White House Says Obama Has Demonstrated ‘Fiscal Restraint’ – But Is That Really True? Nope…
- Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:51pm by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
While defending President Obama’s fiscal record last week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters to not “buy into the B.S.” about his boss being a big spender.
The president “has demonstrated significant fiscal restraint,” Carney said.
The Press Secretary went on to cite a recent MarketWatch report titled “Obama Spending Binge Never Happened” by Rex Nutting.
Quoting Nutting’s story, Carney said: “Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.”
“I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to ‘check it out,’” Carney told the press pool.
Even President Obama himself, perhaps emboldened by Nutting’s story, told a crowd last Thursday: “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has actually risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.”
Nutting’s point, according to Bloomberg, is a “fact not often noted in the press and certainly never mentioned by the Republicans.”
There may be a reason Nutting’s thesis (i.e. that the Obama spending binge never happened) hasn’t been reported by the press or Republicans: it simply isn’t true. There has been a spending binge.
How wrong is Nutting’s report? Let’s start with this piece from him:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree…Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending…Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. 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.
James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute challenges Nutting on this point.
“Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009 — when spending surged nearly 20% — to George W. Bush,” Pethokoukis writes.
He quotes Nutting:
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,” Pethokoukis counters, “‘Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.’”
Image courtesy Nutting’s MarketWatch report
“Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it,” he adds.
“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.”
Here is how Nutting probably should’ve framed the issue:
Image courtesy AEI
When you look at it this way, it would seem the president’s spending record has less to do with “restraint” and more to do with, well, “binging.”
And AEI wasn’t the only organization that challenged the MarketWatch report. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reviewed the data and awarded Carney, President Obama, and Nutting three Pinocchios.
“Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain,” Kessler writes.
“Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook,” Kessler writes. “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.”
Kessler suggests using the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which would give us $3.72 trillion.
This is what is would look like:
- 2008: $2.98 trillion
- 2009: $3.27 trillion
- 2010: $3.46 trillion
- 2011: $3.60 trillion
- 2012: $3.65 trillion
- 2013: $3.72 trillion
“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,” Kessler reports.
“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,” he adds.
So what is the Washington Post‘s takeaway from the MarketWatch report and the White House’s claim to “fiscal restraint”?
“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,” Kessler concludes.
“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,” Kessler adds.
Meanwhile, over at the Associated Press, the president and the MarketWatch report fared no better.
“The problem with that [fiscal restraint] claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison,” the AP’s Andrew Taylor writes.
“And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts,” he adds.
The AP points out that the notion that the president has been “tightfisted” is contingent on the idea that he “had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.”
Of the report the White House bases its claim on, the AP had this to say:
The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.
And just in case the arguments in the above are a bit too “wonky” for your taste, here’s a graph from Political Math that explains the inaccuracies in the MarketWatch article:
Image courtesy Political Math
“Nutting wants to use the 2009 CBO estimates, but only one column (only for attacking Bush on spending). He wants to compare estimates from one year to actual spending from other years to the CBO baseline from this year,” Political Math reports, “And, as if he is a magical cherry-picking elf, he manages to pick just the right numbers to give him just the right data.”
“Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don‘t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job,” the article adds.
(H/T: WFB)
This story has been updated.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (92)
65Mustang
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:02pmThey, Obama Administration, could not pay me enough to stand there and lie the way Jay Carney does. The only restraint Obama demostrates with money is his…certainly not the tax paying public.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:23pmThe problem with Pethokoukis argument is that he utilizes Bush’s 8 year average which of course was heavily influenced by the SURPLUS Clinton left him. So how about the Blaze do some fact checking on Pethokoukis and calculate the % of GDP spending for Bush in 2007, 2008 and 2009. And there is no question that the 2009 deficit is Bush’s and that he handed Obama a deficit run rate of $1.2 trillion.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:29pmJROOK, Trouble with that statement is that Bush did not sign the ‘09 Budget Bill. It was purposely withheld until Jan ‘09 by the Democrat Congress. Can‘t say it was 0bama’s budget, because he was not around when it was written. He would have only voted “Present” anyway. That Budget was started in Pelosi’s House of Representatives, and eventually passed by Reid’s Senate.
Report Post »drattastic
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:40pm@JROOK
Report Post »You have got to be kidding, you point to Bush (a big spender) to excuse the massive lack of fiscal discipline by obama ( fiscal insanity ). People like you amaze me, in your mind does it work like this “to hell with this country obama is my guy” ,is that how it works for you ,screw your children ,grandchildren , great etc… pathetic.
RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:12pmDRATTASTIC, He merely assumes like most actually, that Bush signed the last budget into law. It was a set up in the beginning, much like the tuition loan percentage rates. I have to really hand it to Pelosi and the Democrats for sending G W a bill to cut the tuition rates in half so that the law would sunset during the next campaign cycle. Gives them another bat to beat the Republicans with while it is the Dems who slow or stop the process of the next bill by having Reid refuse to send it to the floor for a vote. They will continue to claim how poor the bill is, and that it does not do enough. You know, the usual BS for public consumption. Again, they are slick enough to pull stunts like this time after time, and the media will always support them. It’s that short attention span that they rely upon.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:22pmThe other problem with Pethokoukis analysis is how Social Security and Medicare receipts and payments are being accounted for. It is clear that payroll tax revenues fell along with tax revenues due to the Bush recession. Given the the federal government essentially has run on IOUs to these 2 programs the shortfall in payments to current receipts are made up from general revenue as a way to pay back these trust funds. The difference may account for a higher % of GDP.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:41pm@RJJinGadsden You can focus on the “slick” or you can recognize the stupidity of engaging in 2 unpaid wars and cutting taxes at the same time.
Report Post »Zwiseguy
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:45pmNot sure about his restraint either. How much time off does he give himself again? Had he not been president, his own personal finances might be in the hole as well.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:20pmJROOK…who holds the purse strings congress or the president?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:28pmJROOK..deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on the white house’s own numbers) will be over $5 trillion. You can’t finesse that with moving baselines to 2009. This latest ploy to paint Obama as a deficit hawk is the height of desperation. Obama is a profligate spender. Every budget he’s presented since 2009 has been defeated unanimously in congress. Every budget he’s presented since 2009 has proposed trillions in new spending. It’s the results of the 2010 midterms in the house that have prevented Obama from getting away with it.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:45pm@drattastic Spare me the ideological argument and the name calling as neither is persuasive. You should actually read my comment as it did not indicate that Washington has spent our money any more responsibly now than they did 30 years ago under Reagan. The point is that Pethokoukis utilizes a similar slight of hand by using % of GDP spending average for Bush not his 2007, 2008 and 2009 levels which given he entered with a budget surplus could very well be above 23%.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:01pmSo JROOK…under a democrat dominated congress the very spending you’re condemning as “Bush’s” was approved and passed. Obama was also a member of the Senate at that time and voted for the spending. Under Obama and the democrat dominated congress we’ve seen the “Stimulus” and Obamcare passed. Just recently the CBO priced Obamacare at $1.76 trillion. So since Obama crowed about it in 2010 as coming in under $1 trillion….it’s cost has gone up and the “treats” haven’t even kicked in yet.
Since 2009 we’ve seen the second half of TARP that Obama requested. Most of the Auto Bailout which Obama pushed. The Mortgage/Loan Medication Program. The Omnibus Spending Bill signed by Obama March 2009. “Stimulus”, and the S-CHIP expansion -measure all of this against Bush and spending is still up by almost 24% in Obama‘s first term versus Bush’s last term. I haven’t even included Obamacare in that.
Report Post »Seriously JROOK..you’re asking the American people to ignore their own eyes?
RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:03pmJROOK. First, let me make this perfectly clear. I did not care for Bush at all any more than I liked his dad in office. The only reason that I voted for them was that in my opinion they were head and shoulders above their competition. Bush and the drunken sailor Republican Congress tried to out democrat the democrats when it came to spending and trying to buy votes with their idiotic programs. I just feel that the dems would have been even worse though. The only reason why Clinton had a so called surplus at the end of his administration was that the ‘94 take over of the Congress by the Republicans yanked a knot in his spending spree. Wish they had done the same during W’s admin to be frank. I do think that Afghanistan was the right thing to do after 9-11, but slowing down and attacking Iraq was wrong. I don‘t care for Iraq any more than Iran back then and as far as I was concerned we should’ve made both countries navigational aids for UFOs and been done with it. Regardless, once committed the wars, the congress and WH should stopped all other wasteful spending. Now, drop back to Clinton. He was only riding the Dot Com bubble and when that started to fizzle and leak slowly he did start to have a mini recession start while still in office. Also, during his reign of terror on the military, you know, the one he loathed so much. He slashed it so deep that when we did find ourselves in a pickle we had to send the National Guard at the very beginning. Continued
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:17pmJROOK, As well as the Guard, the Reserves where called up. That is the sorry state of affairs that Clinton left us in. Once the military was gutted that gave him more funds to piss away and believe me, he did with glee. I retired during his second term and saw the results of what he was doing. Yep, Bush got us into the wars and guess what? With the help of not only the Republicans in Congress, but most of the Dems as well. Hardly any voted against it, except Lurch who was for it before he was against it. If you recall, during the Clinton Admin all of these Dems were screaming about how Sadam had to be stopped from further developing his WMD programs. Oh yeah, Pelosi, Reid, and even Hillary were all tossing their two cents in. Hehehe, until Bush actually did something about it. Your side is just as complicit in those wars too in their original actions. Then they turned against it to please their base (ie: you). The current old school Republicans are still used to just sitting around while the Dems left them out of everything. Probably spent more time on the gold course than 0bama does now. They want that style of life again instead of actually doing their real jobs. That is why the Tea Party has been doing what they can to yank the Republican Party back into the conservative party that it is supposed to be. Both parties are marching this country the left into socialism. One is just slightly slower than the other. I don’t trust either, but will not blame Bush for everything.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:25pmJROOK, I see that AVENGERK, and others have more than aptly stated what I had planed to continue. So, there is no point in taking up more space here. But, as AVENGERK has said, and I will add to that, 0bama has outspent everybody and much of that money went into the black hole of many unions. Naturally, much of it will get kicked back as campaign donations.
