Aa
CNN Fails to Refute Bogus Numbers Claiming 'Obama Spending Binge Never Happened'
CNN failed to correct bogus numbers claiming that the growth rate of spending under President Obama is the lowest since Eisenhower. Instead, host Erin Burnett reported the news as something positive for the White House.
While most anyone with common sense would label Obama a big spender, the MarketWatch report– re-circulated by the White House – absurdly claims Obama's "spending binge never happened." And CNN did not discount that argument although they twice reported on it.
Host Anderson Cooper, who runs critical "Keeping Them Honest" reports daily, missed the story entirely. Cooper said just the other night that the slogan "Keeping Them Honest" is "not just a catchphrase" but "our calling," but a take-down of the numbers was nowhere to be found on his Thursday night show.
Burnett, to her credit, provided some context in reporting that "spending under Obama as a percent of GDP is higher than most of the past 60 years" but still admitted that "one thing to take away from this is the President's story on this is much better than a lot of the American people give him credit for. I just don't understand why he wouldn't make more of a stink about it."
The report credits President Bush with the 2009 jump in federal spending, after which the growth rate slowed to a crawl under Obama. "Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower," the report says, noting that spending is rising at a 1.4 percent annual pace under Obama.
Although fact-checking outfit PolitiFact was asleep at the wheel, even the Washington Post gave the MarketWatch report three Pinocchios. "The data in the article are flawed," argues the Post's Glenn Kessler, "and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House."
And this Investor's Business Daily piece offers another smack-down of the numbers. The editorial argues that since TARP was a loan but was included in the budget outlays, and since much of the bailout money for Fannie and Freddie was spent in 2009, spending under Bush was "exaggerated" when the TARP money was loaned out and Obama's spending hikes were blurred when the loans were paid back and the bailouts subsided.
"[W]hen you fix Nutting's mistakes, it turns out that Obama jacked up spending 12 percent in 2010, IBD argues
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/25/cnn-fails-refute-bogus-numbers-claiming-obama-spending-binge-never-happe
While most anyone with common sense would label Obama a big spender, the MarketWatch report– re-circulated by the White House – absurdly claims Obama's "spending binge never happened." And CNN did not discount that argument although they twice reported on it.
Host Anderson Cooper, who runs critical "Keeping Them Honest" reports daily, missed the story entirely. Cooper said just the other night that the slogan "Keeping Them Honest" is "not just a catchphrase" but "our calling," but a take-down of the numbers was nowhere to be found on his Thursday night show.
Burnett, to her credit, provided some context in reporting that "spending under Obama as a percent of GDP is higher than most of the past 60 years" but still admitted that "one thing to take away from this is the President's story on this is much better than a lot of the American people give him credit for. I just don't understand why he wouldn't make more of a stink about it."
The report credits President Bush with the 2009 jump in federal spending, after which the growth rate slowed to a crawl under Obama. "Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower," the report says, noting that spending is rising at a 1.4 percent annual pace under Obama.
Although fact-checking outfit PolitiFact was asleep at the wheel, even the Washington Post gave the MarketWatch report three Pinocchios. "The data in the article are flawed," argues the Post's Glenn Kessler, "and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House."
And this Investor's Business Daily piece offers another smack-down of the numbers. The editorial argues that since TARP was a loan but was included in the budget outlays, and since much of the bailout money for Fannie and Freddie was spent in 2009, spending under Bush was "exaggerated" when the TARP money was loaned out and Obama's spending hikes were blurred when the loans were paid back and the bailouts subsided.
"[W]hen you fix Nutting's mistakes, it turns out that Obama jacked up spending 12 percent in 2010, IBD argues
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/25/cnn-fails-refute-bogus-numbers-claiming-obama-spending-binge-never-happe
Yes, remedial math also.
Remedial math classes for that matter as well.
A remedial reading class can sometimes do a world of good.
