Yes, I support Mitt Romney, but this one was just too good to pass up!

And it might take someone as ruthless as a Cardassian to solve the mess Barack Obama is leaving us!

116 Comments

  1. OK, I looked at it, and it’s mostly bovine feces. You say that:

    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.

    That’s pure BS. The Democrats who controlled the Congress funded the start of FY2009 with continuing resolutions, precisely because they didn’t want to have to negotiate with President Bush; most of the actual appropriations were passed after President Obama took office, because that’s what the Democrats wanted to do. About the only thing you can attribute to President Bush was the TARP bank bailout.

  2. What is undeniable is that President Obama has dramatically increased total federal spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product, and plans on keeping total federal expenditures in the 22.5 to 23.5% range for as far into the future as his FY2013 budget proposal could project. We’ve exceeded President Obama’s spending levels only during World War II. We weren’t spending that much during the Korean War, we weren’t spending that much during Vietnam, yet, even in years when the President projects economic growth in the 5.75 to 6% range, and projects the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan to be over, he still plans to spend 22.5% of GDP.

    The last time the budget was balanced, we were spending 18.2% of GDP. Governor Romney has promised to reduce spending to between 18 and 20% of GDP — which I think is still too high — and that’s a heck of a lot better than President Obama.

  3. “That’s pure BS. The Democrats who controlled the Congress funded the start of FY2009 with continuing resolutions, precisely because they didn’t want to have to negotiate with President Bush; most of the actual appropriations were passed after President Obama took office, because that’s what the Democrats wanted to do. About the only thing you can attribute to President Bush was the TARP bank bailout.”

    No BS, Mr Editor, instead, your are in it up to your neck! I also note that you did not counter all the Republican lies which are listed. I understand perfectly well why!

    First of all, a continuing resolution (CR) is a law that provides temporary funding for those parts of the federal government for which annual appropriations laws have not yet been enacted. Since the fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th, the 2008-2009 fiscal year was on President Bush’s watch. They represent a continuation of last year’s funding levels. You are correct, Bush is responsible for the TARP, and as I indicated, President Obama is responsible for the stimulus.

    That said, it is a FACT that Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years, according to the chart in my post entitled “Slowest Spending in Decades”, taken from CBO data. You simply cannot argue with this, Mr Editor. So this is clearly not BS.

    More than that, according to the same chart, annualized growth in spending has been considerably less under Obama than under all three of our most recent Republican Presidents, Reagan two terms, Bush I, and Bush II two terms. Moreover, Clinton’s two terms achieved a lower annualized growth in spending than the same Republican Presidents.

    I understand how these facts completely shatter your ideological/religious myths, to the point where you should be voting for a second term for our President, correct?

    PS: Again, here is the cite.

  4. “What is undeniable is that President Obama has dramatically increased total federal spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product, and plans on keeping total federal expenditures in the 22.5 to 23.5% range for as far into the future as his FY2013 budget proposal could project. “

    Yeah right, Mr Editor; now you switch the units, using spending as a percentage of GDP. I don’t know the origin of your numbers, but according to this cite, Bush I inherited a 33.2% spending as a percent of GDP from Clinton in 2001, which rose to 34.6% in 2002 as a Clinton recession legacy. In contrast, Obama inherited a 42.5% from Bush, a year later under Obama had already come down to 40.6% by 2009, as a Bush great recession legacy.

    The conclusion, consistent with my post on Bridging the Gap, is that President Obama has done a significantly better job in his first year than President Bush did. The two Bush tax cuts, the two Bush wars, and Medicare Part D were together a spending disaster for our country.

    Mr Editor, for Mitt Romney to return to the Bush tax policies, and to invoke the Ryan Plan, will likely be a worst case disaster, considering the experience that Europe is experiencing as we speak with the austerity approach.

    If you want fiscal prudence and GDP growth, I suggest you seriously consider changing teams, and soundly reject the Republican version of la-la land! :)

  5. Yeah right, Mr Editor; now you switch the units, using spending as a percentage of GDP. I don’t know the origin of your numbers, but according to this cite, Bush I inherited a 33.2% spending as a percent of GDP from Clinton in 2001, which rose to 34.6% in 2002 as a Clinton recession legacy. In contrast, Obama inherited a 42.5% from Bush, a year later under Obama had already come down to 40.6% by 2009, as a Bush great recession legacy.

    This is all so much utter nonsense, further proof that Passive-Aggressive Perry gets his information straight from the Democrat talking points.

    As noted here,

    As the (Passive-Aggressive Perry’s) 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. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

    And this:

    For fiscal 2006, the last full fiscal year Republicans had control of both the White House and Congress, the government spent $2.66 trillion, or $2.87 in 2010 dollars. In fiscal 2010, the last full fiscal year Democrats had control of both the White House and Congress, the government spent $3.46 trillion, a spending increase of 20.6% in constant dollars. Obama is projecting to spend $3.80 trillion ($3.60T in 2010 dollars), a real increase of 4.0% without even passing a budget, and despite ending the Iraq war last year, and ostensibly ending the one in Afghanistan this year. Meanwhile projected revenues this year are 10.2% lower in constant dollars than in 2006, increasing the gap between money we have and money we spend by 34.8% in 6 years.

  6. And how does Passive-Aggressive Perry account for this?

    Gross federal debt:
    FY 2013* $17.5 trillion
    FY 2012* $16.4 trillion
    FY 2011 $14.8 trillion
    FY 2010 $13.5 trillion
    FY 2009 $11.9 trillion

  7. Still more here:

    Varied versions of this flawed argument have already been shot down by numerous commentators, including twice by Just Facts President Jim Agresti in 2010 and earlier this month, and by Morgen Richmond and me here at Hot Air. However, Nutting takes a different angle on the discussion, and there numerous misleading or inaccurate statements he makes that require correcting. Several major points are addressed below.

    First, Nutting writes, “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.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

    Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:

    Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
    A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
    A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

    All told, as noted by the Canada Free Press, the omnibus increased total spending in the relevant departments by 8% over the prior year. And while $31 billion is not a large amount of money compared to the federal budget in 2009 (it was less than one percent of spending in that year), it was 22% of the $140 billion in deficit spending Nutting credits to Obama. Nutting should still have put the blame for those increases on Obama’s shoulders – as he eventually, and rightly, did with stimulus spending.

    Third, Nutting cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to claim FY 2013 spending is supposed to go down by 1.3%. This is extremely misleading. In citing the CBO, Nutting is looking at the its 2012 baseline report on spending. This report looks at how current law will impact spending and the deficit. However, in the same report, CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (what I like to call the politically realistic scenario, with explanations of the likely course Congress will take regarding specific tax and spending programs) expects certain spending reductions to be delayed by Congress. These include cuts to doctor payments in Medicare and the sequestration cuts scheduled to take place in 2013. These and other examinations of fiscal reality cause the CBO to note “deficits would average 5.4 percent of GDP over the 2013–2022 period, rather than the 1.5 percent reflected in CBO’s baseline projections.” The CBO also expects the difference in deficits between the baseline report and alternative fiscal scenario to be about two percent of GDP, or over $300 billion in 2013.

    Finally, while Nutting’s thesis focuses exclusively on the time President Obama has been in office, it should be pointed out that then-Senator Obama voted for at least two big-ticket items opposed by many Republicans and signed by Bush – TARP and the auto bailouts. While not looking at these is consistent with Nutting’s thesis, it also leads the reader to forget that it takes three to tango in Washington…and by having control of the House and the Senate Senator Obama and his Democratic allies were two of those partners in spending in Fiscal Year 2009.

  8. “And how does Passive-Aggressive Perry account for this?”

    Easily, koolo! When spending is held nearly constant over the Obama years, as illustrated by the “Slowest spending in decades” chart in my post on BtG, based on official CBO data, a decrease in revenues due to a number of things associated with the Bush Great Recession like slower growth and sales, and due to the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, added to during Obama, then the numbers you listed is what you get.

    You cannot select out numbers like you did, without considering the numbers from which your number is derived. But this is exactly what people like you do, anything to make the President look bad.

    And your first post is an attempt to draw the line on Bush spending after year one of the Obama term. This is arbitrary, and does not take into account that to this very day we are still in recovery mode due to the Bush Great Recession. But then that is the way you folks make your points. This is not honest.

    President Obama was faced with the challenge to turn the economy around, and at the same time do so without one single iota of support from the opposition party in Congress, and frankly, without a whole lot of help from his own party, too many of whom have been bought off by the same wealthy folks who totally control your Republican party. If you refuse to acknowledge this, then you are just plain perpetuating the lie.

    In order to counter my post on BtG, you need to show where my treatment, as taken from the two authors I acknowledged, is wrong. You must deal with the CBO data which they used for their charts.

    So far, you have not done so! Instead, you have tried to select out numbers which you believe support your political narrative. I’ve shown you here that this is not acceptable to those who seek the truth. You have fallen into the trap of believing everything you hear or read, carefully selected and promulgated by your side. Isn’t it about time you questioned these pontifications? That is the kind of critical thinking that you should be attempting to nurture in your students, koolo!

  9. So far, you have not done so! Instead, you have tried to select out numbers which you believe support your political narrative.

