United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[GasMan]

Ak pretty much destroyed once again...

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Ak pretty much destroyed once again...

Always... That's what he lives for.

 

[akphidelt]

And you and AK are the reason why the right behaves in this manner.

Case and point.

Obama has spent more than any other President, including the highest spender in our history GW (thanks to Iraq and Stimulus), then Ak finds a chart that deals with a percentage change and claims that Obama is practicing Austerity, and basically blames the horrible recession recovery on that.

Does AK actually read what he types, or is he such a Super Troll that he denies actual facts. Then he tells everyone else that they are stupid, and there is an intelligent world out there.

Question for you wabash.

Has Obama practiced Austerity or not? Here, I'll help you out so you don't have to google the meaning of Austerity.


In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Austerity policies may be attempts to demonstrate governments' liquidity to their creditors and credit rating agencies by bringing fiscal incomes closer to expenditures.
In macroeconomics, reducing government deficits generally increases unemployment in the short run.[SUP][4][/SUP] This increases safety net spending and reduces tax revenues, to some extent. Government spending contributes to gross domestic product (GDP), so the debt-to-GDP ratio, an index of liquidity, may not immediately improve. Short-term deficit spending contributes to GDP growth particularly when consumers and businesses are unwilling or unable to spend.[SUP][5][/SUP] Under the controversial[SUP][6][/SUP] theory of expansionary fiscal contraction (EFC), a major reduction in government spending can change future expectations about taxes and government spending, encouraging private consumption and resulting in overall economic expansion.[SUP][7][/SUP]

It's case "in" point. Whenever you try to sound smart you just look dumb. Like not knowing what a verb is. Just stick to trying to fight people on the Internet. That's more for you. And as for your definition, yes, they have made measures to reduce the deficit and cut or curb the rate of spending. It's obvious for anyone but the most dishonest conservatives to see.

 

[akphidelt]

I'll sum it up this way

some think government spending creates economic growth

others think productivity in the private sector creates growth

spending or productivity? youse do the math

Demand and spending create the need for jobs. Every normal person knows that.

And the data shows that you couldn't be more wrong about the Government spending and economic growth.

 

[akphidelt]

By the way, I see the person who started this thread is pretending government spending creates jobs.

Well, the Obama Administration projected the U/E rate to be 5.2% by Q1 2013 with their idiotic stimulus package.

How did that work out?

Well you guys are really dumb people so I don't take much of what you say seriously. According to real economists... when asked the question

[h=3]Question A: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.[/h]80% said yes. Sucks to be you guys.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi

 

[akphidelt]

Wow, you complain about the righties in here calling names while you suck FratFraud's cock? Do you know what the word hypocrisy means?

You're weird dude. Get a grip on life.

 

[Acebb]

Well you guys are really dumb people so I don't take much of what you say seriously. According to real economists... when asked the question

That's great you're posting a survey. But see, those answers are mostly hypothetical.

What you can't explain is why the rate went up after the stimulus passed. Nor can you bother to familiarize yourself with the fact that 1.6 million people have left the labor force since Obama was sworn in.

There are fewer people working in America today than when Obama was sworn in.

Which of course means the response to a survey is meaningless because the actual real world effects of the stimulus show it failed.

 

[Acebb]

Demand and spending create the need for jobs. Every normal person knows that.

And the data shows that you couldn't be more wrong about the Government spending and economic growth.

I love the fact you think there is causation there.

wow.

 

[akphidelt]

That's great you're posting a survey. But see, those answers are mostly hypothetical.

What you can't explain is why the rate went up after the stimulus passed. Nor can you bother to familiarize yourself with the fact that 1.6 million people have left the labor force since Obama was sworn in.

There are fewer people working in America today than when Obama was sworn in.

Which of course means the response to a survey is meaningless because the actual real world effects of the stimulus show it failed.

It did go down after the stimulus. That's why these very smart people said, yes the UE rate was lower than it would have been with out the stimulus. Even Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser said the stimulus was too small.

