I can’t figure out how they could think that.Because he's got the value of the dollar down to only 3 cents.
Posted on 09/01/2012 5:57:29 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The trick is to say Bush is responisble for all of FY 09 spending (not Obama), including the Stimulus, Clunkers, Stimulus Jr, etc.
You then have a new baseline. And so Obama has just maintained it.
It’s been thoroughly debunked... months ago.
ahhh When he took office debit was around $9 bil, now $16 bil, what are they drunk?
Put FY 2009 into Obama's column and he's the mad spender we know and... well, the one we know.
I can’t figure out how they could think that.Because he's got the value of the dollar down to only 3 cents.
Federal outlays for 2009 are attributed to Bush.
In 2007, the feds spent less than 20% of GDP. In 2009 that jumped to more than 25% of GDP. 2010-2011 outlays have held steady at a little over 24% of GDP, though I don’t believe the gov’t stats.
So Osama is credited with only a very small rise in outlays as a percent of GDP.
Second of all, he's discussing the percentage that spending INCREASED under Obama, not the spending itself.
So, yes, Obama is spending more, much more, but his spending increase percentage is relatively low. It's a very misleading argument.
Kinda like this:
Person “A” has a credit card debt of $100 and charged 20 more dollars. He increased his debt by 20%.
Person “B” has a credit card debt of $300 and charged 30 more dollars. He increased his debt by 10%.
So is Person B some sort of tightwad? I don't think so.
IMHO, the author just wanted to make Obama look good, and he twisted the data until he found something he liked.
Who is the greatest ballplayer of all time? Ty Cobb? Babe Ruth? Surprisingly, the answer is actually Bob Uecker.
One more refutation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
Been debunked already.
Guess we are going to have to continue to put up with this crap until at least November.
Don’t forget the unprecedented, one-time bailout expenditure of 700 to 800 billion.
Looking at the “actual spending” graph where it jumps sharply up during lame duck Bush, jumps further at the beginning of Obama, then comes slightly downward from a new, unprecedented plateau... that takes a lot of spin to make Obama look clean.
Author: “Rick Ungar, Contributor
Writing from the left on politics and policy. “
That tells me everything I need to know.
Bush’s budget deficit in 2006 was $371 billion! Obama has had budget deficits of over $1.3 trillion dollars every year.
The Heritage Foundation explains the slight of hand the Dems are trying to do:
Setting Obama’s “Great Fiscal Restraint Record” Straight
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/
I’m sorry, but we didn’t lose our AAA credit rating because Obama and this Congress were tight with the purse strings.
Unbelievable!!!
Fuzzy math ping!
Even some of the lefty fact checkers say this Marketwatch article is bull.
I’m sure this could be true in Bizarro World United States.
Whatr’s happened to Forbes? This is insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
