Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: interesting,,, welfare president?
Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Fri 05/25/12 06:02 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim By ANDREW TAYLOR \| Associated Press – 1 hr 9 mins WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years. "Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa. The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts. It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did. Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The MarketWatch study claims that spending is grown only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher. A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period. So, how does the administration arrive at its rosy claim? First, there's the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much. The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama's spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama "cut" spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims. The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama's record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration's reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama. Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase. Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts. There's also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president's spending since the incoming president usually doesn't change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill. But Obama's role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don't jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there's a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible. As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO's annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur: —$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January. —Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians. —The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are "scored" as spending in federal ledgers. Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it's at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is Obama's request for 2013. "You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget," said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank. So how does Obama measure up? If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture: —A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama. —A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Fri 05/25/12 06:06 PM
The following website explains why the original post in this thread is false and how the writer "fudged" the numbers to make Obama's numbers look better. A brief quote: "The shocking, contrarian piece was widely circulated in liberal circles and was even cited on Wednesday by White House spokesman Jay Carney. But there were a few problems with Nutting’s numbers. Nutting’s methodology assumes spending in the first year of a presidential term should be credited to the previous president. OK, fine. But he attributed a $410 billion spending bill in March of 2009 to George W. Bush even though it was signed by Barack Obama. Nutting also didn’t use inflation adjusted numbers. But I did both of those and got wildly different results from Nutting, as seen in the chart at the top of this post. (Note: I looked at absolute spending as opposed to the rate of increase.) My numbers show that spending under the ’10-’13 Obama budgets far outstrips spending by a generation of presidential predecessors. This should not be surprising since spending as a share of GDP under Obama is the highest in U.S. history outside of World War II. We can disagree about whether all of Obama’s massive spending is a good idea or not. But we can’t factually argue about whether it happened or not. It did. The Obama spending binge really did happen." http://blog.american.com/2012/05/the-stunning-chart-that-shows-the-obama-spending-binge-really-happened/ But there were a few problems with Nutting’s numbers. Nutting’s methodology assumes spending in the first year of a presidential term should be credited to the previous president. OK, fine. But he attributed a $410 billion spending bill in March of 2009 to George W. Bush even though it was signed by Barack Obama. Nutting also didn’t use inflation adjusted numbers. its only a problem when people want to play with numbers, as they do on both sides obviously the 2009 budget was BUSHES baby,, its an accurate analogy to say that Obama was just the receiving quarterback the numbers are legitimate, nothing fudged,, this author just chooses to go with raw numbers and ignore the percentages,, his perogative That's not true. Obama's added a 409 billion spending bill to Bush's budget the first year. Did you read the article?

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 05/26/12 12:53 AM
It's all true. That and there are 57 states. Hussein is 47, 48, 52 years old in his birthday. Whatever day he says it is.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 05/26/12 03:16 AM
Unlike Hussein, who does everything himself, Rush has people that do the research, write his programs and are there, on set, to teletype points he will expand on. Poor Barry has to write his own speeches, program his teleprompters, after the last fiasco, he carries a spare, plan his trips, hand-write responses to all the letters kids send to the Whitehouse. Gosh, by the end of all that, no wonder he stays so confused.

