So how much has Obama increased federal spending?

Mitt Romney has accused Barack Obama of igniting a “debt and spending inferno.” American Crossroads, the Karl Rove SuperPAC, says free spending by Obama “drove us $5 trillion deeper in debt.” Veep nominee Paul Ryan, who also chairs the House Budget Committee, this week accused Obama of stealing the next generation’s future with his spending spree.

All of that talk finally got me curious: Just how much HAS spending increased under President Obama? Put another way, what does a “debt and spending inferno” look like in numerical terms?

As the base year for this analysis, let’s take 2008, the last full year of George W. Bush’s presidency. You could make the argument for using 2009 as the base year, since the ‘09 spending bills had already been passed and fiscal 2009 was already almost four months underway by the time Obama took office. But to satisfy our conservative friends, we’ll take 2008 as a cleaner, less controversial starting point.

So, after adjusting for inflation, how much did federal spending increase from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, which ended Oct. 1? Any guesses?

Just to give you some guidance in making that guess, federal spending under the sainted President Reagan grew by 9.6 percent from 1980 to 1984. (Again, all of these numbers are inflation-adjusted.) Under the second President Bush, with a largely Republican Congress, federal spending grew by 16.5 percent from 2000 to 2004.

So how much has it increased under Obama’s “spending inferno”? 25 percent? 35 percent?

The answer is 9.9 percent. Between 2008 and the recently completed fiscal 2012, total federal spending has increased by 9.9 percent, about the same amount as under Reagan and considerably less than under Bush.

fedspend

The chart above explains a lot about how we got here. On the right-hand side, you can see the impact of the Great Recession. In inflation-adjusted terms, federal spending is up less than 10 percent from 2008, but federal revenue is down substantially, falling 18 percent from fiscal ‘08 to ‘09.

In the longer term, you can see the rate of spending growth pick up under Bush in 2001. You can see revenue falter as a result of a small recession in 2001, and then continue to slide as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts have permanently altered the revenue trajectory, and combined with the Great Recession account for much of our debt and deficit woes.

So, to get bring us back to where we started:

Spending growth of 9.6 percent makes you a great conservative hero.

Spending growth of 9.9 percent makes you a great conservative villain.

And spending growth of 16.5 percent, combined with large tax cuts, makes you a recent two-term president whom nobody in your party wants to mention, and sets your country on a financially dangerous glide path.

– Jay Bookman

491 comments Add your comment

USMC

October 16th, 2012
7:59 am

Dixie Chicks

October 16th, 2012
8:00 am

How could we forget George W. Bush and the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI

Marty Huggins'

October 16th, 2012
8:01 am

The chart looks like the tax cuts restored revenue levels to that of 1999-2000 by the year 2006.

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:01 am

I seem to recall this thing called Obamacare which increase spending by trillions

If one were to include that, then well Obama has committed American government to more future spending than any president excluding Roosevelt and Johnson

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:02 am

Finally after OVER a month, someone in the Obama Administration steps up and takes responsibility…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Hillary Clinton dashes chances of a successful Presidential run in 2016 by falling on the sword for a reluctant President Obama…

Ronald Reagan Parkway

October 16th, 2012
8:02 am

Just say NO to Mitt Romney!

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:03 am

When will President Trillions try to fix the deficit with spending cuts? Never

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:04 am

So how much has Obama increased federal spending?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:05 am

USMC

Hillary has substance

Obama, not so much

Tall

October 16th, 2012
8:05 am

It’s not worth reading this column anymore. So I’m not.

Jay

October 16th, 2012
8:06 am

“The chart looks like the tax cuts restored revenue levels to that of 1999-2000 by the year 2006.”

That would be a better point if 2006 spending was also at ‘99-00 levels.

Also, the chart makes clear that tax cuts DON’T increase revenue. They down-shifted the entire trajectory of the revenue line.

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:06 am

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

October 16th, 2012
8:07 am

That’s gotta be wrong.

We all know President Obama raised the deficit eleventy gozillion dollars and seventy five cents.

