Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Obama thrifty spending claim, and MarketWatch analysis, are way off

[stockholmer]

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 06:36 PM - Edit history (2)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/26/fact-check-obama-off-on-thrifty-spending-claim/

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.

snip



snip

-----------------------------------

I posted this as to stimulate debate and counter rebuttals from the people on this site. This will be latched onto by President Obama's opponents, and debate is the essence of the political process.

Rmoney would make a HORRID president, far far worse than President Obama, and I am in no way advocating anything in regards for support to the horrific Republican candidate.


This was an AP article, and there are other postings of it on the net:


http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/politics/fact-check-obama-off-on-thrifty-spending-claim/article_b293c629-e702-50c7-bb94-1ae53c09a474.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57442013/fact-check-obama-off-on-thrifty-spending-claim/

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-26/news/31861674_1_spending-president-barack-obama-fannie-freddie

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/05/26/fact-check-obama-off-on-thrifty-spending-claim/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-bc-us--obama-spending-factcheck1stld-writethru,0,1501947.story

[Trajan]

1. So you are saying Obama is a big fat liar and I should vote for Rmoney?

OK .... I will consider it ....

Thanks for pointing this out .....

We need more GOP propaganda here ... You know, to round out the experience ...

[Skidmore]

3. Amen.

I'm sure I'll be posting GOP lies on that monstrous graphic everywhere.

[MindMover]

5. At least Obama economics is close to what is the truth.....

Republicants claims of getting us into war, welfare reform, austerity measures and a host of other issues are just plain fat ass lies......

[stockholmer]

8. not saying that at all, Romney is a horrid, horrid candidate, just posting a contrarian piece that

will be latched onto by President Obama's opposition. Rebuttals and counter-rebuttals are the essence of political debate.

Also, the President did not write the original piece, MarketWatch did, therefore it is a logical fallacy to say that anyone is calling him a liar.

[Scootaloo]

11. Might help to provide your own commentary to it, then

Otherwise you're just promulgating.

[stockholmer]

14. will do

[Grassy Knoll]

36. The rest of the graph Daily Crapper LEFT OUT...

[SunsetDreams]

45. Despite Being Warned, Right-Wing Media Buy Into The "BS" Claims About Obama's Spending Record

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters not to buy into the "BS" of GOP-driven tax and spending claims and pointed to a Wall Street Journal MarketWatch column that noted that government spending is rising at its slowest pace since the 1950s. Far from heeding that advice, right-wing media figures relied on misleading economic talking points to attack Carney.

...

WSJ's MarketWatch: Federal Spending Under Obama Has Increased At The Lowest Rate Since The 1950s

WSJ's MarketWatch: Federal Spending Growth Is Lower Than It Was Under Reagan, Clinton, And Both Bushes. Carney pointed to a May 22 column in The Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch headlined "Obama spending binge never happened." From a chart accompanying the column:



WSJ's MarketWatch: "Federal Spending Flattens Under Obama." From another chart accompanying the MarketWatch column:

More Here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001

__________________________________________

From TPM:

An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly (CHART)

A dominant theme of the national political discourse has been the crushing spending spree the U.S. has ostensibly embarked on during the Obama presidency. That argument, ignited by Republicans and picked up by many elite opinion makers, has infused the national dialogue and shaped the public debate in nearly every major budget battle of the last thee years.

But the numbers tell a different story.

...

Obama’s policies, including the much-criticized stimulus package, have caused the slowest increase in federal spending of any president in almost 60 nears, according to data compiled by the financial news service MarketWatch.



Last week, Obama’s likely Republican opponent Mitt Romney accused Obama of lighting a “prairie fire” of spending and said he “added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined.”

More Here:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php?ref=fpb

The Republican controlled Media wouldn't know how to tell the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Republicans will lie, cheat, steal their way into the White House. Why? Because they got Nothing! Always have, always will. They have to SPIN, it's the only way. Oh and Lookie....it fits what the GOP Candidate is saying. Thank you ever so much for bringing the spin here.

[Igel]

46. That would be the graph being rebutted.

Look at it this way: The "Bush" budget included everything in f/y 2008/09.

