Friday, June 15, 2012


Doing the Math the NYT Refuses to Do

Here is some faint praise from the NYT regarding the horrible speech President Obama gave at a community college in Ohio yesterday. Money quote:

Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites. The stimulus failed. (Three million employed people beg to differ.) The auto bailout was a mistake. (Another million jobs.) Spending is out of control. (Spending growth is actually lower than under all modern Republican presidents.) He says these kinds of things so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.
Of course the left leaning newspaper calls different opinions about the efficacy of Obama's policies lies. We all know that everything the President does is golden; how could the statements not be lies if they are critical of the One. But let's look closer.

So the Stimulus, which cost taxpayers $831 Billion (not counting interest payments) produced, according to the NYT, 3 million jobs. (Many others disagree with that figure). In any event, do the division andyou find that each job cost us $277,000. That may be success in the lefty world, not in mine.

I'm not sure the bailout of GM and Chrysler saved any more jobs than a lawful bankruptcy would have done. But even if it saved a million jobs, look at the cost. For example, secured creditors, who are supposed to be first in line in a bankruptcy, were placed after the Unions. On top of the rippling damage to American justice and the rule of law, who is going to invest in these entities again, knowing the government can change the rules and render your hard fought and costly position worth less? Many people think the only thing that was actually saved was Union funds. That's success?

Now the new Big Lie. Federal spending growth under Obama is less than under other Republican presidents. Really? How about the amount of spending actually and as a percentage of GDP? How does that compare? No matter what fiscal legerdemain the left uses to come up with so-called slower growth of spending by Obama, here are the actual facts.

Federal spending in 2001, under President Bush, was $2.326 Trillion. It rose steadily to $3.035 Trillion in 2008. (GDP also rose from $10.2862 Trillion to $14.3611 Trillion under Bush, a 39.6% rise.) That last year of spending under Bush, with a Democrat controlled Congress, was also bad as a percentage of GDP, it was 21.12% (that's too high--it should never be higher than 18%).

Here are the figures for federal spending under President Obama.

2009 $3.576 Trillion (25.65% GDP which was $13.939 Trillion)
2010 $3.618 Trillion (24.9% GDP which was $14.5256 Trillion)
2011 $3.7 Trillion (24.53% GDP which was $15.0796 Trillion)
2012 $3.8 Trillion (24.03% GDP which is projected to be 15.8125 Trillion)

So spending us up, way up, under Obama, both in actual dollars and in percent of GDP. GDP is only up only 13.4% for the whole period. That ain't so good

These are the facts underlying Candidate Romney's statement that federal spending is out of control. Actual facts.

The Big Lie about tepid spending growth under Obama is Baghdad Bob at the airport stuff. Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

And the left continues to wonder why the left leaning media, like the NYT continue to hemorrhage readers and profits. It is a mystery.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker at Powerline blog has a clear eyed review of the horrible speech which even the NYT can't praise. Obama is losing it. Thank God.


Roger, if you hadn't told us before that you knew "almost nothing about economics", your out of context numbers and silly oversights would have. Bravo chap. Bravo. One must double check thy data and consult history before copy-pasting, henceforth.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?