On Jun 7, 8:49*pm, jim wrote:
" wrote:

On Jun 7, 4:07 pm, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Interesting. *Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and *the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents.

Sure you take 400 billion of the increase from Bush
and assign it to Obama and
then ignore any growth in the economy
*and those 2 combined
makes it look like what you want it to look like

That is not what I said. *What I said is that if you graph the data,
you will have a better understanding. *

If you understand it
you can explain it adequately in words.

Starting with Bush II the
budgets increase at a much higher rate and continue to do so using the
projected figures for Obama. *Since the figures are projected for
Obama, I do not trust them a lot. *But a graph shows that Obama is
very close to Bush II as far as budget increases.

If you are expecting the increase
to be the same rate as economic growth
Then you would expect the increase to be half
as much for Reagan than Clinton
You would expect Reagan to be more than Roosevelt
And the rate of increase for
*Obama to be more than Bush2 not less




i am not expecting anything. I was just looking at data you presented
and noted that the tabular form does not present the data well.

Dan