Obama Recovery: Worst In Post WW2 History....

[Drunk Kennedy]

http://news.investors.com/article/62117 ... htm?p=full

Obama Recovery Is Worst In Post WWII History

By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Posted 08/06/2012 06:58 PM ET

A core dispute in this presidential campaign is over how to evaluate President Obama's economic record.

On the one hand, it's not fair to blame Obama for the slow growth in the first six months of his presidency, which was mostly a product of conditions he inherited.

On the other hand, it's not convincing for Obama to suggest — as he routinely does — that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.

So rather than holding Obama responsible for a recession he inherited, or praising him simply because that recession didn't continue perpetually, the fairest measure of his economic stewardship is this one:

How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?

On that basis, the Obama recovery can only be graded as a tremendous failure — as it has produced the worst rate of economic growth of any recovery in the past 65 years.

Over that span, we've had 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. According to the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), average real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%.

During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.

Getting Worse

The 10 stronger recoveries involved Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush — in other words, every other postwar president.

Some might suppose that this is because the 2008-09 recession was a particularly long and debilitating one. But the historical record shows that the pattern is generally as follows: the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.

Indeed, if we limit our comparison to the five longest recessions in the past 65 years (each of which lasted at least 11 months), we find the following: During the four pre-Obama recoveries from such recessions, average real GDP growth in the first three years was a whopping 5.9% — dwarfing the 2.2% figure under Obama.

What's the difference between 5.9% and 2.2% growth? Over the past three years, our GDP has been, on average, about $15 trillion annually. A 3.7% shortfall, therefore, equals about $555 billion a year, or $1.6 trillion over three years.

If you divide that evenly among the roughly 300 million Americans, it works out to a shortfall of more than $5,000 per person — or more than $20,000 for a family of four.

Nor are things getting better. Over the first two years of the Obama recovery, average real GDP growth was 2.2%. During the third year, it remained at 2.2%. So far in 2012, it has been 1.8% annualized. In the most recent quarter, it was 1.5% annualized.

No Jobs

Moreover, these poor results are despite Obama's $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" — a remarkable explosion of deficit spending at the expense of future generations of Americans, who will have to pay that money back.

If all of this weren't bad enough, the Obama recovery has also been a dismal failure in terms of employment.

According to the BLS, the employment-population ratio — the percentage of Americans who are employed — was 59.4% during the last month of the recession (June 2009). That figure has now actually dropped to 58.4%. Three years into the "recovery," a lower percentage of Americans are employed than during the recession.

In marked contrast, in the last four pre-Obama recoveries from recessions spanning at least 11 months, the average improvement in the employment-population ratio over the same span of time was 2.6 points — a swing of 3.6 points from Obama's tally of minus 1.0%.

If 3.6% more Americans were employed today, that would amount to more than 10 million people.

For the better part of four years, Obama has spearheaded unprecedented levels of government spending, regulation, and control over Americans' lives. He has championed Obama-Care, unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency, promoted crony capitalism and adopted policies decidedly at odds with Main Street.

The experiment has been tried, the evidence is in and the verdict is clear: This is by far the worst economic recovery in the past 6-1/2 decades.

• Anderson is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

[Moggio]

Thank you for posting the TRUTH.

[brotherplanet]

Thank you for posting the TRUTH.

I wish Ron had done better. Not because I think he should be president, but because his example would encourage people to run as alternative candidates and might wake this nation up to voting for people not within the two parties.

Yeah, he's a Republican, but just barely... Most people see him as an outsider, and it's all about impressions.

[Moggio]

I wish Ron had done better. Not because I think he should be president, but because his example would encourage people to run as alternative candidates and might wake this nation up to voting for people not within the two parties.

It ain't over yet...

Yeah, he's a Republican, but just barely... Most people see him as an outsider, and it's all about impressions.

Yep!

[brotherplanet]

The one thing I've GOT to give Ron 100% is his stance on Civil Liberties. Unlike Obama, he would have NEVER signed the NDAA.

