And there you have it, folks:

Under Obama, federal spending is at its slowest rate of growth in decades.

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.

Using solely governmental records, MarketWatch manages to prove that the federal budget in the Obama era is the most conservative (in classical terms) we’ve seen in a generation. With a caveat:

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans, but many Democrats too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

And that’s not a small point, but it doesn’t undermine the main idea. The right-wing media is on a tirade about how Obama’s spending is out of control and we’re seeing the federal government light money on fire just to watch it burn. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This isn’t some conjecture made by a left-wing think tank, it’s simple graphing done with the government’s own numbers.

Will it stick? Somehow I doubt it.

6 responses to “And there you have it, folks:

  1. You’re trying to insist that you’re honest, and the other side isn’t… and then you go and be deliberately dishonest.   Who cares what the “rate of growth” is?   Well, the rate of growth, when dishonestly defined as “percentage of increase over the last one”, then you’re taken to just flat out being a liar.  After all, a 100 percent increase isn’t a lot, when the price of a pack of gum goes up.   A 50 percent increase is massive, when it’s the cost of a house.   So, in your world, Obama’s spending is “good” because you use a baseline of nearly two trillion dollars of deficit.  But Bush’s spending was “bad” because you used a baseline of less than 100 billion.  And Reagan’s spending was “bad” because you started with a deficit measured in a few billion.  

    All this, to avoid any honest analysis of how massive government spending causes the nation to go bankrupt.  Why?  Why does defending an utterly inept, ignorant, and downright stupid president trump your integrity, your personal morals, and the welfare of a nation?    

    •  Don’t know if you’re a regular reader or not, but Hanlon is rarely one sided.  When the left/Dems do something stupid, they’re called out on it as much as the right/Cons.

      “Why does defending an utterly inept, ignorant, and downright stupid
      president trump your integrity, your personal morals, and the welfare of
      a nation?”

      Should we ask the people who voted for Bush the same question? 

      Obama’s not a great president, there’s lots of things he’s frigged up on, lots of stuff he should have done and didn’t, lots of promises made that weren’t kept.  On the other hand he does seem to genuinely want to TRY to change things around instead of making them worse.  He’s attempting even if it’s not succeeding.  Better than the previous government who didn’t give two $hits about how things went at all.

      • LOL, this site is radically one sided.  I read some random articles, and the only thing detectable is a 100% propaganda site for Democrats / liberalism.  

    • I’ll try to make this one simple.

      1) Percentage is critical because that’s kind of how we measure these things. That’s why everything in terms of change is done in percentages, from government to business. Haven’t you noticed that when economic growth is discussed, it’s a matter of percentages?

      2) This has nothing to do with “good” or “bad” spending. This has to do with the fact that it is FALSE to say that spending is getting worse under Obama. It’s not. Not by a long shot.

      3) I notice that you skipped Clinton in your counterexamples. That really tells me all I need to know.

      4) This also doesn’t put the credit on Obama himself. The damn article I linked to said that a good reason for the slow spending has been the GOP hamstringing everything, and I even highlighted this fact. So there goes that bias again.

  2. Obviously you’ve not read the articles where Hanlon takes the Libs to task for the crap they’ve done.  Hanlon’s admitted to being Dem/Liberal, but that doesn’t mean he or
    other contributors and those who comment won’t call out the Dems/libs
    for being idiots.

    In other words, you’ve cherry picked out entries to make your opinion valid.  Good job. 

    • I like to tell people I’m a liberal by ideology, Democrat by necessity. I have no real love for the Democratic party, and desperately wish we had something better, so while I will support ’em, at no point will I bend over backwards to defend anything they do that I see as wrong.

      But of course I’m a liberal. I have my viewpoint and don’t hide the fact. At least I’m not dishonest about that fact like sooOoOoOme news sources.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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