Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Obama spending binge never happened

  1. #1

    Obama spending binge never happened

    Interesting.


    [QUOTE] WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

    As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

    Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

    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.

    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.

    Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

    Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

    • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


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

    • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

    • 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.

    • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

    Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

    There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

    Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

    What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

    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.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor[/url]

  2. #2
    And the counter piece.


    [QUOTE]FIGURES DON'T LIE: DEMOCRATS DO
    By Ann Coulter | Ann Coulter*–*3 hrs ago
    VIEW SLIDESHOWS

    And the new American Idol is...
    19 photos - 35 mins ago

    Photos of the Day
    20 photos - 13 hrs ago

    European Swimming Championships
    14 photos - Mon, Mar 5, 2012
    See latest photos »
    It's been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: "Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years." There's even a chart!
    I'll 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: It's "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 Obama's 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 Obama's term includes a stimulus package, too." As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.
    Schultz's guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: "And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president."
    Everybody's 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, "We'll never top that line," and quit.
    Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation's premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future." (I'm reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)
    It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.
    That's not a joke.
    That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't spend much either.)
    Nutting's "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 Obama's spending. And he's 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 it's the height of magnanimity to "attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush ..."
    On what possible theory would that be Bush's spending? Hey -- we just found out that Obamacare's going to cost triple the estimate. Let's blame it on Calvin Coolidge!
    Nutting's "and not to Bush" line is just a sleight of hand. He's hoping you won't notice that he said "$140 billion" and not "$825 billion," and will be fooled into thinking that he's counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama's spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)
    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.
    There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending.
    Frustrated that he can't shift all of Obama's spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House's numbers, the White House's estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.
    But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting's counting Obama's nine-month spending binge as Bush's spending.
    If liberals will attribute Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won't they do?
    [/QUOTE]

  3. #3
    The nation has been running on 'continuous resolutions' since the 2010 budget. That has helped to keep the budget down. The deficit on the other hand is on the high rise though.

    The unpaid for wars started by Bush and his tax cuts continue.....When Boehner did not pass the 2010 budget, he blew a big chance to get Obama into a difficult spot.

    Right now it really appears that the d's are out performing the r's in the political theater

  4. #4
    Obama promises to cut the deficit in half but has added 5 trillion to the debt.

    Obama and the Democrats passed on addressing this issue of the debt is proven to be there biggest mistake.
    They could have address that issue blamed the Republicans for being irresponsible and held onto the Congress for the next 20 years.

    Instead thankfully they're about to lose everything they gained in four short years.

    Dems it's not that your socialists but you are irresponsible socialist.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,268
    [QUOTE=cedk;4476207]Obama promises to cut the deficit in half but has added 5 trillion to the debt.

    Obama and the Democrats passed on addressing this issue of the debt is proven to be there biggest mistake.
    They could have address that issue blamed the Republicans for being irresponsible and held onto the Congress for the next 20 years.

    Instead[B] thankfully[/B] they're about to lose everything they gained in four short years.

    Dems it's not that your socialists but you are irresponsible socialist.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with everything but the thankfully part. Though I voted against him and worried that his worst attributes would be the ones he emphasized, if Obama held true on several of his campaign promises like getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, making the government more streamlined and transparent and blurring or removing the lines between race and party I would have considered him a good and successful president. I did hope that he would be successful in these respects because it would have made our country stronger.

    Instead he has kept Bush's Iraq timeline and left 18000 (mostly contractors) people there though few people understand that we still have a large presence there, increased the presence in Afghanistan though we still don't have a goal there, fought many other wars (shadow and otherwise) and made our name even worse across the globe. He made government less transparant (huge unreadable bills that "need to be passed to see what is in them"). He ignited race issues whenever possible and increased the debt. He proved my fears to have been well founded. Time for a change for the better.

  6. #6
    5 Trilion in debt doesn't lie! No wonder Obama couldn't balance his own checkbook. He couldn't add or subtract!

  7. #7
    More interesting is the Liberal NY Times blames the constraint on spending to the Republican majority in the House.

    [url]http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/the-spending-binge-that-wasnt/?ref=federalbudgetus[/url]

    [QUOTE]Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, made a big show of reading reporters aboard Air Force One a MarketWatch report saying that the rate of spending growth under President Obama is lower than under any president since Eisenhower. Mr. Carney said this proves the president has demonstrated far more restraint and responsibility than his critics would allow.

    “Do not buy into the b.s. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration,” he demanded. “I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.”

