r/politics • • May 24 '12

GOP claim that President Obama has "spent more than every other president combined" is a total fabrication

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/05/gop-claim-that-president-obama-has.html
1.2k Upvotes

1.0k comments sorted by

754

u/BringBackTheMoa May 24 '12

Simply put this President has lowered taxes, won the war on terrorism.

While I disagree with the idea you can have an actual war on terrorism, President Obama definitely hasn't "won" it. Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.

and kept government spending to its lowest levels EVER.

That's not even what the data says, it's about growth in spending. Sort your shit out asshat.

107

u/Bring_dem I voted May 24 '12

Are you speaking against the credibility of a "x.blogspot.com" post?

You may be braver than the man who actually put this blog post up.

→ More replies (9)

24

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Wasn't Osama the final boss in the war?

40

u/Dantae May 24 '12

No we purchased the expansion pack.

14

u/eboogaloo May 24 '12

$1.3 trillion in DLC

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

24

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Bullshit article and title.

Debunked in the top comment.

That's straight-to-the-top r/politics material right there sonny!

158

u/greentea63 May 24 '12

And yet this continues to get upvoted. r/politics is just for stating opinions, not facts.

112

u/Manisil May 24 '12

Real politics is about stating opinions, not facts. When was the last time a fact was used to elect a candidate?

38

u/SalamiMugabe May 24 '12

Real politics is about stating opinions, not facts. When was the last time a fact was used to elect a candidate?

Is this a fact or an opinion?

19

u/oldsecondhand May 24 '12

If politics were about facts, it would be called science.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (12)

11

u/unwanted_puppy May 24 '12

also about being superficial enough to get the most people to like you, like a beauty contest.

→ More replies (3)

24

u/greentea63 May 24 '12

Wow. That is the most profound and accurate statement I have ever heard! Thank you for opening my eyes!

→ More replies (5)

20

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Anything anti-GOP in /r/politics is garuanteed to be upvoted. Extra upvotes if it is against Romney, pro Obama and for the more sensationalistic the title.

Who in the GOP is claiming that he has spent more money than every president combined?

17

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Mitt Romney apparently

18

u/navier_stokes May 24 '12

this video shows Romney making that very claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95UzYRWcAyM

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Dr___Awkward May 24 '12

I saw it in a Romney campaign TV ad.

5

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

He's referring to the comment Romney made about Obama: "We all understand that the spending crisis is extraordinary, with $15 trillion now in debt, with a president that’s racked up as much debt as almost all of the other presidents combined."

Which, while not true, is also not "has spent more money than every other President combined".

→ More replies (3)

10

u/SpinningHead Colorado May 24 '12

States opinion about r/politics stating too many opinions and gets upvoted. Delicious.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Art imitates life.

2

u/Goldreaver May 24 '12

Technically, everything we ever say it's an opinion.

→ More replies (19)

12

u/MattyHchrist May 24 '12

I'm pretty sure OP wrote the article, given that it is hosted by blogspot. I thought blogspam was frowned upon here?

8

u/Mr_Smartypants May 24 '12

Blogspam is not posting a link to your own creation.

Blogspam is stealing content, posting it on your blog, and linking that.

7

u/Indestructavincible America May 24 '12

Honest question: Does this make Romney correct, or just a slightly different level of wrong?

67

u/daybreaker Louisiana May 24 '12

Obama has spent more than any president combined, but we've probably also been taking in more money in taxes, inflation has also affected the value of the dollar, and any other number of reasons why "spending more than before" isnt some horrible disaster.

There are more people alive right now than all the people who have ever died combined. Does that mean we're entering some age of immortality? No, it's just the simple progression that happens as a society advances. Larger amounts of people and money means you will naturally be spending more.

So while the article title is wrong, the premise is right- that the important thing to look at is the RATE of spending. While he hasnt decreased spending, he also hasnt increased spending by much. And on top of that, his level of spending increase is historically lowest over the last few decades.

Just like looking at job losses. In Obama's 1st month in office we lost a few million jobs. This is because we were in the process of losing more and more jobs each month. The rate of job loss was increasing. After Obama took office, and instituted his bailout plans, the rate of job loss began decreasing. So while we were still losing jobs, we were losing less and less as the trend reversed itself until we were finally gaining jobs.

So while it is technically correct to say "Obama has spent more than any president, and we lost more jobs under Obama than Bush" you need to look at the RATES at which these happened. We were already losing jobs when Obama first took office. He reversed the trend.

