Maddowblog - "The spending surge that didn't happen" - RW Talking Point Refuted

[TomCADem]

It is a travesty that the media repeatedly allows Republicans to push this false talking point. Worse, the corporate media portrays a false equivalency that treats facts as partisan opinions that are equally worthy of acceptance. The only reason why the Republican party manages to hold on is because the corporate media repeatedly allows them to spread their lies without any accountability.

Republican policymakers have an extremely narrow policy agenda: cut spending. Every speech, every press release, every op-ed, and every interview features identical talking points about the "explosion of out-of-control government spending" in the Obama era, which GOP officials are desperate to address.

There's the rhetoric and then there's the reality.

* * *
But policy prescriptions and Keynesian economics notwithstanding, the facts are the facts: every time Republicans whine incessantly about President Obama spending like there's no tomorrow, they're simply wrong.

What's more, Bloomberg News published a fascinating item today providing some useful historical context: "Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president."

[moderatelymoderate]

1. The problem with this argument..

is that it's based on the premise that Bush wasn't a big spender. On her blog she states that we haven't seen an "increase" in federal spending, which basically states that spending hasn't gone up dramatically from one administration to the next. However, any [true] conservative will tell you that Bush spent a ridiculous amount of money, so to claim that Obama isn't a big spender because he only increased spending by a small amount is fucking insane.

"every time Republicans whine incessantly about President Obama spending like there's no tomorrow, they're simply wrong"

Obama added 6 trillion dollars to the national debt in one term. How in the fuck can you make the claim that spending isn't out of control?

[TomCADem]

2. Could it be that spending was relatively constant?

But that the recession that President Obama inherited from Bush caused revenues to crater, which is what caused the deficit to grow? Also, you could more easily argue that the deficit was primarily caused by Bush's war and tax cuts. The problem with your argument is that look at a deficit caused by the decline in tax revenues during a recession and claim that spending is out of control even though its level of increase is less than any President in modern times.

So, once again "every time Republicans whine incessantly about President Obama spending like there's no tomorrow, they're simply wrong." Perhaps we shouldn't be giving away freebies to the top 2 percent while we are engaged in two wars?

[MrSlayer]

3. 2 wars, 2 tax cuts and Medicare part d.

All off the books under Bush.

Putting them on the books does not make these things President Obama's doing.

Obama is responsible for about a trillion and a half of that six.

[CitizenPatriot]

4. wars cost money

esp when they were left off of the budget by the previous administration. then there was the recession. Are Republicans suggesting that we not fund our wars or try to stop a depression and global financial disaster? That's interesting.