Is that so?  Last I had heard they expected the Democrats to make gains in the house, but end up losing the Senate. (Mostly structural reasons, there were like 3 times as many "at play" senators)

Of course that was 3+ months ago, didn't realize things had turned against the democrats.

Sorry, I stand correction.  I think I remembered it as control of the different houses of congress, the white house and so on:

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

The Democratic gains will be close to zero.  The GOP has a chance of getting to 50, and splitting between Democrats and independents:

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php

The point I think I was going for is Obama isn't likely to get any help from this election, he gets reelected.  And it will be interesting to see what the GOP does, if Obama gets relected and these results are there.  Obama will be in the final term, and likely play even harder ball, or maybe do things so the GOP goes so right wing, and Obama runs like crazy to try to compromise, the GOP ends up pushing itself way out of the mainstream.  What will likely see is Obama pushes to have the middle class tax cuts made permanent, while letting them lapse on the upper end, and try to tweak the budget cuts set to kick in automatically, and the GOP will say no.  The Bush tax cuts will expire, along with the cross-the board budget cuts kick in, and then the political games by Obama are to make the GOP fall so far out of the mainstream America gets sick of it all.

I mean fact in its simplest terms Bong Lover. Any way you look at it Obama has already spent more than any president in US history bar none. The federal govt expenditure under his administration has averaged 3.5 trillion a year in comparison to "big bad evil bushs" 2.5 trillion.

And by no means am i a Bush lover but people who attack Bush and defend Obama are flat out hilarious

It isn't the raw size of the amount of money spent that is the issue.  The federal budget can grow much larger in raw dollars, but be a smaller percentage of the economy.  The big issue has to do with the size of the deficit, and the interest payments as a percentage of the economy.

As the economy grows, the federal government would expect to have more money.  Economies naturally grow, if things go right, and tax revenues go up, and it is best they get spent on something to make the country raising the taxes better.

A problem with this is that we have no idea what any of the figures actually are. GDP, inflation, spending numbers are all so bastardized and fuzzy through accounting tricks, the actual picture out there could be miles worse than what we're being led to believe.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

As you were saying...

What should be detectable though, is an increase in tax revenues, with everything else left alone.  Economies, by their nature are geared toward growing though.  Economies do want to grow, order things for commerce, and continue to add value.  People with money seek this out.  Of course, there is always the risk of a piling on of negative externalities that end up causing a net decline if they get large enough.  Also, there is the risks of a disaster happening also.

So by indicating that Obama has spent more than any other president you really mean that the federal budget in raw dollars is the largest it ever has been. Why not just say that instead of using the kind of convulted language that is designed only to give the false perseption that federal spending has ballooned under Obama?

Ofcourse, the problem with this kind of extremely shallow thinking is that these numbers are not even adjusted for inflation. And if you did adjust for inflation public spending would still be very high in raw dollars, but then you get into spending as a percentage of the GNP and the picture becomes quite different.

It is also a 'fact' that the biggest expensions of the public sector in the past 30 years were overseen in ranking order by: Ronald Reagan 1st term, Gorge Bush Jr 2nd term, George Bush Jr 3rd term. If you go by this metric, expension of the public sector, Obama is the president since the 1980's that has expended the government the least, and by a significant margin as well.

I agree that there's ample room for being critical of Obama, but to peg him as a high spending president is ridicolous. Especially coming from the right, who to a man pitch a tent over Ronald Reagan; the mother of reckless spending.

Bush didn't have a 3rd term. O_o

No one has since FDR.

I won't judge but:
the most I read is Obama is bad because of jobs and money and stuff. But in politics and economy this doesn't happen instantly. It's always a trend that is mostly started years before.
People should think about that. Not everything that goes wrong now is the current government's fault. That's what's so weird about democracy. You mostly switch between two parties that act against each other and therefore everything they try to start will fail because others take over a few years later.

Embarrasing mistake. Should read 2nd term and 1st term. Irritating that my otherwise flawless analysis now seems silly just from one stupid clerical mistake. None the less, thanks for pointing out the error.