If blogs are now fair game, and to be cited as fact... BLAM!
http://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-is-a-martian/
I've actually thought this for some time now. Makes sense to me. He wasn't born in Africa, or Indonesia, or Hawaii...
He was born on MARS!!!
http://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-is-a-martian/
I've actually thought this for some time now. Makes sense to me. He wasn't born in Africa, or Indonesia, or Hawaii...
He was born on MARS!!!
It's fair to say that the democrats are guilty as well....
Nursegirl, thanks for making an effort to contribute to the conversation with information.
One more thing, if we're going to discredit "blogs", which are essentially opinion pieces, in fairness, you'd have to discredit the Nutting Report as well, as Rex Nutting writes commentary, or opinion pieces. His "report" was an opinion piece. Just as we would argue about polls and the analysis behind them...you could do the same thing with Nutting's piece.
I don't discount for a minute that the republicans have exxgerated the facts, and twisted them to use them in their favor when it comes to spending.
The same premise exists here, was the only point I was ever trying to make...and all I aked were for people to do their own homework and look at the figures themselves. In the interest of debate and conversation, I think that's a fair request.
I don't discount for a minute that the republicans have exxgerated the facts, and twisted them to use them in their favor when it comes to spending.
The same premise exists here, was the only point I was ever trying to make...and all I aked were for people to do their own homework and look at the figures themselves. In the interest of debate and conversation, I think that's a fair request.
You're right, neither side presents reliable information.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
(I'm only posting the "Update" portion....the first part of the article was an explanation of the Nutting report and the resulting facebook post that went viral...which is where all of this started, btw.)
UPDATE, May 31, 2012
While we have already shared some of the critiques of this fact-check in a previous follow-up story, critics have since noted that two of our fellow fact checkers -- the Washington Post Fact Checker and the Associated Press -- offered more negative rulings on related claims.
The Fact Checker addressed the apparent discrepancy succinctly in a follow-up column, saying "we did not evaluate the same thing."
There’s a widespread misconception that we gave a Mostly True rating to Rex Nutting’s MarketWatch column. After our original fact-check published, White House spokesman Jay Carney tweeted, "PolitiFact backs MarketWatch analysis of federal spending under POTUS & predecessors." Many conservative bloggers read our fact-check the same way, as they attacked us.
The assumption made by both sides is wrong. We examined at a Facebook post that said Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." The Facebook post does rely partly on Nutting’s work, and our item addresses that, but we did not simply give our seal of approval to everything Nutting wrote. In fact, half of the Facebook post stems from something else entirely -- a claim on Mitt Romney’s website.
Using and slightly tweaking Nutting’s methodology, we recalculated spending increases under each president back to Dwight Eisenhower and produced tables ranking the presidents from highest spenders to lowest spenders. By contrast, both the Fact Checker and the AP zeroed in on one narrower (and admittedly crucial) data point -- how to divide the responsibility between George W. Bush and Obama for the spending that occurred in fiscal year 2009, when spending rose fastest.
How you divide the spending between Bush and Obama for fiscal 2009 only makes a difference to our ruling if the shifts move Obama significantly up or down our rankings. Do they?
Nutting attributed spending from the first year of every presidential term to the previous administration, arguing that every new president starts their term four months into a fiscal year begun under their predecessor. Historically, this has not been a particularly controversial approach, and even some of Nutting’s critics we spoke to agreed that it’s not a bad rule of thumb.
But fiscal year 2009 was special because it came amid an economic and financial free fall that drove the nation’s leaders to spend a lot more than they ordinarily would. Nutting did take these factors into account, but not to the extent that some critics think is needed. Nutting shifted $140 billion in fiscal 2009 spending from two of Obama’s signature programs -- the economic stimulus package and an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program -- out of Bush’s column and into Obama’s. He also shifted excess spending beyond what Bush would have spent from the appropriations bills signed by Obama in 2009.
A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.
That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.