Saw a tee shirt at a GOP rally that said….Let’s put the White back in the White House….That guy knows fer sure about the eleventy gozillion.

DownInAlbany

October 16th, 2012
8:08 am

All things Obama=GOOD, all things Romney=BAD. Another day, another dollar!

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:09 am

“So how much has Obama increased federal spending?”–JAY Bookman

The stunning chart that shows the Obama spending binge really happened…
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/the-stunning-chart-that-shows-the-obama-spending-binge-really-happened/

bob

October 16th, 2012
8:10 am

Dixie Chicks, if Iraq didn’t have WMDs why did Clinton bomb them and why did Clinton, Gore, Kerry and others tell us so. Jay, we finally agree, Obama hasn’t spent much at all, and we still didn’t get our moneys worth. Percentages vs real dollar amounts is a good argument, stupid tea party people will only see 5 more trillion in debt and a senate that has not passed a budget in 3 years, they are just stupid church going people that cling to their guns and religion anyway, who needs them.

BlahBlahBlah

October 16th, 2012
8:10 am

I’ll gladly champion a rollback in tax rates to Clinton levels if Mr. Bookman will champion a rollback in spending to Clinton levels, because it looks like spending is up 40-50% from 2000 but revenues only look to be down about 10-15% from 2000.

DownInAlbany

October 16th, 2012
8:10 am

That guy knows fer sure about the eleventy gozillion.

Just like Biden knows “a million-trillion…” Still chucking about that one!

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:10 am

Obama was never particularly spendy–that’s my main beef with him, actually.

TaxPayer

October 16th, 2012
8:11 am

The Bush tax cuts required a very low and sustained unemployment rate in order to pay for themselves. The latest round of proposed tax cuts from the Republicans require a sustained 2.8% unemployment rate in order to pay for themselves. Democrats should agree to give the Republicans the tax cuts they want but base them on the unemployment rate. They can have the Bush tax cuts when unemployment is at 4.8% and they can have the Romney/Ryan tax cuts when unemployment is at 2.8%. Meanwhile, given the current level of unemployment, no tax cuts for the job creators.

Republican National Convention 2012

October 16th, 2012
8:11 am

Where was George W. Bush? He was responsible for the free falling economy that President Obama inherited and you NEVER hear the media or the Repubs on this blog glorify him. If he was such a great president, why is he in hiding??

Mr. Snarky

October 16th, 2012
8:12 am

Once again we see that the repubs are full of crap with their rhetoric.

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:12 am

and effing hell, USMC, have you absolutely no shame at all? You can’t lead without spamming with the same crap you posted downstairs?

what IS your major malfunction, anyway?

I’d call you “Gomer’s Piles” henceforth, but that’s an insult to dung.

Dixie Chicks

October 16th, 2012
8:12 am

bob

October 16th, 2012
8:10 am

Can you tell me if the WMD were EVER found?

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:12 am

“Hillary has substance, Obama, not so much”–JM

Obama’s lack of LEADERSHIP is “par for the course” for a guy who came into office with NO experience. President Obama= nice guy, but in WAY over his head and corrupt as they get.

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:13 am

Obamacare will cost $17 Trillion on a present value basis

Heck, W’s two wars only cost $2-$3 Trillion

Obama is a spendthrift

Jay

October 16th, 2012
8:13 am

USMC, did you even bother to look at that “stunning” chart you just posted? The one in which the author posted an update reading:

“UPDATE: I am not sure this chart accurately reflects the methodology of the MarketWatch piece, in particular the treatment of the 2009 Omnibus spending bill. In fact, it’s probably wrong. I apologize for that.”

You just keep falling for that bait, time after time after time.

Dixie Chicks

October 16th, 2012
8:15 am

Heck, W’s two wars only cost $2-$3 Trillion

_____

You forgot to calculate the amount of fraud that has occurred with the rebuilding of Iraq.

