In my opinion, the grass is green..
Is that different from the facts?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278