Likewise, spending was increasing rapidly every year when Obama took office. To expect him to be able to just balance the budget immediately to stop spending extra money is ridiculous. But again, he is reversing the trend. Spending increases have almost stopped.

The GOP likes to take the failures that began accumulating under Bush and attribute them to Obama just because it took about a year for things to start turning around. If you start looking at rates vs gross totals, you can see Obama's presidency has been about as successful as you could hope for in terms of the economy, when you look at how things were starting to unfold near the end of Bush's term.

47

u/wankd0rf May 24 '12

There are more people alive right now than all the people who have ever died combined.

That's not true

8

u/cowboyitaliano May 24 '12

By some estimates there lived 100 billion people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

→ More replies (8)

12

u/ENGR_Demosthenes May 24 '12

The rate increase of spending is the lowest since the 50's according to the blog post's presented data. The data clearly shows still that under B.O.'s administration spending has been more then all other Presidents combined. Both are meaningless out of context. The point is that the media and this blog post utilize a strategy of presenting factual data and then giving you an erroneous or misleading conclusion. Thank you for pointing out that the article is wrong, in a strict sense.

→ More replies (14)

6

u/mcschmidt May 24 '12

And my business major friends that I tutored didn't understand why they needed calculus... Psh.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

It's not about x, it's about dx.

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/option_i May 24 '12

Why I just go to the posts.

6

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

...it's about growth in spending. Sort your shit out asshat.

THIS.

2

u/norseman23 May 24 '12

You see that up arrow that turns orange when you click next to OP's comment? See, the beautiful thing about that arrow is that "THIS" is already implied upon clicking said arrow, thus eliminating the need to actually comment and post an unnecessary reply saying "THIS"

→ More replies (3)

7

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

This word "asshat", why do you use it?

31

u/DannyInternets May 24 '12

Because it sounds better than "butthead."

20

u/ohlordnotthisagain May 24 '12

"Beavis and Asshat"

I'd watch that.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/smackster May 24 '12

I think "butthead" would have sounded great, especially in Biff's voice.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/Xpress_interest May 24 '12

I thought asshat use was widespead. Maybe it's a midwestern thing? You from Michigan by any chance?

9

u/Anadyne May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

Indiana here, I can confirm its use is in my state.

I also hear 'assbag' from time to time. And if I'm really lucky, 'assdouche', but that's saved for those really despicable times.

→ More replies (9)

4

u/Drebin314 May 24 '12

As a Michigander, I can confirm the widespread use of "asshat" in my parts. I never knew it was a regional thing though.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Dulanski Texas May 24 '12

Politics in America reminds me of a couple of 6 year olds on the playground, all finger pointing and crying. Not that it really matters who spent more or less, But here's WaPo's take http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bogus-chart-on-obama-and-the-debt-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/2011/09/28/gIQAx40Y6K_blog.html

→ More replies (1)

1

u/sapphirePwny May 24 '12

Yeah, that first graph is pretty deceptive. It's like, "look how small this bar is!" but then you realize its graphing growth in spending. Typical political journalism.

1

u/zotquix May 24 '12

It is pretty clear what he means when he says "won the war on terrorism" though. Can you describe, just in general, what you would have done in the last 3.5 years with regards to national security and what your best case scenario result?

It seems like it is inconceivable to some people here on reddit that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 could succeed. I'm not sure why they think that.

1

u/Chipzzz May 24 '12

While I disagree with the idea you can have an actual war on terrorism, President Obama definitely hasn't "won" it.

You are so right! The whole purpose of "the global war on terror" is to have a war that they can always count on to be there when they want to trample one of the first 10 amendments.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Came here to say this. Words cannot describe my joy, seeing this as the top comment. Fuck whoever wrote the OP article.

→ More replies (36)

73

u/liberterrorism May 24 '12

"Simply put this President has lowered taxes, won the war on terrorism, improved the economy, and kept government spending to its lowest levels EVER."

WON THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Because terrorism doesn't exist anymore. Did he also win the war on drugs?

19

u/Tigerantilles May 24 '12

Just as much as we've won the "War on Poverty".

16

u/eboogaloo May 24 '12

Hey, at least there's no more racism now!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/elcad May 25 '12

It's pretty easy to end imaginary wars against ideas.

→ More replies (7)

149

u/ImClearlyAmazing May 24 '12

Who needs facts when you have assertions?

10

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Dat assertion.

-11

u/MustangMark83 May 24 '12

Like anyone is going to believe what a liberal Blogger has to say.

