Johnson Newsletter spreads a little truthiness

I got a newsletter today from Senator Johnson. I found this pie graph from the New York Times interesting. I wonder how many teabagger heads exploded after reading this. I’m sure something like “Lying Socialists!” was shouted in living rooms across the state. The truth hurts.

Scan10001



9 comments ↓

#1 The Minuteman on 10.01.09 at 8:19 pm

LYING SOCIALIST PINKO COMMIE NAZI TERRORIST-LOVER BORN IN KENYA!!!

HALLELUIA! HOLY SHIT! WHERE’S THE TYLENOL?

#2 Sy on 10.01.09 at 10:33 pm

For starters, if a person’s head explodes upon reading this little nugget of propaganda than they very well can’t yell across the living room, now can they?

Beyond that, the Times is saying with a strait face that the Crapulous Bill isn’t associated with Obama’s Agenda? If that’s the case than why is BHO running around the world claiming credit for the “recovery” that’s well under way because of it? And we still have what, 90% of that spam-fest to dole out?

Conversely, they have Bush holding the bag for shit happening 3 years after he leaves office, like the Bailouts which Obama & Biden actually cast votes for.

Even if you unhinge the jaw and swallow that whole wad of crap, that still means Bush is responsible for $636 billion of the deficit over 8 years. In 8 months of Obama, how have we done? Let see what those Socialists over at the WP say:

“In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.”

and

“The CBO is the official scorekeeper for budgeting on Capitol Hill, and the new report could complicate efforts to win congressional approval for Obama’s $3.6 trillion request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. While Obama had predicted a deficit of nearly $1.2 trillion for 2010, the CBO puts next year’s budget gap at nearly $1.4 trillion. And this year’s deficit is now projected to soar past $1.8 trillion, or 13 percent of the economy — the deepest well of red ink since the end of World War II.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html

Phuc n A, next to Obama, Bush is a friggin’ piker.

#3 Ghost of Dude on 10.02.09 at 6:45 am

And we still have what, 90% of that spam-fest to dole out?

Hence the number being so low at the moment. It’s still possible that the rest won’t get spent – especially if the GOP can get back in control of congress next year. If Pelosi and Reid stay at the helm, it’s probably a given.

#4 RU4Real on 10.02.09 at 6:48 am

If a liberal writer took the time to make a pie chart, the information in it has to be factual and accurate. lol

#5 Costner on 10.02.09 at 6:59 am

Conversely, they have Bush holding the bag for shit happening 3 years after he leaves office, like the Bailouts which Obama & Biden actually cast votes for.

What is the alternative? Should they blame Obama for the bailout even though he wasn’t at the helm at the time?

The fact is, the very same people bitching about Obama’s spending are the same ones to conveniently forget what transpired under Bush. I won’t go so far as to claim this pie chart is 100% accurate and I’m sure some of it is open to interpretation, but when our debt went over $10 Trillion under Bush I heard nothing from the right. All of the sudden Obama steps into the ring and we have tea parties and mass protest from the right.

I would guess this chart was in response to some of the tea-baggery and how their entire argument is based upon a lie.

Of course if Obama has his way and we get a healthcare bill, it would be interesting to see the impact of it on this chart 3 or 4 years from now.

#6 Sy on 10.02.09 at 8:24 am

Costner:

“What is the alternative? Should they blame Obama for the bailout even though he wasn’t at the helm at the time?”

By that same token, if a POTUS is responsible for 3 years of crap after he leaves office, than I guess the Right wing fringe is correct blaming Clinton for the ’01 Recession, 9-11 and the Invasion of Iraq then, right?

Like the Stimulus, TARP and the other bailouts are still a fluid situation. Obama could advocate to dial that back if he choose to. Bush and both sides of the aisle said we needed this a year ago or we face a complete meltdown. Obama wasn’t at the helm, but he sure as fuck was rowing in the same direction as Bush. So you either blame both or credit both, it’s intellectually dishonest to try to split blame the the Times, L3wis & Tim’s staff are doing.