When we encounter a compound claim such as this one, we consider the accuracy of each part separately. During our internal discussions, we give a preliminary rating to each half of a claim, then average them to produce our final, published rating.
Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.
Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True.
Please not that also the Associated Press and the Washington Post (the link I already posted) both took issues with the numbers. The Factcheck.org link I posted on the first thread outlines the AP's issues with the report.
The truth is somewhere in the middle...I agree completely, and quite frankly, that was the point I was trying to make all along, from the last thread to this one....that the ENTIRE claim posted in Nutting's report was not completely accurate, or fairly portrayed. It was used as a campaign talking point...the WH and Obama's campaign ran with it as a way to counteract Romney doing the same thing...taking liberty with figures to exaggerate Obama's spending. This did the same thing in reverse.
(I'm only posting the "Update" portion....the first part of the article was an explanation of the Nutting report and the resulting facebook post that went viral...which is where all of this started, btw.)
UPDATE, May 31, 2012
While we have already shared some of the critiques of this fact-check in a previous follow-up story, critics have since noted that two of our fellow fact checkers -- the Washington Post Fact Checker and the Associated Press -- offered more negative rulings on related claims.
The Fact Checker addressed the apparent discrepancy succinctly in a follow-up column, saying "we did not evaluate the same thing."
There’s a widespread misconception that we gave a Mostly True rating to Rex Nutting’s MarketWatch column. After our original fact-check published, White House spokesman Jay Carney tweeted, "PolitiFact backs MarketWatch analysis of federal spending under POTUS & predecessors." Many conservative bloggers read our fact-check the same way, as they attacked us.
The assumption made by both sides is wrong. We examined at a Facebook post that said Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." The Facebook post does rely partly on Nutting’s work, and our item addresses that, but we did not simply give our seal of approval to everything Nutting wrote. In fact, half of the Facebook post stems from something else entirely -- a claim on Mitt Romney’s website.
Using and slightly tweaking Nutting’s methodology, we recalculated spending increases under each president back to Dwight Eisenhower and produced tables ranking the presidents from highest spenders to lowest spenders. By contrast, both the Fact Checker and the AP zeroed in on one narrower (and admittedly crucial) data point -- how to divide the responsibility between George W. Bush and Obama for the spending that occurred in fiscal year 2009, when spending rose fastest.
How you divide the spending between Bush and Obama for fiscal 2009 only makes a difference to our ruling if the shifts move Obama significantly up or down our rankings. Do they?
Nutting attributed spending from the first year of every presidential term to the previous administration, arguing that every new president starts their term four months into a fiscal year begun under their predecessor. Historically, this has not been a particularly controversial approach, and even some of Nutting’s critics we spoke to agreed that it’s not a bad rule of thumb.
But fiscal year 2009 was special because it came amid an economic and financial free fall that drove the nation’s leaders to spend a lot more than they ordinarily would. Nutting did take these factors into account, but not to the extent that some critics think is needed. Nutting shifted $140 billion in fiscal 2009 spending from two of Obama’s signature programs -- the economic stimulus package and an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program -- out of Bush’s column and into Obama’s. He also shifted excess spending beyond what Bush would have spent from the appropriations bills signed by Obama in 2009.
A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.
That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.
When we encounter a compound claim such as this one, we consider the accuracy of each part separately. During our internal discussions, we give a preliminary rating to each half of a claim, then average them to produce our final, published rating.
Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.
Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True.
Please not that also the Associated Press and the Washington Post (the link I already posted) both took issues with the numbers. The Factcheck.org link I posted on the first thread outlines the AP's issues with the report.
The truth is somewhere in the middle...I agree completely, and quite frankly, that was the point I was trying to make all along, from the last thread to this one....that the ENTIRE claim posted in Nutting's report was not completely accurate, or fairly portrayed. It was used as a campaign talking point...the WH and Obama's campaign ran with it as a way to counteract Romney doing the same thing...taking liberty with figures to exaggerate Obama's spending. This did the same thing in reverse.