Report Post »HisNameWasRobertPaulson
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:22pmJROOK, look again. Bush didn’t get an 8 year average, unless 2002 to 2009 is suddenly 8 years. He didn’t get credit for anything.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 8:18amRook,
Report Post »There was no Clinton surplus…you’re so full of crap your head floats. When Bush took office the debt was 5.3 trillion. Here’s the facts not that you can read them or under stand them
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/1063abbc-fc32-46f0-98e2-f302d8a3092f
Detroit paperboy
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:55pmOh, and I believe Enron showed fiscal restraint also……do they really think we are this stupid, yes they do…
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:13pmYou support Romney?
Romney’s budget doesnt cut current spending levels. He has basically endorsed Obama’s spending!!!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:36pm@Mutiny And Ryan’s budget does not cut deficits until 2014 and pays for further cuts in taxes to the high income bracket by cutting. And save me the partisan “job creator” BS. Demand creates jobs, not the wealthy. The wealthy along with equity funds, pension plans, the SBA and banks enable companies to hire people to meet increased demand for products and services. The concentration of wealth is an major underlying problem in the US as it slows down the pace at which money moves through the economy and dampens demand.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:44pmAnd let’s slow this trick down by JROOK and see exactly how it works…..
First…JROOK has to distract the audience with things like “2014”.
Then the illusion begins…“save the partisan job creator BS” and “demand creates jobs, not the wealthy”. This is JROOK changing the conversation from the facts. Obama is running at a net loss for jobs during his tenure but apparently it’s “job creator BS” to suggest changing this deficit.
What about this “Demand” JROOK is waving his hands over? Latest reports show housing prices and consumer spending have been on the decline or flatlined. Why? The bad paper is still on many banks’ books. People aren‘t paying their mortgages and they’re still not spending in a capacity to move the economy positively in a credible way. Why not? Because they’re underemployed, unemployed or scared to spend. In fact under Barack Obama the underemployment rate is the hightest since WWII. So who employs these people? If they‘re not self employed it’s “the wealthy” that JROOK doesn’t want you to acknowledge. What happens when people are employed? They spend money this creating “demand”. This all eludes JROOK but that‘s not what’s important..what’s important is the tricks and illusions JROOK wants to perform.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:35pmAVENGERK, Excellent points all. If we keep going the 0bama has us aimed, fuel and food will be worth more than real estate.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:53pmOh hell to the NO he hasn’t!! Do you take us all for fools??
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:20pmWhy yes, they do want to take us as fools. It was planned. Drop back I believe to the summer of ‘08 when Bush was being blamed for not yet having a budget ready for the next fiscal year. Not a whole lot was made of this, but just enough to keep Bush bashing going, and it helped 0bama to essentially run against Bush. The White House did present a budget, and it went nowhere in the Congress in a hurry. With a Dem Congress Pelosi did have their budget too, but held off as things started to look better for 0bama. When 0bama assumed office in Jan ‘09 he was then presented with the now Congressional passed budget bill, with a lot of spending attachments. Later the Spending Omnibus bill for somewhere just under $550 Billion was passed and the bill attached it to the ‘09 budget. Late last week Pelosi came up with figures attempting to show how 0bama’s spending “really” was fiscally restrained, saying that Bush actually signed into law the ‘09 Budget and not 0bama. So, that was Bush‘s spending and not 0bama’s. She released figures that subtracted all of ‘09’s spending from 0bama’s drunken spending spree and tried to claim that Bush, and Reagan had actually spent more than 0bama. Yes, they do want to take us for fools. But, some of us actually do have a memory.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:23pmOf course they do. They expect us not to notice that 1.4% of who knows how many trillion of dollars is still a lot more than 8.4% of a budget in the hundred billions. They expect us to be distracted by percentages when the truth is in the physical dollars.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:49pmDon’t expect things to change under Romney then:
——————————————————————-
“On Wednesday, Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney granted an extended interview to Time’s Mark Halperin. In it, he spoke about his economic policies, his work at Bain Capital, and his stance on healthcare. About halfway through the interview, he had this to say:
“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%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.”