And no where in the field of Economics will you find anyone sane who will argue that the best way to come back from the brink is to borrow and spend several trillion $$$ more in the span of 8 months.

Costner:

“but when our debt went over $10 Trillion under Bush I heard nothing from the right.”

For 28 of 32 quarters under Bush, our Economy was growing and debt as a percentage of GDP was not even as bad as other wartime Economy’s of the last 75 years. Look it up.

Like the Post noted, what has happened since Obama took office is unprecedented since WW2, and this is in light of winding down Iraq and Afghanistan.

Costner:

“and how their entire argument is based upon a lie.”

and what lie is that? Is this current Admin. and Congress not trying to implement massive Government takeovers of Health Care and other sectors of our Economy? Are they not claiming this is what people voted for when indeed NONE of this shit was in the original pitch? Are they not trying to force Unionization of industries & businesses? Are they not trying to implement Cap & Trade and dictate what color your house should be, what car you should drive, how much energy you should consume? Are they not trying to target the “rich” by raising their taxes? Are they not Nationalizing entire industries like Student Loan financing? Has Obama not created about a hundred “Czars” and funded their activities through the Executive branch, regardless of whether or not their roles are redundant with other Govt. agencies?

All of that is true, and rather than debate any of it, the Dems and their lapdogs like you want to focus on the fuckhead in the Youtube vid in the other thread.

#7 Costner on 10.02.09 at 10:00 am

Sy: By that same token, if a POTUS is responsible for 3 years of crap after he leaves office, than I guess the Right wing fringe is correct blaming Clinton for the ‘01 Recession, 9-11 and the Invasion of Iraq then, right?

Bush has been out of office for less than a year, so unless you have a DeLorean capable of traveling to the future, I doubt you’ve seen anyone blame Bush for something three years after he left office.

That said, blame and credit need to be placed appropriately. I have a hard time blaming our current economic crisis upon Obama as President, but I wouldn’t rest it all at the feet of Bush either. Clearly we had a Senate banking committee and a Fed Chairman who were asleep.

How the hell you blame Clinton for the invasion of Iraq I have no idea. I know those on the far right like to blame him for everything that ever went wrong during the Bush era, but it is hard to pin a war on a man who didn’t vote for it, authorize it, or have anything to do with it.

Sy: For 28 of 32 quarters under Bush, our Economy was growing and debt as a percentage of GDP was not even as bad as other wartime Economy’s of the last 75 years. Look it up.

Yea I’ve heard those talking points from the right more than a few times. Sort of like saying for 2919 out of 2920 days we weren’t attacked by terrorists during the Bush Presidency either…. but that one day was a real bitch. The net effect on the ecomomy was a negative during Bush’s Presidency – that is a fact. He might have been up more quarters than down, but the quarters that went down wiped out all of the growth, so I don’t think it is much to brag about.

People can spin numbers to claim debt as a percentage of GDP weren’t “as bad” as other Presidents, but the fact is it was pretty bad. I’m sure you’ve seen the charts that show the debt and how it dramatically shifted under Bush… I don’t see how anyone can defend his actions. The claim was his tax cuts would create jobs and eliminate debt but that never happened. With or without the economic crisis, Bush policies were failing.

This isn’t to say Obama’s end-of-term report card won’t look as bad or even worse, but my point is those on the right were quick to ignore the failed policies and excessive deficits under Bush but a few months after Obama steps into office – in the middle of an economic meltdown no less – they are calling for blood and decrying excessive government spending as if this is something new.

Sy: and what lie is that?

That Obama is somehow different in terms of spending. We didn’t see tea parties when Bush decided TARP was a good idea. We didn’t see them when we had to effectively borrow $700 Billion for a war. We didn’t see them when he decided to cut taxes at the very time we were fighting a war (something which I don’t beleive has ever happened in the history of our nation) and we didn’t see them when our national debt clock had to be replaced because it ran out of digits or when it was revealed that the debt under Bush was equal to the debts of every other previous President…. COMBINED.

