patrick.net

And you know what, this explains why conservative hate Bill Maher. He points out their hypocrisies so well.

I love the chart, but it probably characterizes tax cuts as spending. At the very least, they should be honest about that.

Cloud says

Bill Mahr, you mean the guy who get to call women c*nts ?

Why? Because he gave Obama a million bucks?

You mean Bill Mahr, the guy that gets to call woman tw*ts? Because he is own your team? That guy? Where were you Lefties then? I didn't see any liberals demanding he get off tv. Or demands Obama return the money.

Hypocrites. Of course Dan admires a guy like that because he has stated on Patrick that all Catholic woman are sluts. Makes sense.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why not address the message? You can't, so you rant about Bill Maher. "He's sooo mean!"

Cloud says

hypocrites

What have I said that justifies you calling me a hyprocrite? Nothing -- you don't have a response to the topic discussed here. You're a child.

YesYNot says

I love the chart, but it probably characterizes tax cuts as spending. At the very least, they should be honest about that.

I don't know about that. I would think that tax cuts would be included in a chart about deficit running, but not spending as this one is. But I can't verify either way.

rooemoore says
Cloud says

You mean Bill Mahr, the guy that gets to call woman tw*ts? Because he is own your team? That guy? Where were you Lefties then? I didn't see any liberals demanding he get off tv. Or demands Obama return the money.

Hypocrites. Of course Dan admires a guy like that because he has stated on Patrick that all Catholic woman are sluts. Makes sense.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why not address the message? You can't, so you rant about Bill Maher. "He's sooo mean!"

Ah, that's why I have Cloud on ignore. He's such a disingenuous ass. Yeah, I like Bill Maher because he thinks all women are cunts just like I think all Catholic women are sluts. What bullshit.

Bill Maher made a joke once and to claim that he's a misogynist because of that is complete bullshit, just like it's bullshit to have a fake outrage boner over one joke I told in passing several months ago. Oh, and both jokes were funny, so fuck off Cloud.

Still, all this anal leakage that comes from Cloud when people quote him compels me to point out to indisputable facts.

1. Women like Bill Maher. Half his audience are women and they cheer him all the time.

2. Bill Maher used the word cunt in a joke, but he doesn't support forcing women to have a probe shoved up their cunts literally like Republican scumbags like Cloud do.

Republicans supported by assholes like Cloud have passed laws requiring a non-medical procedure involving forcing a wand literally inside a women's vagina before she can get an abortion. It has no medical purpose and is being forced on women solely to shame them and humiliate them to the point where they won't get an abortion.

Now that's fucking misogynistic.

And that's why people like Cloud keep accusing their opponents of being woman haters, because they need to distract people from the real woman haters who are raging the real war on women.

Ok, I did some research and got official figures of federal spending from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

Then I put together a spreadsheet based on the data there that shows the increase in spending by each administration using the same years as the graph from Bill Maher.

Hey Patrick, is there a way to upload files other than images? If so, I'd gladly include the Excel spreadsheet so everyone can verify it.

Below are the results. They are essentially the same as Maher's graph although his data shows slightly higher spending increases for all presidents. Perhaps his data is including spending that the White House archives ignore. But the bottom line is that Bill Maher is once again correct, and his detractors are wrong.

So, can I get an apology from those who accused Maher of spewing misinformation? The data has been confirmed.

Notice from the chart above that every Republican increased spending more than any Democrat. Thus proving the statement that Republicans, not Democrats, are the big spenders.

And no, my data does not count tax decreases as spending. Read the PDF yourself.

And this data comes directly from the White House's website.

You know WTF else? If you take into account inflation, about 3.5%, every Democrat has actually decreased spending whereas every Republican has increased spending, and usually by quite a lot.

And yes, the figures are in nominal dollars.

So we have to completely end the bullshit myth that Democrats are tax and spend, when it's really the Republicans that spend irresponsibly. Fuck, that means that the Democrats really are the party of fiscal responsibility and spending cuts. Think about it.

More chart porn from my spreadsheet...

