Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[LTCArmyRet]

Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.

Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.

Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.

This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

 

[P@triot]

Just for starters, here are a few companies that Obama loaned taxpayer money too and the US government still owns a chunk of GM stock.
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*

Stop lying.

The loan to Solyndra was created by George Bush and his GOP Congress. Obama merely allowed the money that Bush guaranteed to be paid.

Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels. The president touted the new energy law in his*2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department*issued its final rules*for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.

Go here
DOE-Loan Programs Office

The first sentence that I bolded is an outright LIE.

Here is the rest of the story.

Before receiving a fast-tracked loan from the Obama administration in 2010, Solyndra had been singled out by both Republicans and Democrats as a promising venture potentially worthy of government investment. The company first applied for a Department of Energy grant under the George W. Bush administration.

But the Bush administration never approved Solyndra's loan, saying the application needed more work.

Isn't it amazing how the Dumbocrat parasites will completely believe any lie told to them by their Dumbocrat masters?

Thinks about this for a minute. Even if the Bush Administration had approved Solyndra (they didn't) - Barack Obama was president when he shoveled over our money to them as fast as he could. He had all the power. He could have said NO way in hell.

It only takes a shred of common sense (something Dumbocrats completely lack) to realize which ever narrative they choose to place the blame on someone else, it simply doesn't hold up under examination. Barack Obama was president when the money started flying out the door. Barack Obama was trying to purchase a second election with the American people's money. It happened under Barack Obama. Be a big boy now Londoner and own it.

 

[Billy000]

So how do you explain the fact that the debt is $7T higher now than when Obama took office? Has that figure somehow been "debunked" as well?

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

Yes, revenue is high in terms of RAW dollars. However, what your dumbass doesn't understand is those figures don't take into account inflation, growing economy, and population. You aren't measuring it properly. Going back to the 50s, revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than today's level during 55 or 63 years, or 87% of the time. Only for 8 years within that time was it lower than today's.

You are dumb.

 

[Billy000]

Stop lying.

The loan to Solyndra was created by George Bush and his GOP Congress. Obama merely allowed the money that Bush guaranteed to be paid.

Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels. The president touted the new energy law in his*2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department*issued its final rules*for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.

Go here
DOE-Loan Programs Office

The first sentence that I bolded is an outright LIE.

Here is the rest of the story.

Before receiving a fast-tracked loan from the Obama administration in 2010, Solyndra had been singled out by both Republicans and Democrats as a promising venture potentially worthy of government investment. The company first applied for a Department of Energy grant under the George W. Bush administration.

But the Bush administration never approved Solyndra's loan, saying the application needed more work.

Isn't it amazing how the Dumbocrat parasites will completely believe any lie told to them by their Dumbocrat masters?

Thinks about this for a minute. Even if the Bush Administration had approved Solyndra (they didn't) - Barack Obama was president when he shoveled over our money to them as fast as he could. He had all the power. He could have said NO way in hell.

It only takes a shred of common sense (something Dumbocrats completely lack) to realize which ever narrative they choose to place the blame on someone else, it simply doesn't hold up under examination. Barack Obama was president when the money started flying out the door. Barack Obama was trying to purchase a second election with the American people's money. It happened under Barack Obama. Be a big boy now Londoner and own it.

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

 

[Oldstyle]

The government had to borrow because the tax revenues plunged after 2008. Federal spending growth has slowed down dramatically under Obama.

You need to change your little quote below your name from "I can do math" to I can't do math.

Please tell me how going from 2.9 trillion to 3.7 trillion per year in government expenditures is reducing spending?

You need to learn how to read. Nobody's suggested that the spending was reduced. It has been growing -- but it has been growing slower than before Obama.

