Obama's Real Fiscal Performance

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama - 2010 - 1.41 trillion dollars. Plus, estimated 1.65 trillion for 2011. Let's just call it the $1 trillion through July of 2011 -- fair enough. Total - $2.41 trillion in spending through about 30-45 days ago, yes?

Bush - $3.2 trillion in 8 years.

When Bush succeeded Clinton, he inherited a budget that was in surplus. Busch's first budget immediately put a stop to four consecutive budgets that were in the black, and there was not a single budget under Bush that was not in the red. But there's worse: Bush's last budget finished up with a deficit of $1.4 trillion. That environment, plus a debt of $12.9 trillion is what Obama inherited in turn, when he succeeded Bush.

Sure, and I wasn't defending Bush. I was simply stating the numbers. The fact that Bush sucked too, doesn't mean that Obama didn't increase the debt a lot more than Bush did. Obama is credited with spending about $2.5 trillion dollars in 2010 and 2011, and 2011 is not even over yet (he's on pace for about $3 trillion). Bush spent $3.2 trillion in 8 years. Plus, Bush gets saddled with $656 billion of Obama's spending in 2009 -- about $500,000,000 of the 2009 stimulus package which was spent that year, and $256,000,000,000 in the Omnibus Budget Bill passed in 2009 by the Democrat Congress and signed by Obama - but, because that $756 billion was in Fiscal Year 2009, it's applied to Bush. So, about half of that 2009 spending that you say Obama "inherited" was, in fact, Obama spending.

In light of Bush's last fiscal year (2009) consisting of a $1.4 trillion budget deficit

...to be fair, $500 billion of that was stimulus spending from the February 2009 Stimulus bill, and $256 billion was that 2009 Omnibus budget bill passed under Obama (after Bush left office)

and a public debt of $12.9 trillion Obama's results of a $1.41 trillion deficit in 2010, a $1.65 trillion deficit in 2011 and public debt that has grown by accrual from $12.9 trillion to $14 trillion in the same time, do not at all seem as drastically worse than your judicious use of averages make them out to look.

It doesn't change the fact that Obama's deficits are, in fact, more than 3 times the average Bush deficit. Whether that's "drastically worse" is up to the individual to judge. Maybe it's not. It's still triple.

The way you (plural) contextualised the figures you provided is grossly misleading.

Not at all. I just stated the numbers. Whether you want to characterize them one way or another way is up to you. I didn't characterize them at all.

There is only one among this forum's libertarians who outdoes you in the "let's see how we can twist real world statistics in such a way that they no longer represent what is actually going on in the real world" stakes.

No need to make this personal. Do I need to make a snide remark about you in return?

[Coito ergo sum]

While budget deficits are nothing new for the U.S., the size of this year’s deficit looks to hit a new record, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan budget agency. New budget estimates predict the government’s deficit will reach almost $1.5 trillion in 2011, surpassing the last record of $1.4 trillion set in 2009.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/106927/ ... record.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

[

The great thing about this chart is that the chart "shows" a decline in the annual deficit, but, of course, that decline is all in 2012, and 2013, if indeed that actually happens...