About the idea that Obama’s spending has been tame
You’ve heard of lies, damned lies, and statistics? Well, here’s Exhibit A: a column at MarketWatch by Rex Nutting.
Nutting’s column, titled “Obama spending binge never happened,” has caused a lot of excitement among people who would like to believe it’s true. And the bottom-line numbers — which are as far as Nutting goes in his column — do show that total spending has risen more slowly between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2013 than you might have otherwise believed. Annual federal spending growth during President Obama’s first term, Nutting’s numbers show, has been 1.4 percent. That would be slower than in any of the seven previous terms, dating to the beginning of the Reagan years. Going out of his way to be even-handed, Nutting even graciously attributes Obama’s “stimulus” spending in FY09 to Obama rather than to George W. Bush, under whom that fiscal year began.
What a guy!
But what Nutting’s surface-level “analysis” fails to acknowledge — aside from the fact that he’s giving Obama full credit for a level of spending that won’t even begin for four more months, making it a completely unknowable quantity — is the vast amount of spending that was supposed to be temporary but instead has been baked into Uncle Sam’s cake. Accounting for the temporary-turned-permanent gives us a truer depiction of the Obama’s (sorry to say it!) spending binge.
Let’s start with the appropriations bills Obama signed for FY09 other than the stimulus. The two major ones were the $105.9 billion supplemental defense bill and the $2.9 billion “cash for clunkers” bill. So that’s $108.8 billion that ought to be put on Obama’s ledger rather than Bush’s.
Now let’s take a deeper look at the stimulus spending Nutting attributes to Obama in FY09. Nutting puts it at $140 billion. The next year’s budget, which included the FY09 spending, instead pegged it at $202 billion with an estimated $30 billion in FY13; subsequent budgets have not broken out the spending specific to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (probably because the ARRA has been so amazingly popular and successful). Nutting doesn’t tell us where he gets that $140 billion figure, and so, to avoid mixing numbers, I’m going to stick with the figures from the FY10 budget. That’s $172 billion in “temporary” spending that, under The Most Fiscally Responsible President Evah, should have disappeared.
That’s not all. Spending in FY09 also included $151 billion for the bank bailout, or TARP, and the FY13 budget puts the figure at $12 billion. That’s another net $139 billion in “temporary” spending that should have gone away. Add that to the $172 billion from the stimulus, and we’re talking about $311 billion.
Now, to be truly fair to Obama, let’s make comparisons without including the costs of Medicare, Social Security and net interest. These are big-ticket items that are growing quickly on automatic pilot, and they couldn’t have been changed without a long national debate. So, here’s what we have:
FY09 spending: $3,518 billion
Less Medicare, Social Security and net interest: $2,218 billion
Less “temporary” TARP and stimulus spending: $1,907 billion
Less Obama’s supplemental spending for defense, clunkers: $1,798 billion
The equivalent figure in Obama’s FY13 budget is $2,418 billion, which would represent an annualized growth rate of 7.7 percent. That’s five and a half times faster than the rate with which Nutting credited Obama. Once we adjust Bush’s record to account for the $108.8 billion in Obama’s supplemental FY09 spending outlined above, it places his spending as the second-fastest out of the last eight presidential terms rather than the slowest, as Nutting claimed. (The rankings are the same even if we adjust for inflation.)
Where did Obama want to stick this extra money? In International Affairs ($22 billion, or 59 percent, higher than FY09), Transportation ($30 billion, or 36 percent), Education ($42.2 billion, or 53 percent), Health (not counting Medicare, $51.5 billion, or 15 percent), Energy ($9.2 billion, or 193 percent), to name a few of the largest examples.
However, Nutting did not use Obama’s FY13 budget as a comparison. Perhaps that’s fair, given that the president’s budget was defeated 99-0 in the Senate recently. In any case, Nutting instead used the Congressional Budget Office’s projected baseline, and this really is the coup de grace for his argument.
The CBO’s projected baseline gives us an equivalent FY13 figure of $1,968 billion, which in turn gives us an annualized growth rate of 2.3 percent, which is actually OK by recent historical standards. But what is the CBO’s projected baseline? It is the agency’s estimate of what revenues and spending will be if current law is kept in place. That is, it tells us what happens if the president and Congress do nothing. For this lack of action, Nutting wants to give Obama credit.