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sat 05/26/12 06:54 AM
Obama spending binge never happened Rex Nutting Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s May 22, 2012\|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch Share Email Print WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” 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. Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear. Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. 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. http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor Sorry, Limbaugh took this piece of trash apart piece by piece yesterday. These "facts" are simply false. Nice try though. Limbaugh began his career in radio as a teenager in 1967 in his hometown of Cape Girardeau, using the name Rusty Sharpe.[3][5] Limbaugh graduated from Cape Girardeau, Missouri Central High School, in 1969. Because of his parents' desire to see him attend college, he enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but left the school after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, "he flunked everything", and "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[3] so which part did this MATHEMATICAL AND FINANCIAL Genius prove wrong,,? All of it, and quite well I might add.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 05/26/12 07:48 AM
Obama spending binge never happened Rex Nutting Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s May 22, 2012\|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch Share Email Print WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” 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. Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear. Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. 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. http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor Sorry, Limbaugh took this piece of trash apart piece by piece yesterday. These "facts" are simply false. Nice try though. Limbaugh began his career in radio as a teenager in 1967 in his hometown of Cape Girardeau, using the name Rusty Sharpe.[3][5] Limbaugh graduated from Cape Girardeau, Missouri Central High School, in 1969. Because of his parents' desire to see him attend college, he enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but left the school after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, "he flunked everything", and "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[3] so which part did this MATHEMATICAL AND FINANCIAL Genius prove wrong,,? All of it, and quite well I might add. As I stated, more or less on another topic. Rush doesn't have to have smarts. He's brilliant at what he does. He has a team of folks doing for him. Researchers, writers, crew that makes sure he has all the info he needs. Rush just has to work the magic that makes him the big bucks.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/26/12 10:44 AM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/26/12 10:45 AM
Unlike Hussein, who does everything himself, Rush has people that do the research, write his programs and are there, on set, to teletype points he will expand on. Poor Barry has to write his own speeches, program his teleprompters, after the last fiasco, he carries a spare, plan his trips, hand-write responses to all the letters kids send to the Whitehouse. Gosh, by the end of all that, no wonder he stays so confused. I dont know anyone that believes any of the above, including that Barry does 'everything' himself although the blame is usually reserved for 'everything' himself and Limbaugh wouldnt have a show if NOT for his wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies his writers, IM sure, know this,,, wasnt he one of those repeating the lie of a 'death panel' in the HR bill? so much for actual research,,,,,

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sat 05/26/12 11:27 AM
funny... by spending more money than ever before, the liberals try to downplay it by saying it is "percentages"... did hoover spend $3.63 trillion dollars, ever? no, I think the point is that after FOUR Years, spending will be only 1/10th of a percent more than it was when Bush left as opposed to the near 20 percent increase seen in ONE year of a Bush budget,,, all your saying there is that he is spending as much as bush did... so what is the difference? our debt has increased, still no jobs, gas is still almost 4 dollars a gallon, and millions have lost their homes... so i ask again, what is the difference between barry and bush?

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sat 05/26/12 12:24 PM
Unlike Hussein, who does everything himself, Rush has people that do the research, write his programs and are there, on set, to teletype points he will expand on. Poor Barry has to write his own speeches, program his teleprompters, after the last fiasco, he carries a spare, plan his trips, hand-write responses to all the letters kids send to the Whitehouse. Gosh, by the end of all that, no wonder he stays so confused. I dont know anyone that believes any of the above, including that Barry does 'everything' himself although the blame is usually reserved for 'everything' himself and Limbaugh wouldnt have a show if NOT for his wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies his writers, IM sure, know this,,, wasnt he one of those repeating the lie of a 'death panel' in the HR bill? so much for actual research,,,,, Have you read the entire Bill?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/26/12 11:49 PM
Unlike Hussein, who does everything himself, Rush has people that do the research, write his programs and are there, on set, to teletype points he will expand on. Poor Barry has to write his own speeches, program his teleprompters, after the last fiasco, he carries a spare, plan his trips, hand-write responses to all the letters kids send to the Whitehouse. Gosh, by the end of all that, no wonder he stays so confused. I dont know anyone that believes any of the above, including that Barry does 'everything' himself although the blame is usually reserved for 'everything' himself and Limbaugh wouldnt have a show if NOT for his wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies his writers, IM sure, know this,,, wasnt he one of those repeating the lie of a 'death panel' in the HR bill? so much for actual research,,,,, Have you read the entire Bill? apparently the 'paid' researchers didnt,,,lol noone pays me,,,,

Citizen_Joe Joined Sat 04/12/08 Posts: 4036	Sun 05/27/12 02:35 AM
Blaming a democrat, republican or even the current undocumented worker in the white house is not too different than blaming the left or right cheek of the same A$$. A quick look at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls from 1913 to the present clearly shows that there has not been any real economic recovery in more than 4 decades. It's not a question of whether or not we are being screwed, but rather how much we are. In the past 10 years, after taxes, the Federal Reserve stole more than $300,000 in value from my business, simply by printing more money. It will continue to steal from the poor and middle class to keep the b*stards at the top rich, until inevitably, the value of the non-sovereign currency known as the US Dollar does what Germany's money did, requiring wheelbarrels of it to buy a loaf of bread.

