MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic)

It’s been going around Facebook and the Twitters.

It’s been rated “mostly true” by Politifact.

It is the MarketWatch piece on how Obama hasn’t really increased spending all that much.

And I’m damn tired of picking it apart 140 characters at a time, so I put together this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.

(Correction: An earlier version of this infographic incorrectly identified the $3.8 Trillion 2013 as a CBO projection. That is the spending request from President Obama 2013 budget.)

UPDATED (05/24/12, 3PM):

There are three things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it’s really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a “best estimate of what Obama inherited”, but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is  $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

Finally, my biggest goal here was to point out the inconsistencies in the analysis. 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. 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. This could be an accident. Stranger things have happened. But it seems more likely that he intended to squash a talking point by any means necessary and he went looking for the best data to do that.

I will be accused of massaging the data by people who don’t understand what I’m doing here. I’m pointing out the data massaging on Nutting’s side and calling him on it. I’m saying “If you’re going to use the CBO estimate, use the f***ing CBO estimate!” Don’t use just the part you want and then pretend like the rest of it doesn’t exist. Commit yourself to the data you’re using and follow it, even if it doesn’t go where you want it to go.

OK… references:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

104 comments

  1. buckroper says:

    +1 BaconCrisps
    Common Sense is a hard thing to deal with for some!

  2. […] Yeh, it works to his advantage if they don’t know math: h/t http://smalldeadanimals.com You can see all the rules at the original site http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1786 […]

  3. […] Obama actually signed the last part of the budget in March 2009. All of which is true. (Here’s an infographic summing up some other problems Republicans have with Nutting’s analysis.) Nutting points out that […]

  4. Yaniv says:

    @buckroper

    Common sense says government should tighten its belt when everyone else is doing so.

    Even BaconCrisps admits otherwise.

    Common sense, it turns out, is sometimes a poor guide to macroeconomics.

  5. shagdrum says:

    @Yaniv

    You are very good at muddying the waters but not so good at economics.

    As to the “word that rhymes with ‘boar'” proceeding 1920 or 1948, it is really impossible to argue that the wartime economy saw a recovery in any REAL sense; it can only be argued by looking at abstract metrics, such as GDP and what not. But when unemployment is artificially low due to a draft and resources are being rationed by the government, that is not a recovery. The REAL recovery came after the war. Of course, most EVERY Keynesian economist predicted economic collapse in the face of heavily reduced government spending (“the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced” as Paul Samuelson put it). Instead we transitioned from a wartime economy and the economy boomed. You might want to look at the “Broken Window Fallacy” and read this article as well: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138

    Simply creating jobs doesn’t end a recession. WHERE the jobs are created matters as well, otherwise you are simply setting up more economic failure. Government does not have the ability to create jobs in the sectors for legitimate recovery (as opposed to simply creating bubbles). When price signals and profit/loss feedback is left to work, the private sector is the only area where legitimate recovery can come from. “Stimulus” spending only inhibits that.

    Yaniv, I will say it is entertaining watching you try and fit a square peg in a round hole with regards to Obama’s and Bush’s spending. But you have generally avoided the point about baseline manipulation (though vague allusions about it being “tricky” to create a baseline. Do you understand how baseline budgeting works and why it is, in many ways, an accounting cheat?

    Do you understand that most economic analysis DOES account for inflation (not simply the “absolute numbers” you talk about) and that even in looking at absolute numbers, the difference is marginal and not the HUGE difference you attribute to it here?

    You clearly don’t seem to grasp that we are not talking merely about the uptick in general “safety net” spending typical in a recession, but in stimulus efforts (which are distinct from typical safety net spending), bailouts, new entitlements and more stimulus. Outside of new entitlements, these are all sold as ONE TIME expenditures. To refuse to pass a budget and simply use those expenditures as the baseline is dishonest. You have yet to confront that point, instead, implicitly lumping them in with normal economic spending.