But wait, there’s more! Even if we use the CBO projections, it is worth noting the enormous difference between Obama’s first two years, when Democrats had huge majorities in Congress, and his third and fourth years, during which Republicans have controlled the House. The annualized growth rate in the first two years was 7.7 percent; since then it’s minus-2.9 percent.
So, to conclude:
We are supposed to ignore Obama’s budget proposal, which showed his spending rising faster than what’s typical for the past 30 years, and instead give him credit for a) not going beyond the baked-in spending he set in motion early in his term and b) the gridlock that came to Washington after Republicans took over the House?
Seriously?
You will not find conservatives lauding the George W. Bush years as a model of fiscal restraint, because they weren’t. But it is just as laughable for Nutting and his fellow travelers to try to make such a claim for Obama.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
324 comments Add your comment
@@
May 24th, 2012
6:39 pm
So Obama buys on the lay-away plan?
I haven’t done this in a long time….but to those (Hello AmVet) who claim conservatives were silent while Bush spent beyond our means?
By Jim S
October 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this
Okay Louis, let’s look at things: Iraq and $10 Billion a month, probably not, I;d prefer the Iraqi government take on a larger share of the costs of our being there. +1 Democrat
Obama being the cause, partially, he was and is still involved with ACORN who, together with Carter, Clinton, Dodd, Franks and a few others rigged the system so that unqualified buyers could get mortgages. That they had no realistic way to pay the loan back was immaterial. +1 Republican
Bush and Republican controlled Congress, yes, but also remember 9/11 and the immediate recession the country went into. Interest rates were lowered, money came into the market and went right back out. Jobs were created and things were going fine. That said, Republicans also spent like drunken sailors while they were in control. Since then the Democrat controlled congress hasn’t exactly shown themselves to be any less frugal with OUR money. Call it a draw.
Another conservative responding to a liberal’s claim that it was the Iraq war that did the Republicans in in 2006.
By Anonymous
November 12, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
RB: Riiiight…. like it was reckless spending that got the Republicans trounced last November, and not the Iraq disaster. Suuure it was.
Keep thinkin’ that—and the Right will keep losing elections
By RB from Gwinnett
November 12, 2007 1:36 PM
Anonymous @ 10:51
You’re naive if you think everyone who doesn’t approve of the job Bush is doing feels that way for the same reason you do. In fact, that’s what is almost laughable about the continued rantings of the libs for his low approval ratings. It would be laughable if not for the sick nature of the comments from you libs. In light of that, it’s just not funny, it’s an ebarrasment to this nation.
Bush and the R led congress over the last 7 years have spent like drunken sailors and allowed the left to drag us closer to socialism without putting up any resistance. That’s one of the reasons you’re hearing talk of there being a split in the party and a 3rd candidate emerging. If you want to bash Bush for that and the wide open southern border, I’m with you. He’s been a big dissapointment in those areas. In fact, he’s acting too dang much like a democrat for most of the R party.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why you libs can’t see that socialism is a failure everywhere it occurs, yet you continue to drive us headlong into it.
Neglected to include the individual links. Feel free to find them within an assortment.
http://www.google.com/search?q=ajc%2Bluckovich%2Brw%2Bdrunken+sailor&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=
A lot of us were complaining. RW, and yes…even Andy.
In 2006, the house went to the Democrats. Bush was hobbled. It was the spending what done ‘em in.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
May 24th, 2012
6:39 pm
Although Obama has been president for more than three years, 56% of Americans continue to blame former President George W. Bush and the Republicans for the country’s current economic problems, with only 29% blaming Obama and the Democrats
President? He’s a whiny,lazy, golfing playboy that has produced virtually nothing to hang his hat on but blame others. He’s adept at campaigning however. You can take your poll numbers, put them in your glass pipe and smoke it, because everyday people who are not african american think this guy is a buffoon.