Oh, and the values are in millions of dollars.

Ruki says

The truth:

Based on the data I got from the White House archives, your chart is complete bullshit. I can't find anyway to reconcile it with the real figures even taking liberal -- no pun intended -- interpretations of the data.

Where did you get that chart from anyway?

Ruki says

I did. You on the other hand, have done nothing but dish out BS to support him, as I ripped to shreds above.

What color is the sky in your world?

You haven't made a single coherent argument that the data used on Maher's graph or mine is false. The PDF file is from the White House archives and contains data going back to George Washington. It's obviously put together by a historian, not by Obama or one of his people.

You really need to stop smoking the wacky tabacky and get a grip on reality. I have absolutely no pro-Obama agenda as anyone, even an moron, could tell from all my anti-Obama posts.

But facts are facts, and I did the research to determine if your allegations were credible or not. It turns out that your allegations had no merit whatsoever. Be a real man and admit your mistake, and all of us will respect you far more than if you double down on stupidity.

I could find other sources with the federal spending data, but it is clear that you won't accept any facts that don't support your distorted view of reality. And quite frankly, I cannot respect that. You are right now proving that Bill Maher is right when he says conservatives live in a bubble and nothing gets through it..

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wEElA5b4AkM

Dan8267 says

Hey Patrick, is there a way to upload files other than images? If so, I'd gladly include the Excel spreadsheet so everyone can verify it.

Oops, almost didn't see this. Please use @Patrick in a comment if you want me to get an email of it.

But no, there is not way to upload files other than images yet.

How about using Google docs for sharing spreadsheets?

Oops, almost didn't see this. Please use @Patrick in a comment if you want me to get an email of it.

Yeah, I forgot that was the new technique.

How about using Google docs for sharing spreadsheets?

Sure, I'll try that.

Ok, it's on Google's docs at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4B1gmdDSYedSGNsSWN3eUdXRFU

clambo says

Are you nuts, you want us to think Obama is not a socialist? How's this: he is the worst shit for brains affirmative action president.

Affirmative action is not socialism. And Obama hardly started affirmative action.

clambo says

Did Obama mention the D-Day anniversary today?

Does Bush even know when D-Day is? Hell, his father didn't even know when Pearl Harbor happened.

clambo says

You guys who like Obama are the same, for some twisted psych problem you dislike Americans and particularly American men who have a set of balls and a brain.

I don't like Obama. And I freakin' hate when I have to defend him because right-wing nutjobs makes up some complete bullshit about him. There's plenty of good reasons to hate Obama, but you right-wingers aren't touching any of them because they also apply to Bush, Romney, and all the other Republican cronies.

It seems that the only reasons the right wing hates Obama is that he's black and he's a Democrat. I have yet to hear one single true criticism of Obama from the right. And I would put Obama on trial for capital crimes if I had the power. So don't give me any bullshit about me being an Obama fan.

The difference between me and you right-wingers is that I don't make up shit. I actually listen to facts and rationally judge the situation. But you right-wingers have such a warped sense of reality that it shocks the hell out of normal people -- not liberals, just plain normal people. You know, people who think the Earth revolves around the sun and that 10 is a bigger number than 3.

It's ridiculous how little grasp on reality the right has. And it does make you guys look like lunatic when you claim these outrageous and easily disproved things like

1. Obama is a socialist.
2. Obama was born in Kenya.
3. Obama is raising taxes.
4. Obama has cut military spending.
5. Obama has death panels.
6. Obamacare (a.k.a. Romneycare) is a government takeover of healthcare.
7. Obama came up with the idea of the individual mandate. (No, that actually was the Republican's idea that they demanded to have back when Hilarycare was on the table.)
8. Obama is soft on terrorism.

Here are the facts.

1. Taxes are the lowest they've been in 50 years.

2. Adjusted for inflation, Obama has decreased government spending despite having to pay the bill for G.W. Bush's wars. Bush spent the money and left Obama with the check, but Obama still spent less after adjusting for inflation.

