Skip to comments.Numbers donít lie, but Democrats do
Posted on 05/26/2012 5:36:42 AM PDT by Ken the bugman
Its been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: Federal spending under Obama at historic lows Its clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president weve had in 60 years. Theres even a chart!
Ill pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on
This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: Its science! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?
Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed the big myth about Obamas spending: This chart the truth very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly. And the truth was, the growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.
Note that Schultz also said that the part of the chart representing President Obamas term includes a stimulus package, too. As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.
Schultzs guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston, confirmed: And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.
Everybodys keyboard OK?
On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.
In response, three writers from The Daily Show said, Well never top that line, and quit.
Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nations premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: Debacle: Obamas War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.
(Im reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)
It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obamas entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.
Thats not a joke.
That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in Bushs column. (And if we attribute all of Bushs spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didnt spend much either.)
Nuttings analysis is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obamas spending. And hes testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.
Nutting acts as if its the height of magnanimity to attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush
On what possible theory would that be Bushs spending? Hey we just found out that Obamacares going to cost triple the estimate. Lets blame it on Calvin Coolidge!
Nuttings and not to Bush line is just a sleight of hand. Hes hoping you wont notice that he said $140 billion and not $825 billion, and will be fooled into thinking that hes counting the entire stimulus bill as Obamas spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)
Continued on Page 2 >>
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/numbers-dont-lie-but-democrats-do/#ixzz1vyVxutxa
Time to cut taxes to reflect this lack of spending then!
They either don’t report the truth or they report the lies!
That was my thought too...TAXES!!
If they were so wonderful, WHY do they want to increase taxes?
Is this any surprise? Just look at the all the climate change data or the jobless rate. These people have an agenda and they don’t want facts to get in their way.
Where is the obligatory, "women, children and minorities hardest hit" from the left?
Rush chopped this to pieces over the last couple days.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” — Lenin
I would come right out and call Obama and his troops liars, in ads. I'd insulate the major candidates from the most heated comments, so that they can appear above the fray, but I would accuse the left of everything from eugenics to subversion. I might even march out references to John Edwards - ‘he was a liar too, and the democrats tried to put him a heart beat away from the Presidency. He said he was for the little guy, but lived rich and used campaign donations to hide one of his biggest lies’. Etc. etc.
We are in a war for our country and our freedoms, and we cannot afford to be restricted by McCain-like rules of engagement.
More wizdumb from the truth fairy.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
A second citation....not in the Good Book....but certainly describes my reaction when I read the lies of reptilian scum like those found on MSNBC and in the smarmy mass of apostasy that is American liberalism today.
“When a man lies, he murders some part of the world. These are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home?
Cliff Burton. Metallica.
May God save their souls or Hell take them all.
“The Big Lie will always work because people have a limited ability to fathom deception on a grand scale.” — Josef Goebbels
If Obama can attribute all or most of the spending to Bush, and then claims to have prevented an economic meltdown with that spending, shouldn’t he then be giving Bush credit for “recovering the economy”? After all, IF the spending and rescue packages are what prevented the economy from getting worse, and said economy is “improving” (according to Obama), then, it was “Bush’s fault” that the economy went into “recovery mode”.
Obama can’t have it both ways.
“Its science! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?”
It’s the new meme, all over my Facebook page. What incredible dolts!
They are doing eugenics. “Planned Parenthood” is part of it.