248 Responses

  1. Darren says:

    I dont get it, liberals will twist the facts to make a fact they cant stand to see, when conservatives give THE fact, liberals tell us we can make statistics do anything, seem ironic to anyone else

    • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

      Sorry buddy, it’s the conservatives who have it wrong. Pethokoukis’ analysis conveniently forgets there was a recession that caused not only GDP (the denominator) to go down (raising the %) but revenue to go down and expenditures to go up (the numerator). Then he forgets (conveniently) that the economy wasn’t performing efficiently (i.e., how it compares to potential GDP). Conservatives and the propaganda machine, Fox, have it wrong and have lead you to believe nonsense.

      Krugman gets is right:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/

      • Why do you believe the economy has tanked and stayed there? It is Obama and the job killing Democrats period. Obama’s use of the EPA to squeeze industry especially coal fired power plants is costing all of us jobs and money. How about Obama denying drilling permits and funding so called failing green projects to the tune of hundreds of millions. Your use of the down economy is transparent and foolish. Obama and the Democrats are spending like the Drunken Marxists they are. Ever heard of ObamaCare and what it costs…ooopps There goes more jobs in the private sector!

        • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

          1) Because it’s a financial crisis at the zero lower-bound. This means monetary policy is much less effective than fiscal policy, and since Republicans refuse to allow fiscal policy the country can not rebound as effectively as it would if Republicans had a clue about economics.

          2) A single major industry — housing — which affects so many others is so over-supplied that it can’t rebound until excess inventory is used up. And that can’t happen because of new lending rules, ongoing foreclosures, ..

          3) The rest of the world can’t help by taking American imports because this conservative idea lead recession affected the entire world.

          I’ll leave it at that. Republicans have been WRONG every step of the way. And they’re proud of it.

          • bill says:

            I love it

            you say that the housing industry has to recover (correct) and that it won’t happen until the excess inventory is used up, but then support the Democrats that are using the pull the bandaid off slowly approach, kicking and screaming to keep people in houses that they should never have owned and can’t afford to keep.

            The Republicans, on the other hand, have been advocating letting the foreclosures go through the system and to get it over with, or ripping the bandaid off quickly. And they have been criticized as heartless bastards for it.

        • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

          And drill, baby, drill and green projects are unbelievably trivial. It’s so ridiculous I can’t believe any intelligent person even brings that up anymore. And so I have to conclude you’re not intelligent.

          • PHP87 says:

            Tire-Pressure gauges!

            What a boob.

            That was his answer to our domestic energy policy problems.

            Tire-Pressure gauges.

            Proof positive he is unfit and incapable of the job of POTUS.

            Never mind the fact that we are sitting on Billions of Barrels of oil and Billlions of Cubic Meters of Natural Gas, and this boob is waving a Tire-Pressure gauge around, as if it will be our savior, as the price of a gallon of premium gas is about $4.50 in California, with Diesel approaching $5.00

            Since most consumables are carried by rail and truck (Diesel) food prices are skyrocketing along with gas prices.

            Yet more proof positive he is unfit and incapable of the job of POTUS.

      • Chili Dogg says:

        Iman, in case you care, you should read the analysis of this issue by FactCheck. It put some serioius dents in Nutting’s arguments. It goes into great detail about the numbers and context. If you care more about the truth than ideology, go take a look. (Because you cite Krugman, my guess is you have only a passing acquaintance with facts and truth. Prove me wrong. Please.)

  2. harley waybill says:

    I note with interest that the red bar graph gives very little context. Lying with graphics 101 dude. Where are the other presidents? Readers, find the same statistic on a graph that includes alleged deficit hawk Ronald Reagan.

  3. John says:

    Civics 101, people. The President can’t spend a single, solitary dime. It is Congress that controls spending. All spending and tax bills originate in the House.

    To get a true indication of how much a spender a President is or was, you have to compare the budget that is submitted to what is enacted. Claims that Reagan was a big spender are fallacious because his budgets were dead on arrival; they didn’t include enough spending(according to the Democrat Congress) on Domestic programs. It was the Democrat Congress who proposed and passed the bugets that ratcheted up spending under Reagan.

    • sallfham says:

      Sorry, but all presidents own the spending they sign for.
      They can be excused the spending they veto and Congress enacts over their veto, but that total is exceedingly small for most presidents. Ronald Reagan, for example, was overridden only once on a spending bill veto. The $14 billion bill was actually less than he had proposed to spend on the same items, but included more domestic and less military spending than he proposed.

  4. Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

    Too bad wingnuts. You lost the reality challenge again. Pethokoukis wrong. Krugman, Nutting right.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

    You’d think you might start to question the abilities of someone like Pethokoukis. Might want to look into it.

    • Libertarian Patriot says:

      Your inability to describe and articulate the arguments yourself shows you inability to understand the actual facts revolving around the Keynesian and Classical theories. Simpley posting links is annoying, it demonstrates you can’t argue and that you will mindlessly follow your Keynesian leaders like a sheep to the slaughter house. Have some self respect. Your argument methodology is disgusting.

  5. Troy says:

    go to my website and see for yourself, the CBO breaks down the annual overspending by Obama and his Democrats.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It

    ( Debt Held by the Public vs. Intragovernmental Holdings )

    The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States took place on Tuesday, January 20, 2009.