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:15 am

USMC

You hit the nail on the head

mark in mid-town

October 16th, 2012
8:16 am

Relative to economic growth, federal spending has increased far more under Obama than under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. As well, inflation-adjusted spending levels does not take into account population growth. The population was growing at a higher rate for the past periods Bookman is comparing to than it’s been since Obama took office. To illustrate in simple way — let’s say that if there was zero inflation but the population doubled. If federal spending then doubled, one could say that federal spending in inflation-adjusted dollars doubled. But since the population also doubled, the real increase in federal spending was zero. So inflation-adjusted misses the point. It needs to be combined with population growth to get the more accurate rate of federal spending increase. And none of all that takes into account the additional amount of regulation and red tape that the federal government has added to the economy. That doesn’t show up in federal spending levels. However I assure you it shows up in a lower rate of economic growth and job creation.

bob

October 16th, 2012
8:16 am

“But there were a few problems with Nutting’s numbers. Nutting’s methodology assumes spending in the first year of a presidential term should be credited to the previous president. OK, fine. But he attributed a $410 billion spending bill in March of 2009 to George W. Bush even though it was signed by Barack Obama. Nutting also didn’t use inflation adjusted numbers.” So nutting didn’t count the 410 billion or the 800 billion in stimulus ? I can do better than Nutting, if I don’t count the 5 trillion in new debt and 500 billion in current budgeting then I can say without a doubt that Obama was right when he said he would cut the debt in half.

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:17 am

Breaking News: USA TODAY…

Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/

The Superficial Appeal is wearing off… :-)

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:17 am

from Gomer’s shrieky link @ 8.06:

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP.

ZOMG! INCREDIBLE!

except when you compare it to the rest of the planet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:17 am

Obama spent more in one bill (stimulus) than W spent on an entire war

Obama spent 6 times more in one bill (obamacare) than Bush spent on two whole wars

Let’s see, who’s the fool? O, not W

Tom Middleton

October 16th, 2012
8:18 am

But Reagan raised taxes 11 times, so yeeeeaaaaaaaaaa, Obama wins!!! :)

JohnnyReb

October 16th, 2012
8:18 am

Nice try Jay, but no cigar. Anyone with two grey cells to rub together knows “percentage” can be used to make bad things look better. My used car sales increased 100% last quarter. I sold two instead of one. That doesn’t make me a good salesman. Plus, I don’t know any Republicans who give Bush high marks on controlling spending.

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:19 am

Deep Thought:

I really wish there were “I don’t give a flying f-ck about how many trillions we have to add to our debt to get America working again” party, because I’d be sooo there.

bob

October 16th, 2012
8:20 am

Dixie, can you tell me why Clinton bombed Iraq or why dem leaders told us they had them ? And I don’t know if we found wmds but we found thousands of dead Kurds that hed been killed by them.
You don’t think Clinton lied to us do you ?

Jay

October 16th, 2012
8:20 am

“Relative to economic growth, federal spending has increased far more under Obama than under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.

Gee, ya think?

Ya think taking office amidst the biggest economic collapse in some 80 years might have had something to do with that, “relative to economic growth”?

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:22 am

The Emperor has no clothes.

Obama is getting chilly. It’s fall.

alex

October 16th, 2012
8:22 am

Jay,read this weeks “economist” you will improve your objectivity and will be partially pleased tha tsome of what you write has some validity This week there are numerous articles about income disparity and spending by goverment and taxes . Instaed of spitting the same bias all the time, you can give your readers a more nuanced view……Try it

Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...

October 16th, 2012
8:22 am

JAY,

All in, Bush’s cost of new policies (ie tax cuts, wars, medicare, etcetera) our paced Obama’s by almost 3:1. That’s certainly one favorable measure for Obama. I think by now Obama and left-at-all-cost liberal pundits will be citing Bush as blame for another 4 years of Obama’s incompetence.

Appropos of nothing here, speaking of the accuracy of CBO projections..the CBO in 2001 projected us to have a surplus of $7 trillion by now as opposed to a $16 trillion deficit..they were only off by $23 trillion…sure lots of reasons but point here is that weighing too much flesh on CBO estimates long term can’t take into account all variabilities that surface…wars, new bills, blah blah blah..

What has BO done to stem the tide? Let’s give him the $80 billion/year increase on 1%…what next?