3. Obama, not Bush, killed Osama bin Laden.

4. None of Bush's torturing resulting in the intelligence that led to bin Laden's death.

5. G.W. Bush gave up on even finding bin Laden. And I'll quote Fox News since that's all you right-wingers listen to.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/U5Q0Lf-iLXs

6. Obama has increased the military budget every year.

7. Obama kept Gitmo open and outsourced torture to other countries.

8. Obama doesn't even try to capture terrorists, he just sends drones to kill them even if they are U.S. citizens just suspected of terrorism.

I disagree with just about everything Obama has done including killing Osama bin Laden -- I think we should have brought him back to NYC to stand trial in an open court. So it makes sense that I hate Obama, and I used the term hate because of his horrific record on human rights issues.

But why the fuck do you right-wingers hate Obama when he is literally implementing every Republican policy short of tearing up the Constitution and establishing a Christian fundamentalist theocracy? The only two things that it could possibly be is that he plays for the other team and he's black. And right-wingers just hate those two things.

And that is why I cannot have any respect for right-wingers. If it was just a policy disagreement, I'd be ok with that. If it was just different priorities regarding trade-offs between safety and freedom or economic goals, I'd be cool with that, too. But this sheer hypocrisy is simply intolerable.

There aren't two sides to this story. The right is just a bat-shit crazy lunatic fringe. And all the sensible fiscal conservatives, including Bill Maher who used to get so much shit from liberals and still does, have all left the Republican ranks.

You see, Bill Maher and I, actually do believe in small government, not a nanny state. Sure, we favor a social safety net, which is by no means the main costs of our government. But we also believe that government that governs least governs best because big government requires big power and big power corrupts.

Bill Maher is actually closer to what Republicans used to be pre-Reagan than what today's Republicans are. You don't believe in small government and personal responsibility. You believe in a nanny state that provides cushy tax-payer funded jobs to the defense industry through no-bid contracts to private corporations, as if that makes it less than sucking on the teat of government.

You say you want freedom over security in economic issues, so get rid of social security. But you want security over freedom when it comes to air travel, so pull down your pants and bend over? WTF? Isn't a person's right not to be ass raped or photographed naked by the TSA a bit more important than the capital gains tax or banking regulations?

There's no rugged individualism in the Republican party today. There's no fiscal responsibility. There's no dignity restored to the White House by George Bush. Republicans suck on starting and running wars. Republicans don't support the troops with real help like sending them body armor or ensuring that when they are wounded they receive proper medical care. Democrats are better on all these issues, and I don't even like the Democrats, but it's the truth.

The only principle the Republicans have left is not letting blacks, gays, or atheists hold office. Every other issue on the Republican platform has long been abandoned. And that's why the Republican Party is doomed to die. Because independents like me, who actually hate the Democrats and want a viable alternative, are scared shitless of the lunatic extremists that make up 100% of the Republican Party today.

God I hate to see a second term of Obama, but you Republicans are even worse.

Ruki says

Dan8267 says

. I am unable to verify your chart as there is no data source associated with it and I cannot find it using a reverse image source. Please provide a reference to the source.

Prove to me that Maher's chart came from the OMB & CBO & Haver Analytics...all three, as you claim, first.

Prove your chart came from any source other than out your ass.

Dan8267 says

We may have had our tussles over gender, but fricken damn I have to defer to you as the master of summing up what is so sick and wrong with American politics.

Cloud says

You weren't joking Dan. And you couldn't get away with saying such things in public, not where I am from. Maybe in California.

Good job internet tough guy you sure put Dan in his place!

Cloud says

Bill Mahr, you mean the guy who get to call women c*nts ?

*Yawn*

Cloud says

...Dan made in a post...CATHOLIC GIRLS ARE SLUTS...
You have no credibility.

**Doubble-Yawn**

Cloud's favorite fallacy of the day: genetic

Dan8267 says

But why the fuck do you right-wingers hate Obama when he is literally implementing every Republican policy short of tearing up the Constitution and establishing a Christian fundamentalist theocracy? The only two things that it could possibly be is that he plays for the other team and he's black. And right-wingers just hate those two things.

