bfl
Pay no attention to the numbers, the bars say spending is down!
The number for 2012 is the second highest, yet the bar graph displays it as the lowest of the four.
wow... 3500 just isn’t what it used to be...
2 things:
- it should go back to at least 2006. (before Obama)
- 3540 is greater than 3455 (so the 2012 bar should be the second highest, instead of the shortest.)
LOL!!! One has to wonder how they could create a chart like this without deliberately altering it. Excel certainly wouldn’t have done it.
His voters are too stupid to figure it out. They can’t read, cannot use their brains and are uneducated to the point of only being able to look at a picture. In line with the checkout lanes now showing a picture holding up 10 fingers for the express lanes. Thank you public schools—except they are doing it on purpose to make sure there is an uneducated base of voters.
LOL, someone is bad with charts (on purpose?)
It is adjusted for inflation? /s
Some percentage of the Walking Around Money actually went out in the form of KFC coupons?
Sell a few trillion dollar coins and the Anointed One can spend his second term partying, playing golf, and vacationing. Wait! That’s all he did in his first term.
Reference time frame is another thing ‘wrong’ with the chart. Liberal pundits have advanced the idea that Obama has held spending ‘steady’ whilst Republicans like Bush (and even Reagan) allowed spending to creep upward during their tenure. And this is ‘true’ because the stimulus and Obama’s Federal government expansion all occurred during his first year.
The following numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office:
.......Revenues........Outlays..........Surplus/Deficit
1972... 207.3.. ...... 230.7.. ..... -26.1
1973... 230.8.. ...... 245.7.. ..... -15.2
1974... 263.2.. ...... 269.4.. ..... -7.2
1975... 279.1.. ...... 332.3.. ..... -54.1
1976... 298.1.. ...... 371.8.. ..... -69.4
1977... 355.6.. ...... 409.2.. ..... -49.9
1978... 399.6.. ...... 458.7.. ..... -55.4
1979... 463.3.. ...... 504.0.. ..... -39.6
1980... 517.1.. ...... 590.9.. ..... -73.1
1981... 599.3.. ...... 678.2.. ..... -73.9
1982... 617.8.. ...... 745.7.. ..... -120.6
1983... 600.6.. ...... 808.4.. ..... -207.7
1984... 666.4.. ...... 851.8.. ..... -185.3
1985... 734.0.. ...... 946.3.. ..... -221.5
1986... 769.2.. ...... 990.4.. ..... -237.9
1987... 854.3.. ...... 1,004.0....... -168.4
1988... 909.2.. ...... 1,064.4....... -192.3
1989... 991.1.. ...... 1,143.7....... -205.4
1990... 1,032.0....... 1,253.0....... -277.6
1991... 1,055.0....... 1,324.2....... -321.4
1992... 1,091.2....... 1,381.5....... -340.4
1993... 1,154.3....... 1,409.4....... -300.4
1994... 1,258.6....... 1,461.8....... -258.8
1995... 1,351.8....... 1,515.7....... -226.4
1996... 1,453.1....... 1,560.5....... -174.0
1997... 1,579.2....... 1,601.1....... -103.2
1998... 1,721.7....... 1,652.5....... -29.9
1999... 1,827.5 ...... 1,701.8....... 1.9
2000... 2,025.2 ...... 1,789.0....... 86.4
2001... 1,991.1 ...... 1,862.8....... -32.4
2002... 1,853.1 ...... 2,010.9....... -317.4
2003... 1,782.3....... 2,159.9....... -538.4
2004... 1,880.1....... 2,292.8....... -568.0
2005... 2,153.6....... 2,472.0....... -493.6
2006... 2,406.9....... 2,655.1....... -434.5
2007... 2,568.0....... 2,728.7....... -342.2
2008... 2,524.0....... 2,982.5....... -641.8
2009... 2,105.0....... 3,517.7....... -1,549.7
2010... 2,162.7....... 3,456.2....... -1,370.5
2011... 2,302.5....... 3,598.1....... -1,362.8
As you can see, spending went steadily up under Bush, increased by $500 Billion during Obama’s first year. Another way to look at this is that no President other than Obama has ever run a $3 Trillion ‘budget’, and no President other than Obama has ever run a $Trillion deficit.
One other thing worth noticing is that Revenues went dramatically UP after the Bush tax cuts. Oops!
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911
BookMark for sheeple facts.
Dear Lord, share Your strength.
Tatt
In addition to the shuffle-magic with the bars the have avoided using the “T” word anywhere by phrasing spending in terms of thousands of billions
cnn is about as good at Excel and .PPTX as they are at vetting democratic political candidates.
I tried to share this on Facebook.. Not the graph that comes up
liberal version of fuzzy math
And people wonder why we have such a growth in low information voters