Neither Bush nor Obama is a spender. Congress is.

A simple percentage of increase is one of the most basic (and worst ways) to measure spending.

It doesn't account correctly for one offs, and fails to measure the impact of spending bills passed one year but implemented in the out years.

It also tells you nothing about the spread between revenues and outlays in any given year, or increases in the deficit needed to sustain spending when revenues tanked in late 2008.

The other thing it does not do is measure, the outlays mandated by Obamacare, which won't really kick in until 2014.

This is high school journalism at best.

This is innumeracy at its worst. Any percentage of a larger base looks better than it is. The percentages don't matter, it is the compounding that gets you. Which is why the stupid can never pay off those credit card bills. Harsh, yes, but that $600 TV cost you $1500 by the time you paid it off. Was it worth it?

A more honest and illuminating comparison would be shown per person, per taxpayer or per household in dollars, preferably adjusted for inflation.

Bush was bad and Obama is worse. My interests are not their objective. I vote for the guy who will do less harm to me and mine, and I do not delude myself that I mean more than a vote to them.

Neither Bush nor Obama is a spender. Congress is.

A pity that the Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009. You know, one of those things that it is required to do. And something not subject to a filibuster.

Continuing resolutions allow them to spend more than they otherwise would.

Now, to tweak our blog hostess: oh, for the days of Bush 43's deficits! Yes, we were racking up debt, but not at the tune of $1 trillion+ per year.

It's been a team effort, no doubt about that.

Lots of articles, suddenly, about how mean conservatives complain about Obama spending but Bush was worse. It's almost like someone coordinated it. Hmm. So why pass this along unthinkingly? Obama's been spending hand over fist for years and now, suddenly, a budget. Which the libs hate, BTW. Very sad faces. So they're trying to pick up middle-grounders by saying that this budget is less spendy than Bush with 2 wars and a Dem Congress. Duh. Also:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Federal+Spending+Bush+vs+Obama&FORM=RESTAB#view=detail&id=603233215BABB80B0926956DF5D212EB6172E685&selectedIndex=1

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Federal+Spending+Bush+vs+Obama&FORM=RESTAB#view=detail&id=C0B8FA50234F48CAB8A00034953A4CD304BDA303&selectedIndex=5

" It's almost like someone coordinated it. Hmm."

It's the Illuminati. They also killed Michael Jackson, you know.

Bastards!

"Now, to tweak our blog hostess: oh, for the days of Bush 43's deficits! Yes, we were racking up debt, but not at the tune of $1 trillion+ per year."

According to this piece, the deficit is shrinking:

"Through the first six months of this fiscal year, revenues are $1.196 trillion, up 12.5 percent from $1.063 trillion in the first six months of fiscal 2012. Meanwhile, the government has spent $1.797 trillion in the first six months of fiscal 2013, down 2.4 percent compared with the first six months of fiscal 2012. The deficit for the first half of the fiscal year is $600.5 billion, down 22.5 percent from $775 billion in the first half of fiscal 2012.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/10/deficit-hawks-rejoice-we-re-in-a-golden-age-of-deficit-reduction.html

"Golden age of deficit reduction" sounds too good to be true, so that raises some red flags for me, but it should be interesting to watch.

As MarkD so correctly pointed out, "shrinking" the deficit is so much easier when you have doubled it on your watch.

Also, we still have no true budget, passed and voted on, and as I understand it, the sequester could be lifted tomorrow, and that shrinking deficit would be growing again instantly.

A six month snapshot tells you nothing about mandated spending for entitlements and Obamacare that will hit next year. Unless Congress refuses to both fund it, and raise the debt ceiling, it will cause a massive jump in both spending and borrowing.

This is why you don't gain much from articles like this, they fudge the numbers and select the interval to show what they want to show to people they are trying to influence.

This is also why journalists get so little respect. Unless they are both subject matter experts on economics, and government finance, and unbiased, it is garbage in, garbage out. Most journalists these days are neither.

Our economy grew at less than one percent last year (and I find those numbers suspect, as I do not believe that they are inflation adjusted) as they should be.

The new taxes and regulations Congress has passed are job killers, and real inflation ran over ten percent. This is not a recipe for prosperity, and deficit reduction achieved by printing more money will seriously harm both the productive, and the responsible in this country.

"Unless they are both subject matter experts on economics, and government finance, and unbiased, it is garbage in, garbage out."

Here's the bio of Chris Edwards, who wrote the initial blog post

Before joining Cato, Edwards was a senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, a manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers, and an economist with the Tax Foundation. Edwards has testified to Congress on fiscal issues many times, and his articles on tax and budget policies have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other major newspapers. He is the author of Downsizing the Federal Government and co-author of Global Tax Revolution. Edwards holds a B.A. and M.A. in economics, and he was a member of the Fiscal Future Commission of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yes, I read that.

However my statement was a two parter containing the word "unbiased"

Keynesians like Edwards have doubled down on failure for the last fifty years, and the economic wreckage they have left behind them is spectacular.

We already pointed out where his statistics and math were selective and wrong. Now we have to explain John Maynard Keynes also?

The journalist dig was in regards to Daniel Gross, of the Daily Beast.

Nobody said the Republicans were the party of "small" government. The only thing the Republicans are is, the only viable alternative to the Democrats, a party that has gone from socialist lite to the full Monty in about a generation.

The thing I really dislike is how paid democratic party operatives posing as journalists, and economists, use phony accounting to try and paint the Republican party as the same as the democrats, only of course, they are all racist homophobes who want to take away grandma's Social Security
and spend money on those evil defense contractors, (as opposed to supplying union thugs with gold plated pensions and health benefits, and illegal aliens with green cards )

Well, I have news for all you cupcakes.

The Obama administration is running the printing presses 24 /7 and is stealing your retirement AND grandma's social security while their journalistic butt kissers have all the innumerate nodding in agreement, at how the Republicans don't support gay marriage.

I wonder if any of you will even notice, until you stop by your local burger stand and shell out 25 bucks for 3oz of beef?

I'm not that much interested these days in arguing about which side is worse. The Democrats are the ones on the point now, so it's up to them to do something. Someday (presumably) the Republicans will be back on the point, and then it will be their responsibility.

"any more than I'm a Major League Baseball star because I can fake talking baseball for about 30 seconds..."

You mean you actually read my comment on the other thread about how a pitcher's win-loss record is not a good indictor of success???

"Now we have to explain John Maynard Keynes also?"

I don't know, do you?

If Edwards is such a big Keynesian, why would he write something like this?

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/not-keen-keynes

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wh-budget-director-doesnt-know-how-much-obamas-budget-increases-the-deficit/article/2526937

Thanks for the link. Yeah, that's not reassuring, coming from the budget director.

Like I said, it should be interesting to watch. This could be the shortest "golden age of deficit reductions" ever. Lol.