100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Slowest spending pace in 60 years | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Facebook post on target about Obama's spending
By Louis Jacobson Published on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. Related rulings: Says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." Facebook posts, Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012. Ruling: Mostly True | Details Share this article: This graphic, summarizing an article in MarketWatch.com, caught fire in liberal social media circles almost immediately after the original story was posted. We checked its accuracy. On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, "Obama spending binge never happened." Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that -- contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president. The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook -- which appears to have originated with the liberal blog Groobiecat Call -- that paired a line from Nutting’s column with a quote from Mitt Romney’s campaign website. And by day’s end, roughly a dozen readers had asked us to check the claim. The Facebook post said that Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rated the claim http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/23/facebook-post-gets-it-right-about-obamas-record-sp/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, Raw numbers speak for themselves! If you have 8 years in office and steadily spend a few billion less each month doesn't mean you won't spend more over your term. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, Raw numbers speak for themselves! If you have 8 years in office and steadily spend a few billion less each month doesn't mean you won't spend more over your term. raw numbers DONT speak for themself if john starts with 10000 in debt and ends in 20000 of debt did he have a better pace than the one who started with 40000 in debt and ended with 45000 in debt? of course if you start with more, the odds are the raw numbers will be more when you finish, but that has nothing to do with the 'pace' of the increase/decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, Raw numbers speak for themselves! If you have 8 years in office and steadily spend a few billion less each month doesn't mean you won't spend more over your term. raw numbers DONT speak for themself if john starts with 10000 in debt and ends in 20000 of debt did he have a better pace than the one who started with 40000 in debt and ended with 45000 in debt? of course if you start with more, the odds are the raw numbers will be more when you finish, but that has nothing to do with the 'pace' of the increase/decrease You just proved my point for me. If X starts with 10,000 in debt after 8 years of Y and ends with 20,000 in debt after 4 years he spent more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, Raw numbers speak for themselves! If you have 8 years in office and steadily spend a few billion less each month doesn't mean you won't spend more over your term. raw numbers DONT speak for themself if john starts with 10000 in debt and ends in 20000 of debt did he have a better pace than the one who started with 40000 in debt and ended with 45000 in debt? of course if you start with more, the odds are the raw numbers will be more when you finish, but that has nothing to do with the 'pace' of the increase/decrease You just proved my point for me. If X starts with 10,000 in debt after 8 years of Y and ends with 20,000 in debt after 4 years he spent more. not exactly, he would have spent the same,,,,(20-10=10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, it is a lie, and you know it... if bush raised spending as much as he did, and obama's spending is not lowered, than he is keeping pace with bush...so this is a crock and very easily shown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crock! There was a thread I started on here last year sometime and had the link to the national debt clock. On it you can go backwards to see where each president started and what the debt was and when they left office and where the debt was. This is a lie to make Obama look good. Anyone with any common sense and the ability to look around can see Obama is a big spending democrat. you can look it up, Im sure and make sure you keep in mind the definition of 'pace' instead of just looking at raw numbers,,,,, it is a lie, and you know it... if bush raised spending as much as he did, and obama's spending is not lowered, than he is keeping pace with bush...so this is a crock and very easily shown. sigh,,,, federal spending growth 82-85 8.7 % increase 86-89 4.9% increase 90-93 5.4% increase 94-97 3.2 % increase 98-2001 3.9 % growth 02-05 7.3 % growth 06-09 8.1 % growth 10-13 1.4% growth so the 'PACE' is not the same |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch... A slap of reality.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch... A slap of reality.. a slap of subjective interpretation, as usual 'Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co.' DOW AND JONES< cant possibly know what is financial reality,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch... A slap of reality.. a slap of subjective interpretation, as usual 'Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co.' DOW AND JONES< cant possibly know what is financial reality,,,lol did you read the fact check article? smoke and mirrors.. fuzzy math... lmmfao |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch... A slap of reality.. a slap of subjective interpretation, as usual 'Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co.' DOW AND JONES< cant possibly know what is financial reality,,,lol did you read the fact check article? smoke and mirrors.. fuzzy math... lmmfao I read it, and I agree there was a lot of 'fuzzy math' in it,,,, I will take the assessment of Dow and Jones, over that particular commentators,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 05/28/12 12:31 PM
|
|
msH....everything about your boy is fuzzy..... background, math and logic! And we're not talking a warm fuzzy! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an image to put forth to the world..... A POTUS , leading a nation, and NOTHING can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt about him! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 05/28/12 12:44 PM
|
|
What an image to put forth to the world..... A POTUS , leading a nation, and NOTHING can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt about him! and that is different from anyone else how? how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of citizens ANYTHING about ANYONE let alone billions of humans......you cant... and why is that required of THIS president and none of those before him,,,,? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facebook post on target about Obama's spending By Louis Jacobson Published on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. Related rulings: Says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." Facebook posts, Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012. Ruling: Mostly True | Details Share this article: This graphic, summarizing an article in MarketWatch.com, caught fire in liberal social media circles almost immediately after the original story was posted. We checked its accuracy. On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, "Obama spending binge never happened." Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that -- contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president. The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook -- which appears to have originated with the liberal blog Groobiecat Call -- that paired a line from Nutting’s column with a quote from Mitt Romney’s campaign website. And by day’s end, roughly a dozen readers had asked us to check the claim. The Facebook post said that Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rated the claim http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/23/facebook-post-gets-it-right-about-obamas-record-sp/  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
esebulldog
on
Mon 05/28/12 03:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
