posted October 09, 2013 11:41 AM            

Dennis Ross on Monday, October 7th, 2013 in an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times

U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, is one of a small group of Republicans calling for an end to the government shutdown.

After all, Republicans have succeeded in reining in government spending, Ross wrote in an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times (the parent of PolitiFact), on Oct. 7, 2013.

"In the few years since I was elected to Congress in 2010, we have achieved huge savings and taken monumental steps. For the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row," Ross wrote, adding, "That is why I would support a continuing resolution that funds the government at sequestration levels for one year."

A reader asked us whether Ross was correct that, "for the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row." We thought the claim was interesting, and we decided to check it out.

By the most basic measure we found that Ross is right.

The Korean War was an active conflict through the signing of a truce on July 26, 1953, so we counted starting in 1953.

Between 1953 and 1955, federal spending fell each year, from $76.1 billion to $70.9 billion to $68.4 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. By 1956, spending had edged up again, to $70.6 billion.

After that, spending almost always went up every year, at least until recently. It fell for one year between 1964 and 1965, and then once again between 2009 and 2010.

But the only time it fell two years in a row was between 2011 and 2013. In 2011, federal outlays were $3.60 trillion. Outlays fell to $3.54 trillion in 2012, and the Congressional Budget Office projects the figure to fall to $3.46 trillion in 2013.

We should note that this is not the only way to measure a claim like this. Sometimes, raw dollars aren’t an especially useful measurement for analyzing long periods of history, especially when talking about things that are growing. Inflation, population growth and economic expansion almost inevitably make the most recent year the largest ever. However, in this case, we think that using raw dollars is an acceptable measurement. That’s because reductions in spending mean swimming against the tide of inflation and growth.

Our rating

Ross said that, "for the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row." Since the 1950s, spending fell one year between 1964 and 1965, and then once again between 2009 and 2010. But the only time it fell two years in a row was between 2011 and 2013. We rate the statement True. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/08/dennis-ross/rep-dennis-ross-says-us-spending-has-fallen-two-st/

posted October 10, 2013 03:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
No responses, huh?

---

No responses to stooooopid

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 10, 2013 07:26 PM            

Polls are fun and can be important. But when journalists think the public is wrong, they have an obligation to say so.
Derek Thompson Oct 9 2013, 4:39 PM ET

Here's a fact: The deficit is falling.

Here's another fact: Americans don't know the deficit is falling.

The point isn't that Americans are stupid. They have busy lives and concerns that have nothing to do with the annual gap between taxes and outlays. Instead, the point is that public-opinion polls don't belong on the same plane as facts and informed analysis, because they qualify as neither.

Smash-cut to the government showdown: The last few weeks have seen a sort of media-insider debate (which I hope is interesting to people who aren't just media insiders) about whether journalists are wrong to blame both parties for a shutdown that seems rather obviously to be a Republican creation. Jim Fallows has obsessively tracked these instances of "false equivalence" or "pox on both houses" journalism that makes Democrats seem similarly blameworthy for a shutdown they're playing very little part in.

In a piece today for National Journal, Ron Fournier leans on public opinion to show that, no, in fact, both Republicans and Democrats deserve a big serving of blame for the shut-down government, because Americans think they're both to blame. He writes:

It would be false equivalence to say Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the government shutdown and the possibility of a debt default. Republicans engineered the shutdown to protest a three-year-old health care law, knowing their defund-or-delay demands were unattainable ...

... At the same time, voters don't absolve the Democratic majority in the Senate or President Obama himself. Only 37 percent approve of the way the president is handling his job, an anemic number. Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid has a favorability rating of just 18 percent...

... The story and poll assess blame unequally, which is the exact opposite of false equivalence.

Go back to the graph that leads this article. Imagine, briefly, if we published a story on the deficit that said, essentially: "The CBO says the deficit is rapidly shrinking, but at the same time, Americans don't seem to know that, so perhaps we need to cut the deficit even more." That's not just a meaningless juxtaposition. It's misleading, too.

Rather than free readers from the shackles of false equivalence, this sort of argument actually solidifies the worst kind of false equivalence. It holds up the misinformation of survey respondents—whose opinions have been shaped by both-parties-are-to-blame coverage—as equivalent to an informed analysis of Washington. As Fournier observes the shutdown is entirely a GOP production. The fact that voters disagree is not, by itself, a useful counter-argument. It's like we're feeding readers the false-equivalence narrative, watching them eat it, and then saying: "Well, Americans do seem to blame both sides equally, maybe there's something to that."