    01/20/2009
    10,626,877,048,913.08

    Total Public Debt Outstanding

    05/22/2012
    15,721,218,607,447.09

    See information on the Debt Subject to the Limit.

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa58.htm ( History lesson on budgets, taxes etc. ) The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people (House of Representatives), and then, of a majority of the States (Senate). It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial ( The House controlled by Republicans pass a budget, then it goes to the Senate controlled by Democrats and from there either passed or vetoed by President Obama, also a Democrat. )

    • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

      It’s tough, isn’t it. Being a wingnut, believing all the nonsense that Fox has been spouting all this time and then finding out you’ve been mislead. Too bad, guess you’ll just have to grow up and learn that your entire worldview is wrong. Hard slogging for you, I guess.

      - Supply-side economics is a fraud and doesn’t work. All the evidence tells us that.
      - Global warming is a fact. Humans are causing it is a fact. Addressing it is actually an opportunity for an economic boom is a fact.
      - Obama hasn’t spent like a madman like you’ve been told.
      - Republican/conservative failed ideas of the last 30+ years directly lead to the Great Recession and caused untold suffering across the world.

      You have a lot of mental work to do to get on the right side of history and ideas.

      • Peak view says:

        Seriously, what is it like living in an alternate universe where demand side economics works and guys entering dubious tree ring data into computer programs means the Earth is doomed? You are probably a credentialist. Better to reason through things yourself.

        PS Mine are better than yours anyway in economics and science.

        Oh, and I don’t return to read comments so (attempt to) flame away.

        • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

          You don’t return because you know the facts aren’t on your side.

          1) Supply-side economics is a fraud. No evidence supports it; all evidence refutes it.

          2) All the science — ALL THE SCIENCE — supports the greehouse theory, shows increased CO2 is causing the enhanced greenhouse effect, shows humans are the source of the increased CO2, and shows we must tend to it else the unborn generations will suffer to the extent it will make all wars combined trivial in comparison. But you’re OK with that, I’m sure.

          Wake up, pal. Your world died.

          • bill says:

            “All the science” are you kidding me? There are considerable numbers of climate scientists who do not concur. As recently as last week a group of NASA climate scientists went public with their dissent.

            I don’t doubt that the earth is warming, it’s done it before BTW and will do it again.

            I am dubious that CO2 is the sole cause and even if CO2 has a significant impact. The climate models that are used are flawed to the point that if you used them to predict today using data from 10/20 years ago they would be woefully off.

            And then to add to this further, the “fact” that man-made CO2 is the straw that is breaking the camels back to to speak is a serious stretch.

            For the climate change crowd, I’ll ask you a question:

            Given the cycle times on climate and the planet, what makes you believe that the climate that we have today is “right” or that maybe we’ve just been on a 100-year cool period and we’re going to warm back up to what was right? (or cool down to what is is right) you have no evidence, none.

          • jason says:

            Thats why they had to doctor the data to prove the fake theory of global warming…

          • DaleC says:

            No evidence supports supply side? You mean other than the largest peacetime expansion of the US economy, begun by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980′S? The very same policies that carried us all the way to 2006 with two minor recessions during Bush I and Clinton? You mean besides Reagan inheriting a FAR worse economy and, by this point in his first term, enjoying GDP growth rates over 8%? You mean other than more than doubling revenue to the Treasury in his two terms?

            I can go on.

            Re: global warming…. no, dear, ALL the evidence does not support your position.

            These two absolutist positions show you to be an idealog, rather than a thinker, therefore your position will not be influenced by information. That also means that I am wasting my time. Oh well, good day.

          • PHP87 says:

            Where’s the impending Ice Age you guys were in hysterics about back in 1974?

            What happened to that?

            That was also “Man Made” as the Suns rays couldn’t penetrate all the smog we were creating, according to Time Magazine, dated Monday, June 24, 1974

            Yeah, 39 years ago.

            Still waiting…

            Some people live in reality.
            Others scream “The sky is falling” if there is a 1 degree temperature change.

            Newsflash: The Sun doesn’t burn at one constant temperature.It fluctuates.
            Geo-Stationary Satellites orbiting in the Clarke Belt, which is approx. 22,500 miles above the Earth are displaying correlating temperature changes.

            What’s causing that? They run on Solar Power once they are launched and positioned.
            If they “drift” they might be moved by jet propulsion for a few seconds, and it is rare for this to happen anyway.

            Your logic, like your President’s stories, is full of holes.

