Have you seen this article? Ridiculous.. How do I refute?

[gb13]

So my friend (rank-and-file democrat) posted this article, and apparently thinks it makes the case that Obama is better than Bush; therefore Republicans are bad, and Democrats are good. Need some links to set the record straight...

Three charts to show your right wing brother-in-law (http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142)

[gb13]

I've been searching Mises.org and can't find much specifically comparing Bush and Obama. I know this article my friend posted is using phony numbers, but I can't find something clear and concise to refute it.

[CaptUSA]

Yeah, I'm having trouble finding something as well.

Comparing Obama to Bush is probably not a very good yardstick anyway, but they are playing with some very skewed numbers here.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Well, let me preface by saying I think Bush WAS worse than Obama.

That being said, the charts in your link are skewered.

The first chart shows that Bush increased spending the most in the last year - then it shows Obama incorporated ALL those spending increases and added even more. The chart only focuses on the growth rate. It doesn't focus on the reality that after such a huge increase in 2008 - there naturally should be a decline the next year. But Obama increased it even MORE.

Same thing with the 2nd chart. Shows the huge deficit increase in 2008 for Bush - then Obama added even MORE. Bush on steroids type of increases. Then - even worse - the chart shows the future estimates of lowered deficits for Obama as facts. Hardly.

The last chart only shows the last few months of Bush - which was the peak of the job losses. So that's really skewered against Bush. It doesn't show the whole 8 years. And, of course, job losses - at 8% unemployment are naturally not going to get much worse. Then there's been no rebound whatsover for Obama - which should be telling by itself.

Overall - there is no way to convincingly refute the three charts to satisfy your leftist friends. The charts are truthful in a sense. They are just slanted heavily to show what the authot wants to show. And the left will see what they see - and not consider anything out of context. Or slanted.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Well, let me preface by saying I think Bush WAS worse than Obama.



When I say Bush was worse than Obama - I don't mean that exactly. I mean - to me - Bush was worse than Obama since Bush was a Republican and Republicans are not suppose to increase spending and destroy the free market. What Bush did was ruin (for most Americans) the name Republican for fiscal conservatives. Which is unforgivable to me.

[Acala]

They both sucked!!!! Debating which sucked more is a waste of time. This country cannot survive four more years of Obama OR a Bush clone.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Chart 1 shows huge growth in spending. You should see a reduction in spending after such a huge explosion - but Obama ramped up spending even past the ridiculous levels bush did. Bush on steriods.

Chart 2 is showing expected deficit reductions... completely silly. You think that magically after election year 2012 that the deficit will start to go down? Hilarious, but the actual numbers are still going up.

Chart 3 should be obvious. You can only bleed jobs for so long before there aren't jobs left or the companies have made the necessary cuts to stabilize. We shouldn't have done a bailout in the first place, to think it wasn't big enough is just crazy on a whole different level.