Well, gee whiz...Ilia! If you're using 2008 as your comparison...a year when we dumped an unprecedented amount of money into things like TARP to keep the economy from going belly up...are you REALLY painting Barack Obama as a "small spender" when he's kept that unprecedented level of spending going for most of his five years in office? I mean that stat LOOKS good until you actually examine it and then it looks AWFUL because it proves that Obama wants to spend that unprecedented amount every year! In fact the only reason he hasn't is that the GOP now controls the House and he can't get the spending he wants passed. That and the sequester are what have finally reduced his spending slightly but to try and portray Barry as a fiscally conservative President is laughable.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You need to change your little quote below your name from "I can do math" to I can't do math.

Please tell me how going from 2.9 trillion to 3.7 trillion per year in government expenditures is reducing spending?

You need to learn how to read. Nobody's suggested that the spending was reduced. It has been growing -- but it has been growing slower than before Obama.

Well, gee whiz...Ilia! If you're using 2008 as your comparison...a year when we dumped an unprecedented amount of money into things like TARP to keep the economy from going belly up...are you REALLY painting Barack Obama as a "small spender" when he's kept that unprecedented level of spending going for most of his five years in office? I mean that stat LOOKS good until you actually examine it and then it looks AWFUL because it proves that Obama wants to spend that unprecedented amount every year! In fact the only reason he hasn't is that the GOP now controls the House and he can't get the spending he wants passed. That and the sequester are what have finally reduced his spending slightly but to try and portray Barry as a fiscally conservative President is laughable.

Obviously, baseline budgeting and spending is a concept which is clearly way over the heads of leftists.

 

[Oldstyle]

The first sentence that I bolded is an outright LIE.

Here is the rest of the story.

Before receiving a fast-tracked loan from the Obama administration in 2010, Solyndra had been singled out by both Republicans and Democrats as a promising venture potentially worthy of government investment. The company first applied for a Department of Energy grant under the George W. Bush administration.

But the Bush administration never approved Solyndra's loan, saying the application needed more work.

Isn't it amazing how the Dumbocrat parasites will completely believe any lie told to them by their Dumbocrat masters?

Thinks about this for a minute. Even if the Bush Administration had approved Solyndra (they didn't) - Barack Obama was president when he shoveled over our money to them as fast as he could. He had all the power. He could have said NO way in hell.

It only takes a shred of common sense (something Dumbocrats completely lack) to realize which ever narrative they choose to place the blame on someone else, it simply doesn't hold up under examination. Barack Obama was president when the money started flying out the door. Barack Obama was trying to purchase a second election with the American people's money. It happened under Barack Obama. Be a big boy now Londoner and own it.

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

 

[Oldstyle]

You need to learn how to read. Nobody's suggested that the spending was reduced. It has been growing -- but it has been growing slower than before Obama.

Well, gee whiz...Ilia! If you're using 2008 as your comparison...a year when we dumped an unprecedented amount of money into things like TARP to keep the economy from going belly up...are you REALLY painting Barack Obama as a "small spender" when he's kept that unprecedented level of spending going for most of his five years in office? I mean that stat LOOKS good until you actually examine it and then it looks AWFUL because it proves that Obama wants to spend that unprecedented amount every year! In fact the only reason he hasn't is that the GOP now controls the House and he can't get the spending he wants passed. That and the sequester are what have finally reduced his spending slightly but to try and portray Barry as a fiscally conservative President is laughable.

Obviously, baseline budgeting and spending is a concept which is clearly way over the heads of leftists.

I can only shake my head at the people here that really seem to believe that Obama is spending far less than his predecessors. It's the same type of "math" as the person who doesn't think their checking account could possibly be overdrawn because they still have blank checks in their checkbook!

 

[Billy000]

Isn't it amazing how the Dumbocrat parasites will completely believe any lie told to them by their Dumbocrat masters?

Thinks about this for a minute. Even if the Bush Administration had approved Solyndra (they didn't) - Barack Obama was president when he shoveled over our money to them as fast as he could. He had all the power. He could have said NO way in hell.