          • Supply side capitalist says:

            Iman, while I give you an A+ for Advanced Socialism, you flunk Economics 101 miserably just as your heros Marx, Stalin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Castro, et al have methodically done. Supply side free market Capitalism works every time, whereas demand side Socialism is an abject failure every single time it is tried. The reasons are too numerous to list, but I will give you the opportunity to list just one Country that has embraced demand side economics that has turned out to be successful for any period lasting anywhere near a century. It just doesn’t happen, because it can’t happen, and the only way it lasts as long as it does is through tyranny. Supply side economics rightfully demonstrates over and over again that the more you have of an item whether it is houses or bubble gum, the less it costs. That benefits the consumer, and makes the average wage earner’s hard earned money go further. On the other hand, demand side economics demonstrates over and over that the less of an item available, the more expensive it is, thereby costing the consumer more. What free markets do is better than any other system and certainly better than any government manipulation has ever done or can ever do is make timely corrections in supplies versus demand. This in turn prevents massive inventory surpluses, but it also insures the consumer ample quantities of both houses and bubble gum. The housing surplus happened because government promised every Tom, Dick, and Harry a house whether he could afford it or not. The banks approved the loans because it was no skin off their backs if the buyers defaulted, because the government backed the loans. The more loans the government backed, the more questionable loans the banks made. what makes it worse is the fact that government was more generous with some banks than others. That my dear Socialist friend cannot be described as supply side economics which you so detest, but rather crony Capitalism or to be more correct, croney Socialism, because it is the taxpayer that absorbs the cost of failure, not the banks or the the builder once the transfer of ownership of the house has been consumated from builder to buyer. I could go on and on, but I know Liberal minds can only absorb facts in small doses.
            However as to your statement regarding Climate change, I challenge you to find one single scientist that can accurately and scientifically state how much CO2 is man generated, and how much is generated through natural processes. Also if mankind was as influential on the climate of this planet, then why did AGW scientists have to lie, fudge, and otherwise cook the math, physics and other science to make their case? Answer: they couldn’t make their case otherwise. And why did they not release their scientific findings and processes through the Freedom of Information Act? Answer, because their fraud would have been discovered sooner than climategate exposed such fraud. The math doesn’t compute, and it never did. I do not deny climate change. It exists just as it has always existed before and after the existence of mankind. I do, along with many scientists reject the notion that mankind is driving the change. It has been proven that there is indeed a correlation between increased sun activity and climate change. If as you say, ALL the science supports increase in greenhouse activity with humans being the main source as the reason for climate change, then you and ALL these scientists you cite must believe that humans also control the sun activity. Have you even bothered to research your claims? Hint, CO2 bweing the culprit defies at least the first two laws of thermodynamics. Finally as to your assertion that “unborn generations” suffering the consequences, I have news for you……They already are because your Liberal friends are aborting them faster than any climate change could in a thousand years. They won’t be here to know what climate change is or is not. But I’m sure you’re OK with that.

      • PHP87 says:

        Obama is a wannabe celebrity, not a leader.

        When the USA needed him to get the troops out of Iraq, what did he do?

        He fired his general, put Bush’s guy in charge, and the war ended on Bush’s timeline and not a day earlier.
        Zero Leadership.

        When he took office, there were 8 million American people out of work. And these people weren’t out of work because of the War in Iraq. They were out of work because the housing crisis tanked the economy. That was started by Chris Dodd of Goldman Sachs and Barney Frank (D), the congressman who ran a Gay Brothel out of his home.

        Bush II warned us in 2003 that the Housing Bubble was going to burst unless Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, followed his advice and recommendations.

        Google: “New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae” and pay special attention to page 3 of the article where Frank says: ‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

        Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

        ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.”

        Anyway, according to the jobs report that came out a few months ago, in 2010, there were 26 million people out of work. And this is after Obama spent a trillion dollars to “create jobs.”

        Instead, Obama and the Democrats tried to stick us with Obamacare, which has nothing to do with Health care. It is an insurance scam. Don’t believe me? Ok, next time you are really sick or badly injured, drive yourself to Aetna. Don’t go to the hospital. See if Aetna treats you. Let me know how that goes. And of course when you put money into something, it gets more expensive. As an added “Bonus”, deductibles and rates have more than doubled.

        Then you have Obama’s Wall St. Overhaul. What a historic achievement… Hey, did you notice how the Occupy Protesters emerged After Obama passed this? Hmmm… It must not have been that great.

        Then you have his failed business proposals and 500 Million dollar photo ops like Solyndra, which the GAO predicted would fail in Sept. of 2011, which is when it went under, or his shell games with GM, which basically robbed or borrowed from “Peter to pay Paul.”

        The Solyndra inventory is being thrown out. If “Mr. Thrifty” had a clue, he would sell off the remaining inventory and divide up the money from the sales equally and send a check to working taxpayers in the 50% and higher earnings group, which is about $33,500 annually. The $300/$600 tax rebate Bush II did in the Summer of 2003 jump started the economy after the economy tanked after 9-11 and liberating and capturing Hussein, taking him to trial and having him executed.

        Also, Obama’s entire cabinet has quit on him in his 1st term. The only people that are left are in embroiled in scandals. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is being investigated for Solyndra.
        Eric Holder is being investigated for Fast and Furious among other things, while turning a blind eye to Black Panther voter intimidation, despite video of BP’s at a polling place holding Billy Clubs, Black Panther apparel, and telling a potential a White voter to “get out of here.”

        Now, his only economic policy is Class Warfare and a threat to raise Capital gains taxes.
        This will hurt the country. 401k’s will tank, Corporate profits will stall, it will be really hard for the middle class, the average investors to make money in the market for their Retirement/401k

        He, along with his remaining cabinet members is financially inept, yet Obama comes on TV and tells us what a great job he is doing and how thankful we should be for his guidance and leadership, otherwise, we would all be sleeping in our cars and standing in soup lines while Government spending as a percentage of the GDP continues to grow, as does unemployment.