    Actually, this is precisely what was done. The refutations noted above demonstrate that YOUR numbers are used by YOU to support YOUR narrative!!

    You have fallen into the trap of believing everything you hear or read, carefully selected and promulgated by your side.

    Follow your own advice just once, hypocrite. The day you stop projecting your very own weaknesses onto others is the day you’ll actually become a man. Until then, you remain a mewling, whining passive-aggressive hypocrite of the first order.

  10. That is the kind of critical thinking that you should be attempting to nurture in your students, koolo!

    That’s probably precisely what you didn’t do and that’s why you were asked to leave the profession!

  11. “First, Nutting writes, “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.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.”

    This is a false statement, koolo. I made this statement in my BtG post, which I took directly from Nutting: “Note that fiscal year 2009 is attributable to Bush, whereas in this chart the year 2009 fiscal stimulus is attributable to Obama, as is incorporated in the above chart.”

    “Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, ….”

    Placing the blame, except for the stimulus already blamed on Obama by Nutting, is a non-issue, since Nutting’s charts are bottom line without addressing blame.

    “Third, Nutting cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to claim FY 2013 spending is supposed to go down by 1.3%. ….”

    I won’t quarrel with the counters made here, because they are speculative regarding the 2013 fiscal situation, meaning that anyone can speculate. Iow, this is beyond fact.

    And finally,

    “…and by having control of the House and the Senate Senator Obama and his Democratic allies were two of those partners in spending in Fiscal Year 2009.”

    Soooo? In reality, although the Senate had a Dem majority, it was not filibuster proof, so this concluding statement is meaningless in term of political power. Your Dustin Siggins says himself: “While not looking at these is consistent with Nutting’s thesis [TARP and the auto bailout], ….” I shutter to think where our economy would be today without TARP and the auto bailout!

    I can see that this Nutting piece really has the Romney camp and the Repubs feeling shaky. The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!

  12. “That’s probably precisely what you didn’t do and that’s why you were asked to leave the profession!”

    When nothing else works, make up stuff and lie. That is the lack of character we face with people like koolo!

  13. “Actually, this is precisely what was done. The refutations noted above demonstrate that YOUR numbers are used by YOU to support YOUR narrative!!”

    Like I just said: “The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!

    “Follow your own advice just once, hypocrite. The day you stop projecting your very own weaknesses onto others is the day you’ll actually become a man. Until then, you remain a mewling, whining passive-aggressive hypocrite of the first order.”

    By this comment, and other equivalent ones just given, you are demonstrating to critical thinkers that you fail at just that, because you have stopped the debate and reduced yourself to silly school yard attacks. Is this all there is to you, koolo?

  14. Like I just said: “The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!”

    Passive-Aggressive Perry: For you to lecture others about “untruthful” and “unprincipled” people is like Hitler lecturing others about the dangers of fascism. Truth, for example, means not cherrypicking statistics which make “your side” look fine and dandy. While, for example, your figures based on the baseline given may be accurate, they, as noted, fail to acknowledge the downside of Obama-era spending, like the massive debt increase and spending as % of GDP (which is the highest in 60 years). Thus, your attempts to make Obama out to be some frugal slasher is not not just laughable, it is a lie — outright, and via omission …. your omission because of your selectivity.

    You do this sort of thing all the time here, and then you pat yourself on the back like you’re some sort of big time researcher/pundit. But the reality is that you’re just every other politician. You don’t want real answers and solutions; you just want the ones that suit you and make “your side” look just swell.

    It remains all such bullsh**.

  15. And again, notice how Passive-Aggressive Perry always blames a president, thus failing Civics 101. He always does this, of course; he also blames his perpetual boogeyman, the filibuster, but only when the GOP is in the minority. He never scolds the Democrats for, say, making the GOP engage in an actual filibuster to thwart legislation. That would take truth and honesty. But Passive-Aggressive Perry isn’t, and has never been, about truth and honesty. It’s only about making “his side” look good.

  16. All of Wagonwheel’s figures stem from one clever lie, the lie that the FY2009 spending levels were the responsibility of President George Bush. But, as noted previously, FY2009 federal spending was passed by continuing resolution by the Democrats, waiting to get a Democratic president in office. Continuing resolutions mean that the previous fiscal year’s appropriations numbers are continued on a monthly basis for the duration of the continuing resolution.

    Note that FY2008, the first year in which the Democrats controlled the Congress, spending leaped up by a whopping 9.30%. It is also true that President Bush signed all of that spending into law, and thus he bears the responsibility for that spending increase. In FY2009, in which the Democrats delayed final appropriations until after Barack Hussein Obama had been inaugurated, total federal outlays increased by a huge 17.94%. Wagonwheel wants to put all of that on the shoulders of President Bush, but that’s simply a lie. If one does assign all of that to President Bush, then yes, it looks like spending increases under President Obama are very small; when you start with a lie as your foundation, you get garbage as your result.

    For a wider picture, here is the chart I have used:

    Note the second column from the right, Outlays as a percentage of GDP. Look at what they were during the Clinton Administration (high, but coming down after the Republicans took control of the Congress) and during the Bush Administration (high, and unfortunately increasing, especially once the Democrats regained control of the Congress). Now, look at total federal spending, actual and projected, under President Obama: in every year, President Obama plans on the federal government spending more as a percent of GDP than any year under President Bush, than any year under President Clinton, and if you go back to my original sources (Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017 and Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2017.; these tables are from President Obama’s FY2013 proposed budget, the President’s own numbers.), every year since FY1946, as we were winding down federal spending from World War II.

    Note also the fourth column from the right, GDP growth in percentage. That was a calculation function I added to the President’s numbers, simply for the percentage increase from the previous year. With the FY2009 budget, at least President Obama had some excuse in that we were in a recession; GDP contracted by 2.77%. But even in the years in which the President projects significant GDP growth, he still plans on spending more than 22% of GDP at the federal level.

    Oh, and the documentation for my statement that the Democrats delayed final FY2009 appropriations until after Barack Hussein Obama had been inaugurated: H.R. 1105 (111th Congress): Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 was introduced on February 23, 2009, passed by the House on February 25, passed by the Senate on March 10, and signed by President Obama on March 11, 2009. The Omnibus Appropriations Act combined bills funding the operations of each of the Cabinet departments, except Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs into a single appropriation bill.

    Case closed. There’s nothing quite like using the actual numbers to destroy your opponent’s arguments. Or, to put it in Wagonwheel’s own words, “The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!”

  17. Or, perhaps Wagonwheel would like a different chart. This is from Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2017, from President Obama’s proposed FY2013 budget. I removed the “estimate” from FY2012 through FY2017, because I needed to have simple numbers in that column, and then used Microsoft Excel® to sort the chart by percentage of GDP. I then highlighted all of President Obama’s years, including FY2009, for the reasons given in this comment, in yellow, and the ones for the younger President Bush in green. I included FY2001 in President Bush’s totals, even though much of it was signed into law under President Clinton, because there were additional appropriations made after President Bush took office.

    Note that spending under President Bush is fairly far down the list. There are 88 separate fiscal years (including the quarter year tacked onto FY1976, when the fiscal year end was moved from 30 July to 30 September) on that list, and, naturally, the World War II years top the list. President Bush, whom we all agree spent too much money, comes in at 33rd for FY2008, 41st for FY2006, 42nd for FY2005, 43rd for FY2003, 44th for FY2007, 46th for FY2004, 54th for FY2002 and 65th for FY2001.

    President Obama, on the other hand, comes in 4th for FY2009, 7th for FY2012, 8th for FY2010, 9th for FY2011, 11th for FY2013, 14th for FY2014, 16th for FY2016, 18th for FY2015 and 21st for FY2017. Even if someone was silly enough to try to attribute all of FY2009 to President Bush, even though most of the actual spending was signed into law under President Obama, President Obama still dominates the top twenty years, excluding World War II. Obviously, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 are estimates, but they are President Obama’s estimates.

    Mitt Romney has promised to bring total federal spending below 20% of GDP, “in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent,” which your Editor sees as still too high, and we cannot know, in advance, if he will actually do that if he is elected. But we do know President Obama’s spending record, and his future spending proposals, and they are unacceptably high.

    Case closed. There’s nothing quite like using the actual numbers to destroy your opponent’s arguments. Or, to put it in Wagonwheel’s own words, “The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!”

  18. “Case closed. There’s nothing quite like using the actual numbers to destroy your opponent’s arguments. Or, to put it in Wagonwheel’s own words, “The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!””

    You wish the case were closed, Mr Editor, but it is not, because there is a major flaw in your argument, a flaw you will never step up to, I know that, but a most serious flaw nonetheless.

    You are attempting to make the same point as Michelle Malkin, that “deficits soared” under Obama, which I shot down here on BtG. Let me remind you what she said:

    “Why would a president who gave America vast unemployment, soaring inflation, a moribund economy, record deficits, and a manically ill-conceived energy policy be coasting toward re-election?”

    Your flaw is simple: The fiscal situation inherited by President Obama was handed to him by the Bush f/y 2009 expenditures, which are fully attributable to Bush with the exception of the stimulus, the ARA, $0.8T.