Martin Williams
May 24th, 2012
6:40 pm
True that Regan and George W Bush spent more that Clinton/Obama. But Regan and Clinton raised taxes to offset the spending. Today, the GOP idiots want to spend more money in all these wars plus a tax break. Then the Tea Party fools always talk about cut spending.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
6:51 pm
Martin Williams, the truth is that while both raised taxes, neither generated revenue enough to offset the spending (in Reagan’s case he had other tax cuts to go along with the small raise in taxes). Their terms were in two different eras and had two different reasons for their economic and fiscal policies.
In Reagan’s case, he needed spending to go up bankrupt the last remaining enemy who could destroy s with the push of a button. While it didn’t happen on his watch, his policies killed the Soviet Union and made this whole world safer. In order to accomplish that, Tip O’Neill extracted increased spending on social programs which raised spending even higher. Revenues also increased but it was more attributed to a robust economy than it was tax hikes.
In Clinton’s case, he was forced to spend less due to a Republican Congress that fought him on most spending issues. H e was also the beneficiary of an expanding economy that increased revenues, even if that economy was fueled by an artificial dot-com bubble and not due to any particular fiscal policy.
Apples and Oranges
May 24th, 2012
6:54 pm
I see Thulsa has engaged in the false equivalency he is famous for, if we are going to throw out a conservative’s view, then let’s toss a liberals…..make that two liberals. On a discussion related to the budget and economics he equates the irrelevance of referencing a satirical polemic like Ann Coulter who has degrees in History and Law with that of referencing Paul Krugman, who has an economics degree from Yale, and a PHD in economics from MIT, has worked in the Reagan white house, with foreign Central banks and has taught at London School of Economics, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton. Oh, and he won one of those Nobel prize thingies that I am sure you will try and discount, but before you do, Milton Friedman and Fredrich August Von Heyek also won the same award.
Cal
May 24th, 2012
6:55 pm
Reagan agreed to a compromise which included raising taxes in exchange for the democrats reducing some spending. In typical democrat style, the taxes were implemented, but the spending cuts never materialized. The truth is in the congressional record, should you care to do the research.
When Reagan took office in 1980, there were 16 tax brackets ranging from 0% ($3,400 or less) to 70% ($215,400). When Reagan left office in 1988 there were 2 brackets: 15% (income up to $29,750) and 28% for income over $29,750). Coincidentally, revenues increased from $517.1 billion to $909.2 billion. Sadly, the democrat controlled congress spent at an even faster rate (from a -$73.8 billion dollar deficit in 1980 to -$221.2 billion dollar deficit in 1986).
Facts really are stubborn things.
md
May 24th, 2012
6:59 pm
““Conservative” registered independents are typically former Republicans with slightly more shame than the the still Republican registered “conservatives”.”
Gotta link?
I’ve been on this planet for awhile now, and “typical” is a matter of perspective……hate to say it now, but I even voted for Clinton…..
Apples and Oranges
May 24th, 2012
7:03 pm
Cal, let me get this straight, with Reagan, it was the Democratically controlled Congress that increased spending, with Obama, it is not the current GOP controlled Congress that is to blame for the continued high spending, but it lies with the President?
Who gets the blame with Bush and the GOP congress from 2000-2006?
md
May 24th, 2012
7:08 pm
“Nobel prize thingies that I am sure you will try and discount, but before you do, Milton Friedman and Fredrich August Von Heyek also won the same award.”
Actually, Nobel discounted it themselves when they gave one to Obama for doing next to nothing…..the meaning of “extraordinary” changed forever…….
RGB
May 24th, 2012
7:25 pm
Apples and Oranges,
So your point is….deficits are good and helpful…..or destructive and country-ending?
Do you not understand that the USA is the new Greece?
Ronald Reagan is dead. George Bush is out of office.
The spending is real. Obama had both houses of Congress for 3 years. He OWNS the economy, the deficit, the debt, the (undereported unemployment rate), the foreclosure of millions of homes, the destruction of our health care system, and a sad and hopeless retirement for millions of Americans.
Obama’s deficits are unpatriotic! He said he would halve them in his first term.
Perhaps you like, embrace, encourage, and defend that.
Real Americans do not.
Apples and Oranges
May 24th, 2012
7:33 pm
RGB,
I hate deficits and have been complaining about them since 2001 when we squandered our surplus. I absolutely believe that we have to address the deficit and then ultimately the debt. I was just sorry that so many conservatives did not share my concern until 2009. Where we likely disagree is how we approach this. I personally believe it must come from a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. It must also be done in a manner to not endanger today’s fragile economy as revenue growth is the most important element to bringing our fiscal house in order.
