|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: Spending growth slower under Obama than 4 of the last 5 Republican Presidents
Submitted by
PJzaBruin (74.100.111.65) from CALIFORNIA on
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
Yup, spending grew faster under Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush.
Ford was left out of the analysis due to his lack of longevity.
And if you follow the Republican spin and manipulation of the numbers, then spending growth under Obama averages 3.3% per year. Which is STILL slower than under Reagan, Bush and Bush.
Good thing we elected a Democrat to rein in runaway spending!
-
RJR from MISSOURI says .
.
-
Harumph #11038 from OHIO says You have now reached Kat levels
''Tengo un gato en mis pantalones''
-
Bender, MS Gulf Coast from MISSISSIPPI says Well if you take out 2009
And don't include most of the expenditures, Close your eyes and drink cheap whiskey and smoke dope then yes, those numbers could be close.
-
dshadoin from LOUISIANA says Obama's spending is HIGHER than 96% of all his predecessors. Combined.
The one thing Obama has accomplished single-handedly is to out-spend a combined 96% of all previous chief executives combined.
Peaches can bandy about the line "rate of spending" as if it's more than a political spin catch-phrase designed to embolden the left and deflate the right, but it's simple putting a pretty pink bow on the biggest pig ever to sit in the White House. The AHCA is the single largest expenditure in history but it's entirely ignored by the originators of the "rate of spenders".
Peaches wears his ignorance like a cloak of many colors. Dazzles the sheep, but it doesn't impress anyone else.
-
clay1 (66.254.200.11) from ILLINOIS says See...
This is why you get bullied.
-
mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.168.18) from CALIFORNIA says Pure simple mathmatics PJ
If Nixon overspent, then Reagan overspent, then Bush, father and son overspent and now President Obama has increased spending by any amount, you cannot say he reined in spending..He still spent more than those before him..Clinton was the only president of late that actually had any sort of surplus..And even that was extremely iffy..So how do you figure he reined in runaway spending..He may have slowed its growth, but he certainly hasn't reined it in..If it is growing at all, it is still runaway spending..
mac
-
PJzaBruin (74.100.111.65) from CALIFORNIA says Mac makes a fine point
which sets him apart from the other Republican posters.
Good thing we elected a Democrat to rein in runaway spending GROWTH!
-
mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.168.18) from CALIFORNIA says Although you did grasp the point PJ
You are still missing the mark..President Obama has not reined in spending in any way, that the runaway spending may have grown at a slower rate does not indicate any reining in..After all it is still growing..I do not see that growing slower means not growing..
mac
-
GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says So PJ Spin Master
Why haven't you compared Obama's spending as a % of GDP? Probably because it would disqualify your idiotic formulas and bloviating...
-
PJzaBruin (74.100.111.65) from CALIFORNIA says Obama controls spending, not GDP, Gitaclue
You can't suddenly stop social security checks, medicare checks, and other payments you're committed to because GDP is down.
Gee, Mac, I didn't see where I said Obama STOPPED anything. I didn't realize that getting control of runaway horses (i.e., reining them in) meant you had to make them come to a complete halt and be stationery. I thought it just meant they were no longer out of control, running toward the cliff.
-
dshadoin from LOUISIANA says Tell us a bedtime story Aunt Peaches
Tell us the one where Obama controls spending without putting a budget through congress. That's one of my favorite fairy tales!
-
mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.168.18) from CALIFORNIA says It is very simple PJ
If runaway spending is still increasing, even at a slower rate it is still runaway spending..In other words, if spending is increasing by any amount, it is not being reined in..Runaway spending cannot be reined in by increasing it by 100%, or 50% or even 3%..Now had that spending been cut by 3% you would have something worth talking about..
mac
-
PJzaBruin (74.100.111.65) from CALIFORNIA says AH Mac, didn't I already straighten that one out?
Good thing we elected a Democrat to rein in runaway spending GROWTH!
Do you forget these things when you wake up from your naps?
-
GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says Poor response and
you've still not explained what would have happened had the republicans agreed with Obama's budget proposals that included even more spending....
There are fools, then there are the foolish... You're being quite foolish... Not to mention, if you buy the shite, you're a fool...
-
mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.168.18) from CALIFORNIA says Yes sir, PJ
Just like waving lights and flags at a runaway train..It makes some people feel they are actually doing something..But as you say, it could be worse..
mac
|
|