    Your argument about the appropriations bill in Obama’s second month in office, were actually carry overs in the Bush fiscal year 2009, therefore your argument is superfluous. Thus, the 17.94% increase in federal outlays was on Bush. However, in fact, if you subtract $0.8T from your f/y 2009 federal outlay number, you will discover that the Obama appropriation bill in Feb 2009 actually lowered the federal outlays inherited from Bush! So yes, Mr Editor, it is in the numbers, as you said, but the numbers have to be interpreted accurately, which you did not do, as I’ve explained.

    In other words, when Bush passed the ball to Obama, it was as if the (foot)ball, instead of being filled with air, it was filled with mercury. (That would be about 55 pounds, about 3.5 times the weight of a men’s shot put ball.) I can assure you, that if you were the receiver of that mercury filled football, you would drop it instantly. Hopefully, your foot would not be smashed. President Obama knew about the mercury, so he was ready and his foot was not smashed.

    Note also from your own numbers, that the federal outlay for Obama’s first f/y, 2010, was lower than Bush’s for f/y 2009, so within a year Obama had already continued to reduce spending. Moreover, he had brought GDP from a sharp negative to a modest positive, as well as starting the job recovery. The charts in my BtG post give these facts in an understandable manner, focusing on the 4 charts included.

    “Mitt Romney has promised to bring total federal spending below 20% of GDP, “in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent,” which your Editor sees as still too high, and we cannot know, in advance, if he will actually do that if he is elected. But we do know President Obama’s spending record, and his future spending proposals, and they are unacceptably high.”

    Were Romney elected, he would not be able to fulfill his promise, because his policies would be a repeat of Bush’s, with the Ryan Plan added as icing on the cake: austerity, except lower taxes on the wealthy, higher defense spending, but entitlement cuts, health care cost increases, fewer people insured, student loans cut, education budget cut. Who the hell wants this, except for the wealthy? Moreover, this brand of austerity does not work, as the UK, Germany, and France are well demonstrating as we speak.

  19. Thank you for posting the actual facts, Mr. Editor. I read Wagonwheel’s post of 5/23, 15:40 and just couldn’t believe he could get that foolish “information” that quickly. Is he in Soros’ loop? The “facts” he posted yesterday didn’t even hit the news till today. And when they hit, every talking head gawked in disbelief that anyone could even try to put forth such a convoluted statistic and believe we would fall for it. But Wagonwheel did! Or was he just trying once again to obfuscate reality from his beloved god president?

    Yes Wagonwheel, “The truth is known to have this effect on untruthful and unprincipled people!”. Ideed Wagonwheel, you’re a very scary person. No matter how bad things are as long as Obama’s president it will always be either someone elses fault or you guys will try and cook the books. You just can’t admit you backed a looooser! An inexperienced bum who couldn’t create wealth if you handed him a trillion dollars. Oh wait! We did!

    And there you have it. A failed president, a failed administration, all corrupt and all supported by the likes of Wagonwheel. Viva the Tea Party!! Throw these scum out!

  20. koolo wrote:

    “And again, notice how Passive-Aggressive Perry always blames a president, thus failing Civics 101. He always does this, of course; he also blames his perpetual boogeyman, the filibuster, but only when the GOP is in the minority. He never scolds the Democrats for, say, making the GOP engage in an actual filibuster to thwart legislation. That would take truth and honesty. But Passive-Aggressive Perry isn’t, and has never been, about truth and honesty. It’s only about making “his side” look good.”

    Koolo, when are you going to start to get serious, and while you are at it, start to tell the truth?

  21. Hoagie wrote:

    “Thank you for posting the actual facts, Mr. Editor. I read Wagonwheel’s post of 5/23, 15:40 and just couldn’t believe he could get that foolish “information” that quickly. Is he in Soros’ loop? The “facts” he posted yesterday didn’t even hit the news till today. And when they hit, every talking head gawked in disbelief that anyone could even try to put forth such a convoluted statistic and believe we would fall for it. But Wagonwheel did! Or was he just trying once again to obfuscate reality from his beloved god president?”

    Please explain to me what are the “convoluted facts” to which you refer, Hoagie. I truly doubt if you know what you are talking about here, so you just slip right back into the ideologue mode as you drop out of the intellectual mode.

    But I’ll patiently await for you to step up and prove me wrong.

  22. Like I said, Mr Editor, you will never agree with my argument. That’s on you! You cannot just hand of a mercury filled ball, and expect it to rise into thin air, which is exactly what you are trying to do!

  23. Like I said, Mr Editor, you will never agree with my argument. That’s on you! You cannot just hand of a mercury filled ball, and expect it to rise into thin air, which is exactly what you are trying to do!

    Translation: Accept what I say, or you’re a bad, bad person.

    Koolo, when are you going to start to get serious, and while you are at it, start to tell the truth?

    Already did, and always do. You have to inhabit this reality to grasp that.

  24. “…. so you just slip right back into the ideologue mode as you drop out of the intellectual mode.”

    First off I could never be in an “intellectual mode” because I’m not a leftist. You do realize that only leftists can be intellectuals, don’t you? If one is a conservative he must be an ideologue! Just as there can be no intellectual conservatives there can neither be any ideologue liberals. Or so you clowns think.

    Secondly, you need not wait for me to prove you wrong as the Editor has already done so. But for those of you who are slow-witted just how does the nit-wit in chief add 5 trillion to the debt and spend less? You clowns bring a whole new meaning to “cooking the books”. I’m actually stunned you guys believe we’re all that stupid. I guess as Forrest Gump said “Stupid is as stupid does”. I guess he met liberals. You guys will buy whatever the messiah sells, won’t you? Quick, look over there, a shiny object.

  25. The bottom line, Mr Editor, is that you arbitrarily assign to President Obama expenses which were clearly incurred by the Bush Administration. To say the very least, this is dishonest. In fact, it is a lie!

  26. You’ve said nothing of any substance, Hoagie.

    “Secondly, you need not wait for me to prove you wrong as the Editor has already done so. But for those of you who are slow-witted just how does the nit-wit in chief add 5 trillion to the debt and spend less?”

    No, he has not. It’s in his numbers, Hoagie. Let me make it as simple as possible. Look at the column labeled “Deficit or Surplus, (percent of spending) column for fy 2008(Bush), fy 2009(Bush), fy 2010 (Obama), and fy 2011(Obama). They are all negative numbers, as per a deficit, the larger the negative number, the larger the deficit. The numbers respectively are: -15.37%(Bush), -40.16%(Bush), -37.43%(Obama), -36.07%(Obama).

    You can pick out any sequence of Dana’s numbers corresponding to the same four fiscal years, and see the same trend under Obama, that is, reduced spending, increased revenues, increased GDP. The message is, President Obama already has turned the economy to growth.

    And this growth, though not nearly enough yet, has been generated by President Obama against the headwind of a deteriorating European economy, out of his control, and the headwind of an opposition do-nothing Congress, also pretty much out of his control, even though he has tried to work with them. How can he work with an opposition party whose number one priority from day 1 was to prevent a second term, I ask? I’m sure that were it the other way around, you would be livid, Hoagie!

  27. Keep it up Perry, please, keep it up, a few dozen more like you to ape Nutting’s insane clap-trap and Romney’s win will be all but assured. He’ll win overwhelmingly because there’s still a good many Democrats, red-blooded Americans honest and true, who simply won’t support two-faced grinning liars and fast talking flim-flam artists no matter what color they are, and no matter what crazy lies they spew.

    Good Democrats who happen to see your comments and read Nutting’s insane brand of self-obvious double-talk will recoil in shame and horror; deeply ashamed of their (previous) political associations, and overtly fearful that charlatans like Obama and his degenerate gang of ruthless traitors and criminal co-conspirators might actually win in November.

    The 2012 Democrat election message is clear and unambiguous: Fellow Democrats, if you hate yourself, and your country, and you don’t give a damn about your family, your children, or your neighbors, then you owe it to your political overseers in the Democrat Party to put aside all petty individually inspired intellectual and humanitarian convictions and join with the lowest belly-crawlin’ scum in the nation to support another term for Barack Obama (PBUH) so he can finish eviscerating the USA.

  28. And this growth, though not nearly enough yet, has been generated by President Obama against the headwind of a deteriorating European economy, out of his control, and the headwind of an opposition do-nothing Congress, also pretty much out of his control, even though he has tried to work with them.

    Nothing is in his control, yet PAP writes

    The bottom line, Mr Editor, is that you arbitrarily assign to President Obama expenses which were clearly incurred by the Bush Administration.

    Of course, the House and Senate were under Democrat control then, so you think PAP — since he’s perpetually in here whining about how supposedly the GOP House doesn’t work with Obama (even though that’s just one house of Congress, too) — would praise Pres Bush for his negotiating and signing off on the budgets from 2006-end of his term! Isn’t PAP all about “gap bridging?”

    Nevertheless, it has already been shown — cited in PAP’s parlance — that the supposed GOP House intransigence to compromise is a complete fiction. So, PAP, when are you going to start to get serious, and while you are at it, start to tell the truth?

  29. How can he work with an opposition party whose number one priority from day 1 was to prevent a second term, I ask?

    That’s what ALL opposition parties try to do, you dumbass!