That is why when they claim their little protests were about excessive spending I know them to be lying, because if that was the true motivation they would have been protesting decades ago, or at the very least half way through the first Bush term.

The true reason for the tea parties wasn’t to protest spending… it was to protest spending by a Democrat, and it was effectively a protest against Obama himself.

Is this current Admin. and Congress not trying to implement massive Government takeovers of Health Care and other sectors of our Economy?

I wouldn’t say reform equals massive government takeover by any stretch of the imagination.

As to “other sectors of the economy” you’ll have to be more specific. I don’t think Obama or Bush for that matter wanted to put all that money in to the financial sector… but we didnt really have a choice, and most economists agree with that viewpoint regardless of what the pundits might think.

Are they not claiming this is what people voted for when indeed NONE of this shit was in the original pitch?

Healthcare was in the original pitch. Turning our economy around was in the original pitch. A shift of focus and the generic term ‘change’ was in the original pitch.

If anything Obama is doing shocks the American voter who supported him – that is their own fault for not paying attention prior to the election.

Are they not trying to force Unionization of industries & businesses?

They are surely trying to make it easier – and I suppose one could claim they are trying to force the issue, but that isn’t why people are protesting either so I’m not sure the relevance.

they not trying to implement Cap & Trade and dictate what color your house should be, what car you should drive, how much energy you should consume?

Yes they want Cap & Trade, but we might be eggagerating a tad to think they care what color your house is or what car you should drive. Last I checked I can still go out and by a Hummer if I desire – there are no plans to change that.

In any case all administrations have attempted to influence decision making. That is exactly why there are such things as targeted tax cuts, but when Congress reduces a tax on cell phones I don’t stretch and try to claim they are trying to get people to shut of their land lines.

Are they not trying to target the “rich” by raising their taxes?

Wasn’t Bush targeting the rich by lowering them?

If you think the rich are those who are showing up at Town Hall meetings to going to tea parties, I’ve got a really nice bridge to nowhere you might be interested in.

Are they not Nationalizing entire industries like Student Loan financing?

Yep – but didn’t the CBO say this would save us Billions a year while allowing more students to afford college? I’m not a proponent of big government, but if something can save us money it seems difficult to whine about it and still complain about the growing debt. People at tea parties should love the idea of eliminating the FFELP program.

Has Obama not created about a hundred “Czars” and funded their activities through the Executive branch, regardless of whether or not their roles are redundant with other Govt. agencies?

Yes – but I saw a chart recently that showed the number of Czars under his administration really isn’t all that different from past administrations. Sometimes they give them different titles, but the end result is the same.

Then again it’s always fun to repeat a talking point parrotted on talk radio.

All of that is true, and rather than debate any of it, the Dems and their lapdogs like you want to focus on the fuckhead in the Youtube vid in the other thread.

The good old Sy fallback plan. When facts and figures get in the way…just call someone a name. I’m far from a lapdog for the left or Obama, but it seems to me they are doing just a fine job of debating the issues while those on the right just continue to spiral down the drain as they toss out terms like “socialist”, “communist” “death panel” or “Nazi” in hopes something will stick.

Then again I never watched the YouTube video nor did I comment on it, so I guess your comment has no basis in reality either way. Shocker.

#8 Sy on 10.02.09 at 2:33 pm

Costner:

“How the hell you blame Clinton for the invasion of Iraq I have no idea.”

I’m not, try to keep up. I am saying it is absurd to, just as it is to blame 53% of the above pie chart (which goes into 2012 BTW) on Bush.

Costner:

“Yea I’ve heard those talking points from the right more than a few times. Sort of like saying for 2919 out of 2920 days we weren’t attacked by terrorists during the Bush Presidency either….”

No, it isn’t. Not even close. You are back into Absurdity-ville and seem to be running for Mayor.

An Economy is something we have, have always had and hopefully will continue to have. It’s components or indicators are easily measured, tracked & analyzed. Conversely, Terror attacks by a shadow group(s) are an anomoly that no one can predict with any degree of accuracy if we will have one or one hundred over whatever time period.