        Obama begged us for the job. He promised us everything but the Moon. He even promised us that the levels of the Ocean would stop from rising if he were to be elected.
        What we got was the predictable train-wreck that his critics said he would be, only worse.

        Obama is the “Eddie Haskell” of President’s. He takes credit for good things, even if he had nothing to do with the outcome, and blames everyone and everything for his utter failure and ineptness to perform his job duties, often blaming his predecessor, even digging up Ronald Reagan and throwing some blame on him.

        You may think Obama is a swell guy, but you can’t honestly say that he is good for the USA.

        He’s nothing more than a slick-talking BS artist, aided by a teleprompter.
        I’ve seen great leaders – I’ve seen them give hour long speeches filled with substance spoken without a script or a teleprompter.

        They can do this because they are espousing the principles and beliefs by heart..

        People like Obama don’t have an original thought, nor is he passionate about his principles and beliefs, thus the need for a teleprompter and the numerous gaffes that the networks will never show you, but will replay Sarah Palin saying “refudiate” 24/7, then having a panels filled with liberals or mostly liberals talking about how stupid she is, then they will run an internet poll after spending 24-48 hours tearing her down for a minor verbal gaffe while they ignore the CIC making huge verbal gaffes about putting hospitalized kids on “Breathalyzers” (YouTube) and calling our US Navy Corpsman “Corpseman” several times. (YouTube)

        He may be educated, but he isn’t smart, nor does he have any common sense.

        “If I don’t get this thing turned around in 3 years, I don’t deserve a 2nd term.”
        Of course, he will blame the GOP for his failure as POTUS.

  6. nitpicker says:

    By Pethokoukis’ logic, the family that loses one of its two incomes but has to pay the same bills has just doubled its spending. Idiocy.

    • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

      It’s his job to lead the Useful Idiots astray and give them confidence in their Fox educations. Krugman does the analysis correctly:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/

      • Can you say DEFICIT! What do you believe has caused that multi-trillion dollar deficit? I guess it was Bush’s fault…please try not to be so smug when you are so wrong!

      • Rick Caird says:

        What, Krugman does the analysis correctly? Stop, I am laughing so hard, my stomach hurts. Krugman is trying to play the “Well let’s just look at how we can not count all the spending” game. As such, he is the perfect little Democrat.

        But, the numbers that matter are the total spending as a percentage of GDP and that, even Krugman, cannot manipulate.

        I sense panic by the Democrats as they try to staunch the Obama caused bleeding. Too late.

        • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

          You have said nothing. Now go try and knock down Krugman’s concepts and analysis. Here’s what going to happen. You won’t because you can’t because Krugman is correct. He took into account the things Pethokoukis conveniently left out, he did it elegantly and completely and it took him very little time. And he did it over a year ago.

          You need to catch up to reality, pal. It’s left you behind.

          • Notastupidlib says:

            Krugman is a fool. Potential GDP calculation? Try that the next time you try to get a mortgage…Yes, Mr Banker, my debt to income looks bad but my “potential earnings to debt ratio” is just fine…

            How does anyone take this mouth breather seriously?

          • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

            That’s a might persuasive piece of thinking there, fella. Congratulations on proving your cluelessness. Of course, Krugman would be a fool to you. After all, he’s been completely correct about the entire Great Recession, the results of austerity, the predictions of inflation, etc. You boys just don’t cotton to reality too well, do you?

            And my hat’s off to that mortgage example. Smoking piece of irrelevant thinking there pardna. I’ll give you a second chance. Let us all know what the potential GDP in Krugman’s analysis addresses. I’ll bet you can’t.

            Yeah, Krugman’s a real mouth-breather, huh? He took all the context that the fool Pethokoukis left out — who can say whether Pethokouksi is just stupid or intentionally misleading (but I’ll go with both) — and made an elegant, simple, correct argument. Too bad you don’t get it. I’m not surprised, though.

            You might not be a stupid liberal, but you are a stupid wingnut.

        • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

          And what did he leave out?

      • bill says:

        Krugman is a Nobel-prize wining moron. he has said in the past the deficit doesn’t matter because the country has so many assets that the debt isn’t a huge deal. he likens it to my personal mortgage, see you have income of $100K and a debt of $300K so the country is all right since it has a large GDP and a debt that is less than GDP. We should keep borrowing!

        What he fails to tell you, because he is probably a pretty smart guy but it doesn’t fit his story, is that we buy our houses once and that singe large outlay is paid down, albeit slowly, every year. What we don’t do is go out the next year and buy a boat, then a couple of new cars, and then a couple of vacations, and then a vacation home to the point where we are spending our entire income servicing the debt (and still want to increase it)

        The US has gone on the spending spree that is getting us to the point that the interest on the debt is soon going to be the single largest piece of the discretionary budget. you would think that the progressives would be up in arms about this since every dollar spent on interest on the debt is one that can’t be spent for social programs, etc. But they seem to be perfectly happy to continue to add to the country’s credit card year after year. It’s insane.

        The other thing that you need to keep in mind is that measuring spending as a % of GDP is a ruse as well. Think of it this way:

        You start a company, you have revenue of $1M and you spend $2M a year to do marketing for your company so you lose $1M in the first year, your marketing is 200% of revenue. But you do it to grow revenue.

