Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
11. So the two Presidents with lower numbers are Truman (Do to the end of WWII) and Hoover!!!!!
Wed May 23, 2012, 06:28 PM
May 2012

Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 07:21 PM - Edit history (3)

President.....Fiscal year baseline.....Last fiscal year...Average percentage ............................................................................increase per year
Carter....................1977.....................1981.....................16.4
Nixon.....................1969.....................1975.....................13.5
Johnson.................1964.....................1969.....................11.0
George W. Bush......2001.....................2009.....................10.2
Reagan...................1981.....................1989.......................8.6
Kennedy.................1961.....................1964.......................7.1
George H.W. Bush...1989.....................1993.......................5.8
Clinton................... 1993.....................2001.......................4.0
Eisenhower..............1953.....................1961.......................3.6
Obama....................2009.....................2013.......................1.4

I notice the chart only goes back to Eisenhower, thus avoiding the severe drop in spending in the first years of Truman's Administration (and the huge cut back in spending due to the ending of WWII). Truman would have started in a high year (if NOT the highest year in real terms ever) of 1945, and then down till it started to go up after the start of the Korean War. Thus we have to go back to Truman to get a lower percentage AND if we dismiss that as the one time event that it was we have to go back to Hoover (FDR started low, due to how Hoover was handling the Depression but went super high due to WWII, thus FDR number would be high, but it is NOT reported on the Web site, Neither is Truman's nor Hoover's).

So Romney's statement is technically true Renew Deal May 2012 #1
Good point! drm604 May 2012 #2
+1000! zbdent May 2012 #15
The lock-step repuke buffoons don't understand physics cosmicone May 2012 #34
The Politifact analysis shows this to be ironclad true underpants May 2012 #3
And look who is in first place the great cindyperry2010 May 2012 #4
Viral FB makes it sound less true. Should be "Wall Street Journal says" bloomington-lib May 2012 #5
well, the Wall Street Journal is well known NewJeffCT May 2012 #29
K&R hwmnbn May 2012 #6
I also have right wing nuts tell me.. louis-t May 2012 #7
I am sure they got their ideas of that AsahinaKimi May 2012 #8
Not mentallly disturbed - Plucketeer May 2012 #23
Then "willfully ignorant" describes them. louis-t May 2012 #43
The stats are true Iliyah May 2012 #9
I'm not letting Obama off that easy. Southerner May 2012 #10
No, your choices are Obama, Romney or Paul if you prefer. Who's best of the three? freshwest May 2012 #19
There's no point in fixing something that ain't broken. Jamaal510 May 2012 #37
So the two Presidents with lower numbers are Truman (Do to the end of WWII) and Hoover!!!!! happyslug May 2012 #11
WTF Politifact? "...very close to accurate" tularetom May 2012 #12
One thing I've heard from the right about spending..... Chakaconcarne May 2012 #13
Plus, they count money not spent ... zbdent May 2012 #16
The tea brats never Iliyah May 2012 #14
Bush? BUSH??? Who's this "Bush" person? zbdent May 2012 #17
Good antidote to the right wing mythology that gets spread on Facebook, alp227 May 2012 #18
Kind of sad, actually... TiberiusB May 2012 #20
+10000. progressoid May 2012 #33
you are right on the money tiberiusb iemitsu May 2012 #35
It's possible. Maybe it's the mad rush to the middle. raouldukelives May 2012 #38
I posted the chart and got some "thank you's" for it. SleeplessinSoCal May 2012 #40
So true. It's also sad how much importance is placed on facebook and twitter just1voice May 2012 #41
True, we should be spending like crazy (on infrastructure) to create jobs and help the economy. MatthewStLouis May 2012 #46
DUers, go forth and share this on Facebook n/t roseBudd May 2012 #21
Just did. 8^D truthisfreedom May 2012 #22
needs to go super-viral ..a very important story Douglas Carpenter May 2012 #24
Is it possible sulphurdunn May 2012 #25
yet the corporate media MUST make things even fascisthunter May 2012 #26
Perhaps someone can notify the DNC so they have something to do cr8tvlde May 2012 #27
I Think They know... I think it's all bullshit Kabuki fascisthunter May 2012 #28
KnR KansDem May 2012 #30
This is pissing off my FB friends already. Thanks. Courtesy Flush May 2012 #31
The truth no longer matters tabasco May 2012 #32
K & R Scurrilous May 2012 #36
Ann Coulter's Article mikeysnot May 2012 #39
Lowest spending *growth*. Highest spending (nt) Recursion May 2012 #42
Now if only mainstream media would do their job Thrill May 2012 #44
Misleading. He doesn't have the lowest spending record, he has the SLOWEST rate of spending growth. olddad56 May 2012 #45
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Viral Facebook post says ...»Reply #11