It only takes a shred of common sense (something Dumbocrats completely lack) to realize which ever narrative they choose to place the blame on someone else, it simply doesn't hold up under examination. Barack Obama was president when the money started flying out the door. Barack Obama was trying to purchase a second election with the American people's money. It happened under Barack Obama. Be a big boy now Londoner and own it.

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

I can only imagine the caterwauling and hand wringing from blind little hacks like you, had Bush diverted the same amount of money to KBR or Halliburton, only to have it vanish into thin air.

In fact, it's not difficult to imagine at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

Yes, revenue is high in terms of RAW dollars. However, what your dumbass doesn't understand is those figures don't take into account inflation, growing economy, and population. You aren't measuring it properly. Going back to the 50s, revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than today's level during 55 or 63 years, or 87% of the time. Only for 8 years within that time was it lower than today's.

You are dumb.

You are like the energizer bunny of stupid.
So you made a claim about revenue. That was shown to be false. Now you want to revise the claim to include:
Inflation (running under 2% a year)
Growing economy (economy expanding under 2% a year)
Population (how that affects revenue is beyond me).
You want to make some kind of revenue/GDP comparison.
OK. Here;s the chart. It also shows revenue as a percentage of GDP is higher now.
Tax Revenues Return to Historical Average

What's next? Heritage is wrong? Provide your own chart. OR STFU and admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[The T]

The first sentence that I bolded is an outright LIE.

Here is the rest of the story.

Before receiving a fast-tracked loan from the Obama administration in 2010, Solyndra had been singled out by both Republicans and Democrats as a promising venture potentially worthy of government investment. The company first applied for a Department of Energy grant under the George W. Bush administration.

But the Bush administration never approved Solyndra's loan, saying the application needed more work.

Isn't it amazing how the Dumbocrat parasites will completely believe any lie told to them by their Dumbocrat masters?

Thinks about this for a minute. Even if the Bush Administration had approved Solyndra (they didn't) - Barack Obama was president when he shoveled over our money to them as fast as he could. He had all the power. He could have said NO way in hell.

It only takes a shred of common sense (something Dumbocrats completely lack) to realize which ever narrative they choose to place the blame on someone else, it simply doesn't hold up under examination. Barack Obama was president when the money started flying out the door. Barack Obama was trying to purchase a second election with the American people's money. It happened under Barack Obama. Be a big boy now Londoner and own it.

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

Did the money just evaporate? NOPE.

The news has been full of an estimate by Standard & Poor's that the U.S. economy suffered a loss of $24 billion due to the government shutdown. Interestingly, the reports contain few if any details of where those losses came from and the Standard & Poor's website does not seem to have any report backing up the figure either. I have found some of the suggested losses and they are all untrue. In reality, there will be no economic loss to the economy from the government shutdown.

Purported losses include missed wages by federal employees and contractors, the value of lost government services, and lost travel spending. Some of these losses did actually happen, but any losses in one part of the economy will be offset by gains somewhere else.

Certainly, some people have suffered losses due to the shutdown, principally those business owners who depend on tourists visiting Washington, D.C. or a federal site that was closed (such as a national park). Federal contractors who could not work and were not paid to work on other projects during the shutdown may suffer losses. However, they do not hold in the aggregate because every loss will be offset by a gain.

RealClearMarkets - There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From the Government Shutdown


That's the problem with you leftists. You operate on the assumption the economy is a Zero Sum Game...it isn't, and never has been. The pie isn't finite until the government gets involved and prohibits it getting larger by stifiling business by too many regulations.

 

[P@triot]

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

Yes, revenue is high in terms of RAW dollars. However, what your dumbass doesn't understand is those figures don't take into account inflation, growing economy, and population. You aren't measuring it properly. Going back to the 50s, revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than today's level during 55 or 63 years, or 87% of the time. Only for 8 years within that time was it lower than today's.

You are dumb.

You know what else is dumb? The ignorant Dumbocrat belief that the few can provide for the many. It has a 100% failure rate world wide for over 100 years now. Your ideology/philosophy is a failure.