    Historically, stimulus spending is NOT the norm in an economic downturn (nor part of typical “safety net” spending as you seem to imply). Also, the track record of creating “shovel ready jobs” to create an economic recovery is dubious at best.

    The loss of tax revenue and increase in typical safety net spending is not anywhere near enough to explain the huge jump in federal spending. Multiple stimulus’s, squandering the $400 billion (plus interest) paid back by the financial sector, creating new entitlements and “quantitative easing” are HUGE factors as well. They can’t simply be brushed under the rug by pointing to red herrings (absolute vs inflation adjusted numbers, recessionary safety net spending, drops in tax revenue, etc.).

  6. shagdrum says:

    @Yaniv

    “The time to trim expense and, yes, raise taxes, was in the years BEFORE the crisis. W squandered the opportunity with his tax cuts and wars.”

    Are you assuming that the tax rate cuts lost money? If so, I must assume you don’t understand how taxes work. There is no linear correlation between tax RATES and tax REVENUE. There would have to be for that statement to make any economic sense.

    However, as you have alluded to, there IS a correlation between tax revenue and economic growth. But economic growth has not typically come via government “stimulus”.

  7. […] MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic) « Political Math. […]

  8. […] actually signed the last part of the budget in March 2009. All of which is true. (Here’s an infographic summing up some other problems Republicans have with Nutting’s analysis.) Nutting points out that […]

  9. Paul says:

    Tiny correction, isn’t 12.5 % over four years about 2.99 % annualized, if you use the proper geometric means?

    I wonder if this little correction is proper in that now notorious graph of the last several presidents’ year-over-year annualized spending increases.

    But really, why doesn’t every thinking person immediately say so what to that meaningless statistic?

    How could anyone be so stupid as to characterize that as “slowest spending in decades?” I’m not accelerating the car much, therefore it is going slowly.

    And I don’t even convince you of that by quoting my absolute change of velocity — I make a big thing look small by quoting my RELATIVE change of velocity! Now don’t those past presidencies look much worse?

    Nakedly dishonest use of statistics, apparent even WITHOUT your research (for which, thank you).

  10. Whats saddest about Nutting’s graph is that he delibrately ignores most of the huge spending in 2009 because it wasn’t on the official budget for that year. He’s basing his numbers on budgets… when congress hasn’t passed a budget for 3 years straight. Does that mean the last two years Obama spent NOTHING?

  11. Yaniv says:

    Shagdrum:

    I don’t have time or desire to engage your ad hominem and I won’t offer a complete economic re-education. I’m familiar enough with the work of the Austrians.

    I certainly don’t argue that War is good, or represents a positive use of government power or economic capacity. But total war, such as we had in WWII at any rate, produces a huge increase in government spending and debt, accompanied by concomitant reduction in privately held debt. The major problem we have today is far too much debt in the private sector.

    “Government does not have the ability to create jobs in the sectors for legitimate recovery (as opposed to simply creating bubbles). When price signals and profit/loss feedback is left to work, the private sector is the only area where legitimate recovery can come from. “Stimulus” spending only inhibits that.”

    This is not reasoning–it is an article of faith, and a simplistic/dogmatic approach to how an economy works. I won’t try to argue, just as I don’t argue when someone invokes the Holy Trinity.

    “…we are not talking merely about the uptick in general “safety net” spending typical in a recession, but in stimulus efforts (which are distinct from typical safety net spending), bailouts, new entitlements and more stimulus. Outside of new entitlements, these are all sold as ONE TIME expenditures. To refuse to pass a budget and simply use those expenditures as the baseline is dishonest. You have yet to confront that point, instead, implicitly lumping them in with normal economic spending.” … AND your last paragraph.

    Again, assertion without evidence. The NYT analysis reposted by Ezra Klein shows otherwise. If you have a better breakdown, please provide it.

    “Do you understand that most economic analysis DOES account for inflation (not simply the “absolute numbers” you talk about) and that even in looking at absolute numbers, the difference is marginal and not the HUGE difference you attribute to it here?”

