It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama spending binge never happened (MARKET WATCH)

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
This new "chart" is just BS and serves to "educate" the lemmings who are incapable of digging and reading a little deeper. It makes for a great campaign ad!!

Funny little thing with that chart... Its creator credits all spending during Obama's first year up until October 1 to former President Bush. How does that work??

Obama's $825 billion stimulus plan was logged in the Bush column!!!!! Wow! that's some convenient and clever accounting. That bill was all Obama's from start to signature and yet Bush somehow "paid for it"

Only $140 billion of stimulus spent after Oct. 1 2009 was credited to Obama.


The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.


Read more: dailycaller.com...




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beanskinner

Originally posted by neo96
Obama is currently spending 5 billion a day the national deficit has increased to 16 trillion when he took over it was 10 more than any president in Us History.

I really do love it when people try to play percentages as if it means anything fuzzy math is fuzzy.


Math is not fuzzy, it is precise and logical.

You are making things up


Um, a simple 5 second search will absolutely prove the numbers that Neo put up there. Kind of hard to make things up like that, genius.

/TOA



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Ann Coulter, really? Now there's an unbiased truth teller if I ever heard one.


On the other hand, seeing how your argument is that Democrats are twisting the truth, I would guess that utilizing the age old tactic of "fighting fire with fire" would include using the words of one of the biggest truth twisters in the Republican party, namely Ann Coulter. Are you sure that you wouldn't like to throw in a quote or two from Orly Taitz as well?

At least the OP utilized the figures from the CBO and the Dept. of Labor to make his/her argument with regards to facts about government spending under President Obama and didn't resort to posting nut job opinions. Just goes to show that "facts" have no place in today's Republican mindset.

To the OP, F&S I watched this piece on the news last night and I thank you for posting it here for all to see.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Some people don't care about facts, why else would they watch Fox "News"...the channel who decided against entering Canada because the Canadian broadcasting department told them they can't lie during news segments without getting massive fines?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Beanskinner

Originally posted by neo96
Obama is currently spending 5 billion a day the national deficit has increased to 16 trillion when he took over it was 10 more than any president in Us History.

I really do love it when people try to play percentages as if it means anything fuzzy math is fuzzy.


Math is not fuzzy, it is precise and logical.

You are making things up


Um, a simple 5 second search will absolutely prove the numbers that Neo put up there. Kind of hard to make things up like that, genius.

/TOA


Yeah...if you attribute the cost of BUSH'S policies to the increase


So no, Neo's dead wrong and totally ignore the fact that the deficit not only increases through budget increases, but also the cost of capital...which has gone up dramatically. China is shifting from buying US bonds to gold...which increases the deficit.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by jibeho
 


Ann Coulter, really? Now there's an unbiased truth teller if I ever heard one.


On the other hand, seeing how your argument is that Democrats are twisting the truth, I would guess that utilizing the age old tactic of "fighting fire with fire" would include using the words of one of the biggest truth twisters in the Republican party, namely Ann Coulter. Are you sure that you wouldn't like to throw in a quote or two from Orly Taitz as well?

At least the OP utilized the figures from the CBO and the Dept. of Labor to make his/her argument with regards to facts about government spending under President Obama and didn't resort to posting nut job opinions. Just goes to show that "facts" have no place in today's Republican mindset.

To the OP, F&S I watched this piece on the news last night and I thank you for posting it here for all to see.


If you read her column you would discover that the information came from Grover Norquist and John Lott. Whose numbers are fabricated?? It's all BS and you bought it hook line and sinker. Good Luck!!

The creator of the Chart MANIPULATED Figures.... to create a flashy campaign chart and a new set of Dem. talking points. Its been debunked!!! Sorry for the reality slap!!

More on Chart manipulation
johnrlott.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Ahahahahaha, your source is that lobbyist clown Norquist? No wonder you keep on posting blogs as sources



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

If you read her column you would discover that the information came from Grover Norquist and John Lott. Whose numbers are fabricated?? It's all BS and you bought it hook line and sinker. Good Luck!!

