Maybe the private sector IS doing fine ... (Clinton, Barack Obama, solution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't spin the facts and cherry pick numbers on this one because the facts are clear.
Spending, as a percentage of GDP, was never higher than 23.5% when Reagan was president. It has never been lower than 24.1% while Bummer has been in office.
Using constant dollars, federal spending per capita is currently $11,563.59 per person. The same federal spending (in constant dollars) was just $3,612.08 per person in 1984.
As for deficits, Obama's, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently been 4% higher than Reagan's.
So very right but THEY use a different book to get their numbers from just as they do in naming what jobs are green. I wonder what jobs aren't green according to the Dept. of Labor book of definitions. THEY work it the same way they do deficit numbers. Just a tiny twist here and a small tweak there, and you have good numbers.
Hey, you got something right. In the 6 months he had Dem control, much got done.
See there. bob you stated what may be said by Think Progress, Media Matters, or Kos but they are twisted, spun numbers. You have to understand that the Dems controlled Congress all through 2009 and 2010. Now in the left leaner's book that may be only 6 months but what about the other 18 in those two years?
Well he may have been right since THEY do use their own book to define all words and phrases. Shovel ready seemed pretty good to them back then and then he finally admitted that there just weren't any that were shovel ready.
And that 8.2% is determined by Obama facts which seem to not count all the unemployed who have just given up looking. They dropped them off that month and still the number went back up.
Don't talk in numbers that big, Jon, since they haven't twisted and spun them yet for their followers to discuss. Wait a while for kos to get it done for them.
Yes, but that's because Reagan was spending us out of the recession, loading us up with debt, a strategy Republican's today won't allow Obama to do. It was fine for them back then, but not now.
Obama, if he gets two terms, will have spent $30.444 trillion dollars (rounded down) over the course of his 8 years. Reagan spent $8.233 trillion. What do you want Obama to spend and how much more do you want him to spend? There's nothing left kiddo.
And Obama shot us with more than either of them did. How do you account for all that?
Well, I think you struggle with basic math. If the debt was 11 trillion when he took office, and if you say he has spent more than all presidents before him combined, then he would have had to spend at least 11 trillion, and 11+11=22. But he has not spent 11 trillion, has he.
Besides, the whole "spending increase" is a myth, because the debt can increase quickly even when spending has not increased. The facts prove that Bush increased spending by 17% on average, but Obama is in single digits, and this year the spending is actually decreasing. The increase in spending is at it's lowest in 60 years.
Gee, Don, guess it's not just me thinks you're nuts ...
I was going to respond and debunk your post ... But I see others are johnny-on-the-spot ... So no need for me to point you back adjusting dollars for inflation of referring you to debunk sources like Politi-Fact, etc for in-depth analysis (which you don't much care for anyway) ...
But you are a boat nut too ... And that's what really counts
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.