Costner:

“I’m sure you’ve seen the charts that show the debt and how it dramatically shifted under Bush… I don’t see how anyone can defend his actions. The claim was his tax cuts would create jobs and eliminate debt but that never happened. With or without the economic crisis, Bush policies were failing.”

Ahh, the patently reliable Costner doublespeak, like clockwork. You seem to be a big fan of charts, and if you take the one above at face value (which is bullshit, but let’s play along) you still have Bush responsible for 53% of a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit going into 2012. If those actions are indefensible, than why are you defending Obama’s more than tripling that amount? Again, especially when you can’t or won’t find anyone sane that would advocate you fix an slumping Economy the way Obama has proposed.

Why don’t you try to wrap your brain around this chart:

GDP growth rate adjusted by inflation:

Year Mar Jun Sep Dec Average
2009 -3.30 -3.90 -3.60
2008 2.00 1.60 0.00 -1.90 0.43
2007 1.40 1.90 2.70 2.50 2.13
2006 3.00 3.00 2.20 2.40 2.65
2005 3.40 3.10 3.10 2.70 3.08
2004 4.10 4.00 3.10 3.10 3.58
2003 1.50 1.70 2.90 3.80 2.48
2002 1.60 1.50 2.30 1.90 1.83
2001 2.30 1.00 0.60 0.40 1.08
2000 4.20 5.40 4.10 2.90 4.15

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

or this one:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=3&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2000&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#

Note the GDP indexes from the same time period. We were at 88.825 in 2000, 2005 is 100 and we finished 2008 at 105.331.

Now, feel free to explain to all of us how this statement of yours could possibly be true:

Costner:

“The net effect on the ecomomy was a negative during Bush’s Presidency – that is a fact. He might have been up more quarters than down, but the quarters that went down wiped out all of the growth, so I don’t think it is much to brag about.”

This from the hypocrite that bemoans talking points with no basis in fact.

You’d have to be friggin’ OMNIPOTENT to bend, twist or fudge the numbers to fit your talking point.

Costner:

“decrying excessive government spending as if this is something new.”

According to what I posted from the WP above, this level is indeed something new. Allow me to refresh your memory:

“the CBO puts next year’s budget gap at nearly $1.4 trillion. And this year’s deficit is now projected to soar past $1.8 trillion, or 13 percent of the economy — THE DEEPEST WELL OF RED INK SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR 2.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html

Costner:

“Yes – but I saw a chart recently that showed the number of Czars under his administration really isn’t all that different from past administrations.”

Really? Was is this chart:

Summary table – Number of czars per administration
President’s name In office Number of
“czar” jobs

Franklin Roosevelt 1933–1945 12 19
Harry Truman 1945–1953 6 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953–1961 1 1
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 ? ?
Lyndon Johnson 1963–1969 3 3
Richard Nixon 1969–1974 3 5
Gerald Ford 1974–1977 1 1
Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 2 3
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 2 3
Bill Clinton 1993–2001 7 10
George W. Bush 2001–2009 31 46
Barack Obama 2009– 43 52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

The second number is “number of appointees” but I couldn’t manage to fit that in.

But the point remains, that once again, Obama has blown by previous Admins, including Bush in 8 months in the Czar category as well.

And once again, Costner pulls a COMPLETE LIE of talking point out if his ass and trys to pass it off like it’s some talk radio line. The truth is, that BHO has appointed more Czars than FDR to Clinton combined.

Fuckin’ A Costner, it’s starting to look like your level of hypocrisy and flat out dishonesty is off the freakin’ charts.

#9 Costner on 10.02.09 at 7:59 pm

Sy: An Economy is something we have, have always had and hopefully will continue to have. It’s components or indicators are easily measured, tracked & analyzed. Conversely, Terror attacks by a shadow group(s) are an anomoly that no one can predict with any degree of accuracy if we will have one or one hundred over whatever time period.

My point being it might feel warm and fuzzy to claim “For 28 of 32 quarters under Bush, our Economy was growing” blah blah blah… but that just shows you aren’t looking beyond the talking point. GDP is important, but isn’t the ONLY factor of our economy. Hell we knew the economy was in the shitter long before we had two or more quarters of negative expansion in the economy and before the economists would acknowledge a true “recession”.