Report Post »http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-commits-the-broken-window-fallacy
Mutiny
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:42pmAlso, Romney’s budget doesnt cut current spending levels. It only cuts future increases. That alone is an endorsement of Obama’s spending.
Wake up!!!
If Americans lose in Tampa, I am afraid all is lost.
Report Post »dadsrootbeer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:46pmOnce again another media outlet spinning the facts. Way to go MarketWatch and thanks for incorrect statistics.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:24pmIs it really spin? In his mind he probably is exercising fiscal restraint. Imagine what it will be like with four more years of his presidency when he doesn’t have to worry about reelection!
Report Post »Magyar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:35pmA comedy of words—-
Notice: “THE WHITE HOUSE” says—OWEbama has demonstrated fiscal restraint—
I’m in hysterics!
Report Post »jackact
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:29pmObama’s handling of our economy is indefensible.
Report Post »It must really suck to have $500 million in campaign funds and be forced to use it only to marginalize, demonize and attack with class warfare.
No record – no votes.
Mutiny
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:09pmRomney endorsing Obama’s spending by not cutting current spending levels is what is horrid. I expect the left to spend more money. I dont after all the complaints about Obama’s spending us into bankruptcy the right supporting a guy that doesnt cut spending.
More of the same and expecting different results. Every smart GOP establishment sheep!!
Report Post »lynda1276
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:25pmThey should have learned from Whitney Houston..“crack is whack”
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:16pmLeave it to Jay Carney, he can‘t even get April Fool’s Day on the correct date.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:30pmWith Obama every day is April Fool’s
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:44pmGOOD ONE RJ !! I am constantly amazed that those dopes, Axelrod, Jarrett. Michelle and head dope Obama think that we are really going to fall for these faux statements about “his” economy. Maybe that woman who thinks all money comes from “Obama’s Stash” will fall for it, but not the rest of us!
Report Post »drattastic
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:49pmYou’ve got to give Carney a lot of credit ,he can actually say this crap without busting into hysterical laughter. Funny watching him contort himself trying to explain the insanity though.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:28pmDRATTASTIC, Keep an eye on Carney. I expect him to check into the Betty Ford Clinic at the end of this administration.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:14pmRomney… seeking Profit… gutted & reorganized Failing Companies… making them again Valuable, where Jobs lost are only a Potential of All being Terminated, and where Jobs were actually Redefined or Saved. The Profit from these Successes then, again, became Capital for more Investment, Stimulating the Economic System. Capitalism works!
Obama… seeking to Create Jobs… took Tax Payer Money, ususally increasing the National Debt… Redistributing the Funds to his Select Winners… while placing more Controls upon Business via Regulation… interfering in Capitalism… while claiming the Spending created or Saved Job, which cannot be Proved, because of the perpetual UnEmployment. So, all this Socialist Ideology results… in NO POSITIVE CHANGE!
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:13pmWhenever we hear or read, “The White House says…” we know we are going to hear LIES, LIES, LIES and more LIES.
Report Post »Just click the button, change the channel, mute the volume, or turn it off. Or, you could do what I do: cover my ears and sing the National Anthem, or something else… just make noise until the fetid air passes on by and the uglies leave the screen.
AvengerK
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:12pmThese are the kinds of games Obama’s been playing with the country since being given office.
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:41pmCorrectamundo on “since being GIVEN office.”
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:06pmThese chumps can’t leave fast enough, America , for whatever reason, flirted with socialism…it never works, it never has…..good riddance come November..”.”.
Report Post »ricckky
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:05pmliar, liar, liar, liar, liar,liar,liar
Report Post »MiCurmudgeon
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:05pmFigures don’t lie , but liars sure can figure.
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:05pmCarnies: Circus folk. Small hands. Smell like cabbage.
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:04pmObama….of course,….is lying because he is a piece of manure. You have to watch how you ask questions. Did the whitehouse spend less? Yes…because it is a house. a building. It spends nothing. Did the piece of lying crap that lives in the white house lie??? Well…..of course.
Report Post »MiCurmudgeon
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:04pmSmoke and Mirrors..
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:03pmObama administration’s legacy of lies.
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:03pmPants on fire.
Report Post »simplygilly
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:03pmDEMONstrated or DEMON-straffed the economy?
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:01pmhey flunky liberals
you got served
Report Post »huey6367
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:59pmJay Carney = tool.
In our next story …
Report Post »CatB
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:59pmLOL .. I guess his idea of “restraint” is not spending 200% of GNP. How about 300% ??? How much is no longer “restraint”? FOOL!
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:57pmObama exercising fiscal restraint is like Bill Clinton advocating marital fidelity.
Report Post »