Read Simon Johnson’s recent book White House Burning on the subject, it is very informative and even handed view of the subject.
Oduma & Dumber Company
May 24th, 2012
7:37 pm
Who has spent five trillion dollars in less than four years as President to lose millions of jobs?
What political party hasALL OF AMERICA’S WARS to their credit, precluding only one, during the entire last century?
Now Marxist Fascist Socialist Democrats, what were you saying about, Tea Party people, about Reagan, or Bush?
You lousy liars are living proof of why Comrade Vladimir Lenin wouldn’t have wasted his time to call any of you idiots, useful!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 24th, 2012
7:40 pm
Hee hee! Kyle has cleverly disguised a moron test as a legitimate post.
The Obozo receptacles all failed.
Apples and Oranges
May 24th, 2012
7:40 pm
To be clear revenue growth will clearly increase tremendously with an improved economy, just like expenses for safety net programs will decline. The current president may get some blame for not improving the economy fast enough, but should not be blamed for causing the recession, nor passing laws that increased the safety net that was in place when he took office other than a few extensions of the unemployment tax that is a fraction of today’s deficit.
md
May 24th, 2012
7:40 pm
“In mostly party-line roll calls, senators voted 62-34 against the GOP package and 51-43 for the Democratic version, with each falling short of the 60 votes needed for approval. Though both defeats were preordained, the twin votes gave lawmakers from each party a chance to show they favor easing students’ financial burdens — and potential grist for campaign ads accusing the other side of opposing the effort.
The Senate planned to leave town later Thursday for a Memorial Day recess running through next week.”
And the misfits do it again……with that last sentence taking precedent over the rest.
Thulsa Doom
May 24th, 2012
7:41 pm
Oh noes! Apples and oranges with the false equivalence card. As for Krugman his Nobel piece on economics was a fine piece indeed according to some folks. Kinda funny that he was awarded the economic prize in 2008 for work done so many years earlier. No politics there huh? Reminds me a lot of NObama’s Nobel peace prize.
Apples and Oranges
May 24th, 2012
7:42 pm
I am out, I see that the blissfully ignorant have arrived on the board.
Thulsa Doom
May 24th, 2012
7:44 pm
“The current president may get some blame for not improving the economy fast enough, but should not be blamed for causing the recession”
I hope you’re not talking about the 07 recession under W. Good God sir who the hell would blame O for a recession that started 2 years before he took office. Geez.
The Pathology of a Liar « Katz Porch
May 24th, 2012
7:55 pm
[...] http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012/05/24/about-the-idea-that-obamas-spending-has-been-tame/ [...]
Cal
May 24th, 2012
7:59 pm
Apples and Oranges @ 7:03:
Cal, let me get this straight, with Reagan, it was the Democratically controlled Congress that increased spending, with Obama, it is not the current GOP controlled Congress that is to blame for the continued high spending, but it lies with the President?
Did you even read Kyle’s column?
………..it is worth noting the enormous difference between Obama’s first two years, when Democrats had huge majorities in Congress, and his third and fourth years, during which Republicans have controlled the House. The annualized growth rate in the first two years was 7.7 percent; since then it’s minus-2.9 percent.
Who gets the blame with Bush and the GOP congress from 2000-2006?
The GOP did. It’s why they lost the house.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
7:59 pm
Apples and Oranges, technically, we haven’t had a surplus in decades, and certainly not one during Clinton’s years as has been touted by many liberals (and some conservatives giving credit to a GOP Congress).
That so-called surplus was nothing but smoke and mirrors accounting tricks. While the deficit was reduced significantly through the efforts of Congress more than Clinton (but both contributed), there was never any surplus.
Oduma & Dumber Company
May 24th, 2012
8:01 pm
And who would blame W for a housing bubble that started nearly a decade before he took office that truly brought on this recession?
Perhaps the same socialist excuse makers that defend lil barry oblamer and demand that people who can’t afford to make a down payment on a pup-tent be given a half million dollar house to call their home on what amounts to a LIAR’S LOAN because it is fair or it serves Social Justice?