That pretty much sums up my feeling on this as well. He's record is pretty much moderate conservative (firmly right when it comes to foreign policy) so when the right wing nutjobs paints him as a commie terrorist from Kenya they lose all my credibility.

Cloud says

Leo to the rescue!

Cloud I am here to help.

I will do what I can, but try as I might I may not be able to save you from yourself.

Cloud says

"try as I might I may not be able to save you from yourself."

spoken like a true big government type.

That is the classic argument: Should government's job be to protect people from themselves? On the surface, one would say "of course not". But take for example motorcycle helmet laws. If you don't wear a helmet why should I have to pay to scrape your brains off the highway?

Of course, in Cloud's case, this wouldn't be a problem.

Cloud says

Good point.

Glad we could agree on something, but wonder if you understand what it is.

Cloud says

Not without burning out my keyboard! I know where you are going...but when it goes to building roads, paying for a military, seat belt laws, to banning sodas and forcing people to pay for health insurance in an attempt to change the very nature of government, that is where we part company.

The camel's nose is not only under the tent but his ass end is nearly there too.

I bet you hear whooshing sounds a lot and wonder "what's that?". That's the rest of us flying over your head. Figuratively, Cloud, figuratively.

Dan8267 - that chart and Max Nutting's hack analysis was debunked 2 weeks ago by both the AP and Washington Post (not exactly right-wing news sources)

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama-part-2/2012/05/30/gJQA3V4d2U_blog.html

Dan8267 says

Still, this goes to show that no matter what Republican policy Obama adopts, the right-wing nutjobs will immediately start hating that policy because it's now infected with black cooties. If Obama came out with eliminating the capital gains tax, the Republicans would call it socialism.

Visualized:

The GOP is like every bunch of aging corporate cranks you've sat in a meeting room with.

socal2 says

Dan8267 - that chart and Max Nutting's hack analysis was debunked 2 weeks ago by both the AP and Washington Post (not exactly right-wing news sources)

Thank you for at least coming back with the right approach to debating this issue. At least now we can have an intelligent discussion of this issue.

But first, I am stating on the record that as someone who clearly does not and has never supported Obama -- hell, I'm his biggest detractor on this site and that's including all the right-wing lies that other people have spread. As I clearly am not pro-Obama, I have absolutely no political motivation to make him look good. If anything, one would expect me to want him to look bad on this issue, particularly since I also completely disagree with the way he handled the depression.

That said, the crux of the argument that the Haver data behind the Maher chart is incorrect is

The problem with that rosy 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. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

OK, fair enough. Let's go with that now for the sake of argument -- it would be nice if someone could confirm that. But what does that change? $150 billion in spending cuts when the spending is $3.8 trillion is only 3.9%. So, add that to Obama's 1.4% and you get 5.3%. By that math, Obama is still spending less than Republican president up to and including Reagan. Only during Reagan's second term did he spend less, but Reagan still spent way more overall.

So even accepting the proposed adjusted to the Haver data, Obama still comes out as a sprendthrift and the only massive spending he did (3.9% / 5.3%) or 66% of his spending increase was to stimulate the economy which is something that every politician Democrat or Republican (including Bush II) was for. And why, because everyone in Washington is a Keynesian who believes that aggregate demand is the cure-all for all depressions. Republican and Democrats do not differ on Keynesian economics.

However, I cannot wholeheartedly accept the assertion that Obama increased spending by 5.3% based solely on the assertion of an associated press article that doesn't include the actual evidence. Normally, I'd give the press some benefit of a doubt, but I have the evidence. I've linked to it.

The archive data I've linked to shows in detail both the revenue and the outlays of the federal government including the totals, the budgeted, and the non-budgeted. It also includes detailed analysis of the data. The data I've gotten from government historians does not count the payback as decrease spending but as revenue. I don't know off the top of my head if it was budgeted or non-budgeted. And my graph is based on that data.