No, blogs are blogs and I don't think either side present reliable information, not as source material anyway.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the clarification.
I didn't say you did use left wing blogs. You're quick to discredit right wing blogs as providing fact, so I am assuming that you feel left wing blogs provide the facts because you didn't mention them. No big deal....
I don't use any blogs..I do occasionally read them but would never knowingly post one as a source.
Left wing blogs are a viable then? Got it....
These exposed half truths are those culled from the so-called sources that are actually right wing blogs.
"I believe that is a reference to 'half truths being the most dangerous lies Thanks Teko"
Shouldn't I be the one getting thanked? I'm the one that exposed The Half Truth. LOL
Shouldn't I be the one getting thanked? I'm the one that exposed The Half Truth. LOL
So you see, you are all right on one point or the other, at one time or another.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that is a reference to 'half truths being the most dangerous lies'.
Thanks Teko.
I don't get your point teko to be honest with your last post.
“Excuse us but we do not write the Articles...Its News and FACTS....We just post FACTS...”
I know you're interested in seeing both sides, and getting to the bottom of things
And yes, You've got issues and you need to go iron them out!
So you see, you are all right on one point or the other, at one time or another.
Really quite a shame and very childish.
Just call me miss agreeable this morning.
I know you're interested in seeing both sides, and getting to the bottom of things
And yes, You've got issues and you need to go iron them out!
So you see, you are all right on one point or the other, at one time or another.
Really quite a shame and very childish.
Just call me miss agreeable this morning.
The above posted article is a BLOG. Hello? Is a blog not someones opinion?
noun-A Web site on which an individual or group of users record opinions, information, etc. on a regular basis.
freedomworks.org? REALLY?
“one of the masterminds” of Tea Party politics
hotair.org
a major conservative blog, key word being blog
http://www.aei-ideas.org
The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute
Washington post
Highlights both conservative and liberal bloggers
The link is a cover page to the website, but not the article referenced. Who? wrote this?
So the only reputable source would be factcheck.org.
http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=D3522D2A-A37E-11E1-827E-002128049AD6 The marketwatch article being talked about.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
for the latest on this subject.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle,
noun-A Web site on which an individual or group of users record opinions, information, etc. on a regular basis.
freedomworks.org? REALLY?
“one of the masterminds” of Tea Party politics
hotair.org
a major conservative blog, key word being blog
http://www.aei-ideas.org
The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute
Washington post
Highlights both conservative and liberal bloggers
The link is a cover page to the website, but not the article referenced. Who? wrote this?
So the only reputable source would be factcheck.org.
http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=D3522D2A-A37E-11E1-827E-002128049AD6 The marketwatch article being talked about.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
for the latest on this subject.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle,
"Both of these are completely true. Both are factual.
So my suggestion is that when this happens that everyone read the links provided in their entirity and then comment afterward."
Apart from Mrs. P, SM is the only one who has not appeared to be bitter, vindictive and simple.
I will take your advice now SM and read through all the literature. I do appreciate your level headedness through all this slime.
SO STOP TRYING SO HARD........ .
BEST thing you ever posted. Very wise indeed.
Get over yourself......
LOL, if you say so.
Thanks SM.
BEST thing you ever posted. Very wise indeed.
Get over yourself......
LOL, if you say so.
Thanks SM.
NG you learned a good lesson today, never try...ha ha.
NG, you are a good egg and never forget that. I never will.
"As for my status, it has NOTHING to do with YOU....
Please do not insult my intelligence, okay? I mean, really."
Get over yourself......
"My issue is, I keep trying so hard...for some reason...only to have it blow up in my face."
SO STOP TRYING SO HARD........
Please do not insult my intelligence, okay? I mean, really."
Get over yourself......
"My issue is, I keep trying so hard...for some reason...only to have it blow up in my face."
SO STOP TRYING SO HARD........
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