        When year 2 comes along and your revenues reach $2M, you don’t go right out and justify spending $4M for marketing do you? Of course not, you declare a partial victory and say that you’re going to spend $2.2M in marketing and thus your marketing spend is only 110% of revenue.

        When you get to year 5 and have grown revenues to $10M, you’re still probably spending $3M in marketing, and have thus grown into a model of where you are spending 30% of revenue on marketing.

        The point here is that businesses follow rules where spending is a function of effort to get the job done, not as a function of revenue. The % of revenue is useful to see where you are, but it’s not the thing that should drive how much you spend.

        So the federal government should be talking about REDUCING the % of GDP that we are consuming for spending, not increasing it as “revenues” grow.

    • WallyW says:

      How else do you explain that Obama’s administration has put up just about as much debt in 3.5 years as it took our buddy G.W. Bush to pile on in 8? The economic downturn alone wouldn’t come close to explaining that feat. I was no fan of GWBs policies either. The government must learn to live within its means. Doing otherwise, Dem or GOP, is courting the larger fiscal disaster that’s coming our way soon. Oh, that’s right, Dems want that fiscal disaster because it’s the only way they will ever force Americans to succumb us to their “utopian” socialist state vision. Socialism NEVER works no matter who’s in charge.

  7.             Charles Krauthammer has just slapped it on Obama and his leftist sycophants about the huge lie they have been telling about Obama’s spending spree. I have been reading articles and watching TV marveling at the in your face lies the media and leftists are telling about Obama, by some of their accounts Ovomit is the lowest spending president in 60 years. Even on the face of it we know that is a titanic lie and like the Titanic these enormous misrepresentations will sink our socialists in the White House and the congress. Even the Liberal rag U.S.A. Today found some revealing facts about Obama’s claimed level of spending and his actual levels in Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally.ObamaCare alone should clue you into to the truth about our government’s spending under Obama and the Democrats. Why do you think the U.S. has not had a budget in three years? This allows them to keep spending like Drunk Marxists! Click on the link and listen to what Charles Krauthammer has to say about Obama’s spending. Krauthammer: Obama Claim Of Fiscal Discipline “Whopper Of The Year”Don’t forgot about those Obama campaign promises!A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates 

    • Iman AntiSupply-Sider says:

      It’s terrible being a wingnut these days, isn’t it, and finding out that your Fox-education isn’t worth the time you spent investing in it. Sorry buddy, but Pethokoukis’ analysis is garbage. You see, he left something out: there was a Great Recession (directly caused by Republican ideas of the last 30+ years). If you want an elegant analysis of whether there was an Obama spending spree, all you have to do is read this:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/

      Hope you’re up to it because it might require a little more insight than the typical wingnut possesses. But if you give it the ol’ college try, maybe you’ll get there. (Hint: you’ll find out you’ve been lied to by all those you’ve trusted. If you’d had a brain, you’d know it already.)

      • Andy Oakley says:

        What truly amazes me is the attitude you, and the others of your ilk here, present. You belittle those who see the data a different way than you at every opportunity yet still think they will pay attention to what you have to say. Moreover, I’ll bet you even believe such behavior somehow makes it even more certain they will want to read your comments and do what you say they should. Perhaps in your circle of people, pointless insults and nasty sarcasm is the norm and magically gets beneficial results. In the real world, it doesn’t. It simply causes rational people to ignore your points. Something even your leader has yet to learn. Try again, without the childish, immature schoolyard taunts and see if you can get a mature discussion going. Doubt you’ll try, but there is always hope.

      • Oldbull says:

        Iman, just the fact that you would offer Krugman as your authority says all that needs to be said about your “education,” regardless of where you got it. Why didn’t you just quote Jay Carney, the White House talking head? They’re equally reliable and truthful. Just answer this one question: who signed the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, proposed in January 2009 in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. Hint: he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

      • Don’t you mean that recession and continuing trouble for our economy caused by liberal policies! The policies I am referring to are Democrats forcing banks to grant loans to unqualified applicants based on race and sex. These same applicants defaulting on those loans! This directly caused the housing bubble that burst the banks and the rest of the ugliness followed. Bush warned the Banking Queen Barney Frank about Freddy and Fanny but Barney said the GOP was just scare mongering. Get it right!

        • Manny12 says:

          LOL… yet Bush wanted to make home ownership increase by eliminating down payments on FHA loans… LOL

          The FBI indicated that 80% of mortgage fraud was internal with the banks, because they can take the unqualified loan and sell it to be packaged by Wall Street so that risk can spread.

          Obama was given a deficit of nearly $1 trillion and that includes millions of lost jobs BEFORE he came into office. You expect to balance a budget as tax revenues decrease and the need for social assistance to increase.

          Obama has raised the debt about 40% since taking office, Bush in 8 years increase it around 95%… Reagan did about 140%.

          • John says:

            You say that “Obama was given a deficit of nearly $1 trillion” but what is the deficit now? Let’s take a look at the difference between Obama era congress and Bush era congress. When was the highest amount of spending done during the Bush administration and who controlled congress at that time? So who controlled congress during the first couple of years of the obama administration? Also, let’s take a look at the relationship between Bush and the high spending congress years and obama and every year he has been in office? You may be able to see the relationship there but maybe not considering what you’ve wrote prior. The funny thing about this is that I’m not a huge fan of Bush nor am I a fan of most of the Republicans’ who claim to be conservative. Unfortunately for the country, obama has the same philosophy as those huge spenders in congress so we lose in every way.