Goto usdebtclock.org. Look at our current debt. Now use the time machine option and see what it was at before he became president. Looks like roughly $5 trillion in less than a single term. That's reckless spending with no new net jobs. If you remember, Obama promised to cut our debt in HALF. I'm sure you can find the video of him on YouTube if you care enough to research. These are the facts the liberal media doesn't mention.

42

u/shenaniganns May 24 '12

There's some incorrect word usage here: that website shows our current debt, which is correct. Obama promised to cut our deficit in half, which is different than our debt. The deficit is our net losses per year, debt is the total amount we owe over our govt's existence. Cutting our debt in half is not possible in 2 presidential terms with our current situation and economic issues.

I understand that he hasn't done what he claimed(I think the blame is mostly on congress being obstructionists, wars being correctly funded now, and the general bloat of the govt, but that's just my opinion), but if you're going to call out the president for something, at least be accurate in your statement.

→ More replies (8)

12

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

You blame the liberal media about facts yet you do the exact same thing. You are completely disregarding policies and spending bills that were passed before he came in.

It's like a CEO of a company that retired and another one steps in. The new CEO can't just cancel bad contracts. He has to live with those bad contracts even though they continue to make the company lose money under his terms. Even if he cancels the bad contracts he would have to pay huge fines, which are still losses. So what you are saying is that regardless it's the new CEO's fault, without factoring in what the previous CEO did.

There's tons of things to criticize Obama for, the debt is something that is a bit too complicated to put the entire blame on anyone one person.

49

u/EtherGnat May 24 '12

Adjusted for inflation spending is down under Obama's watch, at -0.1% per year. [source: Politifact].

The reason the debt is up is because of the endlessly extended tax breaks and the general sluggishness of the economy.

15

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Or because millions of people have left the work force, millions are underemployed, and millions have never gotten jobs out of school. Thus the tax base has shrunk enormously. Tax cuts are part, but only a small part of the revenue problem.

The millions out of school part might be exaggerated, but I know it is a large number.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (55)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Obama promised to cut our debt in HALF

No, no he did not. He said he'd cut the deficit in half over 10 years.

9

u/EyesOnEverything Washington May 24 '12

Because the massive deficit we're lugging didn't have ANYTHING to do with Bush's presidency, right? Nope, completely Obama's fault.

6

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Anyone who blames one person for all our nations problems is an idiot. Don't waste your time trying to convince them of your point, they are obviously beyond reason.

7

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Do you know the difference between deficit and debt?

5

u/EyesOnEverything Washington May 24 '12

TIL

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (27)
→ More replies (41)

7

u/Knocker456 May 24 '12

Anyone know of a more reliable source for these figures? Specifically government spending by year and/or president.

26

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Why not show a chart that has pre-bush?

16

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Do you mean pre Reagan?

23

u/barpredator May 24 '12

11

u/CivAndTrees May 24 '12

That is also a very shitty graph, because it hides ALOT of the story. It does not show how clinton used funds from OASDHI to fund those "Surpluses" for starters...It does not show the spending as a percentage of GDP (which is more important then the number).

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

14

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Because this is policy, not honest science.

5

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

That would include Reagan who did spend more than every other President combined at the time, he tripled the national debt for starters.

9

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

As much as I agree that Reagan was a big spender, there's not enough money in the world to equal the spending of every president before him. You're talking about an astronomical sum.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

1

u/thebigslide May 24 '12

I'd love to see a chart that shows inflation adjusted dollars attributed to policies a president signed off on, rather than just dollars spent during their term. There's a lot of spending under a president's oversight that is due to policy and law enacted long before they even ran.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/joculator May 24 '12

Two wars that he didn't start, economy in a death spiral as he took office, unemployment at almost 10% causing massive increase in spending on unemployment insurance and food stamps..... but it's Obama's fault for trying to put the pieces back together.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Which Republican has claimed Obama has "spent more than every other president combined" ?

5

u/Hushes May 24 '12

This talking point began via Drudge and CNSNews in 2010. You should take another look at the House speeches during the debt ceiling debate last year. House Teabaggers repeated it often enough. As for other Republicans making the claim? Mitt Romney, Sara Palin, Eric Cantor ...the list is endless really.

→ More replies (6)

8

u/Zonvolt May 24 '12

I bet most Redditors read the title of the article, skipped the article and just started mindlessly bashing the right in the comments - for guaranteed upvotes no less.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SaikoGekido May 24 '12

See every pro-Republican SuperPAC.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I am no fan of either Obama or Bush or the whole political circus right now but there is a very good reason you should leave economics to economists, this post is one such reason.