    [B]This trumpet blast would seem to indicate that Mr. Carney has bought into a standard Republican line: restraint is good and spending is bad, even when government dollars are desperately needed by a struggling economy. When Mitt Romney and other Republicans claim the president is a big spender (as they do every waking minute), the administration’s first instinct is to say they’re wrong on the facts, not that they’re wrong on the principle.
    [/B]
    The MarketWatch piece isn’t really a surprise to anyone who has kept an eye on budgets and spending for the last few years. It says spending under Mr. Obama (including the stimulus) has grown by about 1.4 percent a year, compared to 7.3 percent in George W. Bush’s first term, 3.2 percent in Bill Clinton’s first term, and 8.7 percent in Ronald Reagan’s first term. When inflation is taken into account, spending is now actually falling, the first decline since Richard Nixon.

    [B]The reason for this decline is that Republicans in Congress have successfully constrained Mr. Obama’s desire to spend more. [/B]By threatening a government shutdown a year ago, for example, they won spending cuts of about $25 billion over a decade. Then they threatened to send the government into default, and achieved cuts of more than $2 trillion over a decade. More extortion can be expected later this year.

    [B]The Obama administration should not be proud of the result. Congressional budget targets call for cuts of $800 billion over a decade in discretionary spending, in areas such as education, food and housing assistance, transportation, and job training – the kinds of things that help people move up the economic ladder. This category of spending, which used to be 5 percent of the gross domestic product in Nixon’s days, is heading down to less than 2 percent.
    [/B]
    If he really wanted to forcefully counter Mr. Romney’s arguments, Mr. Carney could also explain that the current tentative recovery is the worst possible time to slow spending. That’s the point that Peter Orszag, something of a deficit hawk when he was Mr. Obama’s budget director, made in a Bloomberg View essay yesterday. Daring to use the word “stimulus,” he said much more of it is needed immediately because the labor market is so weak. After the economy recovers, future Congresses can cut the budget and the long-term deficit. (And, though he didn’t say so, raise taxes on the rich.)

    Apparently, though, you have to leave the administration to favor a stimulus program, because everyone there would rather talk about austerity and restraint. Just like Mitt Romney.
    [/QUOTE]

    Interesting that the White House which has been screaming for more stimulus since day one is now taking credit for something they didn't do.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Trades;4476218]I agree with everything but the thankfully part. Though I voted against him and worried that his worst attributes would be the ones he emphasized, if Obama held true on several of his campaign promises like getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, making the government more streamlined and transparent and blurring or removing the lines between race and party I would have considered him a good and successful president. I did hope that he would be successful in these respects because it would have made our country stronger.

    .[/QUOTE]

    I'm happy what he did with the wars. Which is establishing freedom to some degree possibly for thousands of years to come.
    Plus he [B]completely[/B] got us out of Iraq! That's discussion is for another thread.

    The rest I agree with you.
    I don't see what the big deal is with streamlining government's.
    But nobody seems to get it done which creates the argument for Tea partiers or libertarians.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=cedk;4476265]I'm happy what he did with the wars. Which is establishing freedom to some degree possibly for thousands of years to come.
    Plus he [B]completely[/B] got us out of Iraq! That's discussion is for another thread.

    The rest I agree with you.
    I don't see what the big deal is with streamlining government's.
    But nobody seems to get it done which creates the argument for Tea partiers or libertarians.[/QUOTE]

    Claiming a diplomatic failure by the Obama Administration got us out of Iraq is a stretch.

  10. #10
    So just to be clear. Liberals are going around touting an article that claims that spending under Obama hasn't increased much since 2009 because acording to Democrats the 2009 budget is attributable to Bush. Even though 2009 includes the Omnibus spending package touted and signed by Obama that added $600 billion to the 2009 budget and somehow has remained in play ever since. No surprise there.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4476283]Claiming a diplomatic failure by the Obama Administration got us out of Iraq is a stretch.[/QUOTE]

    I know there where negotiations to keep some troops. But I believe when it got to Obama's desk he had no problem with us taken all the troops out and given him the ability to say we're completely out when it comes to election time.
    Or in other words I don't think Obama was really trying hard to keep troops there.


    It's also working out great to let the Iraqis know they're on their own..

  12. #12
    Bush had the same timeline. What about Afghanistan. 2 Thousand soldiers dead during Obama's administration. Plus Egypt and Lybia who are becoming a bunch of loonies. Where oh Where are the missing missles!

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=cedk;4476319]I know there where negotiations to keep some troops. But I believe when it got to Obama's desk he had no problem with us taken all the troops out and given him the ability to say we're completely out when it comes to election time.
    Or in other words I don't think Obama was really trying hard to keep troops there.