        • Libertarian Patriot says:

          Someone finally has said it! You’ve named the regulations, thankyou.

      • Let’s not forget to add Obama’s relentless attack on energy producers. This has cost Americans untold numbers of jobs and billions more for energy. I guess you would say this had little effect. I guess you don’t believe putting a stranglehold on coal and oil has caused any of this. Just look at the gas prices since Ovomit took office. That money could have been better used by the people to assist the economy not as directed by Our Dear Leader.

        • mhtom says:

          You’re kidding, right? Banks were forced to lend to unqualified applicants? Seriously? No. The Community Reinvestment Act didn’t force lenders to give out money like candy; the CRA didn’t keep interest rates too low for too long; the CRA didn’t dismantle the Glass-Steagall Act; the CRA didn’t create nor encourage credit-default swaps; the CRA didn’t mandate no-money-down home loans. Both sides are too blame for the mess, though.

          • John says:

            I guess Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had little to do with any of that right? The fact that they financially encouraged banks to create “unique” lending packages all backed by their endless pit of government money; packages that required limited credit rating or income to qualify for loans that they knew could never be afforded by borrowers. No responsibility put on the lenders or those who were getting the loan, until of course everything came crumbling down…who walked away unscathed on that one? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and they are still doing the same thing, while we waddle in a foreclosure and economic mess, all started by Glass-Steagall Act signed by Clinton.

    • PHP87 says:

      From Sept., 2003; New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm

      Excerpt;

      ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

      Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

      ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

  8. Jeff Perren says:

    Veronique du Rugy has a complete run down on the issue:

    du Rugy on Who Spent How Much

  9. Lestat says:

    This is a misleading graph.

    First off it shows Bush’s average compared to Obama’s consecutive years.

    Second of all the Obama graph is showing spending GROWTH the other is simply showing spending as a percentage of gdp.

    • WST2 says:

      It’s not misleading to me. All of them are comparing % of GDP, including the Obama. The 23.95% of Obama (I averaged it for you) is spending at a higher level because he refused to back off of the stimulus after the first year, so yes, OBAMA is a BIG spender.

  10. US Patriot says:

    I’m just glad we are finally ‘discussing’ the correct topic and that is Ovomit’s(like that one) dismal economic record. In the end, it will prove to be his undoing which cannot come soon enough.

    • I am going to use Popper’s method of argument. Instead of trying to prove my argument against this article, I will try to prove this article true…make it valid, sound, and sturdy.

      I would start by looking at the spending of GDP, then look at what defines our GDP (not easy to calculate). Then, I would ask why our GDP went down when Obama took over (look for the obvious reasons, but especially for the not so obvious ones). Then ask yourself how much correlation does GDP have on Government spending (I’d do some legitimate statistical analysis and give you some means of showing correlation…standard deviations and such). Then I’d have you forget all that rambling I just did and simply ask: If spending remains the same, and GDP is down, will not government spending/per GDP percentages be up? Even if Obama decreased spending by billions, the GDP could have been so low that it skewed his tiny 1.4% increase in spending to look like it was larger than it actually was. Sure he spent 24+% but he was dipping the porridge ladle into a smaller kettle…and when people said, please sir, may I have some more, he made sure to make it last longer by increasing spending by only 1.4% over the years, vs our historical increases. Sounds like a smart Orphanage Headmaster to me.

      I believe the argument ought to be: (Bush’s average spending in billions (2000-2008)/The average of GDP from 2002-2012) then compare that number to (Obama’s average spending in billions 2008-2012)/The average of GDP from 2002-2012). And sure I am leaving out major players in the equation, like Congress, and Bankers, etc. But I feel that at least for this argument, this equation will truly tell us what we are arguing about. Someone do the math for me…..the 1.4% increase could very well be plausible, and these numbers will show how much less or more Obama spent in billions/average GDP from 2002-2012. Needs to be tested with math!!! Math wizards, I challenge you! Mostly because I don’t have the time. Trying to launch my second company and get this economy rolling. BTW, I’m not necessarily for Obama, nor am I for anyone else. I plan on making an informed decision by election day. I just like to point out fallacies when I see them.

      This article is using the “begging the question” or “cyclical” fallacy. Any argument that uses a fallacy is not sound, but can still be valid. We cannot have cyclical arguments driving our political decisions. Nor should we be relying on straw man tactics. Lets talk about the facts, and perhaps compare our spending to not only the 40′s but let’s take the article’s argument back to the 20′s and 30′s. I’d like to know how much per GDP Roosevelt was spending in “The New Deal” roll out. Turns out, his spending methods are what this country needed (although some would argue a second World War was the thing that brought us back to life). But his administration built jobs, built the economy, and heck, it even rewrote the trade routes!

      Gotta love the arguments in this post. Shows that people still care, albeit in a bloggy sort of way.

      • Sorry…2000-2012 not 2002-2012. But one could use 2004-2012 if one would like to keep the averages to 4 years for each president.