    Absolute spending numbers, especially absolute numbers plotted on a linear-linear chart are very misleading, because population and economic output grows exponentially. The last chart here, the one that pretends to be so telling, does all of that.

    “Are you assuming that the tax rate cuts lost money? If so, I must assume you don’t understand how taxes work. There is no linear correlation between tax RATES and tax REVENUE. There would have to be for that statement to make any economic sense.
    However, as you have alluded to, there IS a correlation between tax revenue and economic growth. But economic growth has not typically come via government “stimulus”.

    Ah the Laffer curve. Higher tax rates do not reduce revenue but they DO reduce economic growth! (but don’t dare increase tax rates, because that diverts wealth from the immaculately efficient free market to the government, which doesn’t know how to spend it…except that it doesn’t, because raising tax rates doesn’t generate revenue anyway…) Or do I detect a note of equivocation when you use the word “linear.” Nobody in their right mind claims that revenue is linearly related to tax rates, of course.

  12. Paul says:

    RSS feed is not working I would love to subscribe but it gives me a wordpress error page

  13. shagdrum says:

    @Yaniv

    So, logical deduction is no an “article of faith”?!

    As to Ezra Klein’s “evidence”, over my “lack of evidence”; given his pattern for half truths, straw men and generally dishonest arguments, Klein has zero credibility. When it comes to calculating budgetary effects of policy on the deficit in particular, he has show a lack of economic understanding (absurdly assuming a static economy in his “analysis”, for instance) and a pattern of distortion in this area…
    http://blog.american.com/2012/02/ezra-klein-compiles-the-most-misleading-budget-graphic-of-the-year-and-its-only-february/

    http://keithhennessey.com/2012/02/01/response-chart/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KeithHennessey+%28Keith+Hennessey%3A+Your+guide+to+American+economic+policy%29

    As to the supposed lack of “proof”, you are, essentially, demanding I prove a negative. It is you who is arguing that the spending went up mostly because of normal safety net spending which also caused the deficit to go up (in conjunction with tax revenue loss). The burden of proof for that is on YOU to prove your assertions, not me to disprove them…unless you think there is no such think as a negative proof fallacy.

    FYI, simply redefining all spending in 2009 as normal spending in a recession (as you seem to be implying) doesn’t cut it.

    Anyway, the evidence you demand has been alluded to (if not specifically pointed out) numerous times in the comments section already, but you keep ignoring it. Let me give you a brief rundown.

    February 17, 2009: Obama sign’s the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) which, last I looked, ended up costing around $825 billion (though that might have since been revised). Nutting only attributes $140 billion of this to Obama because it was spent after 10/01/2009 (the start of FY2010).

    Senator Obama voted for TARP, President-elect Obama “asked” Bush to release the second part of TARP funding on Jan. 12, 2009, $200 billion of which Obama has spent before 10/01/2009 (of course, any paybacks from TARP get credited to Obama in Nutting’s “analysis”).

    March 11, 2009; Obama signed a $410 appropriations bill (with 8,000+ earmarks) that Bush had specifically rejected.

    March 12, 2009; Obama signed into law the budget for FY2009. The Democrat controlled legislature specifically avoided allowing Bush to sign that budget so they could fill it with more spending when they had control of both branches of government.

    Unless otherwise noted, EVERY ONE of these examples were credited to Bush in the Marketwatch piece and became part of the baseline for which Obama’s spending was judged in subsequent years. Also, payback from TARP was credited to Obama even if it was payback of funds that Bush had spent.

    TARP and the stimulus bill were SPECIFICALLY sold as one time events to “boost the economy” and have now become part of the baseline (meaning ongoing spending). That is close to $1 trillion in spending that Nutting credits to Bush instead of Obama. With regards to the stimulus, information from a memo by Larry Summers (an economic adviser to Obama) shows the stimulus was never simply about actually stimulating the economy, but about paying back constituents and funding pet projects.