My graph shows Obama -- and to be fair, all presidents -- as spending less than on Maher's graph. However, the relative size of the bars are the same. Obama hasn't spent as much as Bush despite having to continue to pay for wars that Bush started, which quite frankly are what is responsible for the vast majority of the spending increases. Those wars -- note the plural -- are damn expensive. The worse case you can make against Obama is that he didn't cut-and-run, but that's exactly what the Republicans universally said America shouldn't do.

Now I disagree with those wars and never supported them. I only supported strategic strikes to take out Al Qaeda, which was accomplished quickly and inexpensively. But the red states universally supported the wars and wanted them expanded through various surges. Well surges of troops and equipment means surges of spending. War is expensive and provides zero returns (since you can't pillage and enslave anymore, well, at least not enslave).

As such, I don't seen any evidence that Obama is the biggest promoter of spending in all history. The only straw you can possible grasp at is that Obama is the most recent president and since federal spending has been going up crazy since Reagan, inertia is going to force later presidents to spend more than previous ones. The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is almost certainly going to spend more than this one. And the administration after that, Republican or Democrat, is almost certainly going to spend more that that one.

Before you can decrease spending, you have to zero-out the differential, the growth in spending. It's like driving a car. You start at 40 mph and keep accelerating to 60 mph. Before you can bring the car to a stop, you have to first stop accelerating, and then decelerate.

And finally, I've been complaining about the national debt since 1984 when Reagan was running for his second term after massively increasing the debt. I find it very suspicious that all of a sudden the right is concerned about a debt when it didn't mean anything when Bush II was running it up. I also find it very suspicious that the right opposes military spending, which accounts for 24% of federal spending and 54% of the income tax.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

So, if you are truly for greatly reducing federal spending, which I am, based on the first chart above, the places you need to cut in order are: defense, health care, government pensions, and too some degree welfare. But the big three are about the same size and almost twice what we spend on welfare.

And the thing about defense -- and I use that term very loosely because it's not really defense -- is that we could cut it by 80% and still be spending as much as the next highest spending country, China, which has a population 1.3 trillion or about 4.43 times as many people as the U.S. We would have to cut defense by 95.5% to spend as much per capita as the second highest spending country. But let's just cut it by 80%, and we'll still be spending over 4 times as much per capita as China, and our military is still way ahead of theirs anyway.

By the way, if you think China is a threat that demands military spending, then maybe we shouldn't be trading so heavily with them. Just saying.

To conclude, Obama is not the big spender. In fact Democrats aren't big spenders. The facts clearly show that Republicans way out-spend Democrats. It's just that Republicans put us in debt for that spending instead of taxing for it, which quite frankly is worse. And Republicans are all for spending on the wrong things, things that destroy wealth like war instead of creating wealth like building infrastructure.

Put simply, Republicans aren't fiscally responsible. The facts don't support that claim. And this is coming from someone who paid his own way through college working, and has been debt free since paying off his college/car loans within four months of graduating. I know fiscally responsibility.

Except that Obama's policies were invented by Republicans, and it's only when he adopts them that the Republicans start hating them. That's even worse than the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

Dan8267 says

And no, my data does not count tax decreases as spending.

I stand corrected. Thanks. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the spending increases. For Bush, it was probably mostly the wars, medicare drug spending, and fiscal stimulus. For Obama, I don't know.

I guess they figure that the first year in office, the gov't follows the previous presidents budget? I don't know how that is done.

Your main point that repubs increased spending way more than dems over the last 30 yrs seems pretty well proven. That is really too bad, because I'd rather spend money on dem programs than repub ones.

Wow! Imagine that! One political party lies about the other.

The only significant action Obama has taken to the advantage of US citizens is to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Gosh, that was SO politically risky, right? Everything else is very nearly the same as would have been done by a Republican. Medical system reform that is just the opposite. Financial sector reform that ISN'T.

And Maher said that we've lost no rights? He hasn't been paying enough attention or is being very selectively attentive as there have been all sorts of draconian, Constitution violating laws passed. And just as any Republican president would have allowed, we have now established a huge, police state infrastructure from post 9/11 terrorism fear mongering.

