Republicans Destroying the Economy through Austerity... On Purpose

[GasMan]

Just unreal. The obstructionist do-nothing Republicans have the audacity to blame Obama for the economy yet they prevent any measures that have been used in the past by almost every President to increase economic growth. Look at the average increases in spending for Reagan and Bush. Almost over 5%. Obama though is forced to be the first President in the past 50 years to spend less in the span of a year. It's insane. The economy would be working just fine and growing if the government were allowed to do what its been doing for the past century.

Obama, because of the worthless do nothing Republicans is officially the biggest fiscal conservative we have seen in the past century. And this does not include the massive reduction in public sector employment, state and local spending, etc. It's embarrassing to know that I once thought highly of Republicans. But the new party is such a joke and a disaster to the country that I probably will never be able to vote Republican again. Their constituents are just too dumb and they are willing to destroy this country to defend their failed ideology. Sort of like a religion. Just sickening stuff.

WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Do you not even know what you wrote?

You are trying to wiggle out of this, you have been exposed as a fraud and a liar by many on here, and here you go once again.

You say Obama cant spend the money he needs, based on some bullshit graph which means absolutely nothing to anyone except for a silly person trying to use some kind of statistical anomaly of skewed data because of a huge increase of spending from a prior year.

So, based on your words, and your graph, that is exactly what you are saying.

 

[akphidelt]

WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Do you not even know what you wrote?

You are trying to wiggle out of this, you have been exposed as a fraud and a liar by many on here, and here you go once again.

You say Obama cant spend the money he needs, based on some bullshit graph which means absolutely nothing to anyone except for a silly person trying to use some kind of statistical anomaly of skewed data because of a huge increase of spending from a prior year.

So, based on your words, and your graph, that is exactly what you are saying.

No it means a lot to intelligent people. To conservatives like you, it's hard to understand. That's why your wealthy masters love you guys. You're retarded and vote based on whatever they tell you to believe. There are two bumps greater than the one Obama had in 2009 yet they still never had to experience 3-4 years of negative to 2% increases.

 

[GasMan]

There is absolutely no mathematical way you can argue against my point in the OP. The math does not lie. Obama has by the lowest average increase in spending than any President in the past 50 years. That's thanks to the do nothing worthless Republicans. They'll allow their party to do it, but then prevent Obama to do it and then blame him for the results. It's unreal and sickening.

That's because of a huge spike in spending in his first TWO years. Can you post the actual numbers of aggregate dollars spent on a year to year basis?

If your baseline is 1, and you increase to 10, your percentage change is 1000%

If your baseline is higher, like Obama's was, you will have a harder matching or increasing that type of percentage change.

 

[GasMan]

No it means a lot to intelligent people. To conservatives like you, it's hard to understand. That's why your wealthy masters love you guys. You're retarded and vote based on whatever they tell you to believe. There are two bumps greater than the one Obama had in 2009 yet they still never had to experience 3-4 years of negative to 2% increases.

Dude, you are truly clueless. Do you not realize that those baselines were much smaller then? Of course not.

 

[akphidelt]

Dude, you are truly clueless. Do you not realize that those baselines were much smaller then? Of course not.

Of course I do. Just like the baselines in 1937 were less than 1980, or 1820 were less than 1937. Not really saying much there. You have no ability to conceptualize how the economy and monetary system works. You are just really dumb. Not going to lie.

 

[akphidelt]

That's because of a huge spike in spending in his first TWO years. Can you post the actual numbers of aggregate dollars spent on a year to year basis?

If your baseline is 1, and you increase to 10, your percentage change is 1000%

If your baseline is higher, like Obama's was, you will have a harder matching or increasing that type of percentage change.

You don't need actual numbers to understand this graph. It has nothing to do with nominal spending amounts. You really have to have an understanding in economics to understand what I'm talking about. You simply don't... which is why you keep saying stupid shit.

 

[Ttratter]

Had it figured out for a while. Just another notification that nothing has changed and the Republicans are still intentionally destroying this country.

Yo bro, there are only about 2 or 3 of you here that believe your horrific shit you try to conger up. funny thing is you both believe it lol.................

 

[akphidelt]

Yo bro, there are only about 2 or 3 of you here that believe your horrific shit you try to conger up. funny thing is you both believe it lol.................

I'm willing to bet economics and math are not your strong suit.

 

[Ttratter]

Nights are cold in ak I know. So keep sipping the JD

 

[akphidelt]

Nights are cold in ak I know. So keep sipping the JD

Solid response. You seem very intelligent.

 

[wabashwonders]

HOLY SHIT!

Did you see the drop in spending by Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1988? What the fuck happened there, dumb fuck?

How is Reagan a Keynesian like you claim, when he actually dropped spending?*

All these numbers are enough to make your head spin...oh, wait..that's the point from your perspective.

How did Reagan improve the economy, while Obama's economy has tanked with an endless recession, high unemployment...while their pretty little graph picture looks exactly alike?

Wow, I guess Reagan just got lucky. Either that, or Obama is just plain terrible.




* - this is why you are so fucking fake with your bullshit graphs you have embarrassed yourself completely. Move to another forum.

Do you see that dark line in the graph with the zero to the left? Anything above that is a positive percent and anything below is a negative percent. Anything on the positive side means there was more of it from previous year. Every year from 81-88 when Reagan was President shows a positive percent which means he spent more money each year. It's pretty basic math if you know how to read a graph. You obviously don't understand the graph and what it means.

 

[GasMan]

You don't need actual numbers to understand this graph. It has nothing to do with nominal spending amounts. You really have to have an understanding in economics to understand what I'm talking about. You simply don't... which is why you keep saying stupid shit.