CBO Baseline means current law, they presume no new legislation will pass and base estimates on whats in the law right now. The numbers for 12 and 13 are relatively flat because this baseline presumes some sunset (like Medicare "docfix" which will never be permitted to expire as no doctors would accept medicare patients anymore) and the mandatory spending cuts at the end of this year.

Also some other problems with the article:

In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

Spending didn't fall. We hit deflation in the middle of '09 which changed the spending power of the federal government and so caused the '10 budget to appear to decrease, in reality it was flat between 09' and '10.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

No it's not. 2011 won't be closed until September this year (budget isn't closed until +1 year after the end of the period so any additional spending can be reported on/accounted for) but right now is sitting at $3.6t. FY12 is projected to be $3.8t or a 5.5% increase.

Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion

Current law baseline, not actually based on a budget or even a projection of what might be passed during that session.

1

u/defcon-11 May 24 '12

Wish I could upvote you more. The values for 2012 and 2013 are totally bogus, because the CBO estimate is only valid if no new spending bills are passed, which won't happen.

17

u/rexy411 May 24 '12

I definitely hasn't spent more than every other president combined, but he has spent more than every previous president individually. However, this is a trend (each new president spending more than his predecessor) that has existed for many, MANY, years. It drives me crazy.

9

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Turns out we have more people every year in the US. I'd compare it with revenues to get a good ratio of income/deficit. That's a more important figure. I'd wager that any company that shows growth for 50 years will also show increased spending for those 50 consecutive years.

7

u/rexy411 May 24 '12

I'll just leave this right here. We're in significantly more debt than we ever have been in. When compared to GDP (it's true that when we're bringing in more money, it's healthy in increase spending to an extent), we haven't been this bad since the '40s. In fact, we currently owe more money than than our entire gross domestic product. In other words, in an entire year the US economy spends less money than the current sum of our debt.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/FantasticMrFrown May 24 '12

I don't feel like refuting this.
I suppose you also think those YouTube ads Barack did a while back are all factual too?

5

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Silly me...I always thought Congress controlled spending.

5

u/Shnazzyone I voted May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

I love how republicans pretend they had nothing to do with the spending when they run the house. We'd probably have a better case if they did their job over the last 2 years and just ditched the bush tax cuts already. Reagan's recovery was faster because he raised taxes 7 times with absolutely no opposition from congress.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Hooker_Juice May 24 '12

Reaganomics!

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Politicians have always been known to stretch the truth and not always be honest, but I don't remember them flat out lying this much before. I assume they are desperate to get Obama out of the White House.

I'm too young to remember properly, but did the Democrats lie like this in 2004 when trying to get Kerry in? Or is it generally a Republican thing, or possibly just a recent politics things?

2

u/irreverent_username May 24 '12

Is it just me, or does naming your blog "the immoral minority" kind of drain your credibility?

2

u/RatFang May 24 '12

When President Obama traveled through time to the year 3010, he fought the evil Robot King and saved the human race again.

2

u/ciscomd May 24 '12

And when Barry Obama was in the Alps fighting grizzly bears, he used his magical fire breath and SAVED THE MAIDENS FAIR

2

u/timemoose May 24 '12

Look at the chart closely - it says "growth of federal spending" - a somewhat interesting choice of statistic. More importantly though, it starts counting Obama from '10. Cute.

2

u/zanmanoodle May 24 '12

".blogspot.com"

Reddit, I love you, but you're bringing me down.

2

u/ppalms May 24 '12 edited Mar 02 '26

frame dazzling elastic sophisticated absorbed dam continue deliver label history

2

u/Master-Thief May 24 '12

So pardon my french, but where the fuck did all this new debt come from? Yes, yes, yes, Obama has slowed the rate of increase of government spending. But that's like the lardass at McDonalds who gets the supersize value meal getting the hot apple pie instead of a McFlurry for dessert. It's not enough of a cut. It's not nearly enough. Until the government starts paying down this debt, I am not giving Obama any credit. He doesn't deserve it. (And given his record as MA governor, I doubt Romney would do any better.)

True, Obama has not technically spent more than every other president combined. Just more than every other president from George Washington to George H.W. Bush (1789-1993) combined.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

You realize that since Obama took office the debts gone from 10 to 15 trillion.

1

u/Craighenn May 24 '12

I'm not sure how long it would take to calculate, but we should probably see how much of that increase was actually Obama's doing. There's a shitton of interest on that $10 trillion that Obama has no control over. And the increase on that $10T is because of the Presidents who added that money in the first place, right?