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:22 am

Moderator Role Under Scrutiny — Before the Debate

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/#ixzz29Sopg3vB

“Controversial” Candy Crowley already setting her OWN agenda for Tonight’s Debate…

Flashback… “Ryan… a “ticket Deathwish”…
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/11/cnns-candy-crowley-ryan-pick-looks-little-bit-some-sort-ticket-death-#ixzz29N2psx9D

Bob Loblaw

October 16th, 2012
8:24 am

If you take Jay’s chart and expand it to include projections, you will see debt limit increases galore and eventually, One Nation Under China.

The only hope is a Clinton-Gingrich styled partnership to balance the budget. I see no hope of that between the Speaker, Reid & Obama.

But then again, I really can’t believe anything that comes out of Romney’s mouth.

I’d like to just hang out in Puerto Vallarta for a few years while we implode, but I have to keep defending my clients from doubletalk!

Keep Up the Good Fight!

October 16th, 2012
8:24 am

The fantasies are strong in these conned. No need for reality. They know what’s they know.

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:24 am

Jay,read this weeks “economist”

I wonder how many people we could put to work teaching wingers how to punctuate?

Whatever

October 16th, 2012
8:25 am

Jay,

I don’t care if it’s an R or a D. Spending more than you have is going into debt. Either side can try and make the numbers look good for their candidate but the truth is that both Bush and Obama spent way more than they had coming in. End of story.

Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...

October 16th, 2012
8:26 am

RNC 2012

Bush is doing the honorable thing and staying off the grid….one of his more classy actions IMO…that’s what they are supposed to do…

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:26 am

“Nice try Jay, but no cigar. Anyone with two grey cells to rub together knows “percentage” can be used to make bad things look better. My used car sales increased 100% last quarter. I sold two instead of one. That doesn’t make me a good salesman. Plus, I don’t know any Republicans who give Bush high marks on controlling spending.”

True dat Johnny Reb

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:26 am

“The Emperor has no clothes. Obama is getting chilly. It’s fall.”–jm

“Pasha” Bookman looks a little chilly, too, but he’s full of enough Hot Air to make it through this year’s Global Warming Cycle. :-)

Keep Up the Good Fight!

October 16th, 2012
8:28 am

So now “honorable” means “hiding” :lol:

Marty Huggins'

October 16th, 2012
8:28 am

Jay
October 16th, 2012
8:06 am

Revenue and spending were much closer during the time you speak about than they currently are.

You don’t think the recession you mentioned in 01 had anything to do with lowered revenue do you?

Did we raise taxes from 03-07?

But yet the amount of revenue went up.

I’ve never seen anyone argue that tax cuts immediately increase revenue.
I think the argument is that when taxes are lower more people are hired and thus more folks paying into our revenue equals more revenue.
So it would make sense there would be a delay from the time of the tax cut until revenue increased.

If the argument is that the revenue increased because the economy increased, then the argument can be made that the economy recovered in part because of the tax breaks.

Just going off the graph you posted Jay, and wondering why you chose to mention the fall in Revenue but failed to type a word about its rebound as well.

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:29 am

Alex

Nuance would be too complicated to follow for Jay’s lib wingers

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:30 am

“I wonder how many people we could put to work teaching wingers how to punctuate?”

DemocRat Intelligence at it’s best…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

May be she could be put to work “wingers” teaching ENGLISH/punctuation??? :-)

GT

October 16th, 2012
8:31 am

What is amazing in this day and age is the press refuses to correct the lies, leaving them out there like pocket approvals, giving Romney and his kind a liar’s license. In the debate JL was totally steamed rolled, Romney did everything the right accuses Biden of doing last week in his debate. He interrupted and always got the last word in over any weak fence designed for fairness. And what is with the Republicans always losing these coin tosses and having to go first in this debate setting the tone for the debate of having to be judged by Romney instead of Romney going first and being countered by Obama. Both debates have been that way.