  30. Perry from Lose Delaware said:

    How can he work with an opposition party whose number one priority from day 1 was to prevent a second term, I ask? I’m sure that were it the other way around, you would be livid, Hoagie!

    We’ve had to deal with far worse. Far, far worse! We’ve had to spend eleven years listening to dumbass Liberals calling George Bush Hitler, and George Bush and Dick Cheney war criminals. We’ve had to spend two years listening to dumbass Liberals calling Governor Walker a dictator (because he deigned to act within the Law) while other dumbass Liberal fled their states in order to shirk their Constitutional duties to their states.

    But at least we didn’t go around costing millions of dollars in property damage due to dumbass Liberals, nor did we commit criminal acts of terroristic intimidation as a result of dumbass Liberals.

    But dumbass Liberals have indeed done that.

  31. It is quite telling that most of you Righties can debate, except to tell a lot of whoppers, and to attack the messenger. That really is weak.

    I’ll give only koolo and our Editor some credit, because at least they have made an attempt to counter, albeit both failed. In the end, I used Mr Editor’s own numbers to make my point, a point which shreds your arbitrary ideological fantasy about the blame for the recent federal deficits.

    And koolo, in his haste to include his personal attacks as always, did say this:

    “Of course, the House and Senate were under Democrat control then, so you think PAP — since he’s perpetually in here whining about how supposedly the GOP House doesn’t work with Obama (even though that’s just one house of Congress, too) — would praise Pres Bush for his negotiating and signing off on the budgets from 2006-end of his term!”

    Exactly, koolo. This is quite simple: President Bush signed off specifically on the f/y 2009 budget, as our Editor himself pointed out, so it is his until 09/30/2009! That is the key point: He is responsible for the spending up to the end of the fiscal year 2009.

    But you Righties want to hold President Obama responsible from the day he stepped into office in 01/2009. That is clearly wrong!

    Moreover, I also pointed out that under President Obama, the appropriations bill that he signed in 02/2009, actually cut the budget from that which President Bush signed off a few months before.

    So again, you have not yet countered the points that I gleaned from Mr Nutting, which ropelight has dismissed without reason. This is not debating, ropelight! Have another look here for all the details.

    ” So, PAP, when are you going to start to get serious, and while you are at it, start to tell the truth?”

    Koolo, I assume you would not accept a statement like this from one of your students without at least one example. If you would, I would then call you negligent. So where is your example, koolo?

  32. Koolo, I assume you would not accept a statement like this from one of your students without at least one example. If you would, I would then call you negligent. So where is your example, koolo?

    I also wouldn’t accept from them constant and repetitous queries, all of which have been previously addressed. Thus, again, you fail, PAP. Now, of course, you’ll say “See? You failed to provide an example!” But anyone casual visitor would easily pick up on the thread and say, “WTF is the deal with this idiot Wagonwheel? Can’t he READ??”

    It doesn’t matter what I, or anyone, writes; your mind, such that it is, is made up. The day you apply to yourself what you demand from others should be made a national holiday.

  33. WW wrote:

    Like I said, Mr Editor, you will never agree with my argument. That’s on you! You cannot just hand of a mercury filled ball, and expect it to rise into thin air, which is exactly what you are trying to do!

    Yes, it is a shame that I did something truly radical like look up the facts.

    Of course, I already knew what the facts were, which enabled me to know where to look and for what to look. But the already-discredited meme you have copied and passed on was so easy to refute, simply because the facts were well known. One might suspect that the authors of that meme hoped to persuade the ignorant, and get away with it. Why, it’s almost as if they were deliberately lying.

    “Secondly, you need not wait for me to prove you wrong as the Editor has already done so. But for those of you who are slow-witted just how does the nit-wit in chief add 5 trillion to the debt and spend less?”

    No, he has not. It’s in his numbers, Hoagie. Let me make it as simple as possible. Look at the column labeled “Deficit or Surplus, (percent of spending) column for fy 2008(Bush), fy 2009(Bush), fy 2010 (Obama), and fy 2011(Obama). They are all negative numbers, as per a deficit, the larger the negative number, the larger the deficit. The numbers respectively are: -15.37%(Bush), -40.16%(Bush), -37.43%(Obama), -36.07%(Obama).

    You can pick out any sequence of Dana’s numbers corresponding to the same four fiscal years, and see the same trend under Obama, that is, reduced spending, increased revenues, increased GDP. The message is, President Obama already has turned the economy to growth.

    We have already disposed of the myth that the FY2009 budget is somehow President Bush’s; FY2009 was, save for three cabinet departments, being funded via continuing resolutions — extensions of the FY2008 spending levels — because the Democrats wanted President Obama to be the onw who would authorize FY2009 spending. The proof was given to you, complete with source citations, that most of FY2009 was funded by the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, introduced into the House in February of 2009 — after George Bush had already left office — and signed by President Obama in March of 2009. The FY2009 deficit belongs primarily to President Obama and the Democrats. They chose to increase total federal spending by 17.94% over FY2008, and the Republicans didn’t have a thing to do with it.

  34. WW wrote:

    Exactly, koolo. This is quite simple: President Bush signed off specifically on the f/y 2009 budget, as our Editor himself pointed out, so it is his until 09/30/2009! That is the key point: He is responsible for the spending up to the end of the fiscal year 2009.

    Uhhh, and where did I point this out? I did point out that President Bush signed the FY2008 appropriations bills, but noted in the same comment that it was President Obama who signed off on FY2009.

    Now, it should have been President Bush, given that FY2008 ended on September 30, 2008, but the Congress, controlled by the Democrats, did not pass the appropriations bills for President Bush to sign! They waited, deliberately, until they’d have a larger majority and a Democratic President. The dates have all been given to you.

    But, being the nice guy that I am, I’ll provide even more documentation for you: this is the link to the government site which tracks bills, specifically the FY2009 appropriations bills. If you will notice, only one, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, became law prior to January 20, 2009. (See the far right column.) Every other appropriations bill became law after President Obama was inaugurated!

    As for the Budget Resolution itself — the budget blueprint, which is not the actual appropriations measures — if you look in the far right hand column, you’ll see these four words: “President does not sign.” The Budget Resolution(s) are House and Senate concurrent resolutions, which do not require the President’s signature.

    The reality is:

    • President Bush signed appropriations for only a few departments for FY2009, because the Democrats who controlled the Congress did not pass appropriations for most departments before January 20, 2009;
    • President Bush signed a continuing resolution to keep federal departments open under continued FY2008 budget numbers;
    • President Bush did not sign the FY2009 budget resolution, because it is in the form of a concurrent resolution which Presidents do not sign; and
    • President Obama signed most of the FY2009 appropriations into law, in the Omnibus Appropriations Act.

    Those are facts, WW, facts which have been documented.

  35. Then again, perhaps this all explains to us why a reasonably intelligent man like Wagonwheel is a liberal: he doesn’t have his facts straight, because he gets them from liberal sites, and, having erroneous beliefs concerning what the facts are, it is unsurprising that he comes to faulty conclusions.

  36. Wagonwheel wrote (in a comment which was in moderation for a while):

    Your argument about the appropriations bill in Obama’s second month in office, were actually carry overs in the Bush fiscal year 2009, therefore your argument is superfluous. Thus, the 17.94% increase in federal outlays was on Bush. However, in fact, if you subtract $0.8T from your f/y 2009 federal outlay number, you will discover that the Obama appropriation bill in Feb 2009 actually lowered the federal outlays inherited from Bush! So yes, Mr Editor, it is in the numbers, as you said, but the numbers have to be interpreted accurately, which you did not do, as I’ve explained.

    Nope, sorry, wrong answer. The continuing resolution which kept most departments of the government going were continuing from the FY2008 levels; they had no increases! Had no appropriations bills been passed, and the whole thing done by continuing resolution, discretionary expenditures would have been the same as FY2008.

    And you have got to be kidding when you wrote, “if you subtract $0.8T from your f/y 2009 federal outlay number, you will discover that the Obama appropriation bill in Feb 2009 actually lowered the federal outlays inherited from Bush!” That’s kind of like saying, “If you ignore the unfortunate incident in Dallas, John Kennedy had a great presidency.” Or, more in line with the point you like to take, “If you ignore the off-budget stuff, President Bush’s budgets were close to balance.”

    The facts are clear: President Obama has spent, and plans to continue spending, far larger portions of GDp at the federal level than anything in any of President Bush’s budgets. The numbers don’t lie.

  37. “Then again, perhaps this all explains to us why a reasonably intelligent man like Wagonwheel is a liberal: he doesn’t have his facts straight, because he gets them from liberal sites, and, having erroneous beliefs concerning what the facts are, it is unsurprising that he comes to faulty conclusions.”

    Basically, Mr Editor, your argument is that if an argument is presented which does not agree with your predetermined ideology, then it must be incorrect, regardless of the facts presented. Moreover, your obvious objective is to manipulate the facts in order to deny the hand that the Bush Administration handed over to the Obama Administration, which is the center point of your denial of reality, with the message you have repeated continuously for many, many months.

    I used your numbers to prove my point, backed up by the analysis of Sullivan and Nutting, which you have not effectively countered; therefore, this statement remains accurate:

    “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.”

    Had it not been for the spending which occurred in f/y 2009, we would have been in Great Depression II. And if we went your way subsequently, i.e. austerity, we would have gone the route of the UK, likely worse.

