Obama is the nominee only because Hillary didn't want to take over the pile of shit he left.
He wouldn't have won a single primary had she challenged him.
Why the love for Obama? You don't even agree with him on a lot of the issues.
You are a troll.
I side with:
- Thread starter jficquette
- Start date
Obama is the nominee only because Hillary didn't want to take over the pile of shit he left.
He wouldn't have won a single primary had she challenged him.
Why the love for Obama? You don't even agree with him on a lot of the issues.
You are a troll.
Evidently you dont know what a troll is.This is a troll...
oh my , "I know you are but what am I?"
How Progressive
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/I_know_you_are_but_what_am_I
The correct figure to use is the CBOâs analysis of the presidentâs 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.
So this is what we end up with:
2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obamaâs spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent.
Or another way to look at it
One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Hereâs what the White Houseâs own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):
2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II â completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
AK 47's same tired chart based on Nutting's incorrect analysis. Obama's 1.4% when calculated correctly is really 5.2%.
So this is what we end up with:
2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obamaâs spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent.
Or another way to look at it
One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Hereâs what the White Houseâs own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):
2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II â completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
AK 47's same tired chart based on Nutting's incorrect analysis. Obama's 1.4% when calculated correctly is really 5.2%.
Quote from AK Forty Seven:
It's interesting to note that income tax revenues have averaged 18% of GDP for the last 20 years. Taxes can not be increased to cover this short fall. Government needs to decrease spending as a percent of GDP. Either by rapidly growing the economy or cutting spending.
Under Obama neither of these are being pursued. In fact, just the opposite - more spending and more anti-business regulation and taxes.
Under Obama neither of these are being pursued. In fact, just the opposite - more spending and more anti-business regulation and taxes.
To make this quick lets assume it is 5.2 %.That is still less then Reagans 8.7 %,less then HW Bushs 5.4 %,less then W Bushs 7.3 % and less then W Bushs 8.1 %
Thanks DD
My pleasure, I'm just here to help. It is odd that you glossed over this text though:
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II
The economy is one thing and federal spending is another .
Obamas growth of federal spending is less then Reagan,Bush 1 and Bush 2
Whoa, really -- they're two different things?
My only point is why couldn't the flunkies that generated your chart be content with 5.2%? No they had to get creative and find a way to make Obama look like a superstar when he's essentially average by one measure, and in fact quite bad by yet another.
Quote from DirkDigler:
Whoa, really -- they're two different things?
Yes.One is the economy,the other is federal spending.Obama had no control of Bush tanking the economy,Obama has more control in having less spending growth then Reagan ,Bush 1 and Bush 2