    It's also working out great to let the Iraqis know they're on their own..[/QUOTE]

    The Bush Administration had negiotated an out date for December 2011 before Obama took office. Obama didn't have to do anything to leave on that date. Pretty lame to try and negiotate an extended stay and claim victory when he failed to accomplish one of his key National Security goals.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,268
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4476372]The Bush Administration had negiotated an out date for December 2011 before Obama took office. Obama didn't have to do anything to leave on that date. Pretty lame to try and negiotate an extended stay and claim victory when he failed to accomplish one of his key National Security goals.[/QUOTE]

    You call it "lame". I call it lying, disingenuous and, sadly, par for the course.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,117
    [QUOTE=cedk;4476207]Obama promises to cut the deficit in half but has added 5 trillion to the debt.
    [/QUOTE]

    Say no more.

    All we have to do is go back and find the Obama quotes. Whether they are lies or over-promising naivety doesn't matter. He has failed.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,562
    I guess future spending committments (Obamacare etc) aren't in consideration here either? :rolleyes:

  17. #17
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,566
    From that radical right-wing rag, The Washington Post:

    The facts about the growth of spending under Obama

    [QUOTE]By Glenn Kessler, Published: May 24 | Updated: Friday, May 25, 6:02 AM

    “I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.”

    — White House spokesman Jay Carney, remarks to the press gaggle, May 23, 2012



    The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.

    Carney made his comments while berating reporters for not realizing that “the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.” He cited as his source an article by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama spending binge never happened,” which has been the subject of lots of buzz in the liberal blogosphere.

    But we are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of numbers — numbers that are easily manipulated. Let’s take a look.



    [B]The Facts[/B]

    First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

    Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

    In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

    Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

    Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain.

    On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.

    The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

    So this is what we end up with:

    2008: $2.98 trillion

    2009: $3.27 trillion

    2010: $3.46 trillion

    2011: $3.60 trillion

    2012: $3.65 trillion

    2013: $3.72 trillion

    Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

    Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

    2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

    2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

    2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

    [B]So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.[/B]

    Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

    One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

    2008: 20.8 percent

    2009: 25.2 percent

    2010: 24.1 percent

    2011: 24.1 percent

    2012: 24.3 percent

    2013: 23.3 percent

    In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

    We sent our analysis to Carney but did not get a response. (For another take, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute has an interesting tour through the numbers, isolating various spending categories. For instance, he says debt payments should be excluded from the analysis because that is the result of earlier spending decisions by other presidents.)



    [B]The Pinocchio Test

    Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.

    The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used.

    Three Pinocchios[/B][/QUOTE]

    oops.

  18. #18
    I thought the Nutting article was shameful but even worse was that the POTUS then took the left wingers distortive lie and ran with it. On the stump he is now calling himself the most frugal president basing it on Nutting's chart. Where are the MSM on this? This is one of those things that simply boggles the mind. More truth on Nuttings distortion below:

    [url]http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/05/examiner-editorial-big-spending-obama-frames-himself-scrooge/650536[/url]



    "Do not buy into the B.S. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One on Wednesday. Carney went on to cite a MarketWatch column by Rex Nutting, purporting to show that "under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."

    Is this true? Is Obama, contrary to all conventional wisdom, actually the most fiscally restrained president since the 1950s? No. It is Nutting's analysis, which, in Carney's words, is "B.S."

    Nutting's piece employs several abuses of the numbers (including some underhanded switching between projected and actual spending data), but his most productive sleight of hand is to assign all of fiscal year 2009's spending to President Bush. Nutting doesn't start the clock on Obama's spending until fiscal 2010.

    In most cases, that would be fair, because presidents typically sign the next year's spending bills in the calendar year before they leave office. But not in 2009. The Democratic Congress, confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009's 12 appropriations bills (Defense; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them, and Obama signed them.

    So whereas Bush had proposed spending just $3.11 trillion in fiscal 2009, for a 3 percent increase, Obama and the Democrats ended up spending $3.52 trillion, for a 17.9 percent increase in spending -- the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.

    By the end of Obama's first year in office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 25.2 percent, the highest it has ever been since World War II. As Obama's stimulus spending has receded, spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, but only slightly. Under President Bush, spending averaged 19.6 percent of GDP. Under President Clinton, it was 19.8 percent. The historical pos/world/ War II average is 19.7 percent. In 2012, after four years of Obama's fiscal leadership, it is expected to be 24.3 percent.

    It would be bad enough if Obama's press flak was the only person peddling these spending lies. But, scared by his recent drop in the polls, Obama has taken to touting the numbers himself. "Since I've been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years," he told a crowd of wealthy donors Wednesday at the Hyatt Regency in Colorado Springs.

    Voters cannot expect the federal government to get its fiscal house in order until they elect leaders who do not live in denial about their own fiscal records. Obama is clearly in denial about his.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us