The Congress didn't bother with some large spending bills that * promised to veto because they increased spending in ways that *, who'd just gotten fiscal religion, found wrong. When Obama took office, it was "old business" and Obama had them quickly passed and signed so he could get on with more pressing business.

The second half of the $700 billion bailout was issued on Obama's personal request. Pelosi went on record as personally confirming this. Not all the first $350 was expensed at the time. Bush gets the blame for the full $750 billion; Obama got all the credit for it.

The stimulus, all $800-900 billion of it, was also on *'s watch. Even though he was out of office when it was proposed, voted on, and signed.

This is a recurring problem with transition-year budgets. Since it is a recurring problem, you'd think we'd be aware of it. But, no, apparently not.

Typically the incoming president doesn't want to be saddled with responsibility for a budget he didn't approve or sign off on. In this case, the incoming president doesn't want to be saddled with responsibility for those parts of the budget he did approve and signed off on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Why on earth are you citing The Daily Caller

as a reputable source for anything? You do know it's a right-wing mouthpiece owned and operated by that mendacious wanker Tucker Carlson? And that they lie about pretty much everything?

Seriously, why are you dumping their shit on DU?

[stockholmer]

12. Daily Caller was just reposting an Associated Press-written article, which was sent to be by someone

I have debating back and forth with via e-amails (that other person debating me is a semi-right winger from the US who I am slowly working on seeing thru the false corporate/bankster-led political paradigm).

[blue neen]

13. So, what are your rebuttals to this posted right-wing smear?

What are the actual facts you are telling your e-mail friend from the U.S.?

[stockholmer]

16. here is the first thing I sent them

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

[blue neen]

24. That was not exactly a glowing endorsement of President Obama.

If you're role in the debate is to defend our President...well, IMHO you could stand to pick up some pointers.

It seems quite doubtful that your intentions are pure.

[Hawkowl]

26. Obama doesn't deserve a glowing endorsement

Not from a progressive/liberal point of view. He DOES deserve a grudging, lesser of two evils endorsement over Romney. Obama is a good right-of-center, pro-corporate, Democrat, whereas Romney is batshit fucking crazy.

[blue neen]

27. This thread doesn't deserve the recommendation you've given it.

It's intent is to be negative and counter-productive.

[Son of Gob]

15. So your right wing buddy sent you that story

and you posted it here without commentary from yourself. There's a word to describe people who do that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. No, not just 'reposting AP' - you posted the RW graphic they had a link to

and you had to follow the link from the RW Daily Caller to the RW Hotair blog to get it. And they posted it from the RW 'Political Math' blog.

[emulatorloo]

43. Additionally, mediamatters.org has a lot to say about AP's "reporting"

Right wing megaphone basically.

[treestar]

50. As you noticed

There is a high sensitivity here about right wingers and semi-right wingers. If you try to see their side for debate's sake, you will be looked at as taking their side by some.

[CJCRANE]

4. "The Daily Caller

is a news website based in Washington, D.C., United States, with a focus on politics, original reporting and breaking news, founded by journalist and political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010."

Cheneyites are well-known for "creating reality", I'll be interested to see what others say about this analysis.

[OKNancy]

6. Thanks for the Right wing spew

I went to the source of this graphic
http://www.politicalmathblog.com and read there.

I also notice that the nasty right-wing site, the American Enterprise Institute is saying the same thing.
http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/


Then I read this very informative comment by a poster named ptpatil, who can answer this horseshit much better than I.