        • sallfham says:

          Per Nutter’s argument, still need to assign each president the spending for which they are directly responsible. That would mean FY2001 (adjusted for any increases or decreases derived from Bush-signed spending) as baseline for Bush 43. His period runs through FY2009, adjusted for Obama-signed spending changes that year.
          Likewise, GDP should be measured from 3Q of 2001 for Bush, and from 3Q of 2009 for Obama.
          You could also inflation-adjust both, although the changes over each period would be modest.

      • Kiresten says:

        Like your comments..

  11. Thomas W says:

    This analysis — even the title — is completely misleading. The *recession* happened.

    Stimulus policies helped prevent a complete economic meltdown.. could have been Dow at 4,000 and unemployment up at 20%.. and stop the slide. Luckily, we’re starting to see the first early signs of improvement — but need jobs to come back a lot further.

    Critical spending in a severe recession, in no way qualifies as “new normal”. That’s intellectually dishonest — trying to paint a spending picture, far more exaggerated than is actually true.

  12. PHP87 says:

    “Trivial”?

    Hardly.

    I know the few remaining Obama believers will try to trivial his incompetence saying gas prices are trivial, but they’re not as they are having a profound affect on our economy with skyrocketing gas and food prices, among other consumables.

    Thanks again to the Boob in the WH.

    “Obama. Everything we expected, but worse.”

    • You people are puppets says:

      Every time a republican quotes gas prices and associates them with the presidency shows your ignorance.
      THE PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GAS PRICES YOU STUPID GOP PUPPETS! Oil is traded on the stock market. There is no shortage of oil as well there is a surpluss. In other words THE MORE OIL THAT IS INTRODUCED HAS LITTLE EFFECT IF ANY ON PRICES. Therefore, blaming Obama for gas prices reveals you are puppets for the rich and you don’t even realize it.

      • Libertarian Patriot says:

        I have to say, your argument does have a fair amount of merit to it…I’m a neo-liberal, so I believe in free, world wide markets. However, there are a few policies that can be enacted to cheapen the price of oil: you could decrease the gas tax, you could give companies more permits to drill on and off shore, and you cannot veto the Keystone Oil Pipeline. Obama has taken an utterly horrible stance on any and all policies related to gas. Another thought to consider, the liberals blamed George Bush II when gas prices went up under him…it seems there is somewhat of a double standard.

        • Texan says:

          1 if the Keystone is so good why don’t the people in Canada just build a refinery there? If you think that a Corporation should be able to use Emanate Domain to take land rights away to build a Private Oil line on land they could not buy then you should move to another country.

          2 The only thing that could be done to reduce the price of oil and in the long run gas is to stop the people who are buying futures based on fear of something major happening. So far nothing outside of the War Bush put in Iraq. This is also why the liberals blamed Bush for the gas prices going up under him. I remember 5$ per gallon.
          3. you could give companies more permits to drill on and off shore This has already been done.

        • sallfham says:

          LibPat:
          “However, there are a few policies that can be enacted to cheapen the price of oil: you could decrease the gas tax, you could give companies more permits to drill on and off shore, and you cannot veto the Keystone Oil Pipeline.”

          Decreasing the gas tax would likely increase, not decrease, the price of oil. Reducing the tax would reduce the retail price and stimulate demand (more driving, more sales of fuel-inefficient vehicles, etc.), which would increase demand for oil, driving up spot-market as well as contract prices.
          Oil exploration and production (on- and offshore) in the U.S. is at record levels, and existing pipeline systems can transport oil very efficiently throughout the U.S. Increased U.S. production, however, has almost no effect on U.S. gasoline prices, which are much more sensitive to global oil prices controlled by OPEC, and by refinery output.
          The only legal change that would structurally reduce U.S. gasoline prices would be a federalization of gasoline formulas, which now vary widely by state and impose substantial additional costs on refiners and distributors.

      • uhuh says:

        i think it is you who are ignorant. The President does have a direct affect on gas prices. How about the keystone pipeline that obama has put a stop to. i believe that in itself would lower prices

        • sallfham says:

          The near-term effect of the Keystone project would be to increase, not decrease gasoline prices. Pipeline network operators would increase their prices to oil producers and refiners to recover the increased costs of their investment.
          Plus, there is no evidence that the Keystone project would increase the efficiency of oil distribution in the U.S. Even if it did so, pipeline distribution costs constitute less than a dime of the total wholesale price of gasoline. Its effect either way is negligible.

    • ROBIN says:

      were u bitching,about bush gas prices,and did u support the dumbest man ever in the white house/G.W.BUSH?

    • Ben says:

      Trivialize. If you’re going to snark at someone at least use the right word. Sheesh.

      • Frustrated with Congress says:

        Look, let’s face it. It was our government (both Republcan and Democrat) that put our country in the situation it’s in now. The increased deficit can (and rightly so) be attributed to Bush II. He came into office without one (thanks to Clinton). Then he started two wars. Instead of initaiting taxes to help pay for them (think back to WWII), he decided to put it on the government credit card. When Obama took office, he maintained status quo. Now that a Democrat is in the office, all of the deficit falls on his shoulders. That’s inaccurate, Bush II has led us to where we all today. Now it is up to Obama to start cleaning the mess. Congress sure isn’t going to. It had its chance with the sequestration debacle last year. Our Congress has failed to pass a budget on time the last seven years, I believe? If Romney becomes president next year, how does he think he’ll be able to do any better when the President can’t control Congress?