    From Summers memo, “The short-run economic imperative was to identify as many campaign promises or high priority items that would spend out quickly and be inherently temporary. … The stimulus package is a key tool for advancing clean energy goals and fulfilling a number of campaign commitments.”

    This is was sold as a one time effort to stimulate the economy. The actual intentions of the effort are clearly something else and the level of spending imposed by that effort is now part of the baseline (while the original bill is effectively attributed to Bush.

    “Absolute spending numbers, especially absolute numbers plotted on a linear-linear chart are very misleading, because population and economic output grows exponentially. The last chart here, the one that pretends to be so telling, does all of that.”

    Proof? You imply that the chart is not adjusted for inflation but I see nothing to suggest either way.

    Relevance? Assuming you are correct and the numbers are not adjusted, can you show that such an adjusted would fundamentally alter the picture? Or are you simply looking to red herrings to muddy the waters and believe what you want to believe?

  14. shagdrum says:

    @Yaniv

    “Ah the Laffer curve. Higher tax rates do not reduce revenue but they DO reduce economic growth! (but don’t dare increase tax rates, because that diverts wealth from the immaculately efficient free market to the government, which doesn’t know how to spend it…except that it doesn’t, because raising tax rates doesn’t generate revenue anyway…) Or do I detect a note of equivocation when you use the word “linear.” Nobody in their right mind claims that revenue is linearly related to tax rates, of course.”

    No one may claim that revenue is linearly related to tax rates, but EVERYONE who claims that “tax cuts cost the government” ASSUMES it…unless you can show how the logic works with those claims withOUT that assumption. Almost every ESTIMATE of “tax cuts” costing the government assumes a static economy and therefore a linear correlation between revenue and rates (CBO estimates for instance). EVERY study that shows specific historical tax rate drops cost the government revenue is arguing counterfactuals and, in doing so, assumes a linear correlation. As you allude to, that assumption is never stated, but it is there. It is simply covered up by the phase “tax cuts” which removes any distinction between tax RATES and tax REVENUE.

    Also, you seem to be setting up a straw man when you claim, “increase[d] tax rates…divert…wealth from the…free market to the government…except that it doesn’t, because raising tax rates doesn’t generate revenue anyway”. In pointing to the Laffer curve, you are showing you should know better than this. The Laffer curve shows that rate increases do lead to revenue increases…up to a point. There is a point of diminishing returns and rate increases can lead to revenue decreases after that point as people look to avoid those taxes.

    It is in diverting investment that tax increases hurt economic growth. This is not simply due to the direct effect of redistribution through higher tax rates, but in efforts to avoid paying those taxes. Whether or not rate increases lead to revenue increases is irrelevant. What is relevant is that rate increases change the incentive structure and discourage investment and efficient job creation. Do you think incentives don’t matter?

    There is also my point about feedback mechanisms and price signals that you seem to miss…

  15. shagdrum says:

    Oh, a couple other things to keep in mind;

    Nutting didn’t use inflation adjusted numbers. So, assuming the final chart in the infograph isn’t using inflation adjusted numbers, it is simply comparing apples to apples with regards to Nutting’s original piece.

    also, the “absolute numbers” is in contrast to the “rate of increase” between years that Nutting focuses on. Why would “rate of increase” be a more accurate reflection of reality than absolute numbers?

    Here are a couple charts that are adjusted for inflation, credit Bush with the 2009 budget (something I think is questionable) and attribute the stimulus to Obama.
    http://blog.american.com/2012/05/washingtons-new-normal-obamas-permanently-higher-level-of-spending/

  16. BaconCrisps says:

    @yaniv

    “I believe I’ve put forward a cogent and truthful argument. I don’t understand many parts of your rebuttal (what does Solyndra have to do with it?), and frankly don’t have the time or patience to disprove your claims about the fiscal consequences of ACA so far (negligible) or into the future (somewhat speculative, and very likely beneficial).”

    With this passage, I know you are in academia. The smugness and clear habit of speaking down to those who are the students is evident. There is also the constant shifting of the terms of the debate.

