PDA

View Full Version : Vicious right wing lies



ugotda7
05-26-2012, 12:03 AM
Lol.

You losers over here need a reality check.

http://cdn4.diggstatic.com/story/how_to_make_obama_s_spending_look_small/o.png

Qtec
05-26-2012, 03:14 AM
Way to go!


Posting a piece of RW propaganda that has already been debunked!

Q

ugotda7
05-26-2012, 11:07 AM
The irony of your post is just delicious.......thanks for that.

Soflasnapper
05-26-2012, 02:06 PM
Quoting myself on the other thread:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Your source wants to have it both ways.

Complain bitterly that W gets booked with the huge $20 billion extra that never got spent to make him look bad. This shows contempt for the reader, relying on the fact that in normal terms, $20 billion is a fairly large amount of money, so obviously, putting another $20 billion on his account skews the numbers badly. Really? Out of $3,520 billions, $20 billion is 0.568% one way or another, up or down, which is to say (in the proper context of the entire budget) a trivial rounding error of no actual consequence to the numbers except out on the 3rd/4th decimal place.

Then slide over to the attack on Obama's record, and then book his own PROPOSALS that did not materialize into spending and use that to say spending has indeed skyrocketed (when it didn't)? Neat trick, but the kind of accounting/statistical manipulation you appear to recognize sometimes occurs but don't notice here. (Or maybe you did, and you're in on the joke?)

Then tell people not to believe their own eyes, by stating that looking at the spending curve shows a very unwelcome picture for Obama? When the steep rise begins in the last part of the Bush term, momentum carries it further up for a brief period [although at a slightly lower slope, meaning the rate of increase was lower], only to then plateau to flat and then go downward? That's right-- downward.

This is bold propaganda, telling you something false that you can look at with your own eyes, and see the opposite is true? Wow! Did you notice that, in the curve that is reproduced?

Somehow, according to this guy, who is only 'correcting' (= lying about) the analysis, the clear fact which he reproduces that shows spending under Obama peaked further along the increasing spending line started under Bush (under obvious and understandable circumstances) and then went down, shows what a wild spender this guy was. And claim this graph just looks bad for the record of spending under Obama.

Interesting set of tricks, but considerably more slanted against the truth than what he complains about.

And there's another trick not mentioned. W put all the war spending supplemental appropriations all during his time in office into an off-budget category, as 'emergency' spending that doesn't get counted in 'the (stated) budget.' Obama put it IN the budget, so without spending any more money at all, it appears that he jacked up spending by that total, which was about $400 billion a year. Now, was that really NEW spending? Or the same spending, just properly accounted for in the budget?

How much larger than $20 billion is a $400 billion miscount? That would be 2,000% of the former figure.

How much is $400 billion as a percentage of $3,520 billion? 11.35%. OMG! Obama in one stroke 'raised (stated on-budget) spending' by 11.35%!!! What a profligate spendthrift!! Except of course, no extra spending was actually incurred in this one.

I love such 'corrections' as this guy provides that are so incredibly dishonest and aimed at the rubes who cannot think for themselves and rely on partisan spin to decide what to think.

Now, to be fair, it is absurd to call the still very large levels of spending 'the lowest in 60 years.' I agree that is wrong and misleading. That's an artifact of a misleading truncation in the headline, which should have read more accurately as 'the lowest rate of increase in 60 years.'</div></div>

ugotda7
05-26-2012, 02:35 PM
Another swing and a miss.

It's pretty simple when you strip away all of the nonsense - where did this extra 5 trillion of debt come from? Magic? It really isn't there? Bush's fault? What? Come on - quit being a shill and just say it. You can do that can't you? Well no, you can't can you.....and we all know that.

The really sad part is all of the absolute dumbasses we have in this country that eat up this retarded s**t, like the taste, and then ask for more because they're just too freakin's stupid to know better.

Soflasnapper
05-26-2012, 03:23 PM
I answered this question fully on the other thread, which please see, rather than duplicate the argument on both threads.

Short answer, however, is that the deficit is the measure of spending compared to revenues, and either (continued) higher spending OR (continued) reduced revenues both contribute to the deficit.

Rmoney is a smart MBA guy, venture (vulture) capitalist, and he knows this is true. He relies on the ignorance of his audience to suppose it is rather only what he says, which is that it must be a huge and sustained spending increase of an unprecedented size.

Was there new spending? Yes. About $140 billion in the stimulus attributable to FY'09. Was there new reduction in revenue? Yes, by the $400/$800 per person/couple tax reduction Obama asked for and got put into place. Both these factors pale into insignificance compared to the tripled military budget of the prior decade (still in effect), the Medicare D expenditures, the W tax rate cuts, and the lingering effects of the recession which predates Obama's term by more than a year.