what has been done, hence the slowest rate of spending increases in 60 years...

If anything, the fact that we're in the middle of the slowest recovery since the Depression while the rate of government spending has been reduced strengthens Paul Krugman's argument that more stimulus is needed.

[veritas]

That's exactly what has been done, hence the slowest rate of spending increases in 60 years...

You do realize that slowing the rate of spending increases is not the same as cutting spending, right? One can slow the rate of increase and still spend more than the year before.

[veritas]

That's exactly what has been done, hence the slowest rate of spending increases in 60 years...

If anything, the fact that we're in the middle of the slowest recovery since the Depression while the rate of government spending has been reduced strengthens Paul Krugman's argument that more stimulus is needed.

More stimulus means either more taxes or more borrowing. More taxes means less money in the private sector. More borrowing means a bigger debt. I'm not sure in the present circumstances that either will solve our problem.

[banner1124]

Hey Balt Liar, I find it odd that you are raking folks over the coals on this thread based on the link being an "opinion piece", yet on another thread where the opinion piece supports your side you seem to be all for it... you are such a lying fraud it's sickening.

[soulflower]

You do realize that slowing the rate of spending increases is not the same as cutting spending, right? One can slow the rate of increase and still spend more than the year before.

Cutting spending reduces economic growth. It's not clear whether our economy can handle major spending cuts right now. Not when we're only seeing 2.5% GDP growth

Obama and Congress agreed to 2 trillion in spending CUTS to kick in at the end of the year.

However, the CBO and Senate republicans are warning that the cuts may induce another recession.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...727486770.html

[Balt Observer]

Hey Balt Liar, I find it odd that you are raking folks over the coals on this thread based on the link being an "opinion piece", yet on another thread where the opinion piece supports your side you seem to be all for it... you are such a lying fraud it's sickening.

It is indeed a smoke-and-mirrors opinion piece, designed to cover for Obama's failings. Nothing will come of it, and Obama will still lose.

[CajunRaven]

Nothing was debunked -- your author compares apples and oranges. If GDP goes down and spending increases at all the percentages will go up.

But thanks for showing us how it requires dedicated use of smoke and mirrors to continue the myths about Obama's spending.

Actually, he does. Forget GDP and look at actual spending. You're correct, GDP would be out of whack given what happened in 09/2008.

The real truth is it lays at both Bush and Obama's feet for 2009, where there was a lot of emergency spending on the bailouts and the stimulus. They both had a large part in that.

So the new baseline Nutter uses includes all that emergency spending. That's BS.

The republicans hold Obama accountable for a Bush budget + the emergency spending. That's BS.

And the democrats and Obama act like they had no part in the emergency spending, not the budget for that matter, when in fact they were in control of Congress. That's BS.

Both sides are lying.

The fact is, all that emergency spending should not have been added to the baseline budget for 2010. For Obama to now say he had nothing at all to do with 09 and then use the number as his baseline for 2010 is horsechit.

My guess is the public will at some point understand the tricks being played by both sides.

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.”

[Balt Observer]

My guess is the public will at some point understand the tricks being played by both sides.

Really, none of this amounts to a hill of beans.

The average voter doesn't care about this esoteric stuff.

They care about what's going on in their life and their pocketbook.