Obama is just as bought and paid for by moneyed special interests as any Republican. And the Supreme Court has now approved full control of our brain-dead political ads by multi-national corporations and the wealthy.

Finally, he has allowed this economic path to be taken, just as would any Republican - bail out the banksters who made huge, bad bets and transfer as much money as possible to them before we hit the exponential debt increase wall again, next time far more catastrophically:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=206992

Excerpt:

The issue before us is simply whether those who intentionally made bad loans and bad bets will be forced to eat them through removing the intentional excess liquidity (which is stealing your wealth and income every single day) or whether you will be forced to cover them as well as suffering the inevitable consequences of the [inevitable, mathematically dictated] contraction.

Approximately $3,000 has been stolen every year for the last four years from every man, woman and child in this country through intentional deficit spending and debasement for the benefit of these banksters, yet the economy has not recovered. We cannot recover that which was stolen but we must stop the stealing now as this theft has and continues to damage the common American every single day it continues.

Dan8267 says

So even accepting the proposed adjusted to the Haver data, Obama still comes out as a sprendthrift and the only massive spending he did (3.9% / 5.3%) or 66% of his spending increase was to stimulate the economy which is something that every politician Democrat or Republican (including Bush II) was for.

Dan - the other problem is that Obama took the monumental stimulus spending in 2009 (proposed by both parties) and used it as the new BASELINE spending benchmark. The stimulus spending in 2009 was supposed to be a one time shot in the arm to "stimulate". Not the new rate of spending going forward for 4+ years.

This is why Nutting and Democrats are using "rate of spending increase" in their analysis to make Obama look better since he is only raising spending about 3% each year on top of the massive spending increase of 2009.

Cloud says

I've been Shreked!!!!

You mean you are starting a second account first claiming to not be "Cloud", but a friend of "Cloud". Then after a while changing the name on the account and claiming to have no knowledge whatsoever of "Cloud"?

I am Cloud.

Abe

socal2 says

This is why Nutting and Democrats are using "rate of spending increase" in their analysis to make Obama look better since he is only raising spending about 3% each year on top of the massive spending increase of 2009.

Who cares about the rate of spending increase, the only number that matters is the spending relative to the economy. As a percentage of gdp federal expenditures have been decreasing since 2009 from 25.5% to 24%. So Obama's increases have been less than the increase in growth. For reference W increased from 18% to 20% his first three years, Clinton decreased from 22% to 20% his first 3 years, Bush I increased from 21% to 22% his first 3 years, Reagan increased from 20% to 24% his first 3 years. Those goddam commie democratic presidents are spending like drunken sailors again. Anyone can see that (at least anyone that listens to faux news all day).

Why is it Obama's fault the Bush spiked the budget his last year anyway?

Speaking of Faux News, why are they the only agency that invites prominant individuals with opposing viewpoints on their programs, while none of the other's do?

YesYNot says

Thanks. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the spending increases.

You could actually extract that data from the charts and tables at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2012_US_fed and the prior years. It would take a small bit of work, but it's just grunt work and arithmetic. Just keep subtracting years from the URL path.

socal2 says

Dan - the other problem is that Obama took the monumental stimulus spending in 2009 (proposed by both parties) and used it as the new BASELINE spending benchmark. The stimulus spending in 2009 was supposed to be a one time shot in the arm to "stimulate". Not the new rate of spending going forward for 4+ years.

That so does not apply to my graph or Bill Maher's.

The data I provided proves definitively that all Republicans have increased spending fuckloads more than any Democrats since 1980, and that Obama has increased spending the least, even decreasing real spending as opposed to nominal spending.

Again, I don't like any of Obama's economic decisions including the stimulus, but the facts clearly show that on this particular issue, Obama isn't the one ratcheting up federal spending. Why can't Republicans just admit the truth on this one issue? Just to show that you have some grasp on reality.

Honest Abe says

I am Cloud.

Abe

I don't believe that. Cloud's a professional asshole. You can't fake that kind of sexual frustration, and you can't turn it off by logging in under a different name.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/g6kwUBrRjaM