Last night the Romney brothers appeared on CNN. They looked like the Osborn brothers with the white teeth. Then they put Reed on to follow them. Mayor Reed spelled out in no difficult to understand terms the weakness of Romney and how the press has allowed the candidate to lie and still are through this preppy presentation of the brothers. He felt like I did that Obama’s weak debate was the unexpected misrepresentation of Romney’s position that suddenly became the exact same as Obama’s. You then are in a position to have to explain what Romney positions really are losing time on your own agenda, while he defends your views calling them his own. The American public really gets to this election late and now thinks Romney is a moderate and all call this a good debate.

Jay

October 16th, 2012
8:31 am

Marty, the claim is that tax cuts make revenues grow HIGHER THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN without the tax cut.

That’s the claim. You have attempted to make it today as well, even though the chart proves it to be absolutely false.

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:32 am

Media BIAS Alert! (surprised??)

CNN host O’Brien defends Obama, as Giuliani suggests she’s tied to campaign….

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/15/cnn-host-obrien-defends-obama-as-giuliani-suggests-tied-to-campaign/#ixzz29SsE3NG5

Thomas Heyward Jr

October 16th, 2012
8:32 am

9.9 % of a Sweet Patato Pie will satiate a sweet tooth.
9.9 % of a Tanker-Ship will drown you.
.
Keynesians need not try to understand cuz……apparently ya can’t.

Jay

October 16th, 2012
8:32 am

Ira, no name-calling.

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:33 am

DemocRat Intelligence at it’s [sic] best…

Oh man, the clueless is strong with this one today.

Jm

October 16th, 2012
8:33 am

USMC

There’s panic among the libs about Obama and jay’s posts reflect that

There will be lots of liberal chest thumping after the debate

But we’ll have to probably judge from polls what the real outcome of the debate is

Unless someone seriously trips up

George W. Bush

October 16th, 2012
8:33 am

Miss me yet? :lol:

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:34 am

What is amazing in this day and age is the press refuses to correct the lies

Follow the money. If they did, the race wouldn’t be close, and people wouldn’t bother tuning into their stupid “news” broadcasts.

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:36 am

Clinton now blames Benghazi confusion in White House on ‘FOG OF WAR’
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/clinton-takes-responsibility-for-consulate-security-blames-confusion-on-fog-war/#ixzz29SskqZCK

The Lies are just incredible. The Obama Regime is so CORRUPT! :-)

JDW

October 16th, 2012
8:36 am

“I seem to recall this thing called Obamacare which increase spending by trillions”

Not intended to be a factual statement in fact intended to be an outright lie.

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:36 am

Miss me yet?

I’m pretty sure you never existed, George.

Child, please

October 16th, 2012
8:37 am

Thank you for explaining the problem of this country in such simple terms, INCREASED spending. All of the mentioned Presidents (really the Congress during those terms) are way to liberal (especially President Bush 43). The Medicare prescription coverage has been every bit the disaster to the federal budget as the Great Society. The Great Society had the added effect of killing the family unit, leading to many/most of the societal problems we have today. Never has so much money been spent with such ‘unspectacular’ results.

Give me a President and Congress that REDUCES actual spending (let’s start at 15% next year and take the full 1/3 it needs to be in about 3 years) and they’ll have my vote forever. Heck, I’d favor repealing the two term limit on a President if they could actually do what needs to be done. It would be a first. Last surplus by the federal government? 1969. That’s ridiculous.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:37 am

Appropos of nothing here, speaking of the accuracy of CBO projections..the CBO in 2001 projected us to have a surplus of $7 trillion by now as opposed to a $16 trillion deficit..they were only off by $23 trillion…

And then there was the checks everyone got in the mail from Bush to buy the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Oh, and did you know the Bush White House’s own budget projection was that we’d have a surplus in 2012, if only we let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2010? Funny about that.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:38 am

I’m pretty sure you never existed, George.

You wish.

Paul

October 16th, 2012
8:38 am

Well Jay, yesterday I guessed a couple percent a year. Those claims by Romney brought to mind a Bosch saying: “That’s just crazy talk.”

[["“Relative to economic growth, federal spending has increased far more under Obama than under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.

Gee, ya think?