There are more people on food stamps now (thanks to Obama) than any point in U.S. history. It's time to cut the cord. Those people need to learn to stand on their own two feet like big boys and girls.

 

[Oldstyle]

You cons really love to over blow Solyndra. It was a half of a billion flop. That is nothing compared to the 24 billion we lost during the government shut down because of the retarded GOP.

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

What the Forbes article quite correctly points out is that simply because money isn't spent on A doesn't mean that it isn't subsequently spent on B. The money that people didn't spend on vacations to National Parks didn't vaporize in their wallets. Chances are that money was spent ELSEWHERE. The 24 billion dollar loss to the economy is what is "bullshit" because it's based on faulty assumptions.

As for Solyndra? The decision to reward Solyndra all of that tax payer money was bad management of our tax dollars by this Administration. PERIOD! They fucked up. PERIOD!

 

[Kosh]

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

What the Forbes article quite correctly points out is that simply because money isn't spent on A doesn't mean that it isn't subsequently spent on B. The money that people didn't spend on vacations to National Parks didn't vaporize in their wallets. Chances are that money was spent ELSEWHERE. The 24 billion dollar loss to the economy is what is "bullshit" because it's based on faulty assumptions.

As for Solyndra? The decision to reward Solyndra all of that tax payer money was bad management of our tax dollars by this Administration. PERIOD! They fucked up. PERIOD!

No It was to make the donors and supporters of Obama rich.

Al Gore made $50 million on this deal, Nancy Pelosi made money on this deal, many democrats and supports (via insider trading) made large sums on this failing business. The loser were the taxpayers all those that lost their jobs.

 

[Billy000]

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

Yes, revenue is high in terms of RAW dollars. However, what your dumbass doesn't understand is those figures don't take into account inflation, growing economy, and population. You aren't measuring it properly. Going back to the 50s, revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than today's level during 55 or 63 years, or 87% of the time. Only for 8 years within that time was it lower than today's.

You are dumb.

You are like the energizer bunny of stupid.
So you made a claim about revenue. That was shown to be false. Now you want to revise the claim to include:
Inflation (running under 2% a year)
Growing economy (economy expanding under 2% a year)
Population (how that affects revenue is beyond me).
You want to make some kind of revenue/GDP comparison.
OK. Here;s the chart. It also shows revenue as a percentage of GDP is higher now.
Tax Revenues Return to Historical Average

What's next? Heritage is wrong? Provide your own chart. OR STFU and admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You are so stupid. Of course heritage is bullshit. You might as well pulled that crap from Fox News. That graph, and you and the rest of the cons are completley oversimplifying the issue. Why am I not surprised you just ignored the inflation issue? The today's economy is bigger than ever and with the dollar being worth less than ever, of course revenue in terms of raw dollars is going to be higher than ever.

The only accurate way to measure revenue is through percentage of GDP. For 2013, federal revenue only accounts for 16.7% of the GDP. 2000 is when it was at its highest of 20.6. Facts like these must be put into historical context.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A few questions.
1. Do you think we should have the fda that makes sure we have standards for food?
2. Do you believe in the clean air and water acts?

These two within my opinion help make our nation far better then most of the world.

 

[Billy000]

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From The Government Shutdown - Forbes

The difference between the loss that liberals claim happened during the shut down and the loss that we the taxpayers took because of the Solyndra fiasco is that the former is fantasy and the latter is oh too real.

As usual, Billy...you have no clue when it comes to economics...

You are so full of shit. You just did a random Google search hoping you would find a claim to the contrary. That article is bullshit. It doesn't even come up with an actual figure. He just speculates. And even if the actual number is shy of 24 billion, it would still be well above half of a billion so quit your bitching about Solyndra.

What the Forbes article quite correctly points out is that simply because money isn't spent on A doesn't mean that it isn't subsequently spent on B. The money that people didn't spend on vacations to National Parks didn't vaporize in their wallets. Chances are that money was spent ELSEWHERE. The 24 billion dollar loss to the economy is what is "bullshit" because it's based on faulty assumptions.

As for Solyndra? The decision to reward Solyndra all of that tax payer money was bad management of our tax dollars by this Administration. PERIOD! They fucked up. PERIOD!

I'm still waiting for an actual figure. If your article can't come up with that, it failed the argument.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Why is it so hard to believe that if we have less revenue, we have more debt? Are you really this stupid?.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

Yes, revenue is high in terms of RAW dollars. However, what your dumbass doesn't understand is those figures don't take into account inflation, growing economy, and population. You aren't measuring it properly. Going back to the 50s, revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than today's level during 55 or 63 years, or 87% of the time. Only for 8 years within that time was it lower than today's.

You are dumb.

And you are stupid, incapable of learning. I play your silly game, assuming there is a large affect from inflation, here are the inflation rates for that period.

2009 2.1 trillion 2.7% 2.04trillion Fed spending % increase 17.9%
2010 2.16 trillion 1.5% 2.12trillion decrease .02%
2011 2.3 trillion 3.0% 2.23trillion increase .04%
2012 2.45 projected 1.7% 2.40trillion decrease .02%
totals 8.9% increase 17.9%

For four years now revenue has been increasing and the final quarter of 2012 provided a hefty boost. Because tax cuts passed under former President George W. Bush were set to expire at the end of 2012, many taxpayers sold off investments or made other financial moves in the waning days of the year to avoid potentially steep tax bills in 2013. The burst of income buoyed states, as individual income taxes provide more than one-third of total tax revenue.

Last month the U.S. Census Bureau reported that tax revenue of states grew 4.9 percent to $193.9 billion in the final quarter of 2012 from the fourth quarter of 2011.

Rockefeller found the increase was even steeper - 5.2 percent - when it updated the Census figures with new data. The growth was almost exclusively due to personal income tax collections, which alone rose 10.8 percent.


So you see moron, spending has doubled the revenue increase, both in raw numbers and percentages adjusted for inflation. Why don't you just admit that Oduma and you are morons.

 

[Billy000]

Why is it so hard for you to understand the stupidity of your statement when we have not had less revenue, we've had record levels of revenue.

2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.16 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.45 projected

Now what's your stupid ass excuse?

Yes, revenue is high in terms of RAW dollars. However, what your dumbass doesn't understand is those figures don't take into account inflation, growing economy, and population. You aren't measuring it properly. Going back to the 50s, revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than today's level during 55 or 63 years, or 87% of the time. Only for 8 years within that time was it lower than today's.

You are dumb.

And you are stupid, incapable of learning. I play your silly game, assuming there is a large affect from inflation, here are the inflation rates for that period.

2009 2.1 trillion 2.7% 2.04trillion Fed spending % increase 17.9%
2010 2.16 trillion 1.5% 2.12trillion decrease .02%
2011 2.3 trillion 3.0% 2.23trillion increase .04%
2012 2.45 projected 1.7% 2.40trillion decrease .02%
totals 8.9% increase 17.9%

For four years now revenue has been increasing and the final quarter of 2012 provided a hefty boost. Because tax cuts passed under former President George W. Bush were set to expire at the end of 2012, many taxpayers sold off investments or made other financial moves in the waning days of the year to avoid potentially steep tax bills in 2013. The burst of income buoyed states, as individual income taxes provide more than one-third of total tax revenue.

Last month the U.S. Census Bureau reported that tax revenue of states grew 4.9 percent to $193.9 billion in the final quarter of 2012 from the fourth quarter of 2011.

Rockefeller found the increase was even steeper - 5.2 percent - when it updated the Census figures with new data. The growth was almost exclusively due to personal income tax collections, which alone rose 10.8 percent.


So you see moron, spending has doubled the revenue increase, both in raw numbers and percentages adjusted for inflation. Why don't you just admit that Oduma and you are morons.

More and more fallacy. Read my reply to Rabbi.