    The approach which Romney is proposing is basically austerity (Ryan Plan) plus more tax cuts, because Republican ideology has not basically changed to take into account historical realities. Therefore, please show me where/when trickle down ideology and tax cuts have worked effectively, and show me where/when austerity only has worked. Surprise me, because I don’t believe that you can!

  38. Koolo responds:

    “This is exactly what I mean about not reading/grasping/accepting. It’a all dogma to people like PAP.”

    The dogma is on you and our Editor. He (and you) are trying to pass the Bush Great Recession on to President Obama. The facts don’t support such. As I said before, I don’t agree, and have explained why. In effect, he is trying to blame President Obama for the Bush Great Recession, and then put it on Obama for the later deficits which were required to keep us from falling into a Great Depression. And guess what? We are doing far better than our European counterparts who continue in severe crisis mode, sinking into another recession. Now deal with the facts, koolo, instead of trying to remarket your Rightie failed ideology!

  39. Ropelight said;
    “The 2012 Democrat election message is clear and unambiguous: Fellow Democrats, if you hate yourself, and your country, and you don’t give a damn about your family, your children, or your neighbors, then you owe it to your political overseers in the Democrat Party to put aside all petty individually inspired intellectual and humanitarian convictions and join with the lowest belly-crawlin’ scum in the nation to support another term for Barack Obama (PBUH) so he can finish eviscerating the USA.”

    A great paragraph and one worthy of ropelight and DNW as well. Thank you sir!

  40. WW wrote:

    “Then again, perhaps this all explains to us why a reasonably intelligent man like Wagonwheel is a liberal: he doesn’t have his facts straight, because he gets them from liberal sites, and, having erroneous beliefs concerning what the facts are, it is unsurprising that he comes to faulty conclusions.”

    Basically, Mr Editor, your argument is that if an argument is presented which does not agree with your predetermined ideology, then it must be incorrect, regardless of the facts presented.

    This is hilarious. I presented the facts, with appropriate source citations, and you are complaining that my argument is “regardless of the facts presented?”

    You are citing people’s opinions, where I have presented facts and dates.

    Of course, now I’ve seen from where the meme came: President Obama himself uttered the lie that spending growth was slower under his Administration than any other; one can only assume that he figures his potential voters are stupid. That, of course, would be an example of something with which I can agree with President Obama.

  41. But, as noted above, even if you are just dogmatically adamant that FY2009 spending just has to be assigned to President Bush, even though it was President Obama who signed most of it into law, you are left with the fact that President Obama either has spent or has proposed spending eight of the top 21 highest percentages of GDP at the federal level, and five of the other years were taken up by World War II. Even if you assign all of FY2009 to President Bush, FY2009 would be an aberration; the rest of President Bush’s spending record is solidly in the middle.

    Of course, you’ve already exposed the fact that you don’t believe a word of what you are writing. You said:

    However, in fact, if you subtract $0.8T from your f/y 2009 federal outlay number, you will discover that the Obama appropriation bill in Feb 2009 actually lowered the federal outlays inherited from Bush!

    and:

    Your flaw is simple: The fiscal situation inherited by President Obama was handed to him by the Bush f/y 2009 expenditures, which are fully attributable to Bush with the exception of the stimulus, the ARA, $0.8T.

    Since the FY2009 budget was less than $800 billion higher than FY2008, you have just admitted that it was President Obama who made the increase!

    If President Obama had a good record, his re-election would not be in doubt; if President Obama had a good record, he wouldn’t have to lie about it.

  42. Then, of course, there was this:

    In effect, he is trying to blame President Obama for the Bush Great Recession, and then put it on Obama for the later deficits which were required to keep us from falling into a Great Depression.

    First you tell us that President Obama has really, really, really slowed the growth of spending, and then you tell us how he saved us from another Depression by spending more. :)

  43. “A great paragraph and one worthy of ropelight and DNW as well. Thank you sir!”

    Of course, Hoagie, this is an entirely predictable opinion from two extremist Righties, therefore meaningless to folks who attempt to be honest regarding the fate of the middle class and poor as a result of Republican trickle down economic policies. The fact is, there has been no trickle down, only trickle up! What good is this for America, I ask?

  44. “You are citing people’s opinions, where I have presented facts and dates.”

    You will note, Mr Editor, that I have not questioned your facts, I have questioned your attribution of your facts, especially your f/y 2009 facts, to President Obama, instead of where they belong, to President Bush, whose policy failures and lack of oversight led directly to our Great Recession, from which our current President has been tasked with the responsibility of recovery.

    Moreover, our President’s accomplishments to date for the recovery are indeed his record on which he is running, a record of which I think is pretty damn good, especially considering the head winds which the opposition party, your party, placed against his best efforts.

    It is as if the long disgraced behavior of Senator Joseph McCarthy has resurfaced again in the name of the extremists who now dominate your party, and has been quite evident on this very blog. Consider the behavior and language of the likes of Hoagie, koolo, ropelight, and Hitchcock for the evidence. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!!!

  45. You will note, Mr Editor, that I have not questioned your facts, I have questioned your attribution of your facts

    And this is precisely what we have done regarding your facts. As previously noted (as usual, because you never, ever read and/or comprehend such), Editor has thoroughly dissected and refuted your attributrion(s) and left them wanting. In addition, your facts (again, as previously noted) are deceitful in that they include lies of omission, a tried and true tactic on your part.

    In the meantime, sink your teeth into these facts.

  46. Our Editor wrote:

    “But, as noted above, even if you are just dogmatically adamant that FY2009 spending just has to be assigned to President Bush, even though it was President Obama who signed most of it into law, you are left with the fact that President Obama either has spent or has proposed spending eight of the top 21 highest percentages of GDP at the federal level, and five of the other years were taken up by World War II. Even if you assign all of FY2009 to President Bush, FY2009 would be an aberration; the rest of President Bush’s spending record is solidly in the middle.”

    Reporting on ‘spending as a percent of GDP’, the trend of which you like to do, is very tricky. Consider the case where spending is constant while GDP has dropped precipitously (see the second chart here), which actually happened when the Bush Great Recession hit, will cause that figure percentage to increase. In this case, the increase is due to the GDP drop, not to a spending increase, that latter being part of your argument. Arguing about the actual spending from fiscal year to fiscal year is the important figure, as well as to which President it is attributed.

    “Since the FY2009 budget was less than $800 billion higher than FY2008, you have just admitted that it was President Obama who made the increase!”

    No Mr Editor – What I am saying is that in spite of the Bush f/y 2009 spending, with President Obama’s ARRA bill subtracted out, he succeeded in lowering President Bush’s spending, a good move in the right direction by President Obama.

    “If President Obama had a good record, his re-election would not be in doubt; if President Obama had a good record, he wouldn’t have to lie about it.”

    He definitely has a good record, so the election result will be highly dependent upon his ability to effectively communicate this record and his future vision against the headwinds of selected lies and half-truths being thrown at him by his dishonorable opponents, as we see on a daily basis in microcosm right here on your blog. Of course he will also have to overcome the voter suppression campaign being waged against his supporters as well.

  47. Finally, our editor wrote:

    “First you tell us that President Obama has really, really, really slowed the growth of spending, and then you tell us how he saved us from another Depression by spending more. :)

    The most telling chart is the third one down here, where it is shown that the growth in spending by President Obama, starting with his f/y 2010 spending, has been the slowest from President Reagan forward.

    Not only that, this chart also demonstrates that the spending growth under Dem Presidents is far, far less than that under Repub Presidents, from President Reagan on. You need to put that fact in your gizzard and masticate it so that it can be properly absorbed! :)

  48. He definitely has a good record, so the election result will be highly dependent upon his ability to effectively communicate this record and his future vision against the headwinds of selected lies and half-truths being thrown at him by his dishonorable opponents, as we see on a daily basis in microcosm right here on your blog. Of course he will also have to overcome the voter suppression campaign being waged against his supporters as well.

    *YAWN*

    Good record? Uh huh.

    Continuing Bush’s policies of “shredding the Constitution” (as PAP complained about endlessly in here during the previous admin.) with regards to WoT detainees … and even upping the ante by including American citizens? “Good” record.

    Does anyone with a fully developed cranium actually believe that the Democrats will not use “selected lies and half-truths” against Mitt Romney? They already are.

    As for the voter suppression nonsense, PAP always has to throw that in there … perhaps to convince himself that there actually is such, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and overwhelming popular support for showing photo ID at the polls. All of which, BTW, has been fully documented here at FSJ previously.

  49. Koolo opines, or is it pines: (I’d say the latter!)

    You will note, Mr Editor, that I have not questioned your facts, I have questioned your attribution of your facts

    “And this is precisely what we have done regarding your facts. As previously noted (as usual, because you never, ever read and/or comprehend such), Editor has thoroughly dissected and refuted your attributrion(s) and left them wanting. In addition, your facts (again, as previously noted) are deceitful in that they include lies of omission, a tried and true tactic on your part.

    In the meantime, sink your teeth into these facts.”

    You are taking our Editor’s position, koolo, which I have already refuted, effectively, I think. I truly don’t expect you ever to agree with anything I say, because that is the way you are, black and white!