Ya think taking office amidst the biggest economic collapse in some 80 years might have had something to do with that, “relative to economic growth”?"]]

Jay, I’m going to have to ask you to play nice. It’s a bit jarring for people to ask them to actually think about what they heard before they post it. If it sounds good, has a nice ring to it, what else matters?

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:39 am

Thank you for explaining the problem of this country in such simple terms, INCREASED spending

Thank you, Child, for explaining the problem in this country: people can only comprehend simple “explanations” to complex issues.

indigo

October 16th, 2012
8:40 am

Republicans are well aware that Obama has increased spending by 9.9%. They also know that lying is the only way the election can be won. To them, honesty and conscience are for losers.

Meanwile, the candidates will debate again tonight. Apparently, a majority of the electorate have decided the best debater should be our next president. I wonder if it has ever occured to them, even once, that the skills needed to be the best salesman-debater and those needed to be a good president are NOT necessarily the same?

Do politicians in Canada, England, Italy, Spain, France and other Western countries have to go thru these debates? Or, do the citizens there still favor substance over style.

Paul

October 16th, 2012
8:40 am

Bob Loblaw

“If you take Jay’s chart and expand it to include projections, you will see debt limit increases galore”

I know what you mean. That socialist Paul Ryan’s budget shows debt ceiling increases out to, what, 2040?

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:41 am

Do politicians in Canada, England, Italy, Spain, France and other Western countries have to go thru these debates?

In the UK, it happens weekly that the prime minister goes before parliament and answers their questions and spars with them.

DownInAlbany

October 16th, 2012
8:41 am

how the press has allowed the candidate to lie GT, are you referring to this lie?

Obama: ‘We Got Back Every Dime’ of Bailout; CBO: Bailout Will Lose $24 Billion

kayaker 71

October 16th, 2012
8:42 am

So, more deflection. Hillary steps up to the plate in the biggest story in the last 6 mos admitting fault for the Libya fiasco and Bookman has a thread about Bozo’s spending. Selective indignation at it’s best.

Marty Huggins'

October 16th, 2012
8:43 am

Jay
October 16th, 2012
8:31 am

How does the chart show that revenue would have been the same without tax cuts?

I’m sure the Internet bubble had nothing to do with increased revenue during 1999-2000.

So what in the chart PROVES that tax cuts do not increase revenue?
Or can you show us how the chart PROVES that tax cuts do increase revenue?

Or is it so because you say it’s so?

Also I have made no claim I pointed out to you what your chart showed and asked why you failed to mention the increase in revenue after you blamed the decrease in part on the tax cuts.
You got all defensive and started telling me what argument i was making.

Those be the facts so far Jay.

Thomas

October 16th, 2012
8:43 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74-WSM0xTyE

Best depiction of Bookie with economic data. BTW- quick glance shows the little ol grey line has gone up- just because the little ol grey line went down a bit doesn’t mean the trend continues-

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:43 am

“There’s panic among the libs about Obama and jay’s posts reflect that
There will be lots of liberal chest thumping after the debate.
But we’ll have to probably judge from polls what the real outcome of the debate is
Unless someone seriously trips up”–JM

Yes, The Leftwingers have definitely brought out the “Affirmative Action” LOW BAR for Obama’s Debate tonight.

Basically if Obama smiles and looks halfway interested: OBAMA WINS!

But let’s not forget one of Obama’s more colorful “Town Hall” performances…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mr0M7GWmxc

What a BUFFOON! :-)

mm

October 16th, 2012
8:43 am

“I seem to recall this thing called Obamacare which increase spending by trillions”

Cons really ARE stupid.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:44 am

Hillary steps up to the plate in the biggest story in the last 6 mos

Really? That to you is the “biggest story in the last 6 mos”? Not “Moderate Mitt” lying his way through a debate with the President? I’m shocked you think that way. :shock:

Ok, I’m not really shocked.

Peadawg

October 16th, 2012
8:44 am

A lot of people don’t care about the sugar coating. They see $16 Trillion ($5 trillion more than 2008) and that’s all that matters.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:46 am

So what in the chart PROVES that tax cuts do not increase revenue?