[Stoner]

Is Obama the only one with a fucking job in Washington DC?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.

If you exclude the public sector and only look at the private sector, the recovery from the first Bush recession (March 2001 to Nov 2001) was far weaker.

Real private GDP grew only 2.5%/year in the 3 years following the first Bush recession and only 310,000 jobs were added to the private sector.

Since the end of the second Bush recession in Q2 2009, real private GDP grew 3.1%/year with 3.68 million jobs added to the private sector.

First Bush recession ended in Nov 2001. Real GDP in 2001 was 11.337 trillion and the govt portion was 2.178 trillion. So real private GDP was 9.159 trillion.

Real GDP in 2004 was 12.246 trillion with govt portion of 2.362 trillion. So real private GDP was 9.885 trillion.

The private sector grew 7.9% over 3 years or 2.5% per year.

Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, 2001 - 2004.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/print.cfm?fid ... 19B7061978

Private payroll employment in Nov 2001 was 109.572 million. In Nov 2004, private payroll employment was 109.882 million for 310,000 jobs added to the private sector over 3 years.

Total private payroll employment
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

The second Bush recession ended in Q2 2009. Real GDP was 12.701 trillion with govt portion being 2.590 trillion. So private real GDP was 10.111 trillion.

In Q2 2012, real GDP was 13.558 trillion with govt portion of 2.474 trillion with real private GDP of 11.084 trillion.

That is 9.6% real private sector growth over 3 years or 3.11%/year.

Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, Q2 2009 to Q2 2012
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/print.cfm?fid ... 915FCB3EF4

Private payroll employment in July 2009 was 107.637 million. Private payroll employment in July 2012 was 111.317 million for 3.68 million jobs added to the private sector over 3 years.

Total private payroll employment
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

For the better part of four years, Obama has spearheaded unprecedented levels of government spending,

Obviously incorrect since excluding the public sector causes real GDP growth to go from 2.2% to 3.1%.

Federal cuts have slowed growth for 7 of the last 8 quarters. What distinguishes this recovery from previous recoveries is:
1) public sector contraction
2) weak residential real estate investment. In 1983, residential real estate investment grew 43% and the economy grew 7% the following year. Every strong recovery relied on public sector expansion and strong residential real estate investment.

So the only thing that Obama did wrong was not spend more money.

It ain't over yet...

[MotleyMaiden]

Oh good fucking grief.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... bt-any-ot/

Jim Renacci says Obama has racked up more debt than any other president
Half-True
Share this story:

A lot of claims are circulating about government spending and the federal debt, usually in statements attacking or backing the policies of President Obama.

PolitiFact has looked at a number of the claims and found that their accuracy varies widely -- mostly because Obama’s record on federal government spending is a lot more flattering than is his record on debt.

We found it was inaccurate to claim, as Mitt Romney did, that "since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."

In fact, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president in the past 60 years using raw dollars, and the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.

But we also found that while spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

That led to the frequently cited -- and wrongly exaggerated -- claim that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined.

It also led to this blog posting by Rep. Jim Renacci, the Republican incumbent facing Democratic incumbent Rep. Betty Sutton in Ohio's newly redrawn 16th congressional district:

"In less than one term, (Obama has) racked up more debt than any president in history — over $5 trillion."

The statement interested PolitiFact Ohio because it was less sweeping and more specific than
many others.

Responding to our inquiry, Renacci's staff cited a CBS News story from March, which compared the debt growth under Obama's three years and two months in office to eight years under George W. Bush.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the date Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. At the time of the CBS story, it had increased by $4.9 trillion.

By the day Renacci's statement was posted, the Treasury Department's online "Debt to the Penny" calculator showed the debt at more than $15.7 trillion -- an increase of $5.1 trillion.

During the two terms of the Bush presidency, whose debt exceeded all predecessors, the debt rose $4.899 trillion.

So Renacci's numbers checked out.

But Renacci's statement that Obama "racked up" the debt, fails to account for factors beyond Obama's control.
Obama did approve the stimulus bill and a deal to extend tax cuts, both of which contributed to the debt.

Not surprising though, that Obama’s Treasury Department blames most of the current debt on decisions made under Bush, including tax cuts (which it says cost the government $3 trillion), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which it tallies at $1.4 trillion) and the Medicare prescription drug program ($300 billion).

They may have a point that there is plenty of blame to spread around. It is clear that some elements of the increase in the debt are a result of decisions made before this administration took office.

And it’s worth noting that the president doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Legislation that increases spending, such as the extension of the tax cuts, requires approval from Congress. In the case of the tax cuts, that support came from both Republicans and Democrats.

Experts note, too, that the weak economy has contributed to the debt, given the reduction in federal revenues and greater spending on items like unemployment benefits.

Renacci is accurate in asserting that the national debt has increased since Obama took office by more than $5 trillion, more than any previous administration.

But his statement assigns direct control -- and blame -- to Obama. Lost in that is the impact of the faltering economy, decisions made before Obama took office and the fact that others, such as Congress, also have had a role in increasing the debt.

On the Truth-O-Meter, Renacci’s claim rates Half True.

Maybe, just maybe it the fucking Republicans would work WITH Obama then the recovery would be stronger. They made the decision though that it is FAR more important to put him OUT of job than put millions of other Americans back INTO one.

[Moggio]

During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.

If you exclude the public sector and only look at the private sector, the recovery from the first Bush recession (March 2001 to Nov 2001) was far weaker.

Real private GDP grew only 2.5%/year in the 3 years following the first Bush recession and only 310,000 jobs were added to the private sector.

Since the end of the second Bush recession in Q2 2009, real private GDP grew 3.1%/year with 3.68 million jobs added to the private sector.

First Bush recession ended in Nov 2001. Real GDP in 2001 was 11.337 trillion and the govt portion was 2.178 trillion. So real private GDP was 9.159 trillion.

Real GDP in 2004 was 12.246 trillion with govt portion of 2.362 trillion. So real private GDP was 9.885 trillion.

The private sector grew 7.9% over 3 years or 2.5% per year.

Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, 2001 - 2004.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/print.cfm?fid ... 19B7061978

Private payroll employment in Nov 2001 was 109.572 million. In Nov 2004, private payroll employment was 109.882 million for 310,000 jobs added to the private sector over 3 years.

Total private payroll employment
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

The second Bush recession ended in Q2 2009. Real GDP was 12.701 trillion with govt portion being 2.590 trillion. So private real GDP was 10.111 trillion.

In Q2 2012, real GDP was 13.558 trillion with govt portion of 2.474 trillion with real private GDP of 11.084 trillion.

That is 9.6% real private sector growth over 3 years or 3.11%/year.

Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, Q2 2009 to Q2 2012
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/print.cfm?fid ... 915FCB3EF4

Private payroll employment in July 2009 was 107.637 million. Private payroll employment in July 2012 was 111.317 million for 3.68 million jobs added to the private sector over 3 years.

Total private payroll employment
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

For the better part of four years, Obama has spearheaded unprecedented levels of government spending,

Obviously incorrect since excluding the public sector causes real GDP growth to go from 2.2% to 3.1%.

Federal cuts have slowed growth for 7 of the last 8 quarters. What distinguishes this recovery from previous recoveries is:
1) public sector contraction
2) weak residential real estate investment. In 1983, residential real estate investment grew 43% and the economy grew 7% the following year. Every strong recovery relied on public sector expansion and strong residential real estate investment.

So the only thing that Obama did wrong was not spend more money.

This statement PROVES (not that ANY is needed) that you're a FUCKING MORON.

It ain't over yet...

Blah, Blah, blah, blah....

Like I said, it ain't over yet. It's not a statement indicating anything but what it actually says. What part of that don't you understand?

Oh good fucking grief.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... bt-any-ot/

Jim Renacci says Obama has racked up more debt than any other president
Half-True
Share this story:

A lot of claims are circulating about government spending and the federal debt, usually in statements attacking or backing the policies of President Obama.

PolitiFact has looked at a number of the claims and found that their accuracy varies widely -- mostly because Obama’s record on federal government spending is a lot more flattering than is his record on debt.

We found it was inaccurate to claim, as Mitt Romney did, that "since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."

In fact, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president in the past 60 years using raw dollars, and the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
But we also found that while spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

That led to the frequently cited -- and wrongly exaggerated -- claim that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined.

It also led to this blog posting by Rep. Jim Renacci, the Republican incumbent facing Democratic incumbent Rep. Betty Sutton in Ohio's newly redrawn 16th congressional district:

"In less than one term, (Obama has) racked up more debt than any president in history — over $5 trillion."

The statement interested PolitiFact Ohio because it was less sweeping and more specific than
many others.

Responding to our inquiry, Renacci's staff cited a CBS News story from March, which compared the debt growth under Obama's three years and two months in office to eight years under George W. Bush.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the date Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. At the time of the CBS story, it had increased by $4.9 trillion.

By the day Renacci's statement was posted, the Treasury Department's online "Debt to the Penny" calculator showed the debt at more than $15.7 trillion -- an increase of $5.1 trillion.

During the two terms of the Bush presidency, whose debt exceeded all predecessors, the debt rose $4.899 trillion.

So Renacci's numbers checked out.

But Renacci's statement that Obama "racked up" the debt, fails to account for factors beyond Obama's control.
Obama did approve the stimulus bill and a deal to extend tax cuts, both of which contributed to the debt.

Not surprising though, that Obama’s Treasury Department blames most of the current debt on decisions made under Bush, including tax cuts (which it says cost the government $3 trillion), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which it tallies at $1.4 trillion) and the Medicare prescription drug program ($300 billion).

They may have a point that there is plenty of blame to spread around. It is clear that some elements of the increase in the debt are a result of decisions made before this administration took office.

And it’s worth noting that the president doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Legislation that increases spending, such as the extension of the tax cuts, requires approval from Congress. In the case of the tax cuts, that support came from both Republicans and Democrats.

Experts note, too, that the weak economy has contributed to the debt, given the reduction in federal revenues and greater spending on items like unemployment benefits.

Renacci is accurate in asserting that the national debt has increased since Obama took office by more than $5 trillion, more than any previous administration.

But his statement assigns direct control -- and blame -- to Obama. Lost in that is the impact of the faltering economy, decisions made before Obama took office and the fact that others, such as Congress, also have had a role in increasing the debt.

On the Truth-O-Meter, Renacci’s claim rates Half True.

BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Of course there are others factors at stake when dealing with fiscal issues (the President doesn't work alone), there always are. But the FACT remains: the Obama Administration has spent more capital than ANY other Presidential Administration in history and in ONLY 3 1/2 years! And hence, he has put the US further into debt because of it...

Maybe, just maybe it the fucking Republicans would work WITH Obama then the recovery would be stronger. They made the decision though that it is FAR more important to put him OUT of job than put millions of other Americans back INTO one.

That's debatable...

[MotleyMaiden]

Oh good fucking grief.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... bt-any-ot/

Jim Renacci says Obama has racked up more debt than any other president
Half-True
Share this story:

A lot of claims are circulating about government spending and the federal debt, usually in statements attacking or backing the policies of President Obama.

PolitiFact has looked at a number of the claims and found that their accuracy varies widely -- mostly because Obama’s record on federal government spending is a lot more flattering than is his record on debt.

We found it was inaccurate to claim, as Mitt Romney did, that "since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."

In fact, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president in the past 60 years using raw dollars, and the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
But we also found that while spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

That led to the frequently cited -- and wrongly exaggerated -- claim that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined.

It also led to this blog posting by Rep. Jim Renacci, the Republican incumbent facing Democratic incumbent Rep. Betty Sutton in Ohio's newly redrawn 16th congressional district:

"In less than one term, (Obama has) racked up more debt than any president in history — over $5 trillion."

The statement interested PolitiFact Ohio because it was less sweeping and more specific than
many others.

Responding to our inquiry, Renacci's staff cited a CBS News story from March, which compared the debt growth under Obama's three years and two months in office to eight years under George W. Bush.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the date Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. At the time of the CBS story, it had increased by $4.9 trillion.

By the day Renacci's statement was posted, the Treasury Department's online "Debt to the Penny" calculator showed the debt at more than $15.7 trillion -- an increase of $5.1 trillion.

During the two terms of the Bush presidency, whose debt exceeded all predecessors, the debt rose $4.899 trillion.

So Renacci's numbers checked out.

But Renacci's statement that Obama "racked up" the debt, fails to account for factors beyond Obama's control.
Obama did approve the stimulus bill and a deal to extend tax cuts, both of which contributed to the debt.

Not surprising though, that Obama’s Treasury Department blames most of the current debt on decisions made under Bush, including tax cuts (which it says cost the government $3 trillion), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which it tallies at $1.4 trillion) and the Medicare prescription drug program ($300 billion).

They may have a point that there is plenty of blame to spread around. It is clear that some elements of the increase in the debt are a result of decisions made before this administration took office.

And it’s worth noting that the president doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Legislation that increases spending, such as the extension of the tax cuts, requires approval from Congress. In the case of the tax cuts, that support came from both Republicans and Democrats.

Experts note, too, that the weak economy has contributed to the debt, given the reduction in federal revenues and greater spending on items like unemployment benefits.

Renacci is accurate in asserting that the national debt has increased since Obama took office by more than $5 trillion, more than any previous administration.

But his statement assigns direct control -- and blame -- to Obama. Lost in that is the impact of the faltering economy, decisions made before Obama took office and the fact that others, such as Congress, also have had a role in increasing the debt.

On the Truth-O-Meter, Renacci’s claim rates Half True.

BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Of course there are others factors at stake when dealing with fiscal issues (the President doesn't work alone), there always are. But the FACT remains: the Obama Administration has spent more capital than ANY other Presidential Administration in history and in ONLY 3 1/2 years! And hence, he has put the US further into debt because of it...

I once again bolded what polifact.org says: that Obama has actually has the LOWEST of any president in the last 60 years. I know this gets your soiled panties all in a twist but politifact is a NONPARTISAN website. They fact check claims made by BOTH sides and debunk or confirm them They are claiming that that the debt increase is due to multiple issues INCLUDING the lack of incoming revenue AND the weak economy.

Maybe, just maybe it the fucking Republicans would work WITH Obama then the recovery would be stronger. They made the decision though that it is FAR more important to put him OUT of job than put millions of other Americans back INTO one.

That's debatable...

How? The republicans have spent the last 2 years blocking every single thing Obama has tried to get done, including but not limited to the jobs bill last fall that would have gone towards the much needed repair of much of the infrastructure in this country. I was especially disgusted by their handling of the debt ceiling last summer.

I don't disagree that more should have been done in the first 2 years while he had control of both houses but he spent so much time being a pussy and trying to compromise and play fair that nothing got done.

But you are pretty much like most conservatives and have your blinders on are going to only listen to FOX news when you should be actually should be researching these things for yourself.

[Danzig in the Dark]

[Moggio]

BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Of course there are others factors at stake when dealing with fiscal issues (the President doesn't work alone), there always are. But the FACT remains: the Obama Administration has spent more capital than ANY other Presidential Administration in history and in ONLY 3 1/2 years! And hence, he has put the US further into debt because of it...

I once again bolded what polifact.org says: that Obama has actually has the LOWEST of any president in the last 60 years. I know this gets your soiled panties all in a twist but politifact is a NONPARTISAN website. They fact check claims made by BOTH sides and debunk or confirm them They are claiming that that the debt increase is due to multiple issues INCLUDING the lack of incoming revenue AND the weak economy.

ONCE AGAIN, of course there are others factors at stake when dealing with fiscal issues (the President doesn't work alone), there always are. But according to statistics and FACTS: the Obama Administration has spent more capital than ANY other Presidential Administration in history and in ONLY 3 1/2 years! And hence, he has put the US further into debt because of it. Here, I'll repost and bold THAT part of the article for you because you seem to have forgotten about it:

On Jan. 20, 2009, the date Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. At the time of the CBS story, it had increased by $4.9 trillion.

By the day Renacci's statement was posted, the Treasury Department's online "Debt to the Penny" calculator showed the debt at more than $15.7 trillion -- an increase of $5.1 trillion.

During the two terms of the Bush presidency, whose debt exceeded all predecessors, the debt rose $4.899 trillion.

So Renacci's numbers checked out.

That's debatable...

How? The republicans have spent the last 2 years blocking every single thing Obama has tried to get done, including but not limited to the jobs bill last fall that would have gone towards the much needed repair of much of the infrastructure in this country. I was especially disgusted by their handling of the debt ceiling last summer.

Republicans haven't blocked "every single thing" Obama has "tried" to get done. However, they have blocked many things and of course have done a lot of damage, yes. But so has Obama.

I don't disagree that more should have been done in the first 2 years while he had control of both houses but he spent so much time being a pussy and trying to compromise and play fair that nothing got done.

Yep!

But you are pretty much like most conservatives and have your blinders on are going to only listen to FOX news when you should be actually should be researching these things for yourself.

ROTFLMFAO!

I have "some" conservative-based values...but I'm certainly not what you'd call a conservative. And that's the great thing about supporting Ron Paul ~ thanks to his broad and open-minded political platform (that differs greatly from his personal beliefs), you don't have to be a conservative to support him. Many of us are called, "Blue" Republicans.

Btw, I don't watch FOX news unless they're interviewing RP and I do PLENTY of research before reaching conclusions...

[MotleyMaiden]

Dear God, you illiterate fucktard. NO ONE is questioning the rate in which the National Debt has increased, hence why politifact gave the story a "half true". They merely debunked the the rights continued accusations that Obama has outspent any other president in the history of the country.

Politifact is a NON PARTISAN site. They. like factcheck.org, wade through the bullshit of both sides, research the actual facts and post the truth ABOUT BOTH SIDES. You might try checking them out.

Once again, this is what they say:

[quote]In fact, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president in the past 60 years using raw dollars, and the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
But we also found that while spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.[/quote}

How do you get the words "slowest growth in spending" to mean "spent more capital"?? HOW????

Keep repeating the lies the republicans are shouting at you and maybe it will come true.

[Moggio]

Dear God, you illiterate fucktard. NO ONE is questioning the rate in which the National Debt has increased, hence why politifact gave the story a "half true". They merely debunked the the rights continued accusations that Obama has outspent any other president in the history of the country.

Politifact is a NON PARTISAN site. They. like factcheck.org, wade through the bullshit of both sides, research the actual facts and post the truth ABOUT BOTH SIDES. You might try checking them out.

Once again, this is what they say:

In fact, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president in the past 60 years using raw dollars, and the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.
But we also found that while spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

The part which states, "In fact, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president in the past 60 years using raw dollars, and the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. But we also found that while spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year", is highly speculative, NOT factual (or at the very least, not necessarily). But according to ACTUAL statistics and FACTS: the Obama Administration has spent more capital than ANY other Presidential Administration in history and in ONLY 3 1/2 years! And hence, he has put the US further into debt because of it. THAT'S what we should be concentrating on. And THAT'S my point. Here, I'll repost and bold THAT part of the article for you AGAIN:

On Jan. 20, 2009, the date Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. At the time of the CBS story, it had increased by $4.9 trillion.

By the day Renacci's statement was posted, the Treasury Department's online "Debt to the Penny" calculator showed the debt at more than $15.7 trillion -- an increase of $5.1 trillion.

During the two terms of the Bush presidency, whose debt exceeded all predecessors, the debt rose $4.899 trillion.

