"Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."--MittRomney.com
"Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace -- slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." -- Wall Street Journal, 5-22-2012
No wonder Paul Krugman is so unhappy with your savior. Barack doesn't know how to spend us out of a recession.
A Keynsian who can't do what he preaches.
And clearly we don't need to bring back the Clinton tax hikes, becuase debt is increasing so slowly under Obama.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Yes, and "creating jobs" is a function of the "job-creators" getting to keep more money...instead of a function of having people with money capable of buying what you're selling.
Trickle-down hasn't / doesn't / won't....
And while that's a nice (usual) deflection from the point of the graphic, it doesn't change the fact that lies about Obama's Federal spending, and the FACT that it's 1.4%, (as compared to over 8.7% for Reagan, and 8.1% for Bush) is a total falsehood... But that's okay, by tomorrow, the Romney camp will flip-flop on the statement, and change their website accordingly...if necessary.
What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Really?... 3 million jobs in 8 years of Bush, vs. 23.1 million under Clinton in 8 years, vs. 4.2 million under Obama in 3 years?
Uh-huh... Doesn't change the data on the chart...does it. Keep sucking down that :Koolaid:
Ignoring the fact that our economy and the real job creators (not government) are capable of recovering without government intervention. Bush made it cheaper for businesses after 9/11 and the economy miraculously recovered even though most thought we were on our way off the cliff. Then the housing and credit market crashed (both parties to blame)... so then the Dems answer is to spend more and we still have not recovered 4 years later.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
You can spin those numbers, but 8.2% of us weren't unemployed under "W". (Real numbers of unemployed/underemployed closer to 20%.) Obama may be creating jobs, but they aren't the types of jobs that get people off foodstamps.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The chart is about "ANNUALIZED GROWTH of FEDERAL SPENDING"...If you want to try to make it about something else, have fun.
It doesn't change the WSJ's numbers...or Romney's lies about it.
And I'll continue to tell the TRUTH about the WSJ's number on job-creation for Clinton, Bush and Obama. If you don't like that either, you can hear the disappointment in my voice.
