Forbes: Obama: Biggest Government Spender in the History of the World

[JMS]

Yes, A better way to look at it.... though the time in office differential would bring O up to W

Actually it wouldn't. It would bring Obama up to 83% which is still significantly under Bush's 90%... Then you have to take the facts on the ground into consideration

Like Bush Inherited one of the strongest US economies since Ike, and Obama one of the worst. Bush had 4% unemployment when he took over, Obama inherited what 10%...

Bush inherited a surplus and grew it to a trillion dollars, Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit and basically threaded water as the economy recovered.

IF you were gonna use annualized growth ,a average of the preceding term would seem more realistic than selecting a extreme aberration.

unless of course you intend to keep spending at that level :saber:

% of GDP is another way to look at it. I think it's a complex problem, and requires one to have many honest views to get the picture. But articles which berate Obama as the biggest spender in history, which is true, is as helpful as articles which say he's the smallest spender since Eisenhower which is also true.

[Larry]

facts, and numbers, and math and stuff, but starting with a terribly flawed premise.

the biggest bailout in history should not be used as the normalised spending mark in a sane world.

garbage in.garbage out

"Terribly flawed premise" equals "you can't blame Obama for things that happened before he took office"

- twa.

[twa]

Larry--Mr 1 trillion dollar budget deficits are the new normal.

[Larry]

Yes, A better way to look at it.... though the time in office differential would bring O up to W

A valid point. Bush 2 and Reagan were in office for 8 years. (And I wonder if those numbers take inflation into account.) Obama has had only 2 full fiscal years. (And a third is almost over.)

IF you were gonna use annualized growth ,a average of the preceding term would seem more realistic than selecting a extreme aberration.

Funny.

Spending under Obama (and spending before Obama) is loudly hailed by you as being Obama's fault.

But, when you grudgingly admit that a big increase occurred under Obama's predecessor, said predecessor isn't even named, and the phrase that gets used is "an extreme aberration".

---------- Post added August-15th-2012 at 03:12 PM ----------

Larry--Mr 1 trillion dollar budget deficits are the new normal.

twa--When the facts don't help me, I make things up.

When people point out that I'm making things up, I make things up and claim that they said them.

[twa]

Funny.

Spending under Obama (and spending before Obama) is loudly hailed by you as being Obama's fault.

But, when you grudgingly admit that a big increase occurred under Obama's predecessor, said predecessor isn't even named, and the phrase that gets used is "an extreme aberration"..

I should blame W for it right?.....O is just observing

W was named in the post, but if I need to hold your hand and wipe the drool off