The creator of the Chart MANIPULATED Figures.... to create a flashy campaign chart and a new set of Dem. talking points. Its been debunked!!! Sorry for the reality slap!!

More on Chart manipulation
johnrlott.blogspot.com...


Look, Grover Norquist, John Lott, Karl Rove and Haley Barbour are all just as nutty and biased as Ann Coulter and for you to say that "It's been debunked" based on the opinions of these individuals is somewhat laughable, to say the least.

Reality slap, I think not.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Totally ignore that OBama has continued Bushs policies and added to them after all the debt celing was raised 3 times to keep spending money.

You don't raise the debt ceiling if you cut anything.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by jibeho
 


Ahahahahaha, your source is that lobbyist clown Norquist? No wonder you keep on posting blogs as sources


Actually my last source was John Lott. Can't read good??

I'll take the word of an accomplished economist over that of Rex Nutting (a journalist for 25years) any day of the week. He's all yours!!


ETA
Maybe this is easier to understand?

Nutting’s evidence consists of the a chart showing that the annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is 1.4 percent, compared with 7.3 percent from 2002-2005 during George Bush’s first term and 8.1 percent from 2006-2009 during Bush’s second term.

Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s historical spending data. That’s a steep enough rise. But it’s nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.

But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.

So even if you absolve Obama of responsibility for the initial growth spike, he still presided over unprecedented spending that was out of line with the existing growth trend. Obama’s average spending is far higher than under Bush or Clinton on both adjusted dollar levels and as a percentage of the economy.

reason.com...


edit on 24-5-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



Only 88.4 Million Americans Out of Work - An American Economic Depression Obama Style – Slow Jamming the Economy


lionsdenmedia.hubpages.com...


edit on 23-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


You are one the of the biggest conservatives BS'ers on ATS.

Do you have a link(source) that is not..I repeat not one that is a conservative blog.

Conservatives spread BS and love to spin stories that make Obama the boogey man.

Do your own research and stop being led around like a sheep by your republican shepherds.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Now, before I post anything I want to make the disclaimer that if somehow the next election was between Bush and Obama - I just wouldn't vote. I also didn't like Clinton as a president when he was in office. I would have voted for anyone who ran against him - and I did just that at the time. However, after Bush and Obama I would be happy to see Clinton take over again and I am a conservative leaning libertarian (if I had to put a name to my political leanings).

Anyhoo - according to Wikipedia, the United states public debt in 2000 when Bush was elected was $3,410,000,000,000 (3 trillion 410 billion). At the end of 2008, after his 2 terms (8 years) the public debt was $5,803,000,000,000 (5 trillion 803 billion) - a debt increase of $2,393,000,000,000 (2 trillion 393 billion). When Obama took office, the public debt was where Bush left it at $5,803,000,000,000. At the end of 2010 - just 2 years into his presidency - the public debt was at $9,023,000,000,000 (9 trillion 23 billion) - a debt increase of $3,220,000,000,000 (3 trillion 220 billion). So when you look at the actual public debt figures, Obama only took a little over 2 years to spend what Bush did in 8 years.

Additionally, if you combine Bush's and Obama's spending, just the two of them spent almost double the money that every other president before them combined spent.



en.wikipedia.org...

So lets stop the petty partison bickering about whether the Republicans or Democrats are worse.
Both sides seem to think we can spend our way out of the recession/depression. We need someone who will quit writing checks when our bank account is negative - starting with the disgusting amount of money we give to other countries.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Yeah do your research:

www.zerohedge.com...

www.touchdowns.com...

lewrockwell.com...

usactionnews.com...

Those numbers come straight from the department of labor,


edit on 24-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Totally ignore that OBama has continued Bushs policies and added to them after all the debt celing was raised 3 times to keep spending money.

You don't raise the debt ceiling if you cut anything.