    Regarding “these facts”, nothing new there, just a reiteration of the lies that your side has been broadcasting for some time, using carefully selected “facts” out of context and with the intent to deceive. I am hopeful that these deceptions can be effectively repudiated, so that we don’t end up in 2013 with the same old policies which caused our catastrophic Great Recession to begin with. It is you who are not “comprehending” koolo!

  50. Koolo:

    “*YAWN*”

    Do try to stay awake, koolo. Only then doe the truth have a chance to penetrate!

    “Continuing Bush’s policies of “shredding the Constitution” (as PAP complained about endlessly in here during the previous admin.) with regards to WoT detainees … and even upping the ante by including American citizens? “Good” record.”

    I am not happy with the President’s record on this issue.

    “Does anyone with a fully developed cranium actually believe that the Democrats will not use “selected lies and half-truths” against Mitt Romney? They already are.”

    And your evidence for this statement is exactly what, koolo? So far in the campaign, Romney has been his own worst enemy, in my view, by refusing to run on his own record as MA Governor and Bain Capital’s dastardly operations.

    “As for the voter suppression nonsense, PAP always has to throw that in there … perhaps to convince himself that there actually is such, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and overwhelming popular support for showing photo ID at the polls. All of which, BTW, has been fully documented here at FSJ previously.”

    The fact of the matter is that this voter suppression has been mostly a red state initiative. That says a lot! Of course it has achieved a majority acceptance, because a majority are not impacted by voter suppression. Didn’t we just read the latest, that Governor Scott of FL wishes to purge 160,000 people from the rolls? This voter oppression effort will continue full force up to the election, because this is what extremist Republicans do to help win elections, as in FL in 2000!

    Bye-bye!

  51. You are taking our Editor’s position, koolo, which I have already refuted, effectively, I think. I truly don’t expect you ever to agree with anything I say, because that is the way you are, black and white!

    Hey! You actually figured out I was agreeing with Editor? Congratulations!

    If you say anything that ever actually makes sense, you’ll find me agreeing with you. But I’m not very confident that will ever happen. Because hardcore dogmatists are like that.

  52. WW wrote:

    You will note, Mr Editor, that I have not questioned your facts, I have questioned your attribution of your facts, especially your f/y 2009 facts, to President Obama, instead of where they belong, to President Bush, whose policy failures and lack of oversight led directly to our Great Recession, from which our current President has been tasked with the responsibility of recovery.

    Really? You wrote:

    This is quite simple: President Bush signed off specifically on the f/y 2009 budget,

    Now, this isn’t some sort of “I have questioned your attribution of your facts, especially your f/y 2009 facts,” but an instance, a documented instance, of where what you have stated was factually wrong.

    • President Bush did not “(sign) off specifically on the f/y 2009 budget,” because the President does not sign off on the House and Senate Concurrent Budget resolutions; and
    • President Bush did not sign off on most of the FY2009 appropriations, because they were not passed by Congress until he was already out of office.

    You have been demonstrated to have been factually in error, more than once. How many more times will it require?

  53. Obama could have easily asked the Democratic Congress on January 22, 2009 to cut $1T out of the budget and sign it into law, but instead he asked the puppet congress to authorize spending more (and all documented above like GM Bailout). And let’s not forget the ticking bomb of Obumble Care.

    And since BO took office, the Dems in the Senate have refused to make or approve a budget.

  54. Ed noted of WW

    Really? You wrote:

    This is quite simple: President Bush signed off specifically on the f/y 2009 budget,

    Whereas BO hasn’t signed one of them things yet.

  55. Even the Washington Post gives the Nutting analysis Three Pinocchios:

    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, (Listen up here, PAP!) 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)

    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.

    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.

  56. Exactly, koolo. This is quite simple: President Bush signed off specifically on the f/y 2009 budget, as our Editor himself pointed out, so it is his until 09/30/2009! That is the key point: He is responsible for the spending up to the end of the fiscal year 2009.

    But you Righties want to hold President Obama responsible from the day he stepped into office in 01/2009. That is clearly wrong!

    Practically the first thing Obama did was sign off on the Stimulus, which put a $770 BILLION dollar hole in the budget.

    Your lies cannot cover up this FACT.

  57. The dogma is on you and our Editor. He (and you) are trying to pass the Bush Great Recession on to President Obama. The facts don’t support such. As I said before, I don’t agree, and have explained why. In effect, he is trying to blame President Obama for the Bush Great Recession

    There was no Bush “Great Recession”. What there was was a financial crisis that was largely controlled by the TARP program. The rest of the recession from Feb 2009 forward is Obama’s, and Obama’s alone. But I know these FACTS won’t stop you from spreading your usual partisan LIES.

  58. It’s really quite simple: Wagonwheel completely supports President Obama, and would if he literally committed murder on the White House steps. But the Democrats know that the people can see that President Obama has been pretty much of a failure, which is why his re-election is in serious doubt.

    So, they are trying to distort the lens through which people see things. They realize that we wicked Republicans will pull out the videos of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) telling people that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” of “number 43″ to run up $4 trillion in debt “all by his lonesome,” in 7½ years, and note that “number 44″ ran up $5 trillion in debt, “all by his lonesome,” in just 3½ years. They know that Republicans will point out that President Obama’s stimulus plan came with a promise to hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%, and that by his own measures, his plan has been a failure.

    The facts being against them, they have to try to change the facts; they are attempting to create a “Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying eyes?” campaign. The Democrats will campaign on every diversionary tactic they can find, trying to make this election about Mitt Romney rather than Barack Obama.

    William Teach has an article up about the silly claim that President Obama has seen 40% opposition from an incarcerated felon in a couple of Democratic primaries is proof of raaaaacism. But it wasn’t all that long ago that we were seeing a (slight) movement among the Democrats to replace President Obama with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as their 2012 nominee. Mrs Clinton squashed that, of course, and it went nowhere, but it existed for the same reason that there has been a significant vote against the President in Democratic primaries for one simple reason: even some Democrats realize that he just hasn’t been up to the job.

    President Obama said, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Unfortunately for the President — and for our country — he hasn’t even risen to the level of mediocre.

  59. ED:
    Republicans will point out that President Obama’s stimulus plan came with a promise to hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%, and that by his own measures, his plan has been a failure.

    You can bet the house, the farm, winnings from the next POWER BALL and MEGA-MILLIONS combined, the car, and all your earthly past, present and future goods that the BLS, but really drop the “L”, and you will have some sort of phonied up number for unemployment that will be under 8% before the November Elections, even if BO has to come up with a Minister of Truth as only BO knows it Czar.

  60. “President Obama said, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Unfortunately for the President — and for our country — he hasn’t even risen to the level of mediocre.”

    The fact that you would bring yourself to make a statement like this is proof in itself that for you partisan ideology has displaced your ability to reason rationally. The proof is here, demonstrating that using your facts leads to the truth.

    Moreover, you seem to have concluded that if you repeat your “Obama failed” screed enough times, that somehow your fiction will become truth, thus believing in the tooth/truth fairy! This is not going to happen, Mr Editor, except in the minds of your equally deceived irrational partisan lemmings on this your blog.

    See the next post for a continuation of my “screed”, made necessary by your restriction of one link per post, otherwise moderation.

  61. “President Obama said, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Unfortunately for the President — and for our country — he hasn’t even risen to the level of mediocre.”

    Then I guess that should your candidate, Willard Romney, be elected, he would not govern the way you want. He has already repudiated TEA Partiers like yourself, Mr Editor, just this past week. See here:

    “Asked by Time’s Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn’t push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years’ mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.

    “Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course,” Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.”

    This appears to be a refutation by Romney of the Ryan Plan, a plan of austerity, which you TEA Partiers love. Perhaps Romney, unlike yourself, sees plainly what is happening in Europe under austerity.

    In fact, I think Romney would be our next President, if he distances himself from TEA Partiers like yourself, and campaigned more along the lines of President Obama’s policies, without attribution!

    See my next post for a continuation of my thoughts.

  62. “President Obama said, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Unfortunately for the President — and for our country — he hasn’t even risen to the level of mediocre.”

    Along the lines of Romney distancing himself from TEA Baggers is the suggestion that thinking voters ought to assert due effort to be better informed than their standard diet of FoxNews and the Limbaugh talk radio Klan. Look here:

    “The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.”

    These results are on how many of four question on domestic issues the respondents could answer accurately.

    See the link for more.

  63. Yesterday @08:04 Perry quoted Hoagie’s comment about the concluding paragraph of my comment of May 24th @16:03 (bold added for emphasis)

    “A great paragraph and one worthy of ropelight and DNW as well. Thank you sir!”

    Of course, Hoagie, this is an entirely predictable opinion from two extremist Righties, therefore meaningless to folks who attempt to be honest regarding the fate of the middle class and poor as a result of Republican trickle down economic policies. The fact is, there has been no trickle down, only trickle up! What good is this for America, I ask?

    Perry, is that what you’re attempting to do here: be honest?Seriously now, is pretending that Barack Obama’s spending is somehow the work of George Bush an example of you being honest?

