Is the Clinton Surplus a Myth?

[Elok]

The Clinton Surplice is definitely a myth. That guy was NEVER a priest.

[Felch]

I guess you didn't get the memo.

You shouldn't be linked to hyper-partisan right wing hacks like the Washington Post.

[MrFun]

That's nominal growth, isn't it? What would the chart look like if you used real growth in spending and gave credit where credit is due for the 2009 fiscal year?

So CBO, OMB, and Marketwatch are unreliable sources?

[Jaguar]

MrFun, your post has nothing to do with what you quoted.

[giblets]

So CBO, OMB, and Marketwatch are unreliable sources?

No. Well, maybe Marketwatch is, I'm not familiar with them.

[The Mad Monk]

So CBO, OMB, and Marketwatch are unreliable sources?

The way they were interpreted in that graph?

Yes. Yes they are.

[The Mad Monk]

To quote my quote of Peggy Noonan in the other thread:

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the stump—where else?—about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth is actually lower than that of previous presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama's presidency. People sneered: The president was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That's more alarming, isn't it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.

[Felch]

There's a difference between the reliability of raw data from sources, and how that all winds up being presented.