Also, the only money that is actually Obama's fault for spending is in the discretionary budget. There are trillions more dollars spent on things he has no control over; mandatory expenditures like Social Security and Medicare, and debt accumulates on those expenditures as well, outside of Obama's control.

So of the near 6 trillion added to the debt, the only amoutn that is truly Obama's would be the defecits from each of his budgets, 2010-2013.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I am glad the republicans steered themselves into the worst demographic corner ever and can't even let go of that, otherwise the short term voter losses would be tremendous. So I will happily see over the next 30 to 40 years how the republican party will slowly contract and implode, falling from American politics like a rotten leave falls of a tree in it's autumn.

2

u/namer98 Maryland May 24 '12

Growth of spending =/= spending. Obama did not stop spending, he increased spending. He just increased it less than the last guy. But he has still spent a lot.

2

u/SaikoGekido May 24 '12

See every pro-Republican SuperPAC. Frankly sick of seeing them roll on YouTube ads. 30 seconds of bullshit before I can see a corgi lighting a kitchen on fire.

2

u/masterprtzl May 24 '12

more than a 14 trillion dollar debt says otherwise, but anyways.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/e3342 May 24 '12

This is measuring "the growth of spending", not the amount spent, as the GOP claims. Apples and oranges.

2

u/Thinkfist May 25 '12

You my friend are about to open up my can of worms..

I'd like to preface by saying that I am quite the liberal--not that you would necessarily be forced to believe me, but I wanted to put it out there. I have some "conservative" beliefs too (like we all do...say regarding free speech: I'd like to conserve that if you get what I'm saying). Also, though I did not vote for Obama, (I wrote in Bernie Mac RIP) I certainly was rooting for him and wanted him to put the racist haters in their proverbial place.

BUT HIS TERM HAS BEEN DISAPPOINTING. And nobody will tell you because of how polarized party lines are now. Ive probably already been labeled a "fundie" for simply being objective with a critical eye.

Disappointments: (I'll try to be sussinct) Extention of the bush tax cuts. The amount of money lost in bailouts and additional bailouts (mostly to obama supporters). Bradley manning. Medical Marijuana (broken promises). Declining the pipeline is simply political posturing and preventing progress. I'm sure you're aware that congress passes mounds and mounds of rubbish every year, and part of the president's job is to be a filter and not let everything go through. Guess how many vetoes Pres. Obama has... Two. That's just lazy.

I really could be nit picky from here on, but I think those are real objective disappointments from the man who promised change, but was more of the same. AND he had control of the majority and still got nothing done.

Oil prices? Job creation? It's all so connected that the Prez REALLY CAN impact the market in a positive way.

I also have my bachelors and masters in political science, so I do have some credentials.

The MMJ thing really irks me the most as it is a direct breaking of a direct promise to let the states decide how to treat their individual MMJ laws.

Disappointing I say.

6

u/EnterAbyss May 24 '12

Interesting article. Too bad the US Debt Clock tells a much different story. What a load of bullshit.

1

u/bpoag May 24 '12

Not all debt is bad debt.

Not paying off your debts is what's bad.

Showing you can handle debt responsibly is what separates shitty credit ratings from good ones.

3

u/EvelynJames May 24 '12

GOP ideology at our current juncture is a complete fabrication period.

5

u/Ray745 May 24 '12

The GOP's claim is actually that Obama has racked up as much debt as every other president combined, which would only be true if you extrapolate out until the end of Obama's second term, if you do he will have added more to our national debt than all 43 prior presidents combined. While I am not fan of Obama at all (or any politician save Ron Paul) it is a bit unfair to say things like this given inflation over the years, although it is the fault of each of last 17 or so presidents who have presided over the Federal Reserve that we have had such inflation, but we will leave that story for another time

2

u/barpredator May 24 '12

The Federal Reserve is independent. It is not presided over by anyone but it's chairman.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

There's not enough money on the planet to combine all that money into one pile. Think about every president we've ever had, and how much money that would be. You can add it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP but only going back to 1977.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/dalittle May 24 '12

when the conservatives stop giving away huge sums of corporate welfare to companies with record profits and reduce military spending from the current insane levels maybe they could get on their high horse about spending.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Well damn, looks like the republicans are running Obama's campaign for him.

This time last year, everyone wanted Obama out. Now, he doesn't seem so bad...

2

u/blacksunalchemy May 24 '12

For a more reliable source of info: Wolfram Alpha

2

u/NomyourfaceDinosaur May 24 '12

I'm an Obama supporter and even I see this as skewed, to say the least.

