netdude wrote: So, his record on spending includes 2008 and 2009? Very interesting inclusion there. You DO know that 2009 was not his actual budget year, that being set by the previous pres... right?
You do know that the current pres added massive amounts of spending to the budget of his predecessor for fiscal 2009 . . . right? Darn straight Obama's record on spending includes 2009. The SwindleUs Bill alone was worth over $780 Billion and that had Obama's signature at the bottom of it, not Bush's.
Said graphic presumes quite a bit that it ought not to Kate. One such thing is that the economy would have performed as good or better than it did without the tax cuts. Anyone with the ability to reason that God gave a fence posts knows that it is a logical fallacy to try and predict what might have happened under a different set of circumstances than were present at the time. Your graphic is pure speculation Kate - you have no way of supporting the premise that federal revenues would have gone from the less than 16% of GDP that they were to the over 18% of GDP that they became without those tax cuts.
Nice try though.
The primary source of the deficits is Washington DC's appetite for spending in excess of the tax revenues. From the end of WWII until now federal revenues have averaged about 18% of GDP - not 20% of GDP, not 24% of GDP - 18% of GDP. That's the maximum amount of revenue that the government has collected on average regardless of how high or how low tax rates are. Raising the tax rates won't result in average revenues being more than 18% over time. That is the demonstrated tax capacity of the union.
For the usual liars here on 285B, here is a little something from that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal:
Obama spending binge never happened Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s[/b]
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
It's currently 15.74 trillion.....your info is a little old. Obama would be closer to 8 trillion or more if we are lucky to have him for another 4 years.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
CritiKalbILL wrote: It's currently 15.74 trillion.....your info is a little old. Obama would be closer to 8 trillion or more if we are lucky to have him for another 4 years.
CritiKalbILL wrote: It's currently 15.74 trillion.....your info is a little old. Obama would be closer to 8 trillion or more if we are lucky to have him for another 4 years.
Brought to you by CritiKalbILL's crystal ball.
No charge
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
CritiKalbILL wrote: It's currently 15.74 trillion.....your info is a little old. Obama would be closer to 8 trillion or more if we are lucky to have him for another 4 years.
There's no truth to the graphic you gave us either. Care to tell us how a president with deficits approaching $1.5 Trillion for three straight fiscal years (2010-2012) is only charged with $2.4 Trillion in debt? Basic math skills tell you that the number is at least $4.5 Trillion with an additional $1 Trillion or so added to that with an $800 Billion SwindleUs Bill and other legislation bearing his signature at the bottom of the page properly laid at his feet instead of being added to fiscal 2009 in an obvious, and deceptive, slight of hand conducted under the premise that fiscal 2009 started while Bush was still president.