    Perry, you’re doing more than just embarrassing yourself, pushing this sort of idiot nonsense comes at high price, a price no man can pay and maintain his own sense of integrity or self-worth. You’re selling what honor and integrity you still possess, and you’re selling cheap and in bondage to an obviously absurd lie.

    [broken format corrected, no other alterations made -- JH]

  64. Correction: I intended to include Perry’s response to Hoagie in the block quote beginning with Of course…and concluding with…I ask?

    I’d appreciate if someone with access would fix it for me. Thanks.

  65. “Perry, you’re doing more than just embarrassing yourself, pushing this sort of idiot nonsense comes at high price, a price no man can pay and maintain his own sense of integrity or self-worth. You’re selling what honor and integrity you still possess, and you’re selling cheap and in bondage to an obviously absurd lie.”

    Ropelight, only in the eyes of FoxNews/Limbaugh extremists would the word “embarrasment” even come up. I gave you the basis for my analysis of the right wing lie, using our Editor’s numbers, no less! I suggest you spend more time on the likes of NPR, PBS, NBR, and the like, where there is at least a an honest attempt at going after the truth.

    Did you even bother to

    read this?

    I don’t think so, because you voiced not even one comment about that study.

  66. Notice there is not a single word from Passive-Aggressive Perry about even the liberal Washington Post trashing the analysis that he blasted all us for … for not accepting as gospel truth.

    And now he has to accept that the liberal AP has done the exact same thing.

    Who’s the political hack again, PAP? Who’s the blind partisan again, PAP? Who’s the dogmatist again, PAP?

  67. Along the lines of Romney distancing himself from TEA Baggers is the suggestion that thinking voters ought to assert due effort to be better informed than their standard diet of FoxNews and the Limbaugh talk radio Klan. Look here:

    Of course, after getting his ass kicked by insisting a flaw analysis was the gospel truth, Passive Aggressive Perry now resorts to citing another ridiculous study to lift up his rapidly shrinking dogma:

    The study, though, didn’t actually identify people who got their news only from one source, so they used “multinomial logistic regression” to create representations of such people who were then compared “to a hypothetical construct of someone who had no recent news exposure.”

    In addition, PAP, like all the lefty sites promoting this “study,” ignores that the representations of viewers/hypothetical constructs of viewers of his beloved MSNBC were right behind those of FNC.

  68. “Who’s the political hack again, PAP? Who’s the blind partisan again, PAP? Who’s the dogmatist again, PAP?”

    You are, koolo!

    Because I don’t agree with the WaPo or the AP analysis base, as I have already discussed in detail here, and countered our Editor’s on this blog as well. I see nothing gained by reiterating my argument. But since you have brought it up, I’ll point out, again, a few things.

    Your WaPo cite has this:

    “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.)”

    Even if I were to accept having f/y 2008 as the base year for President Obama, which I don’t, the growth rate for 2009 is 5.2%. The rest of the President Obama years are still significantly lower than for any of the other Republican Presidents since Reagan, even though President Obama had to deal with the very worst of the Great Recession handed to him by President Bush.

    What part of this escapes your understanding, koolo?

    Even President Reagan had to deal with a mild recession, but his spending growth numbers were much worse than President Obama’s. Check the above cite again, given above.

    So before you get off with your right wing nuttery/lies, koolo, see if you can refute the point I have just made. Answer: You cannot, because the truth is the truth!

    Moreover, the WaPo columnist made this ridiculous point:

    “So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting.”

    Of course. If you were ever in the corporate business world, which I have been for 25 years, it is standard practice to ask for more funding for both projects and for one’s employees salaries than you think you can get. But you would not know this, koolo, because you have no business experience whatsoever, so you are just pretending, in your little sandbox!

    Here is another thing wrong with the WaPo piece:

    “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.”

    The author also left out the context of government spending expressed as a percentage of the GDP. Let me illustrate: If the spending is constant, but the GDP plummets, as it was doing at the outset of President Obama’s term, then spending expressed in this manner, % of GDP, will increase, even though the spending itself is not increasing. This is simple math, koolo, which you should be able to comprehend, I assume. Are you in over your head here, koolo? It seems so, as you attempt to hide it.

    So you can see, there was plenty wrong with the WaPo piece, the AP piece as well, so the three Pinocchios are on those authors for being so stupid, and on you koolo for the same reason, certainly not on President Obama, who did a miraculous job during very difficult times for our country.

    And your party wants austerity alone with no revenue increases, the Ryan Plan, when the Obama approach has worked so well. I disagree adamantly with what you want!

  69. So you can see, there was plenty wrong with the WaPo piece, the AP piece as well, so the three Pinocchios are on those authors for being so stupid, and on you koolo for the same reason, certainly not on President Obama, who did a miraculous job during very difficult times for our country.

    There you have it, everybody. It’s not just us conservatives who trashed Passive Aggressive Perry’s “arguments” about the Nutting study, but even liberal MSM outlets can’t even let the dopiness of the analysis slide. Yet, despite all reasoned refutations to the contrary, as usual, we’re all still wrong. Because, well, y’know, Passive Aggressive Perry is right! Because he says so, dammit!

    Nutting’s study is just that: Nutting!

  70. “In addition, PAP, like all the lefty sites promoting this “study,” ignores that the representations of viewers/hypothetical constructs of viewers of his beloved MSNBC were right behind those of FNC.”

    First you debunk the study, then you point out that MSNBC and FNC are in the same category regarding an inferior understanding of domestic and foreign policy issues.

    Well duh! You will notice that I did not recommend either MSNBC or FNC. Do you listen to NPR, or watch PBS, 60 Minutes, and the like? I do, the first two on a daily basis, so let me save you the trouble and make a preemptive statement: You will probably claim that these outlets are left wing, won’t you? Those Righties who would say this have no sense of how far out of the centrist mainstream that they have permitted their political beliefs and ideology have taken them. This is most worrisome!

  71. “Nutting’s study is just that: Nutting!”

    When koolo runs out of points and personal attacks to make, he says the above, in order to exhibit his ignorance, without his being intelligent enough to have this degree of self-knowledge. So folks, please do not disturb koolo’s cloud! It’s like attempting to inscribe a message on a permanent tabula rosa.

  72. Perry, you’ve got your head so far up your ass you couldn’t see daylight at noon. You not only refuse to see what’s right in front of your nose, you insist on pretending obvious lies are revealed fact. That’s stupidity personified.

    You’re guilty of more than overt dishonesty, your comments here are evidence of a diseased mind with no higher ambition other than to regurgitate absurd propaganda. Perry, you continue to voluntarily make yourself ridiculous and the object of scorn. Truly, you deserve yourself.

  73. First you debunk the study, then you point out that MSNBC and FNC are in the same category regarding an inferior understanding of domestic and foreign policy issues.

    Of course. Because it further shows the biased nature — and ridiculousness — of the “study.”

    Well duh! You will notice that I did not recommend either MSNBC or FNC.

    You recommend MSNBC in here all the time, dolt, and you know it.

    Do you listen to NPR, or watch PBS, 60 Minutes, and the like? I do

    Of course, on the Internet one can say anything and there’s no way to check on it; however, what we have in this case is the evidence of knowledge demonstrated in this very forum. And, like has been more than amply demonstrated in this very thread, your statement about you getting news from various sources (which you’ve stated before) is found to be grossly wanting. And what’s more, you compound your flagrant ignorance with the insistence that you’re correct — despite thorough refutations from both sides of the aisle.

    So, who’s in a “cloud” again, Passive Aggressive Perry? Your cloud is akin to the Oort Cloud — billions of mile in space.

  74. “Perry, you’ve got your head so far up your ass you couldn’t see daylight at noon. You not only refuse to see what’s right in front of your nose, you insist on pretending obvious lies are revealed fact. That’s stupidity personified.

    You’re guilty of more than overt dishonesty, your comments here are evidence of a diseased mind with no higher ambition other than to regurgitate absurd propaganda. Perry, you continue to voluntarily make yourself ridiculous and the object of scorn. Truly, you deserve yourself.”

    And your example is what, ropelight? Never mind, you don’t have one, so ignore the request, which you would do anyway.

  75. Since you have given nothing substantive as a counter to consider, nor has anyone else on here, I stick with my analysis, which even makes use of our Editor’s numbers, koolo.

    I carefully pointed out my disagreements with your cites.

    And by the way, your new link is not working, as it gives a blank screen. Maybe that was your point! Failure!!!

  76. Perry, the example is your stridently partisan knee-jerk cheer-leading for Nutting’s monumentally arrogant and thoroughly dishonest attempt to paint Obama’s unprecedented over-the-top spending spree as somehow modest compared to previous Administrations.

    It’s an obvious lie, Nutting’s an obvious liar, and you’re obviously a fool for marching in his parade of insane double-talk.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  77. Perry, from Lose, DE, the man who is always crying crocodile tears into his beer at the slightest hint of anything “uncivil” coming from the 60 percent of the US he opposes, continues his belligerence:

    Along the lines of Romney distancing himself from TEA Baggers

    Perry, from Lose, DE, absolutely knows he is being severely uncivil when he does that.
    Perry, from Lose, DE, absolutely knows he is being severely hypocritical when he does that.
    Perry, from Lose, DE, who likes to randomly call people homophobes and claims to support the radical homosexual agenda, calls the millions of TEA Partiers homosexuals who engage in a certain particular homosexual act, and intends for it to be a major insult.
    Perry, from Lose, DE, is one of the most disgusting Americans I have ever had the displeasure of correcting.

