Obama’s spending and lying w/ numbers

Over at a place called “Pragmatic Capitalist”, they’ve got a “Chart of the Day” purporting to show that President Obama isn’t a big spender.  Like all the dishonest hack pushing that meme, they do this by blaming 2009 spending on Bush.  I left the following comment:

I’d spend time responding to you, but the fundamental dishonesty you show by assigning 2009 spending to Bush shows there’s no point.

Who signed the 2009 budget?  Obama.  Who passed the 2009 budget?  A Democrat controlled Congress.

Did you include the 2009 Democrat “stimulus” in with that 2009 “Bush spending”?

Did you include TARP in the Bush spending?  Did you add that one time only expenditure to the “Obama baseline”?  Did you subtract TARP repayments from Obama’s spending, or from Bush’s spending?

Did you add the Iraq military spending to Bush’s total?  Did you credit Obama with “cutting spending” for the (planned by Bush) decrease in military spending in Iraq?

Do you have the slightest shred of honor or decency, or are you just a left-wing propagandist?


2 Responses to “Obama’s spending and lying w/ numbers”

  1. thedenude Says:

    I thank you for your post, and would like to point something out. If we understand financial transaction to be the lifeblood of an economy, then there should be little problem with being a large spender, regardless of whether the spending is performed by government or by private equity. I think what is more important is whether such spending is investment in capital that will help to realize more wealth, or whether such spending is mainly consumption like in its character.

    As an example, spending during world war two was mostly towards manufacturing of weapons and products of a military nature. This spending paved the way for computer systems that we have today as well as nitrogen enriched soils used for agriculture, which were often produced by retrofitted wartime factories.

    At the same time, a relative affluence of wealth did not occur until after the war, which would seem to imply that the direct spending on warfare of WWII did not generate wealth for local economies, but rather the spending on the local economy generated after the war did help the nation enjoy a great amount of postwar wealth.

    In the same manner, certain things, when spent on, produce a higher quality of living than other things. To take an extreme example, one might legalize the hard drug trade, and might even generate a healthy economy from it. Unfortunately, such an action would have the effect of lowering the current standard of living.

  2. thedenude Says:

    *edit: ‘consumptive in character.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: