CHART: Spending, Taxes, And Deficits Are All Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office
JaguarSocialist
2012/05/21 22:56:50
If he was white, these numbers would cause conservatives to laud the president's success on economic matters. However, since so much of the Repubdungbagger hatred of Obama is racially based, he gets no credit.
***************************************************
Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office. I’ll pause to let you absorb the news.
In January 2009, before President Obama had even taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top out at 23.4 percent of GDP.
Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.
One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is expected to come in at 7.6 percent.
***************************************************
Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office. I’ll pause to let you absorb the news.
In January 2009, before President Obama had even taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top out at 23.4 percent of GDP.
Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.
One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is expected to come in at 7.6 percent.
Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767...
Top Opinion
-
westernslope~PWCM~JLA 2012/05/21 22:59:59
http://content.usatoday.com/c...
http://news.investors.com/art...
http://lubbockonline.com/file...
This analysis doesn't include 2009 spending, like the $887 billion stimulus, cash for clunkers and 0bama-care.
What a big smelly pile of poo this story is, from a flaming lib website, and just more lies.
Facts are facts.
http://www.politifact.com/tru...
This analysis doesn't include 2009 spending, like the $887 billion stimulus, cash for clunkers and 0bama-care.
Let's see some support for your so-called fact.
By the way, a Right Wing Nut Job website is NOT a credible source.
"On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, "Obama spending binge never happened." Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that -- contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president.
The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook --which appears to have originated with the liberal blog Groobiecat Call''
Tit for tat...........''By the way, a Left Wing Nut Job website is NOT a credible source''.
Now this is from the Treasury Department, if that meets your standards — spending per day: President Reagan– $2.5 Billion. President Clinton–$4.1 Billion. President Bush–$6.8 Billion. President Obama– $9.7 Billion.
And you need to adjust for inflation.
For example $2.5 billion in 1981 dollars is equivalent to $6.3 billion in 2012 dollars.
http://www.bls.gov/data/infla...
And lets not forget that Obama was left with the expense of two wars and a tremendous recession.
And let's not forget that although Clinton may have spent more than Reagan, he was resonsible enough to set taxes high enough to generate enought revenue to cover expensers.
I would like to see a link to your source in the treasury department.
The facts about the growth of spending under Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The writer is bothered by the fact that "The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s."
In other words, GW Bush is responsible for the spending that occurred during the first four months of fiscal year 2009, because he was in office during that time . . . And he signed the 750 Billion dollar TARP bailoiut and spent well over a triillion on that and his wars.
Your Washington post Writer wants to attribute the spending done during the first 4 months of fjiscal year 2009 to Obama, even though Bush was in office.
The calculations condemened by the Washington Post compares increases in per capita government spending during each President's first term in office.
But the Washington Post article ignores all that and starts projecting what Obama's spending may be in his second term
The conclusions reached in the initial Nutting Analysis are true.
Obama's increase in per capita spending for his first term is comparatiely very low.
. . . Lower than GW's and lower than Reagans.
For that he was awarded 3 Pinocchios
Bottom line........ 0webama is spending more that any administration in history. That is a fact and the American people know it. ROFLMAO!
Still, the facts are factrs.
GW and his Repugnant Thugs left this country in one hell of a mess, and it takes money to clean up that mess.
It's as simple as that.
His policies prolonged the Depression and it was WWII that ended the Depression.
If spending Money is all we need to get us out of this 'mess' , we should have been there a few trillion dollars ago.
Let's see proof from any legitimate website that supports your claim.
And yes, I agree with you that it was massive GOVERNMENT SPENDING that lifted this nation out of the Depression.
In WWII, this nation spent more money (adjusted for inflation) than at any time in our nation's history.
What's new about that?
Making the statement ''federal tax revenue is down''. Fewer people in the workforce along with record unemployment.
You don't have to like them.
BHO has increased our National Debt from 9 Trillion to almost 16 Trillion in 3 and a half years!!
. . . And the debt increase you attribute to Obama.
Is deficit spending less under Obama? How about the national debt, has that been going down under Obama?
RWNJ have shown their proclivity for damaging this nation time and time again.
The purpose of government is to give us good governance.
Have you ever heard of the US Constitution?
How in the world do you figure that private enterprise can mobilize a coordinated effort to repair the damage caused by the bad governance offered by Republicansds under the GW Bush administration?
We need good governance.
And no, Obama is no more a Socialist than Eisenhower, who built our national highway system with government funds.
You are not thinking clearly.
By the way, how do you feel about magic underwear?
You provide never ending comedy by posting, at political/social networking web sites, excerpts of Republican and tea party propaganda, written by a corporate lobbyist, and falsely believing you've made some political point when, in reality, what you've accomplished is proving you haven't developed beyond posting pabulum.
It's hilarious to watch conservative talking head ideologues sitting behind their corporate-provided desks reading 'news' provided by corporate-owned media sources like Fox News and regurgitating it on a social networking site. More comic relief is provided by conservatives when they claim to have any inkling of the plight of the poor and working class of the world. Driving by people living on the streets as you make your way to a home in the suburbs doesn't give you any insight into the plight of the America's poor or those who struggle to earn enough to pay bills or provide for the future.
In any political discussi...
You provide never ending comedy by posting, at political/social networking web sites, excerpts of Republican and tea party propaganda, written by a corporate lobbyist, and falsely believing you've made some political point when, in reality, what you've accomplished is proving you haven't developed beyond posting pabulum.
It's hilarious to watch conservative talking head ideologues sitting behind their corporate-provided desks reading 'news' provided by corporate-owned media sources like Fox News and regurgitating it on a social networking site. More comic relief is provided by conservatives when they claim to have any inkling of the plight of the poor and working class of the world. Driving by people living on the streets as you make your way to a home in the suburbs doesn't give you any insight into the plight of the America's poor or those who struggle to earn enough to pay bills or provide for the future.
In any political discussion, you're as useless as a pair of panties on Ann Coulter who is, not surprising, Rupert Murdoch's corporate media whore. Your ability to post any comment related to a political/social issue is extremely limited by the fact you haven't developed word skills beyond trying to figure out how to make words from your alphabet soup.
Next, I suspect you to tell me, rather childlike, how many guns you have. Frankly, I don't care how many times you, on a daily basis, play with yourself and, in the process of ejaculating all over yourself, cry out "me like gun...me like gun...me like gun..." Posting stupidity related to weaponry on any political/social networking site is akin to posting threats. That you and your ilk resort to this tactic proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you have serious issues related to masculinity. Furthermore, it's evidence you're cerebrally challenged.
With me, you're out of your league and no amount of asinine slogans you hear from Fox News will ever place you in my league. As I and others work for a better America wherein the poor, minorities and the working class will have a voice, rabid modern-day conservatism will be thrown into the dustbin of history. You've outlived whatever usefulness you think you had. To state is more bluntly, you're a dinosaur who is quickly becoming extinct and, therefore, you're irrelevant in any discussion related to the future of this country or the people who live in it.
I see the ignorant knuckle draggers are here, my friend.