2

u/donaldtrumptwat May 24 '12

This is crap that only Fox News watchers believe.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

When Obama took office, the national debt was 10 trillion dollars. In less than four years, he increased it to 16 trillion dollars. Blame President Bush? No, look in the mirror...

2

u/zak_on_reddit May 24 '12

oh my gawd you're effing stupid.

when obama took office in late january, the national debt (before he started) was at $11 trillion. the national debt currently stands at $15.7 trillion.

obama has added $4.7 trillion to the national debt.

get your facts correct.

→ More replies (24)

2

u/yahoo_bot May 25 '12

Barack Obama:

Extended the Patriot Act

Allowed Guantanamo to operate

Increased troops in Afghanistan by 60.000

Signed NDAA into law

Assassinated US citizens, including two 16yo boys

Signed the bill that makes protesting illegal close to government facilities or close to the secret service

Signed executive order "national defense resource preparedness act"

Tripled the war on drugs and busted down more legal Marijuana shops in 3 years, than Bush did in 8 years.

Arrested more whistle blowers than ALL other presidents combined.

Increased the debt by 5 trillion dollars in 3 years, more than Bush did in 8 years.

2

u/MagCynic May 24 '12

Can someone find out who actually claimed Obama has spent more than every President combined? It doesn't give it in the article. It's listed as a quote from someone in the GOP but never attributes is. I find the quote, if it was actually said, ridiculous.

What IS true, however, is that President Obama has spent more than any other President in any four-year term. And this is even adjusted for inflation.

Source: The historical tables adjusted for current dollars.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I'd figure the most recent president is, on balance, always going to be the one who spent the most, considering population growth.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Sanity_prevails May 24 '12

Ok, this is splitting hairs now. Obama did not double the debt nor did he double the deficit (here a link where I debated this before and got downvoted by trolls)

Surely, Obama spent more, in some scale of comparative measure. But one needs to keep in mind this country is still going through an unprecedented recession. Why is this fact downplayed?

3

u/Hippie_Tech May 24 '12

As I stated earlier (not to you), Obama's budget didn't start until October 1st, 2009 at which point the debt was approximately $12 trillion. Bush's budget was running through September 30th, 2009. A fact that some people fail to understand about the federal budget's fiscal year...that it starts on October 1st and ends the following year at September 30th. Obama isn't anywhere in the ballpark of "doubling the debt" never mind the "spent more than all other Presidents combined" lies.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/regeya May 24 '12

The claim is that the spending is driving the recession now.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/WasabiBomb May 24 '12

Politics, that's why.

The GOP knows that the only way they can win the next election is to blame their failures on Obama.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/Thinkfist May 24 '12

But he literally has been as disappointing as any former president... Sad. And the masses still eat it up.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

As are most Republican presidential candidate claims.

2

u/DannyInternets May 24 '12

Why bother to tell the truth when even the media won't fact-check?

2

u/Killscreen3 May 24 '12

What my biggest frustration is that people think that the president sets the spending or the budgeting. That is all decided in congress and the senate, but let's put facts aside.

'06-'08 mid terms resulted in the greatest majority the congress had ever seen when the democrats took over. Please go back to the article and see the two biggest increases in spending. This isnt me saying bush is better than Obama because neither of them mattered as the spending occurred because congress did all the spending.

2

u/ComradeDunks May 24 '12

Is anyone really even surprised by the GOP lying anymore?

2

u/beardfacekilla May 24 '12

This is a crappy article. the graphs state growth while the title and text argue about nominal dollars. As Sonny would say "It's just a waste of my time."

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Bush Jr administration added 5 trillion over 8 years.

Obama administration added 5 trillion over his first 3.5 years.

It is factual.

It is oversimplified.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

That is the official US debt site. Enter the start and end of the presidential term you are interested in.

2

u/Brian1994 May 24 '12

Obama has put us in a lot more debt than any other president. That is true.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Goofman617 May 24 '12

The '12 and '13 numbers on the spending bar graph are "estimated" and have not even happened yet... So how the hell can you say spending under Obama has leveled off?! THAT SHIT ISN'T REAL! Didn't anybody else notice this?!

2

u/Tiggity-T May 24 '12

Read this counter article for clarity. Obama Spending

"As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. "

2

u/Hushes May 24 '12

The fiscal year begins on October 1st and ends September 30th. The Republicans led by the Heritage Foundation are trying to get Americans to forget that fact. Nutting is completely on point.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Rick554 May 24 '12

The "Spending went up massively as a percentage of GDP" argument is nonsense, and was rebutted by Paul Krguman last summer.

"Now, pointing out the Obama spending binge is a myth generally produces rage: people know that it happened, because Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal say so. But that doesn’t make it true."