  78. Since you have given nothing substantive as a counter to consider, nor has anyone else on here, I stick with my analysis, which even makes use of our Editor’s numbers, koolo.

    No, Passive Aggressive Perry. The only “nothing” is that which exists inside your cranium.

    And by the way, your new link is not working, as it gives a blank screen. Maybe that was your point! Failure!!!

    Try again. It is an image which if you hover your mouse over, will increase in magnification with one click. The only failure is your thoroughly shredded “analysis” of Obama being a “frugal” spender. That, and your Netscape 2.0 browser you must still be using.

  79. “Perry, the example is your stridently partisan knee-jerk cheer-leading for Nutting’s monumentally arrogant and thoroughly dishonest attempt to paint Obama’s unprecedented over-the-top spending spree as somehow modest compared to previous Administrations.

    It’s an obvious lie, Nutting’s an obvious liar, and you’re obviously a fool for marching in his parade of insane double-talk.

    Is that clear enough for you?”

    No, ropelight, because it is just your opinion. You have yet to say anything of substance on this issue to back up your opinion, just like koolo, which is contrary to your contentions. I’ll bet you didn’t even read my piece on Nutting on my blog. Did you?

    Moreover, you extremist Righties fail, because you folks always fall back on personal attacks, which are an admission of weakness, or you make stuff up, like Hitchcock does all the time, usually without reference to anything specific, and which demonstrates that you really don’t know what you are talking about! It’s almost always motivated only by partisan politics.

    It is rather revealing that the Nutting piece seems to have hit a real sore point with you folks. Is it because it shatters one of the most important issues you all thought you had against President Obama? It turns out he is not the big spender which you folks have been making him out to be for several years on here.

    And related, I note that Mitt Romney has just shattered your paradigm about austerity/the Ryan Plan. He admitted yesterday that austerity would throw this country back into recession, and he is correct. See the UK. You people do not pay attention. I’ve been saying exactly this on here for a long time.

    “Perry, I notice you keep ducking my posts. Why is that? Chicken?”

    I’m waiting for you to say something worthy of a response, Eric. I know you had a better education than this at South Lakes HS in Reston, VA. You never back up your contentions with a reasonable citation, and then you expect to be taken seriously? Certainly you have had to write term papers, and maybe even participate in a debate. Have you forgotten what you were taught.

  80. WW wrote:

    “President Obama said, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Unfortunately for the President — and for our country — he hasn’t even risen to the level of mediocre.”

    The fact that you would bring yourself to make a statement like this is proof in itself that for you partisan ideology has displaced your ability to reason rationally. The proof is here, demonstrating that using your facts leads to the truth.

    “Mediocre” is an adjective which describes a judgement; if my judgement concerning President Obama’s performance wasn’t shared by a whole lot of people, his re-election would not be in doubt. That it is in doubt indicates that rather few see the President as having been as outstanding as you believe him to be — or as he sees himself.

    President Obama and his minions are now busy, busy, busy attacking Mitt Romney, on any little thing that they can find, because they realize that if this election is about President Obama’s record in office, they lose.

  81. I know you had a better education than this at South Lakes HS in Reston, VA.

    There goes Passive-Aggressive Perry again, posting personal information about someone just to get in a dig. It never stops. He just can’t help it.

  82. You never back up your contentions with a reasonable citation, and then you expect to be taken seriously? Certainly you have had to write term papers, and maybe even participate in a debate. Have you forgotten what you were taught.

    This is rich. Passive-Aggressive Perry now moves the goal posts to “reasonable” citations. Funny how he doesn’t accept the WaPo and the AP as “reasonable” now that they’ve torn asunder his sycophantic (to paraphrase the Editor) talking points. We’d expect him to object to Fox News or the Weekly Standard, but this is just hilarity at its finest now.

    And Eric — don’t worry about the term paper remark. Passive-Aggressive Perry’s term papers were turned in, had its citations questioned criticized, but he turned ‘em back in with precisely the same sources, with comments that his teachers/professors were the ones who were mistaken, and that they needed to accept what he says — period. And when they did not, he began to reveal personal information about them that wasn’t desired, and as a result was kicked out of the classes … and schools.

  83. “Of course, when The Washington Post and the Associated Press both take apart the President’s claims, you know that they are so specious that only the true sycophants can believe them.”

    It is certainly possible, though not likely, for these two esteemed members of the press to get in wrong, but in this case I think they have, for reasons already presented by me in detail.

    Perhaps if one repeats the same meme over and over, as the Repubs have been doing from day one of President Obama’s term, then said meme is inclined to become a reality in the minds of even the most observant and bright individuals. This may very well be one of those occasions, as op/ed writer Mr Nutting has uncovered. Obviously, his piece resonates with me though I didn’t expect that to be the case on this blog, since as far as I can tell, I am the only Progressive on here finding it necessary to push back against you blind ideologues.

    For example, here is another piece which presents essentially the same message as Mr Nutting did, but with focusing much more on the record of his predecessor, as presented in the May 4th 2012 New York Times. Here are some conclusions:

    * Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office,

    * taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009,

    * and the deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office.”

    Considering that President Obama has achieved this after inheriting the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, with an opposition party in Congress which essentially refused to work with him, yet return us to GDP and job growth, while taking a long range view on health care coverage which will save costs compared to what they would have been, you folks need to recognize this and work to have this miracle worker reelected! :)

  84. It is certainly possible, though not likely, for these two esteemed members of the press to get in wrong, but in this case I think they have

    Of course you think they’re wrong. That’s why you’re a sycophant.

  85. Perry, my response to Nutting’s steaming pile of insane horseshit (initially misidentified as bovine feces by the Editor) is to call it exactly what it is: a load of smelly excrement. It’s a big fat lie specifically manufactured to shied Barack Obama from his own record of reckless spending and general incompetence.

    That’s not only my opinion, Perry, it’s also the truth. Your attempts to pretend otherwise are not only laughable, they’re as transparently fraudulent as your claims of honesty.

    On the 24th @13:23 I asked you a direct question:

    Perry, is that what you’re attempting to do here: be honest? Seriously now, is pretending that Barack Obama’s spending is somehow the work of George Bush an example of you being honest?

    Then, I went on to point out that “…you’re doing more than just embarrassing yourself, pushing this sort of idiot nonsense comes at high price, a price no man can pay and maintain his own sense of integrity or self-worth. You’re selling what honor and integrity you still possess, and you’re selling cheap and in bondage to an obviously absurd lie.”

    Later the same day I made similar comments @17:05, and @20:45. You, however, no matter how often the Editor or other commenters demonstrated the abject duplicity of Nutting’s nostrums, you continue to pay homage to the obvious liar and to worship at the alter of his ignorance.

    Ignorance is what defines you Perry, aggressive ignorance. You not only seek it out, you spread it around like a communicable disease inflicting it on others like Typhoid Mary.

  86. Ropelight, except for disagreeing with me and insulting me in the process, you make not one counterpoint, not one.

    If you don’t accept Nutting’s argument, of which he has used CBO data to make his point, as I have used our Editor’s numbers to make the same point, perhaps you will consider this information provided by the NY Times at the beginning of this month.

    If you want my opinion about your various posts, I think if you were honest with yourself, you would realize that your apparent outright hatred of our President has skewed your ability to do critical thinking. If you were to use counterpoints, that’s one thing, but if you reread your posts of disagreement, you are not using counterpoints, instead you are losing your temper. The fact that we don’t agree is “aggressive ignorance”, ropelight? Hardly!

    Now please go forward and enjoy your day. Let us forget about this disagreement for now.

  87. I’m waiting for you to say something worthy of a response, Eric. I know you had a better education than this at South Lakes HS in Reston, VA. You never back up your contentions with a reasonable citation, and then you expect to be taken seriously? Certainly you have had to write term papers, and maybe even participate in a debate. Have you forgotten what you were taught.

    Perry, this isn’t college, you’re not my professor, and I’m not your student, all three conditions which have to be met for you to demand citations of me. So, as the Brits would say – bugger off, and shove your “Citations” up your arse.

  88. I’m waiting for you to say something worthy of a response, Eric.

    I’m talking about when I give you statements of simple fact. which you proceed to duck and evade. One such was my pointing out that Obama brought about a $787 billion stimulus right at the beginning of his term, which puts a lie to your notion that the 2009 deficit was mainly Bush’s fault. But I can see why you would choose to duck facts like that!

  89. “I’m talking about when I give you statements of simple fact. which you proceed to duck and evade. One such was my pointing out that Obama brought about a $787 billion stimulus right at the beginning of his term, which puts a lie to your notion that the 2009 deficit was mainly Bush’s fault. But I can see why you would choose to duck facts like that!”

    Eric, apparently you missed this statement in this reference as written at this link which I referenced:

    “Note that fiscal year 2009 is attributable to Bush, whereas in this chart the year 2009 fiscal stimulus is attributable to Obama, as is incorporated in the above chart.”

    You might want to read the entire link, focusing on the charts, because they tell the story derived from CBO facts.

Comments are closed.