Obamath, Rex Nutting, and the delusion that we do not have a spending problem

[Quantum Windbag]

Something we already know, but I really don't want to argue with the new idiots that refuse to believe facts, so I will simply repost this splendid outline of everything he got wrong. I was actually planning on digging up the old thread that included this, but there are way too many of them for me go read through and find the best example of a proper response.

In fact, it's because of the unique nature of TARP and the Fannie/Freddie bailouts that the CBO counted them separately in its Monthly Budget Review reports (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR. pdf) — something Nutting apparently never bothered to check when putting together his bogus chart.
Just how much of a difference does this make?
Nutting says spending under Bush shot up 17.9% between 2008 and 2009.
But when you subtract the effects of TARP, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts as well as the $115 billion in stimulus money Obama added in 2009, that figure drops to 6%.
And while Nutting claims Obama cut spending 1.8% between 2009 and 2010, when you fix Nutting's mistakes, it turns out that Obama jacked up spending 12% in 2010.
That sure looks like a "spending binge" to us.

Memo to the Media: Obama is a Spendthrift?And Here's the Proof - Investors.com

 

[waltky]

Granny wantin' to know how dey `spect to cut the deficit if dey keep spendin' more money??...

+30.5B: Federal Spending Up, Not Down, in First 5 Months of FY13
March 15, 2013 - Federal spending was up $30.5 billion in the first five months of fiscal 2013 compared to the first five months of fiscal 2012, according to newly released data from the U.S. Treasury.

The federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and runs through Sept. 30. In the first five months of fiscal 2012 (October through February), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement, total federal spending was approximately $1,473,999,000,000.00. In the first five months of fiscal 2013, total federal spending was $1,504,547,000,000.00. Thus, federal spending was $30,548,000,000.00 more in the first five months of fiscal 2013 than it was during the first five months of fiscal 2012. The federal government is also spending at a much faster pace this year than it did before President Barack Obama took office.

In the first five months of fiscal 2008 (the last full fiscal year before Obama took office), the federal government spent $1,230,412,000,000.00. That is $274,315,000,000.00 less than the $1,504,547,000,000.00 that the federal government spent in the first five months of this fiscal year. So far this fiscal year, the federal government is spending an average of about $300,909,400,000.00 per month. If the government maintained that average pace for all 12 months of the fiscal year, it would spend a total of $3,610,912,800,000.00.

Through all of fiscal 2008, before Obama took office, the federal government spent a total 2,978,440,000,000.00. Adjusted for inflation, that equals $3,211,717,910,000.00 in 2013 dollars. So, were the government to continue on its pace to spend $3,610,912,800,000.00 this year, then real federal spending in fiscal 2013 would be $399,194,890,000.00 more than it was in the last full fiscal year before Obama became president.

Congress would need to cut $399 billion this year to bring inflation-adjusted federal spending back to the level it was before Obama. According to the CBO, the sequester that has now taken effect will cut only $44 billion from the money that was expected to be spent through the remainder of this fiscal year.

+30.5B: Federal Spending Up, Not Down, in First 5 Months of FY13 | CNS News

See also:

U.S. Spending $227,437 to Study How National Geographic Depicted Animals
March 15, 2013 – The federal government is spending $227,437 to investigate how animals have been depicted in National Geographic magazine over a span of 120 years, which federal officials say is an “innovative study” that will examine “images of animals to see how people have changed their view of the natural world.”

The grant was issued March 4 from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to Michigan State University to look at how animals were depicted in the science magazine from 1888 to 2008. “Studies of other popular media representations of animals and human-animal relationships have found that animals are often portrayed as problems or nuisances, and we know that media influences attitudes and behavior,” NSF spokeswoman Deborah Wing told CNSNews.com in a written response to questions about the grant. “Predators like wolves and coyotes have been consistently portrayed as a threat. “The U.S. predator poisoning programs, which decimated coyotes, had a devastating effect on the local ecology and produced even more problem animals, for example, millions of mice in Kern County, California in 1927 when their natural predators coyotes, hawks and owls had been killed by the Bureau of Biological Survey and farmers,” Wing continued.

In the midst of sequestration--the 2.3 percent reduction in the federal government’s rate of growth – many government expenditures are coming under scrutiny. CNSNews.com asked if the study could have been done without federal funding. Wing said that the grant request met the requirements that it be “necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable” before being eligible for an NSF grant. “Are animals sources of food or friendship, a natural resource or something that helps define the place of the individual or the family in its context?” Wing said. “Recent research dealing with this question has focused on the language used to describe non-human primates in publications like the National Geographic, which has been a major source of public understanding of science, the environment, other cultures and domestic and wild animals. This innovative study takes another, important approach, by examining images of animals to see how people have changed their view of the natural world.” Wing added in the response, “This new approach is significant, because relative to words, photographs convey information about the emotions and thoughts of the photographer in addition to the nature of what is depicted in the photo.”

The project investigator for the study is MSU sociology professor Linda Kalof. She could not be reached for comment Friday either by phone calls or e-mails. The NSF website said, “The evolving visual depiction of animals will be interpreted, taking into account scientific changes, natural history, environmental history, and the new aesthetic sensibilities provided by the history of landscape and environmental photography and by situating the magazine and its photographers, editors and photographic conventions in their broader historical, cultural and political contexts.” The NSF website said the research will seek two end products. First, develop an online digital archive of the images from National Geographic through MSU that teachers and students can use for learning. Second is to have “an illustrated monograph on animal imagery in National Geographic.”

U.S. Spending $227,437 to Study How National Geographic Depicted Animals | CNS News