Blame Bush all you want Marxist Democrats but you anti-constitutional creeps are just as guilty and probably more so than any Republican you can drag up.
The difference between Kyle and the rest of the honest conservatives is that we can admit to our fiscal mistakes, like W. but you lairs never will.
Terrence
May 24th, 2012
8:10 pm
I hate deficits and have been complaining about them since 2001 when we squandered our surplus.
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year, which it did under Clinton.
There was no surplus.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
8:14 pm
Regardless of who actually caused the Great Recession (it wasn’t Bush nor his policies), the American people do blame him, and as a result blame the GOP. This makes it a harder hill to climb for Mitt Romney.
Fortunately, this current President has been so unspectacular in accomplishing anything of substance as far as turning the economy around that he’s given a party largely blamed for the last fiasco a fighting chance to take back the White House in just 4 interminably long years.
Hopefully the American electorate can separate the nonsense from the liberal media and do some thinking before casting their vote in 2012. They sure goofed in 2008.
@@
May 24th, 2012
8:17 pm
Who butters Nutter’s bread?
Who holds Nutter’s nuts?
Rex Nutting up for Obama.
schnirt
Today’s Rebellion News – May 24th 2012 | Rebellion News
May 24th, 2012
8:20 pm
[...] About the idea that Obama’s spending has been tame [...]
@@
May 24th, 2012
8:24 pm
Romney acknowledges Bush’s debt.
Mitt Romney Attacks Obama for Failing to Cut Debt Amassed Under Bush
Romney, speaking the day after Bush made an impromptu endorsement of him as he boarded an elevator at an event in Washington, said that while Republicans and Democrats share blame for running up deficits, Obama has made the problem worse.
“It sure is true that you can’t blame one party or the other for all the debts that this country has, because both parties, in my opinion, spent too much and borrowed too much when they were in power,”–Washington Post
MarkV
May 24th, 2012
8:25 pm
Quite a funny blog today. First Kyle recalls the dictum that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, and follows that by using — (lies, damned lies, and) statistics. And after all the juggling of numbers, all he can come up with in his (disputed) use of lies, damned lies, and statistics is that Obama may be close to some other big spenders – this after all that Republican yelling and outrage about Obama being far away the biggest spender of all times. Real funny.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
8:45 pm
MaryV, you really need to read Kyle’s articles more closely. More importantly, you really need to understand what is being written and focus on the actual topic.
There is no doubt that Obama is the biggest spender of all time – his deficits have added nearly $5 trillion in debt to the nation in less than 4 years. That is almost 1/3rd of this nations entire debt total.
The crux of the article was pointing out inconsistencies in Nutting’s figures, and showing that Obama’s increases in spending were not as small as Nutting claimed them to be. As usual, the libs on this blog attempted to deflect from the issue by continuously pointing out the spending increases of Republican Presidents, but that was not the focus of the article. The focus was, and remains, that Obama’s increases in spending are not as small as Nutting alleges.
Please pay better attention next time, MaryV, so that I don’t have to bully you by debunking more of your nonsense.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
9:10 pm
And let’s be honest here. Nutting was trying to make the case that Obama has been downright frugal in his spending using only percentage of increase as a metric – NOT the totality of his spending.
Nutting’s premise was false from the start. Another failed attempt to prop up this disaster of a President during a tough election campaign with more lies.
md
May 24th, 2012
9:22 pm
I bet the other presidents would look pretty frugal too if one were to leave out an entire year………
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
9:34 pm
md @ 9:22:
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 24th, 2012
9:35 pm
Well, another effective shutdown of the illogical liberal noise machine.
I’m off to an early bedtime.
You libs
May 24th, 2012
9:38 pm
These graphs that represent the figures of the Congressional Budget Office are just as phony as that bogus long-form Hawaii birth certificate that was recently provided and all of the testimony of the bogus commission that Abraham Lincoln signed into law known as the National Academy of Sciences with respect to that mother of all hoaxes, global warming.
Hey, we’re not stupid, you know?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-truth-about-the-presi_1_b_1540698.html
Dusty
May 24th, 2012
9:43 pm
Nutting! I don’t believe nutting he says!