Reddit response to your horseshit infographic:
Section by section:
Rule 1:
Neglects to mention TARP and the bailouts passed under Bush
No president has ever renegotiated his inaugural-year budget.
Neglects the “who proposed FY 2009 spending”, which was of course Bush.
Bush low-balling the budget doesn’t make him fiscally conservative, just a wishful thinker who knew he wouldn’t have to deal with the outcome
“Obama gets credits for the jobs from FY 2009? has less to do with the budget and more to do with the stimulus, duhh.
Rule 2:
$20 BILLION THE HORROR the author is literally complaining about 0,06% increase due to this totally dirty secret numbers trick. This got a whole rule to itself, lol.
Rule 3:
All one big extension of the whining about 0,06%
Uses CBO projections from early 2009, when both left, right, and center economists were all underestimating the depth of the recession, and hence government spending (which would rise substantially in response to greater unemployment, even if Obama changed nothing).
Rule 4:
Author is flipping back and forth now between CBO baselines, actual budgets, and proposed budgets, always favoring whichever is highest for Obama
Is he still using the CBO’s projections from 2009? Not clear
Rule 5:
Looks bad for whom? The graph shows spending shrinking under Obama. Maybe he thinks spending rising over time as the economy and population grows is a bad thing? I have no idea what point he was going for.
Bottom line: Author does some half-assed nitpicking, commits a shitload of cherrypicking himself, and never approaches the fundamental claim once, that spending increases under Obama have been less than any Prez since Ike. All he’d have to do to disprove it is pick 1 consistent measurement, chart it, and point out a President under whom spending growth was slower. That’s it, that’s all he had to do was provide 1 counterexample, and he didn’t, instead trying to poke holes to reduce general confidence.
http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1786&cpage=1#comments

[blue neen]

7. What's next? A post about Weapons of Mass Destruction?

When did Dick Cheney become a credible source for anything, let alone Democratic Underground?

[Son of Gob]

9. Hopefully you'll be joining your buddy Better Believe It soon.

[The Magistrate]

10. Congratulations, Sir, On Pimping Far Right Anti-Obama Swill

The mask seems to be slipping --- is it itching from the heat today?

[kentuck]

17. How do you get 12% increase?

When the spending goes from $3.4 trillion to $3.8 trillion??

Also, the 2009 budget was not Obama's, except for what he added to the Bush budget, which was a small amount relatively speaking.

[bhikkhu]

30. What they were looking at was increase over CBO projections

not actual increases. Which most people seeing it probably wouldn't catch, cherry-picking from the numbers in typical repug style. All they have to convince is the bottom 30% or so.

[6000eliot]

18. This lie is WAY too complex to work in their favor.

People just won't understand it.

[stockholmer]

19. lol, I tend to agree, most the US right-wing voters are bright but not shining

[kentuck]

20. The increase in government spending has little to do with the debt or the deficit...

..if the revenues are too low to cover expenditures.

In fact, Obama could have had a negative rate in government spending and still had a huge deficit with trillions added to the national debt.

One does not = the other.

Unfortunately, the spending level for Bush was so high that it would have been difficult to keep it above zero unless you spent a lot on Unemployment or other programs.

In other words, we have been witnessing an austerity program.

[SidDithers]

22. "to stimulate debate and counter rebuttals". Sure...

Sid

[dionysus]

39. vaht? vas you saying shumthing.. about this trollish OP.. to meee?

vaht?

[creeksneakers2]

23. I'm glad you ran this

The GOP responded to the claim that Obama wasn't responsible for increases in spending. I haven't been able to find a response to the GOP, until OKNancy posted one.

[INdemo]

25. AP writers are all right wing hacks and they all twist and

turn the facts in order to try and save their reich wing candidates..........always have

[bhikkhu]

28. After reading that, I'd still like to see what the actual spending increases are

...as in that work-up (which someone spent a great deal of time on, it looks like) the increase given in Rule #3 aren't spending increases year-over-year, they're the increases over the CBO projections. Which means nothing to me, as I don't know what goes into a CBO projection or why it should matter.

Anyone have the actual spending increase numbers handy? I think it would be fair to x-out the TARP funds, as those were a net zero more or less in the end.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. It appears that AP is dead wrong on this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=719980



The chart in question is on that thread. If you look at that chart there is a footnote ....

*Stimulus included reassigned to Obama.

[Doctor_J]

31. Am I on the wrong web site?

Beat it, loser.

[FSogol]

32. Unrec. More RW BS. n/t

[Demonaut]

34. no, no, this is just a debate and counter debate...blah...blah..blah..bullshit!

And romney WAS born in Kenya




newsmax lite

[Blaukraut]

33. Even the links to so-called main stream news outlets don't lend this shit any credence

Stimulate debate my ass.