    I admit my post could have been better constructed. Footnotes could have helped. That you so totally missed the point is based on your inability to follow any argument but your own.

    Let me be clear(er), there are two arguments. One is whether Obama has been a big spender. The other is whether this spending is justified (and even inevitable). I know your objection is that the two arguments inevitably intersect. But let’s not assume the necessity of the spending from the start based on speculation of the effect of unemployment claims and the like. Recognize the high rate of spending and THEN use your facts to justify it – if you have the time and patience (or otherwise care if others aren’t willing to take your word as gospel).

    “You stake your case on the 2009 budget including all sorts of anomalous extra spending that then presumably gets sneakily extended ad infinitum… But there is NO sinister new spending in that budget or any other. There are significant increases on spending on the safety net, and there’s the stimulus. THE analysis of NEW spending (as opposed to existing law) under Obama has been done. It demonstrates that Obama, unlike Bush, did not initiate significant new spending, with the exception of the stimulus. Yes: this is one case where EXISTING LAW had severe implications for the deficit. You can argue that EXISTING LAW was terrible and wasteful and should have been immediately amended (that’s called austerity).”

    The ACA initiated new spending. Yes, I know it’s largely not in the graphs above and you have an awesome argument all about why the ACA isn’t new spending, but it was a major initiation of new spending – estimated to be about the same as the the highest amount we spent in a year on the Afganistan and Iraq wars, every year for the next decade.

    But let’s stick to the graphs, setting aside your assumptions and speculations about what it REALLY means and without your false claims that Obama hasn’t initiated new spending.

    Obama is spending at historically high levels. That it hasn’t remained at or above 2009 levels is not a badge of honor. When Obama touts the fact that his spending has increased at a historically low rate of 1.6%, we must consider that in the context of where his spending rate is. Obama is spending at historically high rates.

    “…extremely tenuous analogies.”

    You gotta admit, the allusion to Obama as a “romantic” and the natural association with the “War on Women” meme was pretty good rhetoric.

    If you want to have the argument you’re wanting – let’s use honest and consistent numbers. The blog post identifies how the numbers are not honest and consistent. Does Obama object to the increased spending by Bush? If not – if he continues and endorses that spending, adds new spending now (the Stimulus) and lots more in the future (the ACA), don’t pretend like Obama has a great sense of fiscal restraint. And no, I don’t think all budget cutting in a recession is a bad thing. I said, and maintain, that cutting spending simply to match revenue is a bad thing to do in a recession.

  17. […] If you missed it, give a read to Political Math’s “How to make Obama’s spending look small.” […]

  18. […] If you missed it, give a read to Political Math’s “How to make Obama’s spending look small.” […]

  19. SagePolitik says:

    Such informative comments!

  20. […] Obama actually signed the last part of the budget in March 2009. All of which is true. (Here’s an infographic summing up some other problems Republicans have with Nutting’s analysis.) Nutting points out that […]

  21. […] If you missed it, give a read to Political Math’s “How to make Obama’s spending look small.” […]

  22. […] If you missed it, give a read to Political Math’s “How to make Obama’s spending look small.” […]

  23. Anonymous says:

    […] give a read to Political Math’s “How to make Obama’s spending look small.” http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1786 **Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/26…al-restrained/ Laissez […]

  24. David Rairigh says:

    Arguments about whether Bush or Obama is the biggest spender are beside the point. You are not addressing the problem, which is Congress. The POTUS has as much to do with budget creation as a ten year old has to do with the amount of his allowance. Instead of wasting your time on such a transitory issue why not concentrate on the persistent problem of how Congress creates the problem? Perhaps discuss why the American voter can not seem to get it through his head that you have to punish people who get elected and then don’t keep their promises. Stop re-electing failed politicians.

  25. Eddie says:

    David Rairigh, did you read the entire chart? Congressional spending is right in there.