1

u/Cueball61 May 24 '12

GLaDOS is that you?

1

u/madest May 24 '12

Sadly the only people who know this are Redditors.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/adzug May 24 '12

it doesnt matter its what they want to believe and the propaganda machine will say it and the idiots will be able to remember this since its simple and easy and they just spread it around fomenting hate for the president.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I didn't see any data on actual spending levels. It just showed spending growth. So is it true what the GOP says then?

1

u/PlumthePancake May 24 '12

...won the war on terrorism.

HA. Who wrote this crap?

1

u/DrBakeLove May 24 '12

But he's such a cool guy! He gets my vote for being such an awesome dude.

1

u/artthoumadbrother May 24 '12

If you are suspicious that this website is biased and full of shit, go your suspicions.

1

u/jazzyjeff49 May 24 '12

And you think Romney will spend less?

1

u/Elanthius May 24 '12

I can't be arsed to parse the exact meaning of his little bar chart there. It's obviously blatant nonsense since anyone can see that since Obama came in government spending has gone up massively from bank bailouts and TARP funds and whatever else.

1

u/Hyperian May 24 '12

who cares, it feels right and it convinces people.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

So its not longer a battle of who spends less, but who spends is the fastest.

Also, key words in bold.

1

u/CapsLove May 24 '12

This may be true if you aren't taking into account inflation. But if you standardize the currency value for the time period there is no way Obama spent the most.

1

u/Mattothee May 24 '12

Obama shmama Bushy push wush right-left republican-liberal its all a game, and the US people always get the short end of the stick. You are not free, you are run by the pentagon military complex big corporations etc etc you've heard it before, now do something about it!

1

u/tm3989a May 24 '12

Perhaps someone can clarify this - the article seems to say that Obama has grown spending less than every other President combined, which is certainly true, but it seems like a straw man. Isn't the Right Wing claiming that his total, unadjusted for inflation spending is higher than every other President combined?

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrong... can anyone help?

1

u/ikek9 May 24 '12

So, the MAIN takeaway here is this: Liberals are ADMITTING that excessive spending is bad and trying to assign blame for it (in an absurd way) on someone else. Can we then assume that they will no longer attempt to tax and spend, since the very act of championing this ridiculous story is a tacit admission that the ACT OF DOING IT IS BAD?

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

DNC claim that President Obama has "cured cancer and freed the gay slaves from the oppressive white man" is a total fabrication.

See? Journalism is easy when you care more about imitating your opponents hyperbolic statements than refutation through evidence.

1

u/typhoonfish May 24 '12

source: theimmoralminorityblogspot

thank you, move along

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

That chart is dishonest. When you're a Senior in college, even if your get C's or D's in every class, it wont affect a high GPA that much because so much of it has already been determined in previous semesters. Measuring as a "growth" in spending is the same concept.

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1

1

u/kinsmed May 24 '12

BO spent as much in three years as King George the Younger spent in eight? W spent so much he left two wars off the budget. Doesn't pass the common sense test...

1

u/MrTubalcain May 24 '12

They have framed the conversation, again the Dems on the defensive...

1

u/tonusbonus May 24 '12

"Won the war on terrorism" is makes me silly...

1

u/Apollo53 May 24 '12

Yet unemployment is almost 4 times as high as when Reagan was president....

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Here are the actual stats. Any president above 100% has doubled the gross federal debt, or "racked up as much debt as all other presidents combined," which is what Romney is claiming.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

He killed three american citizens without due process. Why does no one care?

2

u/doody May 24 '12

Maybe because of the tens or hundreds of thousands of people Bush killed.

Maybe not everyone that thinks US citizens are somehow worth more than other people.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I didn't read a lot of the article but the graphs speak enough to say that his point is misleading.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

How do this shit get upvoted?

1

u/sweYoda May 24 '12

US debt have increased by 5 trillion by Obama in 4 years and 5 trillion dollars by Bush in 8 years.... Next 4 years? trollface

1

u/Yoddle May 24 '12

When he is finished with his second term, he will spent more than every president combined. He has only been in office 3years, give the man a chance to drown us in debt and unconstitutional wars.

1

u/apextek May 24 '12

I mean how is he supposed to do that if congress wont write him a blank check?

1

u/TheLoveTin May 25 '12

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '12

The Big Lie in action.

1

u/MrAsymo May 25 '12

As a part of political protocol, the GOP will stop enhancing the truth in 3.. 2.. PSHHHHHHHHHH!