Funny how raising the ceiling wasn't an issue under GOP


And again, the deficit increase isn't only dependent on the budget, but also the general cost of capital. You're also completely ignoring the FACT that the government's main source of income was severely crippled because of reckless deregulation of the financial industry...which lead to the economic crisis.

But yeah, Obama didn't make it all super good again by putting regulations in place to make sure this can't happen again...but that isn't entirely his fault as it was the GOP who blocked him from doing just that.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The issue is Obama lying saying how little he spent the proof speaks otherwise then people defending that lie.

Have not seen Government or it's spending shrink in the last 3 and half years.

The national debt is 16 trillion dollars Obama has spent 6 trillion is less than 1 full term.

Deal.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Another Nutting flub/flop back in 2009. God bless you if you follow this man...

What's remarkable is that one of his errors indicates that he or someone else at MarketWatch must have looked for the numbers in question and, along with his editors (if they exist), blown right by them.

Nutting's erroneous statements in his Thursday MarketWatch report are the first two sentences (bolded by me) in the following paragraph:

The two-quarter contraction is the worst in more than 60 years. Since 1947, the economy had never contracted by more than 4% for two consecutive quarters. With a 0.5% drop in the third quarter of 2008, it's the first time the economy has contracted for three consecutive quarters since 1975.

Both statements are demonstrably false. A review of 1947-2009, the entire period during which quarterly data has been reported (annual data goes back to 1930), shows that the two quarters I cited earlier came in at -4.2% and -10.4%:

USgdp1957and1958

The economy's actual (not annualized) contraction during that six-month 1957-58 time period was 3.75%. The actual contraction during the most recent two quarters, after Thursday's revision, has been "only" 3.0%.

How Rex Nutting or someone helping him could have looked at the government's GDP history and missed the fact that both 1957-58 quarters in question had annualized contractions worse than 4% -- something he specifically said has never happened since 1947 -- is a mystery. Additionally, 4Q-1981 and 1Q-1982 had annualized contractions of over 4%, though their two-quarter combined actual (non-annualized) contraction of 2.87% is less than the two most recent quarters.


Read more: newsbusters.org...

Remember this was 2009 and perhaps Nutting took this advice to come up with his latest creation..


It will be interesting to see if Nutting maintains his gloom or, given further progress into the Obama administration, whether he'll try to put a happy face on things like so many of his business-press colleagues.


HAPPY FACE IT IS!




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
You think this is bad, just wait for the August, September, and October numbers to roll through. The MSM will be painting the picture that the US is in the best shape it has been in 100 years, official unemployment numbers will be way down, tax cuts will be on the horizon, and the Christmas shopping forecast will be for record highs.

The incumbent owns the statistics. I've said this from the beginning. Romney cannot beat Obama in November, because Romney's record is not drastically different than Obama's, and in fact Bain Capital will make him look like a crook, while Obama will own every official statistic, and he will own the MSM, and he will look like a hero before November rolls around.

I'm still voting RP.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueStatePatriot
 


FACT TO THE CONTRARY: Well, sort of. While the Democrats have "created more jobs" You never broke down how many of those millions of jobs were created as government jobs, which we, the taxpayer are funding.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
reply to post by BlueStatePatriot
 


FACT TO THE CONTRARY: Well, sort of. While the Democrats have "created more jobs" You never broke down how many of those millions of jobs were created as government jobs, which we, the taxpayer are funding.


Maybe this little graph that was derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be of assistance to you. As you can clearly see, President Obama's job creation has primarily been within the private sector and not the government funded jobs which you are suggesting.




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Governments NEVER create jobs. The best they can do is hope to stay out of the way of job creation. Obama has not created a single job. Maybe he has allowed the market to create jobs by getting the government out of its way in certain areas, but the government does not create jobs...... ever.

ETA:

And, I work for the government!!! But, you know who creates my job? Taxpayers, and lawbreakers. If people would act right, there would be no need for my job.
edit on 24-5-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join