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sun 05/27/12 07:08 AM Edited by alleoops on Sun 05/27/12 07:10 AM
and Limbaugh wouldnt have a show if NOT for his wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies his writers, IM sure, know this,,, wasnt he one of those repeating the lie of a 'death panel' in the HR bill? so much for actual research,,,,, Rush Limbaugh's show has been on since 1988 on over 600 radio stations in all 57 states. Surprising that he hasn't been caught in at least one of those wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies. Maybe they just seem that way to only you?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 05/27/12 10:46 AM Edited by msharmony on Sun 05/27/12 10:47 AM
and Limbaugh wouldnt have a show if NOT for his wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies his writers, IM sure, know this,,, wasnt he one of those repeating the lie of a 'death panel' in the HR bill? so much for actual research,,,,, Rush Limbaugh's show has been on since 1988 on over 600 radio stations in all 57 states. Surprising that he hasn't been caught in at least one of those wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies. Maybe they just seem that way to only you? he hasnt been 'caught',,,?? seriously what qualifies as being 'caught' to you? lying is not illegal (especially when your job title is as a 'host' and you have never done anything else),,,,so I hope you arent looking for some cops to come charge and arrest him,,,,

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sun 05/27/12 11:32 AM
and Limbaugh wouldnt have a show if NOT for his wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies his writers, IM sure, know this,,, wasnt he one of those repeating the lie of a 'death panel' in the HR bill? so much for actual research,,,,, Rush Limbaugh's show has been on since 1988 on over 600 radio stations in all 57 states. Surprising that he hasn't been caught in at least one of those wild exaggerations, allegations, and lies. Maybe they just seem that way to only you? he hasnt been 'caught',,,?? seriously what qualifies as being 'caught' to you? lying is not illegal (especially when your job title is as a 'host' and you have never done anything else),,,,so I hope you arent looking for some cops to come charge and arrest him,,,, He is not a journalist. Therefore he is not held to the same standard as say an elected politician such as Obama who is a known liar.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Sun 05/27/12 03:49 PM
I think Jon Stewart is more believable on most issues than Limbaugh!

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sun 05/27/12 04:01 PM Edited by alleoops on Sun 05/27/12 04:02 PM
"I think Jon Stewart is more believable on most issues than Limbaugh"! Then I would guess that you enjoy Bill Maher also?

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Sun 05/27/12 04:57 PM
"I think Jon Stewart is more believable on most issues than Limbaugh"! Then I would guess that you enjoy Bill Maher also? Maher is a little dry for me, but he has his moments.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Sun 05/27/12 05:33 PM
I believe Nixon summed it up about what politicians are.When he lied about not being a crook.

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sun 05/27/12 06:40 PM
I believe Nixon summed it up about what politicians are.When he lied about not being a crook. What? you never heard of LBJ?

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Mon 05/28/12 12:43 AM
the people to blame for the state of the economy are the populous of the united states the majority are to uninterested and/or lazy to pay there dues for freedom thus they do not vote or if they do they base there vote on who screwed whoever they are not married to and/or what party they belong to the only way this country will come out of this situation is for the people to forse the fed to quit being for by the corp for the corp and go back to for the people by the people do your homework and if the incumbent is not supporting and protecting the constitution then VOTE THEM OUT yes this means you need to read the constitution and understand it--it is in simple english should not be to hard for anyone with almost average smarts but then again reality tv may be more important