A Large Obama Lie - We've been Bamboozled!

Obama: 'Since I’ve Been President, Federal Spending Has Risen at Lowest Pace in Nearly 60 Years’

We've been Bamboozled! And with a straight face. Exactly opposite of what was stated. Don't forget the new Pentagon budget of 642 BILLION! It's a costly burden to be the military for the NWO.

Assuming the White House estimates for spending as percentage of GDP for this fiscal year and next fiscal year prove correct, federal spending during the four fiscal years that started during the Obama presidency will average 23.95 percent of GDP. After fiscal 1946 and before 2009, there was not a single fiscal year in which federal spending went that high. On average, no other post-World War II president spent money at the rate Obama is spending money.

LINK

On the first day of fiscal 2009--which was Oct. 1, 2008--then-Sen. Obama voted for the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. On Feb. 17 2009, after he became president and while his party controlled both houses of Congress, Obama signed a stimulus bill that the Congressional Budget Office has determined had a 10-year price tag of $831-billion.

He voted for it as congressman, then he signed it into law a president. He owns it.

The lies are so amazingly blatent these days, it really astounds me. On the bright side (I always like to find one of those), it is getting easier to get people to wake up to the truth. We used to have to go into long and usually rather complicated arguments in our attempts to make our less-informed acquaintances see how they're being lied to, but now the contradictions are so obvious that they can be shown in under a minute, even to people with short attention spans.

This justifys the presidents statement

www.marketwatch.com...

Here's the source of the statement -

www.politifact.com...

Basically congress controls spending. They vote to spend the money, Boehner then uses the debt ceiling as a political tool to kill the country.

Obama has flattened spending because they are topping out to the MAX !!

Not because they are "thrifty" or not "binging" !!

Notice the wider gaps (deficits) and big jumps in spending (outlays are spending) starting in 2009
(Obama and 111th & 112th Congresses)

Somebody should do a percentage of Receipts/Outlays chart.


Year ----- Receipts ------ Outlays ----- Surplus or -Deficit

2006 ......2,406,869 .......2,655,050 ...-248,181

2007 ......2,567,985 .......2,728,686 ...-160,701

2008 ......2,523,991 .......2,982,544 ...-458,553

 

2009 ......2,104,989 .......3,517,677 ...-1,412,688

2010 ......2,162,724 .......3,456,213 ...-1,293,489

2011 ......2,173,700 .......3,818,819 ...-1,645,119

2012 ......2,627,449 .......3,728,686 ...-1,101,237

(numbers in millions)
(2011 and 2012 are estimates)


Vote Obama !!!
Vote Thrift !!!

(see pages 23 & 24 in the pdf)
-->from the White House


[url=http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_2002_2012USr_12s1li111mcn_F0f]Total Federal Spending Tick Tick Tick

The Washington Post disagrees and rebuts:

The Facts

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, 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.

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama

The Pinocchio Test

Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.

The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used.

This is a MAJOR Obama Blunder !!