  26. […] The following infographic, which thoroughly debunks this claim, comes from Political Math (http://www.politicalmathblog.com…Viewed conceptually, the claim is nonsensical:  President Obama subscribes to Keynesian […]

  27. […] Political Math | MarketWatchs Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic) […]

  28. […] titled “Obama spending binge never happened,” which has been resoundingly debunked and discredited by a number of […]

  29. […] 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 […]

  30. […] 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 […]

  31. […] 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 […]

  32. […] Here’s Political Math Blog’s take: […]

  33. James T says:

    Why so critical all the time. Analysis is great but you often make the focus showing that someone has been a fool. You could just state the errors and get the same across. Who are you really pissed at underneath it all?

    Your work could be used in much broader perspectives and quoted by many other outlets except who wants to hear you rant and rave. I’d rather have your takes on the facts – period.

  34. Funnyhaha71 says:

    I believe that your entire argument begins with faulty logic. You say that the FY 2009 was signed by Obama; while factually accurate, FY SPENDING began before Obama took office; the spending bill was signed in March 2009, 5.5 months after FY2009 spending had begun! So, FY2009 spending is the responsibility of both POTUSes and both Congresses. Neither can be given complete blame or passes.

    Since the 2009 FY spending began while Bush was still in office, wouldn’t we have to statistically split the results for the 2009 fiscal spending?

    You make a fair point about Obama’s job chart. However, your job chart is equally skewed because you don’t take into acct the 2009FY differences.

    If I understand this correctly, you want to replace CBO projection numbers for 2009, 2010 and 2011, but then you want to use CBO for 2012 and 2013? Since the 2012 Fiscal cycle isn’t over, how is your 2012 data accurate? (There are ways to make it accurate, but complicated statistical analysis would need to be used which, IMO, exceeds the scope of this project.)

    If I understand your argument correctly, in order to accurately compare actual spending (over a FY) with FY CBO, wouldn’t you need to drop 2012 and 2013 from this analysis?

    I don’t see how saying “it’s complicated” and then giving a very basic graph is unbiased. You spent time analyzing this; correct the chart and analysis if the 2009FY is too “complicated”! Perhaps 2009 should be dropped as it is complicated. So much change happened during the 2009FY that it may be incorrect to even use the data for comparison to other years that are strictly under Obama.

    Another issue; While Obama is requesting 3.8 Trillion for FY2013, the FY2013 budget was denied by Congress 8 days before you published this article and graph. Is it appropriate to say “Obama’s plan says 3.8 Trillion” when the actual plan hasn’t been passed?

    You accuse Nutter of massaging the data, but I can’t see how you can claim more accuracy. You state that those accusing you of massaging the data are just not following your process. Perhaps; I’m not an economist or a mathematician. Perhaps my logic is faulty. But I do feel that most to all of your graph is biased. I’m not willing to spend the time evaluating the numbers in more detail since you want to use 2 different analytic standards to come to one conclusion…. which is exactly what you accuse Nutter of doing.

    This never should have been a “Bush did this”, “Obama did that” comparison. Nutter didn’t do so. If you really want clear analysis, drop the complaints that others make about Bush. Complaining about someone’s partisanship while displaying partisanship (perhaps unintentionally) completely takes away any high ground you may be wishing to gain with your analysis.

    It is completely possible that I am off my rocker and am demonstrating serious logistical flaws. Please know that isn’t purposeful. I simply want to deal with the analysis of the numbers, not “this POTUS is better than that POTUS”. While I understand you think that Nutter is doing so, use the number to demonstrate what you feel are Nutter’s flaws and leave out the partisan comments. Your partisan comments put you on the same playing field, which I don’t think is your purpose.

  35. […] See A Rundown Of The Problems In Nutting’s Analysis At Political Math Blog. […]

  36. […] actually signed the last part of the budget in March 2009. All of which is true. (Here’s an infographic summing up some other problems Republicans have with Nutting’s analysis.) Nutting points out that […]

  37. […] MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic)  […]

  38. Canof Sand says:

    Re: People defending Obama: The conclusion by ALL credible sources, not just this blog, is that Obama’s “statistics” are of the “lies, damn lies, and ___” variety. This includes the Associated Press, the Washington Post, etc. etc., hardly bastions of conservatism.