I already knew and everybody I know is quite aware that the US has a huge deficit and it has gotten larger under Presdient Obama. No matter who, where or what, Obama has been in charge for almost four years and he cannot escape the responsibility of increased indebtedness.
It’s his baby now and he has done little or nutting about it. Increasing that debt is downright nutty.
Hillbilly D
May 24th, 2012
9:57 pm
Only one President ever paid off the national debt, Andrew Jackson.
Dusty
May 24th, 2012
10:00 pm
AWWWWW
The Braves lost again 6-3. Looks like I will have to go tell them that they are supposed to HIT the ball. Yuu know. With the bat! Over the fence! Outta the field! 400 feet!
And for goodness sake, take your vitamins! They’ve got more aches and pains than my ol’ granny, bless her heart!
But I love ‘em. Go BRAVES!!
Dusty
May 24th, 2012
10:03 pm
Hillbilly D 9:57
What was the national debt then? $3.50 ?
hryder
May 24th, 2012
10:08 pm
Lots of someones are much less than honest, from my point of view the supporters of Obama being the least honest. The reasons being ignorance, stupidity, or blatant racism resulting in saying any and every thing in attempting to buy votes to enable the entertainer in chief to remain in the Oval Office. When repeated often enough the purveyors of untruths actually believe what they have been spewing is the truth. VOTE OUT OF OFFICE ALL INCUMBENTS, ESPECIALLY THE BIG O, IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS AND IMPEACH THE NEW INS WHEN THE FIRST VERIFIABLE LIE COMES FROM THEIR MOUTH IN PUBLIC!
Hillbilly D
May 24th, 2012
10:18 pm
Dusty
It was about $58 million, when he took office.
Dusty
May 24th, 2012
10:29 pm
Wow Hillbilly! Andrew Jackson did more than I thought he did. That’s a tidy sum,’ specially in those days. Wonder how he did it?
Shhh… better not mention a president that paid off the national debt. Some Democrat here will say that is what Obama is going to do. Oh yes!! Uh huh..
Dusty
May 24th, 2012
10:40 pm
Hillbilly D
I forgot to tell you that I planted the tomato plants yesterday. They were getting a bit spindly. I tried to put in a lot of things you said to pep ‘em up. Anyway, they were trying to stand straight today. But I need to put more dirt around them. Maybe I’ll have a big crop…..by Thanksgiving.
I’m trying for optimism but I never have much luck.
G’nite…
MarkV
May 24th, 2012
10:43 pm
Tiberius @8:45 pm
When I need your advice, I will ask for it. But don’t hold your breath.
Jm
May 24th, 2012
11:33 pm
Good column Kyle
The fantasy that Obama has fiscal restraint is…… Wait for it…. A fantasy
Progressive Humanist
May 24th, 2012
11:51 pm
Sure- Kyle, the guy with a BA in journalism, has magically transformed himself into an economic policy wonk. That’s credible. Except it’s not and neither is his “analysis”. But it’s what the right wing nutjobs want to hear.
DAVETV
May 25th, 2012
1:51 am
I’ve been on the Obama frugal diet for a couple months now and it really seems to be working. I’ve gained 12 pounds but without the diet I would have gained 11.
LIVE AT FIVE – 05.25.12 : The Other McCain
May 25th, 2012
5:27 am
[...] Brawls Over Language Bill US To Vet Free Syrian Army, May Begin Arms Transfers BLOGS & STUFF Kyle Wingfield: About That Idea That Obama’s Spending Has Been Tame… Jim Pethokoukis: The Stunning Chart That Shows Obama’s Spending Binge Really Happened Power [...]
Samantha
May 25th, 2012
7:27 am
If all Bookman does is cut and paste the latest talking points from Rachel Maddow or other loon, why does the AJC pay him?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
May 25th, 2012
7:36 am
“I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back,” Mr. Ross wrote in March 2010. “According to my professor friend, [Obozo] had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. … The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified,”
He still has the “lowest intellectual capacity in the building,” even when he’s at a bus stop.
tiredofIT
May 25th, 2012
7:43 am
“The fantasy that Obama has fiscal restraint is” and the financial collapse under Bush the fall of 2008 never happened. 750,000 in jobs losses per month. Yes, republicans have all the answers.