So Renacci's numbers checked out.

How do you get the words "slowest growth in spending" to mean "spent more capital"?? HOW????

You do realize that even if their report is correct regarding their supposed findings of "...slowest growth in spending...", it doesn't detract from the fact that there was STILL a SHITLOAD of money SPENT by his administration, right?

Keep repeating the lies the republicans are shouting at you and maybe it will come true.

Keep spouting your extreme ignorance and I'll keep OWNING YOU...

[MotleyMaiden]

Keep spouting your extreme ignorance and I'll keep OWNING YOU...

Tard, the not-so-wonder boy, you couldn't own anyone if Robert E Lee himself stepped out of the pages of history and handed you ownership pages.

[Moggio]

Keep spouting your extreme ignorance and I'll keep OWNING YOU...

Tard, the not-so-wonder boy, you couldn't own anyone if Robert E Lee himself stepped out of the pages of history and handed you ownership pages.

I just DID OWN you, dumb-shit. But then again, you're probably too fucking stupid to realize it...? Oh well...

[Danzig in the Dark]

I have a better chance of finding a woman at a Rush concert than Moggio has of finding a clue.

[Moggio]

I have a better chance of finding a woman at a Rush concert than Moggio has of finding a clue.

[Danzig in the Dark]

I have a better chance of finding a woman at a Rush concert than Moggio has of finding a clue.

If intelligence was gunpowder, you couldn't fire a cap gun, let alone that cannon.

[Moggio]

I have a better chance of finding a woman at a Rush concert than Moggio has of finding a clue.

If intelligence was gunpowder, you couldn't fire a cap gun, let alone that cannon.

[Danzig in the Dark]

I should sue them for false advertising.

[Moggio]

Moggio Misquote: I should sue them for false advertising.

You know, comebacks are great when they work. But unfortunately for you, resorting to misquoting me within my own post doesn't fit or meet that criteria...

[Moggio]

Monggolio,

Serious question: Do you have Asperger's syndrome?

Grendel,

Serious question: why do you even attempt to debate me when you know you're going to lose (this question also applies to EVERYONE here)?

[Moggio]

Have you been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome? Yes or no?

Of course not.

Why do you even attempt to debate me when you know you're going to lose (this question also applies to EVERYONE here)?

[brotherplanet]

Please move along... Nothing to see here... The failed president and his joke of a recovery would like you to forget his face...




REFILE - CORRECTING LOCATION A teleprompter obscures U.S. President Barack Obama as he speaks during a campaign event at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio August 21, 2012. Obama is on a two-day campaign trip to Ohio, Nevada and New York. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS)



It's absolutely hysterical that REUTERS decided to run this picture!

[Turner Coates]

Have you been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome? Yes or no?

Of course not.

Why do you even attempt to debate me when you know you're going to lose (this question also applies to EVERYONE here)?

You don't "debate".
You simply rant like a massively pissed off little kid. You have tantrums.
If you were a good debater and proved your points, you would have won someone over by now.
Your coarse approach prevents you from convincing anyone of anything.
You lose, no matter how much you pretend that you don't.

[Moggio]

Please move along... Nothing to see here... The failed president and his joke of a recovery would like you to forget his face...




REFILE - CORRECTING LOCATION A teleprompter obscures U.S. President Barack Obama as he speaks during a campaign event at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio August 21, 2012. Obama is on a two-day campaign trip to Ohio, Nevada and New York. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS)



It's absolutely hysterical that REUTERS decided to run this picture!

Have you been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome? Yes or no?

Of course not.

Why do you even attempt to debate me when you know you're going to lose (this question also applies to EVERYONE here)?

You don't "debate".
You simply rant like a massively pissed off little kid. You have tantrums.
If you were a good debater and proved your points, you would have won someone over by now.
Your coarse approach prevents you from convincing anyone of anything.
You lose, no matter how much you pretend that you don't.

Give me a FUCKING break. If you truly believe the above, you can't read.