Public polls are a fine gauge of public opinion, but they're not to be treated as a barometer of reality. Pretending otherwise mixes up the regurgitated misinformation of readers with the careful analysis of people who are in the business of busting misinformation.

posted October 10, 2013 07:32 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 10, 2013 08:02 PM            

He's forever jumping the gun without all the information. Apparently, acoustic doesn't know that Commander airhead jumped federal spending and budget deficits over the moon in his first 2 years of White House infestation. Commander airhead almost tripled the highest deficit Bush ever posted.

Now, with a Republican House majority throttling back spending AND deficits since 2011, acoustic is crowing about Commander airhead reducing deficits.

First, Commander airhead inflates the deficits, then House Republicans deflate the deficits and acoustic and Commander airhead crows about what a great deficit hawk Commander airhead is.

posted October 10, 2013 08:20 PM            

I am dying here with that one, Jwhop

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 10, 2013 08:25 PM            

quote:

---

Rather than free readers from the shackles of false equivalence, this sort of argument actually solidifies the worst kind of false equivalence. It holds up the misinformation of survey respondents—whose opinions have been shaped by both-parties-are-to-blame coverage—as equivalent to an informed analysis of Washington. As Fournier observes the shutdown is entirely a GOP production. The fact that voters disagree is not, by itself, a useful counter-argument. It's like we're feeding readers the false-equivalence narrative, watching them eat it, and then saying: "Well, Americans do seem to blame both sides equally, maybe there's something to that."

---

posted October 10, 2013 11:19 PM            

Apparently, there are some here who don't understand the game Commander airhead is playing. He's done the same thing to deficits as con artist marketers do when they triple the price of an item then run it on sale for 25% off. Big Whoop!

"Commander airhead jumped federal spending and budget deficits over the moon in his first 2 years of White House infestation. Commander airhead almost tripled the highest deficit Bush ever posted.

Now, with a Republican House majority throttling back spending AND deficits since 2011, acoustic is crowing about Commander airhead reducing deficits.

posted October 11, 2013 11:26 AM            

Here's a little refresher course: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

quote:

---

Now, with a Republican House majority throttling back spending AND deficits since 2011, acoustic is crowing about Commander airhead reducing deficits.

---

Just like the last Democrat in that office.

posted October 11, 2013 11:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Does anyone know what gaslighting is?

---

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 11, 2013 11:33 AM            

That is better than NOBama

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 11, 2013 12:39 PM            

Here's the chart. Read-em and weep usual suspects.

The largest budget deficit under Bush was about 1/3rd the size of the O'Bomber deficits.

You must be insane to think the last demoscat as House Speaker...Nancy Pee-Lousy throttled back on federal spending. Or, lay off the Magic Mushrooms.

posted October 11, 2013 12:58 PM            

Even the Cato Institute agrees, which is surprising to me, but I'll go ahead with the details:

But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending). http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

I wouldn't take you for a "casual observer."

Similarly surprising is Heritage Institute saying the same in a different way, though they throw some blame for 2009 on Obama:

Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

But that really gets away from the point of this thread, which is that deficits have been decreasing for years.

When Obama said:

“Our deficits are now falling at the fastest rate since the end of World War II. I want to repeat that. Our deficits are going down faster than anytime since before I was born,” said Obama.

The Christian Science Monitor said:

Strictly speaking, yes. The deficit is falling as rapidly as it has in decades. Consider the figures for this year alone: Last week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that, through the first 11 months of fiscal 2013, the budget deficit was down 35 percent from the comparable period of 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0916/Obama-Deficits-falling-at-fastest-rate-since-WWII.-Is-that-true

posted October 11, 2013 02:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Does anyone know what gaslighting is?

---

posted October 11, 2013 02:58 PM            

yup

posted October 11, 2013 03:34 PM            

The OP does not mention any suggestion that Obama is responsible for cutting the deficit. Neither does AG.

posted October 11, 2013 03:50 PM            

Bush had 3 months in office after O'Bomber was elected. The year 2009 deficit was on O'Bomber's watch.

Further helpless one, the Stimulus Act...better known as the Enrich O'Bomber's Campaign Contributors and Supporters Act was passed in February 2009...after Bush was gone. That cost about $1 TRILLION DOLLARS...most of it borrowed...raising the deficit over the moon. The demoscat House and Senate passed the giveaway and O'Bomber campaigned for it and signed it into law.

I know you're casting around for some way to be seen as being right but you just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

O'Bomber doesn't get to claim victory over high deficits when his projected budget deficits out into the future never even get back down to the level of Bush's biggest deficit.

What's also true is that O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades in Congress were the cause of the TRILLION DOLLAR deficits to begin with.

Republicans in the House get credit for reining in O'Bomber's totally out of control spending binge....not O'Bomber.

So acoustic, you can stuff that absurd phony argument about the Marxist Messiah being a deficit hawk. It won't fly with anyone who knows anything.

posted October 11, 2013 05:47 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 11, 2013 08:46 PM            

Ha ha

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.