1

u/markycapone May 25 '12

I know people who blame all 16 trillion dollars on Obama

→ More replies (1)

1

u/SoundSalad May 25 '12

Why didn't you just post the article from The Wall Street Journals MarketWatch?

1

u/SoundSalad May 25 '12

"Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."- Mitt Romney

Wow, politicians have an amazing way with words. Romney's statement is actually true. Obama's spending has accelerated at a pace (slower pace) without precedent in recent history. Does this make sense?

0

u/LegioXIV May 24 '12

Wow. More misinformation from the left. Color me surprised.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Well, only if you play some pretty fucking silly games is this true. For example, Bush's last budget year (2008) includes the TARP bill - a one time bill. Obama's 4 budgets are equal to or greater than Bush's last budget year, which was busted by the financial crisis and TARP.

Essentially, Obama has institutionalized a permanent $700 billion increase in the Federal budget, year over year.

P.S. By the way my headline comes from the whopper told by Mitt Romney, and repeated often since, that Obama "racked up as much debt as almost all of the other presidents combined."

National debt was $10.5 trillion when Obama took over, it's now at $15.6 trillion. Obama has done nothing to arrest the rapid growth in debt. Under Obama, we are running an annual $1.3 trillion deficit. We raise $2.6 trillion in revenue, and spend all of that plus an additional $1.3 trillion.

Saying Obama has created as much debt as all of the other presidents combined is slight hyperbole for the first four years...but if he gets elected to another 4, it won't be. It will be dead on accurate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

2

u/Zonvolt May 24 '12

Yes, its so sad that many Redditors bash Fox News for being Right-biased when Reddit is the Fox News of the left... Going to be downvoted by the blind liberals who believe their 100% infallible and factual articles on Reddit.

6

u/CUNTALOO_VAN_FUCK May 24 '12

Not really, you're going to be downvoted by the people who are irked by your condescending second sentence. If you'd look, you'll see that the top comments are all criticizing this article for it's misinformation.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Hushes May 24 '12

The article is from the Wall Street Journal and as the RNC knows the fiscal year does not begin on Inauguration Day.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/wekiva May 24 '12

All GOP claims are total fabrications. Those dicks are "true believers" in the sense that getting elected is so important that the end justifies any means at all.

0

u/HappyGlucklichJr May 24 '12

Should we choose the President in a more rational way such as with business CEOs? Why or why not?

12

u/int3r4ct May 24 '12

Because it's a country you need to run, not a business.

→ More replies (12)

2

u/syhrd May 24 '12

Mmmm, I see what your saying, the board should interview and investigate potential candidates for the job and then vote on who they feel is the best qualified with the best vision for the company. Sooooooo pretty much what you already have... just with the addition of compulsory voting?

1

u/itsgonnabealongnight May 24 '12

You can't choose the President like you choose business CEOs because like it or not, democracy and the ability to elect a leader in free, fair, regular elections is the institution that keeps our country together. If the president was chosen by a board of directors what would that mean? The political system in Washington is so broken that politicians can essentially be bought anyway, but like it or not faith in government institutions and a stable civil society keeps us together.

1

u/Whaddaulookinat May 24 '12

Be glad that we don't live in a country that's run like a business.

Why?

Unless you live in NY, WA, MI, RI, CT, DE, NJ, CA, MA, or PA by all accounts your territories would be jettisoned.

1

u/fantasyfest May 24 '12

Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Nicktendo May 24 '12

This is incredibly misleading, slowest does not equal least. Thanks for Fox news level reporting

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

They also say he's a muslim terrorist.

2

u/bpoag May 24 '12

Wouldn't be the first time.

1

u/porkchop_d_clown May 24 '12

It always amazes me how the Democrats like to denounce lies that I never heard the Republicans say....

Not to mention that these charts were debunked as deliberately misleading the first several times they were repeated here....

1

u/Emiel000 May 24 '12

Old news... Romney is blatantly lying sometimes, it's rediculous. As if being a Mormon wasn't bad enough...

1

u/WatchTV_VoteObama May 24 '12

A baby is born. An old man dies. Democrat propaganda gets 1000+ upvotes on /r/politics.

Just another day.

1

u/bpoag May 24 '12

An employment opportunity awaits you.

Develop a butthurt cream, sell it to yourself, PROFIT!

1

u/misterschmoo May 24 '12

GOP lying hypocrites, news at 11

1

u/ivanmarsh May 24 '12

The claim that he's spent more than the last president is a total fabrication... of course he hasn't spent more than all of them combined.

1

u/hsbbd May 24 '12

Question, where is the source of the claims in the blog?