Dude, how the monetary and economic system work have NOTHING to do with what you have posted.

You are claiming (in lock step democrap talking point fashion) that the repubs are limiting Obama from doing his job properly by not allowing him to spend. CHECK

You are also claiming that Obama has been forced by the Republicans to spend less in a following year than the year prior. CHECK


Here is where you are a fucking dipshit loser.


From 2008 to 2010, spending (on a percentage basis) increased nearly 3 fold. This was mainly due to the massive stimulus' that were passed.

In 2011 (which was still from an all democratic congress, house and executive branch), there was a 1% decrease in spending from the year prior.

Since 2011, there has been roughly a 1.5-2.5% increase in spending each successive year.


So, by your explanation. A single year of a 1% reduction in spending from the prior year(which was from the budget, or lack of budget, passed by the all democratic house and senate in 2010), is the fault of the Republicans and the reason why Obama has been a complete cluster fuck loser abortion in the white house.

In addition, the single year 1% reduction in spending was only a result the of MASSIVE SPENDING INCREASE seen in the two years prior, due to the huge expenditures on the different stimulus and bailout bills that were passed.


So in summary, the huge increases in spending by Bush which drove the baseline numbers through the roof, followed up by two massive spending increase years under Obama, followed by a 1% decrease in spending in a single year is why Obama is failing.


Then you use your same old tired, lame, terrible argument about you being smarter than everyone else and we don't understand the monetary system as you defense, as the reason why we are wrong.

I am only regurgitating the data you have posted, and the statement you have made. Spending levels are at an ALL TIME HIGH, even a 1% increase at these spending levels would equate to a 30-40% increase in spending levels in the Reagan era, and you use these skewed numbers and data to try to make your case.

You are a clueless, lost, blind soul.

 

[GasMan]

Do you see that dark line in the graph with the zero to the left? Anything above that is a positive percent and anything below is a negative percent. Anything on the positive side means there was more of it from previous year. Every year from 81-88 when Reagan was President shows a positive percent which means he spent more money each year. It's pretty basic math if you know how to read a graph. You obviously don't understand the graph and what it means.

I understand completely what the graph represents.

Exactly what I have posted, is what you have just said to me. Obama had a single year of 1% reduction in spending (from 2010 to 2011)....and this is the reason why the economy is failing (according to Akphi).

The 1% decrease is based on the spending compared to the year prior.

The prior year (2010) in this case, spending levels were at an all time high (in monetary terms) because of the massive stimulus packages that were passed.

If there were to have NOT been massive stimulus packages passed, this graph would look much different, and the 1% decrease in spending represented on that graph (in 2011), would have most likely been represented by a 8-10% increase in spending for that same year.


Now shut the fuck up and go back into your parents' basement.

 

[GasMan]

Normally I spend about $70 a year...then I decide to have a stimulus the next two years and spend more than I have ever spent before. Lets say this year in which we spend $70 would be the baseline year.

The following years, this is how our spend goes.

Year 1 - I spend $100

Year 2 - I spend 12% more than the prior year. I have spent $112

Year 3 - I spend 1% less than year two. I have spent $111 (roughly)



In year 3, I have spent $11 more than I spent in year 1...and I have spent $41 a year more than I normally spend (the baseline year).

Yet, this -1% number is the only number that matters to Akphi and saying that Obama can't spend his way out of the recession because of the Republicans.

This thread has been dismantled. Good try, maybe start another one about the same topic?

 

[wabashwonders]

I understand completely what the graph represents.

Exactly what I have posted, is what you have just said to me. Obama had a single year of 1% reduction in spending (from 2010 to 2011)....and this is the reason why the economy is failing (according to Akphi).

The 1% decrease is based on the spending compared to the year prior.

The prior year (2010) in this case, spending levels were at an all time high (in monetary terms) because of the massive stimulus packages that were passed.

If there were to have NOT been massive stimulus packages passed, this graph would look much different, and the 1% decrease in spending represented on that graph (in 2011), would have most likely been represented by a 8-10% increase in spending for that same year.


Now shut the fuck up and go back into your parents' basement.

Oh come on now, this has absolutely nothing to do with the post I responded to where you claim Reagan dropped spending. The graph clearly shows that he had a positive % increase every year. So how is that dropping if you understand the graph?

 

[GasMan]

Oh come on now, this has absolutely nothing to do with the post I responded to where you claim Reagan dropped spending. The graph clearly shows that he had a positive % increase every year. So how is that dropping if you understand the graph?

Because I was being sarcastic about the drops in Reagan's spending to make a point. Please see the asterisk on my post.

Percentage changes are used by marketing people and statisticians when the raw data just doesn't support their claims.

Obama has spent more money by far than any other POTUS in history, and Akphi is claiming he can't spend enough because of the Republicans.

To support his claim he uses this bullshit graph to make his argument which only tells half of the story...just like a lot of statistics do.

The other half of the story is the baseline being used of his spending is enormous, and a small decrease of 1% is ONLY because of the massive increases in spending the prior two years.

Typical bullshit Keyensian economics.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Note to libtards: Government is still the problem.

 

[SheriffJoe]

 

[GasMan]

What an inconvenient truth for Ak. Please stop contradicting his claims Joe....he is smarter than everyone else in here.

You know, the one thing I have noticed about these academia trained liberals is they all lack common sense and basic think for themselves abilities. Text books tell them what the author wants them to learn and they are unable to decipher shit from bullshit.

 

[GasMan]

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1386/01/1386011306966.jpg