[Swede]

35. You posted this to suppress Democrats from voting.

Go away.

[dionysus]

38. someone has to pick up the slack for BBI, shameless as it is...

[dionysus]

37. using Tucker Carlson's site to campaign against dems should get you tombstoned.

too bad it won't.

[Ikonoklast]

40. Take your phony disclamer and right-wing sources and stick them both.

Your hatred of Obama and distaste for Democrats is no secret here.


I suppose since BBI got the MIRT someone has to post right-wing shite to take his place.

[JohnnyRingo]

41. Now I see GW Bush was the greatest president ever.

Hahahahahaha.

You'd think that'd be the theme for Republicans this year, but I don't hear his name often on the campaign trail. I swear I remember the bank bailout orchestrated by Bush and his treasury sec Hank Paulson.

Leave it to Tucker Carlson to take the reins from Fred Barnes in polishing Bush's turds.

[emulatorloo]

42. Wingnut graphic + Fucker Carlson's propaganda site.

No thanks.

[Robb]

44. Heh.

No, really.

[Catherina]

47. Rec'd in response to a Meta complaint. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Let me understand this.

You saw that this thread had a Meta thread complaining about right wing propaganda being posted here without a single critical word in the OP, and you ran over here to recommend the thread? Am I understanding your post correctly?

(The critical words you read in the OP now were added after the fact and are also of the lamest toss-off variety the OP could find.)

[dionysus]

51. are you surprised?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. "Avoid asking who passed the stimulus?" Except that Nutting

credited Obama with the stimulus spending. It's right there in his graph. Check out the asterisk.

So right off the bat, this right wing swill is pulling the wool over your eyes. The very first line!

Then "But Obama gets credit for FY 2009 jobs." It ignores the stimulus spending which Nutting credits to Obama, not Bush. And Romney and other right wingers are HAPPY to credit Obama with 2009 job losses/gains, because they have been crowing about all those jobs Obama lost. Start crediting Obama at the stimulus or even at the beginning of FY 2010, and all those job losses become job gains. There's a reason the RWNJs cut off the chart at the beginning of 2010 - it's all job gains from there on out. Can't be showing that!

For numbers 2 and 3 (which actually are one point), Nutting uses CBO estimates for Obama for only 2 years - 2012 and 2013. For the other years, he uses actual spending. Take a guess why. I'll wait here while you think about it, here on May 28, 2012, three months before FY 2012 ends. Why oh why would Nutting use CBO estimates for FY 2012 and 2013 in May of 2012?

Could it be that no final spending numbers exist for FY 2012 and 2013 because, oh, I don't know, those fiscal years aren't complete or haven't even started yet????

P.S. Nutting DOESN'T use CBO projections for Bush's 2009. He uses the actual spending numbers. He doesn't cite the CBO. He cites the final figures at the Office of Management and Budget. So another right wing fail of a lie.

Point number four: do not use Obama's budget, use the CBO baseline. What Nutting is measuring is actual and projected spending as best he can. Is Obama's budget above projected spending? Very well, so noted. And so what? Is the House going to pass Obama's budget as is? No. So while the rightwingers finally have a fair point (Obama's asking for more spending than the CBO projection based on current law), they drown it in all the other bullshit and ignore that the Obama proposed budget has no real-world effect on spending other than being a negotiating stance.

Finally, the last chart - "Never show actual spending." What I see is Clinton maintaining spending, Bush overseeing a steady rise with a massive jump right at the end. That jump peaks right at the beginning of Obama. And then Obama shows a steady drop in spending. It amazes me that the rightwingers actually showed this. It shows Bush blowing the budget out of the water and Obama steadily reining spending back down. THAT'S NUTTING'S FUCKING POINT. Way to make our point for us!

Clearly the RWNJ knows his audience. He knows he can just post crap that kneecaps his own argument and his readers will gobble it down without debate. He told them, after all, that it shows OBAMA BAD. All this really does is highlight how the Tea Party doesn't think critically at all. They love it when they are spoonfed lies and deceit as typified by this graphic.