I was hoping you would understand my analogy had more to do with focusing on numbers and ignoring the impact, but clearly I was expecting too much. Nuff said.

SyAhh, the patently reliable Costner doublespeak, like clockwork. You seem to be a big fan of charts, and if you take the one above at face value

Actually Sy – I never said I believed it. I even went so far as to say “I won’t go so far as to claim this pie chart is 100% accurate” because I’m sure I could find many a fault in the analysis.

Way to go for making more assumptions though.

Sy: If those actions are indefensible, than why are you defending Obama’s more than tripling that amount?

Once again you’re making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Please feel free to quote me where I’ve defended Obama’s excessive spending. kthx.

Back in the real world – I don’t condone excessive spending by Obama, Bush, or anyone before them. I’m merely pointing out the idiotic belief that tea parties have anything to do with spending when it is so clear that isn’t based in reality.

SyNow, feel free to explain to all of us how this statement of yours could possibly be true

Actually Sy, and I know this will shock you – but I can’t defend my statement. Because I was obviously mentally impaired when I wrote it and I didn’t mean to suggest GDP was down (which is clearly what you were referring to). That is my error and I should have been clear that I was speaking about budget surpluses versus deficit.

I was blurring two distinct subjects due in part to me posting in pieces as I had time. Again my error, but I get the feeling rather than accepting my acknowledged error you will just continue to berate me and claim I’m backpeddling. So be it.

Sy:According to what I posted from the WP above, this level is indeed something new.

“This level”…well sure it is. Just as every past administration has reached a “new level” which was previously unheard of. But that wasn’t my point – as my quote indicated they (meaning those who attend tea parties) are “calling for blood and decrying excessive government spending as if this is something new.”

I don’t believe I wrote “new levels of excessive spending” I merely wrote “excessive spending” because that is what we are being told is the reason for the protests. I still don’t buy it – because our government has been spending at excessive levels for (as I said) decades if not longer, and if there was ever a time to protest against spending… it might have been when someone thought it was a good idea to start two wars while cutting taxes at the same time the economy was showing signs of slowing due to a dot-com bursting bubble.

And no I’m not blaming all of that on Bush, but I clearly recognize the hypocrisy in the protesters. You can spend all day trying to convince me they are sincere in their cause, but I’ll still go to bed knowing they are full of shit.

Sy: Really? Was is this chart:

No – actually it was a chart I saw on television, and I included more non-cabinet positions to show how the label “czar” isn’t the only position a President has the ability of appointing. The bottom line is people are quick to attack Obama for hiring all these czars, but even if we take the numbers you obtained via Wikipedia it shows Obama having a whopping 6 more czars than Bush. On top of that the Wiki entry goes on to explain they are only counted when the actual title of “czar” is applied.

Yet if we watch the pundits on Fox News or listen to talk radio we are expected to believe Obama is hiring dozens upon dozens of czars and that this is somehow unprecedented. I don’t think the facts bear that out.

SyAnd once again, Costner pulls a COMPLETE LIE of talking point out if his ass and trys to pass it off like it’s some talk radio line. The truth is, that BHO has appointed more Czars than FDR to Clinton combined.

Not sure what lie you are referring to Sy, as I clearly said initially that they often give them different titles. That remains true whether you believe it or not.

As far as your “BHO has appointed more Czars than FDR to Clinton combined” line again you’re back to the talking points. I don’t recall any concern from you (or your opinion generators on talk radio) when Bush appointed more czars than FDR to Bush Sr combined either. Just another example of selective hypocrisy.

Then again I’m left wondering – why the fuck do you care how many czars Obama hires? Does hiring an extra 10 or 20 or even 50 people under his administration really make a difference in the scope of things?

Oh sure we care about an extra six czars and we care about the gallons of fuel it takes to fly to Denmark – but if a guy wants to start a war and blow $600 Billion – go ahead… worth every penny.