  39. Alex says:

    The National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 … as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 … that’s a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion

    Isn’t the whole budget for 2009 until the last day of September? Then you start counting the debt added by the next president the day hes fiscal year starts?
    I know that Obama added to the 2009 budget according to some documents its 187 BILLION for ARRA.

  40. Alex says:

    references:

    Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

    Where can i find more info on budgets?
    For example we know that Bush requested $3.107 trillion and final spending was 3.52 trillion a 413 trillion increase from requested. We also know that Obama added 187 billion for ARRA.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARRA

    To who does the 226 billion increase belong to?

    I want to know what past presidents have requested and what was actually appropriated?
    Im betting it was always higher…. Obama bias…

    I remember that wikipedia used to show what was requested and what was actually appropriated. Somehow they removed that??? weird!

  41. […] infographic debunks the Nutting article's claim (courtesy of the Political Math blog, http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=…Unfortunately, that means that the calculations that Paul presented are also incorrect.Now, while it […]

  42. Chris says:

    This is great!

    ——————-

    You liberals can spin all you want….but you can’t change the facts:

    Debt on 01.19.09: $10,628,881,485,510.23
    Debt on 01.20.01: $5,727,776,738,304.64
    An increase of:
    $4,901,104,747,205.59
    Debt 05.01.12: $15,673,229,738,379.98
    Debt 01.20.09: $10,626,877,048,913.08
    An increase of:
    $5,046,352,689,466.90
    Bush in office 2,921 days.
    Bush deficit spent per day:
    $1,677,885,911.40
    Obama in office 1,197 days (through 05.01.12).
    Obama deficit spends per day:
    $4,215,833,491.62
    Public debt on 01.20.09:
    $6,307,310,739,681.66
    Public debt on 05.01.12:
    $10,910,025,382,723.66
    Obama has increased the nation’s debt held by the public by $4,602,714,643,042 in 1,197 days.
    Obama has increased the debt held by the public by 72.97% – SEVENTY-TWO POINT NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT – in 1,197 days.
    The $5,046,352,689,466.90 in additional debt that the U.S. government has taken on during the 40 months that Obama has been president is more debt than the Federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of the Republic.
    Total Debt = $15,673,229,738,379.98
    Total GDP = $15,180,900,000,000.00
    Debt-to-GDP = 103.24%

    ————————————-

    Hard to argue with that. Bush was bad enough, and Obama is worse. Do we really need 4 more years of this clown? I’m not a Mitt Romney fan by any means, but I’d welcome him into the White House just to silence the annoying Obama lackeys.

  43. Alex says:

    The National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 … as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 … thats a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion

    The Bush budget is not over until 09/30/2009.. After that you start counting Obama spending. Minus 187 billion for ARRA.

    The Budget of the United States Government is the President’s proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

  44. Alex says:

    silence the annoying Obama lackeys

    Do you know how high the debt will go up under a Romney presidency before we start to see a balance in the deficit?

    Remember that he wants to give tax breaks? Tax breaks will increase the deficit even more.

    And you are willing to let Romney do that just because of the annoying Obama followers?

    Im sorry but i dont think Romney has a chance of being president.
    The tax returns will not away and once people start paying more attention to the race he is in trouble. You guys like to point out that they dont matter, but im sure that it wont stop until the last day of the election.

    The Ryan pick was supposed to give him a big bump and what happened?

  45. […] the riposte which rips it to pieces… Political Math ” MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting On Obama Spending (Infographic)It’s been going around Facebook and the Twitters. It’s been rated “mostly […]

  46. beats says:

    Hello very cool blog!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?I am happy to search out a lot of helpful information here within the put up, we need work out more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

  47. […] is, each of these statements generated responses saying “that’s not true, here’s the truth!” (That last one is one of my favorites.) And each of those responses generated responses. […]