Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by fskimospy, May 23, 2012.
Not quite but sort of
Let us all examine the President's "enormous influence".
Every Congressional budget will be "very similar" to the President's budget, simply because most of the budget is non-discretionary spending. Of the remainder, very, very seldom does any department or major entitlement program get an actual cut, so the difference for most is merely a couple percent either way.
So you are now agreeing with me that the President exerts enormous influence on the budget? Wow, they didn't take it exactly as written. Congress never does. When someone writes a book and then the editor changes it, didn't the writer still exert enormous influence on its outcome?
Regardless of you being wrong about the president's supposed lack of influence on discretionary spending changes, you are now working against your own point. The sum total change in discretionary spending from 2008-2009 was 4.9%. Even if the entirety of that change was attributable to changes outside of Bush's control (and it wasn't), that wouldn't contradict this thread's central premise of very modest spending increases under Obama.
Let's look for a moment at Nutting's assertions. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/to...-twisting-reality-and-blaming-bush-yet-again/
1. Obama spent roughly half of TARP - but Nutting counts all that as Bush spending. (Yes, Proggies, it is possible to spend less than what is budgeted.)
2. Nutting counts the FY2009 budget plus TARP as the new baseline budget. (The real reason why Democrats decided having a budget was a bad idea.)
3. Obama's stimulus Rex, also supposedly a one-time deal, also gets partially added to the new baseline as only $140 billion of the $862 billion gets counted as Obama spending. Thus Obama gets judged (by Nutting anyway) on how much he raised Bush's spending plus his own.
4. Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill in March 2009 - but under Nutting's rule, that's Bush spending, even though Bush's budget, like all of Obama's, was voted down (though unlike Obama's not unanimously.) When Bush signs a spending bill he gets "credit" for all that spending no matter who actually spent it; when Obama signs a spending bill "credit" accrues to Bush.
5. Obamacare, which mandates increased federal spending (non-discretionary spending) in the future as far as the eye can see, is conveniently ignored.
Examining TARP, we see that under the new rules the loans are counted as Bush's spending even when Obama spent them, whereas the recipients paying them back shows as Obama reducing the deficit. Democrats didn't lower the bar, they sank it into the abyss. But again, all this pales beside the Big Lie, which is the Obama and the Dems attempting to take credit for what they have spent the last three years squealing was Republican obstructionism. "Look how responsible I am - when cornered like a rat."
To paraphrase an old saying, "Figures don't lie, Democrats do."
Very modest spending changes IFF you accept that the "one time" measures of TARP and Stimulus Rex are in fact the new baseline. And no, I'm not agreeing with you that "the President exerts enormous influence on the budget" UNLESS his party controls Congress OR he like Reagan can make something so popular that the voters pressure Congress to adopt it. I was pointing out that structural factors beyond a President's control exert enormous influence on the budget. I'm not sure how one could accidentally confuse those two.
Much of what that guy wrote is simply factually incorrect. I already corrected you when you previously made similar assertions, but I highly suggest that you read less poorly informed commentators in the future.
1.) TARP was passed under Bush. Both the first AND the second funding releases for TARP took place under Bush's presidency. That's Bush spending, period.
2.) Nutting counts the total spending as the spending baseline, which is perfectly rational to do. It is those attempting to discredit this that continually jump through all sorts of hoops to try and declare various things 'not real spending'. Nutting simply uses OMB figures. Why all the mental gymnastics?
3.) Once again, factually false. First, the stimulus was not $862B of spending. Almost half of it was tax cuts. Secondly, Nutting credited the spending of the stimulus to OBAMA's spending figures, not Bush's, because it was clearly Obama's program. It was not added to Bush's baseline. This is in fact why Obama's rate of increase is 1.4% instead of about 0.4%. This is specifically mentioned in the article, I do not understand why you continue to repeat this falsehood.
4.) Bush failing to pass appropriations bills does not absolve him of the spending he budgeted for. To use that sort of argument would simply defy basic logic. Using your logic, years in which appropriations were delayed due to gridlock would see federal expenditures plunge 90%+, only to surge thousands of percent the next year when the funding was actually signed. This would be a breathtakingly inane way to look at budgeting. It would only be done in the service of someone trying to avoid uncomfortable figures.
5.) The ACA is not ignored, it is simply just counted as additional spending for the amount that it will cost in the years it is actually spent. To do otherwise would be illogical.
For what it's worth, I agree that the payback of the loans under Obama shouldn't be counted towards reducing his spending totals. It does nothing to alter the fundamental calculus though. I have truly wondered at the epic right wing freakout that has ensued from this fairly simple recognition of reality. You guys are so wedded to your religious faith of Obama hating you can't see the world in front of your face.
The "epic right wing freakout" has occurred because Obama is now attempting to take credit for something he very strenuously tried to avoid doing. That's a level of dishonesty and contempt for the electorate that is simply breathtaking. Even by political standards, this is simply beyond the pale.
As far as hating Obama, I don't. I grade him as a decent 'C' President, about the same or perhaps a bit higher than Bush. Or Bush I. Or JFK. Lower than Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower, higher than Johnson, Nixon or Carter. None of these except Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower would be my first, second or third choice.
Is Obama attempting to take credit or is someone else entirely trying to debunk a false claim?
That's a valid point, but considering that the President's press secretary had his talking points in line and pretty much all the usual suspects chimed in I'd say it's a team effort.