I didn't say Obama hasn't spend more than Clinton, I said Clinton increased the rate of spending at a higher rate than Obama.
But again, what is so funny about this is you actually think you're clever enough to post this stupid troll shit while pretending you're responding to the point.
You're not
In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent [the largest reduction in federal spending in the past 60 years as measured in percentage of GDP] . Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform. Clinton also
- “cut” (reduced the growth rate of) Medicare spending by $115 billion;
- “cut” Medicaid spending by $14 billion;
- cut other mandatory spending by $40 billion;
Clinton also cut capital gains taxes and of course saw job gains and steady GDP growth.
The idea that you need to spend a lot of money for economic growth is laughable and preposterous.
Of course when you're a 23 year old kid who, well, wasn't really there for the Clinton Presidency, you type stupid shit on the Internet.
Not troll shit at all. Just proving my point and making you look like an idiot. But it really is not that hard, you are really dumb and set yourself up for a lot of ridicule, lol.
So the Presidency that saw the largest reduction in spending as measured as % of GDP saw huge job gains and steady GDP growth.
And this idiot "responds" by trying to pretend that a stupid chart that adds nothing to the discussion is responsive.
That is the definition of troll.
You're a troll
LOL
In the first 4 years of their administrations, spending was:
LOL
- 19% higher under Bush than Clinton
- 41% higher under Obama than Bush
- 67% higher under Obama than Clinton
Lol, of course it adds something to the discussion. Your theory is that spending does not help the economy. Your example is Clinton and his reduction in spending as % of GDP. I respond by saying Clinton didn't reduce spending, so your theory needs to be refined. You simply don't get this. You are actually really dumb, lol.
Lmao, in clintons first 5 years, he increased spending by an average of 4.9%. In Obama's first 5 years (including 2009 which was Bush's fault), the increase was 4.0%. The last 4 years the average increase in spending was 1.6%. Never in Clinton's 8 years did he have a single year where spending did not increase more than 2%.
You literally are pretty dumb.