OOooo… OOoooo!!! I know that one!!!

Because the recession of 2001 didn’t last into 2002 and yet revenues continued to fall into 2003 after two tax cuts. With a growing economy, the revenues should have increased.

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:47 am

They see $16 Trillion ($5 trillion more than 2008) and that’s all that matters.

You’re right, a lot of people are transfixed by big scary sounding numbers. But we’ve had this chat before.

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:47 am

“So, more deflection. Hillary steps up to the plate in the biggest story in the last 6 mos admitting fault for the Libya fiasco and Bookman has a thread about Bozo’s spending. Selective indignation at it’s best.”–Kayaker 71

LOL! EVERYONE knows that Jay Bookman prints whatever the PARTY operatives tell Jay to print.

Jay Bookman avoids the Truth; BENGHAZIGATE! :-)

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:47 am

They see $16 Trillion ($5 trillion more than 2008) and that’s all that matters.

Or they see Ryan on TV trying to explain his bill about “forcible rape”…

Bush Administration Claims vs. The Facts

October 16th, 2012
8:48 am

No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq

http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts_noweapons.php

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

October 16th, 2012
8:49 am

USMC sure does seem to be full of diversion today. Can’t argue the facts of this post, so he’s trying to throw sand in our eyes. Pity, that.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

October 16th, 2012
8:49 am

Jay Bookman avoids the Truth; BENGHAZIGATE

And USMC avoids the obvious: foreign policy won’t win or lose this election or even move the needle. Only wingnut cons who can’t answer the obvious question care… oh, the obvious question: why did Paul Ryan vote to cut $300 million from our diplomatic security budget last year?

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:49 am

“Cons really ARE stupid.”M&M

Yeah, Here’s proof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

TaxPayer

October 16th, 2012
8:49 am

In 2001 the DoD outlay was 305 billion. In 2010 it was 694 billion. The cons think we don’t spend enough on the DoD yet.

kayaker 71

October 16th, 2012
8:49 am

Over 16T in debt, our deficits topping lT dollars/yr, our growth last month at a paltry 1.3%, our debt nearly matches our GDP…… and with a few charts and some shucking and jivin’, Bozo is suddenly a frugal president. Quick, hold onto this pig. This lipstick won’t go by itself.

Peadawg

October 16th, 2012
8:49 am

“You’re right, a lot of people are transfixed by big scary sounding numbers.”

And what’s really scary is that some people DON’T see $16 Trillion as a big scary number.

Georgia

October 16th, 2012
8:50 am

I couldn’t follow the chart. Inflation adjusted? I can only follow pie charts. I hope Romney has a pie chart for tonight’s debate. Obama will then have to counter with some sort of allegorical pictographical parable that would paint a hopeful and feel-good safe place for the voters. I’m in my safe place right now. Can anyone spare a square?

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:51 am

And what’s really scary is that some people DON’T see $16 Trillion as a big scary number.

It’s a big scary number. It’s a big scary country. These things go hand in hand.

Marty Huggins'

October 16th, 2012
8:51 am

ByteMe – Got ilk?
October 16th, 2012
8:46 am

No because a growing economy is not indicative of growing wages.

Also the recession of 01 actually affected the European union more during 2001 while the affects on the USA were during 2002-2003

http://www.stocktradingtogo.com/2008/07/18/timeline-of-all-recessions-and-world-crises-since-great-depression/

“17. Early 2000s recession – 2001 to 2003: the collapse of the Dot Com Bubble, September 11th attacks and accounting scandals contribute to a relatively mild contraction in the North American economy.”

Classic Conservative

October 16th, 2012
8:52 am

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

stands for decibels

October 16th, 2012
8:52 am

I can only follow pie charts.

Ok, I’m gonna sign off with an oldie-but-goodie.

USMC

October 16th, 2012
8:53 am

Not a Pretty Picture, folks… kind of makes you dizzy just looking at it. :spineyes:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Jay

October 16th, 2012
8:53 am

Yeah, Normal, none of them dares argue the facts.