  13. Interesting … no mention that the Federal budgets during the Obama Adminstration were passed by a Republican House of Representatives, and in the first two years by a Republican Senate. “We all did it, now I blame you for it” is a classic strategy — of ten-year-olds.

    • Keith Gatchalian says:

      The Senate and House were controlled by the Democrat party until 2010, and after that no budget has been passed.

    • sallfham says:

      Presidents are responsible for the fiscal effects of legislation they sign into law. President Bush could have refused to sign Congress’s changes to bills that yielded higher fiscal 2009 spending levels than his FY2009 budget proposed. He didn’t do so, and his administration, not Congress, directly drafted TARP and related emergency spending measures that had the biggest effect on increasing FY2009 spending.
      Fiscal 2009 spending that President Obama signed into law added approximately $209 billion to the $3.5 trillion in total FY 2009 spending. Nutting removed that amount from his analysis, leading to a slightly higher spending growth total that would otherwise be the case.

  14. Libertarian Patriot says:

    So here’s the average spending for all you complaining liberals out there: 23.95%. That’s still a 3.45% spending increase from George Bush’s average. So when you say the graph is misleading, next time show the people the average and they’ll see that Barack Obama is still a relatively large spender.

  15. Dorothy Freeman says:

    For me, there are some very valid ideas from the Libertarian party but I do not believe all government is BAD. And for me, there ONCE were some very valid and very solid ideas from the Republican party but lately, it seems the entire Republican party has been TAKEN OVER by people who think like Rep. Todd Akin and HATE President Barack Obama…more than they love this country. And solely for that reason have I turned totally away from the Republican party as it stands today.

    I don’t always agree with Democrats. There is a whole laundry list of things I think, they don’t do a very good job with or certainly could improve on. And I don’t think that President Obama’s administration or some of his policy is without criticism.

    What I do know,

    ‘As it stands now’ in today’s political climate… ‘He Who Has The Most Corporate $$ WINS’… I will fight against this type of Tyranny to my very last breath.

    The ONLY CHANCE ordinary ‘Working For a Paycheck Americans’ have…. for just a fair shot…… against, the total takeover of our Government to Corporate Rule, over ourselves and our country….is only… being offered by the Democrats…as flawed as they may be.

    • dean beck says:

      Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

  16. Christine says:

    Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with
    hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing
    months of hard work due to no data backup. Do you have any methods to protect against hackers?

  17. RIchard Damian says:

    Clearly we have the obvious comparison between absolute spendng vs. increasing spending. What makes Nutting;s argument stick is the fact that a) while at an all tme low, inflation did not disappear entirely and b) since the damage to the economy was deep, perhaps deeper than any President before Obama inherited, the INCREASE spending to fight it off was kept an an all time low.
    The real conclusion to the metaphor should read: We did buy a shiny new car after the first year (at cut rate prices) but since then rather than buy a new car every year we took as much care as possible each successive year to keep that car in ship shape order. We kept it garaged, shined it up every weekend as digilantly as we could, and made sure we took it to the competitive dealership once every quarter to give it a tip top inspection since this was the only car we would be getting for the next 4 years. And guess what, our perspicacity worked!

  18. e-papierosy says:

    Interesting … no mention that the Federal budgets during the Obama Adminstration were passed by a Republican House of Representatives, and in the first two years by a Republican Senate. “We all did it, now I blame you for it” is a classic strategy — of ten-year-olds.

    • sallfham says:

      “no mention that the Federal budgets during the Obama Adminstration were passed by a Republican House of Representatives, and in the first two years by a Republican Senate.”

      Is that an April Fools joke?
      During President Obama’s term in office, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives only during the first two years, from January 2009 to January 2011. The U.S. Senate has been controlled by Democrats throughout President Obama’s term.

      And budget bills don’t matter. Only appropriations bills represent real spending authority, and those have been stuck in continuing-resolution loop mode since 2008.

  19. I cherished as much as you’ll obtain carried out right here. The comic strip is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish. nevertheless, you command get bought an impatience over that you would like be delivering the following. ill for sure come more until now again since precisely the similar just about a lot continuously inside of case you shield this hike.

  20. jared says:

    Politifact offers the most thorough analysis of Nutting’s data: accounting for all manner of factors, alternative calculations, and addressing nearly every criticism of Nutting’s work (including Pethokoukis’)

    check link below:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

    Nutting and Pethokoukis are both right. Federal spending under Obama has increased at the lowest rate in the past 60 years, and has at the same time risen as a percentage of GDP to the highest levels in that same time period. These two seemingly contradictory points simply describe the same data from different perspectives. Nominal spending has increased little, but because of the massive declines in growth brought on by the financial collapse, budgets enacted before the collapse and the increases in spending made afterward constitute a much greater share of GDP. I’m just rehashing the Politifact piece, so I would encourage others to read it for a thorough, substantiated analysis, empirically backed-up, accounting for nearly of counter-point and criticism, offering multiple and alternative calculations. In short every angle, every critique is addressed and answered–this 2-page or so piece of analysis should put an end to all dispute, from left or right.

Leave a Reply

Mobile Theme | Switch To Regular Theme