 

[akphidelt]

I love the fact you think there is causation there.

wow.

If you understood economics and our monetary system you would understand the causation. But you're a conservative, so it's all magic to you. Lol

 

[Acebb]

Anyway, for anyone who actually wants to get a good understanding of why the economy under Obama sucks so bad, you can see:

This NBER Paper: How Government Spending Slows Growth

This from Forbes:
The correlation between GDP growth and per capita government spending was also -0.44. The correlation between GDP growth and the dollar amount of government spending was -0.25. Thus, no matter how I looked at it, more government spending means less economic growth

Of course if government spending led to economic growth, Japan would have the largest economy in the world.

 

[Acebb]

It did go down after the stimulus.

The U/E Rate went up after the stimulus passed, and then held steady at over 8% for 41 consecutive months.

The only reason the U/E rate has declined at all is because 1.6 million have left the labor force.

You clearly have no idea how the u/e rate is calculated.

None.

 

[Acebb]

If you understood economics and our monetary system you would understand the causation. But you're a conservative, so it's all magic to you. Lol

Um, If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.9% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%

 

[SheriffJoe]

Anyway, for anyone who actually wants to get a good understanding of why the economy under Obama sucks so bad, you can see:

This NBER Paper: How Government Spending Slows Growth

This from Forbes:
The correlation between GDP growth and per capita government spending was also -0.44. The correlation between GDP growth and the dollar amount of government spending was -0.25. Thus, no matter how I looked at it, more government spending means less economic growth

Of course if government spending led to economic growth, Japan would have the largest economy in the world.

Be careful....fratfraud can't stop raving about "Abenomics" too! :Carcajada:

 

[Acebb]

What is funny is that someone actually doesn't understand there are fewer people working in America today than there were in January 2009.

I'm sure if government spending creates jobs that is totally like an aberration or something!

 

[akphidelt]

Anyway, for anyone who actually wants to get a good understanding of why the economy under Obama sucks so bad, you can see:

This NBER Paper: How Government Spending Slows Growth

This from Forbes:
The correlation between GDP growth and per capita government spending was also -0.44. The correlation between GDP growth and the dollar amount of government spending was -0.25. Thus, no matter how I looked at it, more government spending means less economic growth

Of course if government spending led to economic growth, Japan would have the largest economy in the world.

I guess if you found an article on the Internet, it must be true, lol.

And Japan and the US have been doing fine with their spending.

 

[akphidelt]

What is funny is that someone actually doesn't understand there are fewer people working in America today than there were in January 2009.

I'm sure if government spending creates jobs that is totally like an aberration or something!

Austerity sucks and never works. If we were more like big government Reagan or Bush, unemployment would be much lower and growth would be much higher.

 

[akphidelt]

The U/E Rate went up after the stimulus passed, and then held steady at over 8% for 41 consecutive months.

The only reason the U/E rate has declined at all is because 1.6 million have left the labor force.

You clearly have no idea how the u/e rate is calculated.

None.

Lol, you can come up with any excuse you want. Economists say the stimulus caused the unemployment rate to be lower than it would have been without it. I'm sorry, but they are much more credible than you and Sheriff Joe, lol.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Well you guys are really dumb people so I don't take much of what you say seriously. According to real economists... when asked the question

Question A: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.

80% said yes. Sucks to be you guys.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi

Oh, I see...

So the economy still sucks balls, but "doing nothing" would have been worse!

Just like we need more stimulus to make Keynesian magic budge the econ needle. And if that doesn't work, well, we can always use the same excuse over and over again: it wasn't enough!

See? Just like the Climate Frauds, Keynesians are never wrong.

The problem is, your bullshit theories/models don't stand up to history - the greater the recession, the stronger the recovery.

Your dumb-ass spenda-holic cult just keeps making it up as you go along.

 

[GasMan]

Too funny. Akphi getting smashed on his OP, so what does he do?

Move the goalposts. Classic thread Ak, thanks for the laugh.