United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[akphidelt]

Numbers don't lie, only retard conservatives do. To bad Obama can't spend like big government Reagan!!

 

[Acebb]

Every administration spent more money than ever before during their time. What's your point?

The point was already made.

There is no "austerity"

 

[akphidelt]

They said the unemployment rate was lower because of the stimulus

Laugh out loud funny.

So you're now reduced to saying it government spending doesn't really lead to growth, it just prevents, temporarily mind you, catastrophic losses.

I don't get how you do not understand this, lol.

 

[Acebb]

the growth of spending is at the lowest it's been in over 6 decades.

ointer:

Bullshit.

Again, you're an easily misled Obama voter.

 

[akphidelt]

The point was already made.

There is no "austerity"

Spending to GDP again, lol. What if GDP decreases? Haha

 

[Acebb]

I don't get how you do not understand this, lol.

The 1.6 million fewer people working.

That's how.

Wouldn't it be funny if that was an advertisement for Keynesian economics theory?

'Millions fewer working, but, hey, it could be like way worse!'

 

[Acebb]

Spending to GDP again, lol. What if GDP decreases? Haha

Uh, GDP was negative in 1982, yet we're still spending more as a % of GDP today.

That's how.

Again, you don't understand this topic at all. You have not one utter fucking clue about it.

 

[Acebb]

Spending to GDP again, lol. What if GDP decreases? Haha

I would be embarrassed to start a thread about economics and the US economy if my level of understanding about relevant information was that ^

Again, you were told to shut up, you persisted, and now you're be-clowning yourself.

Badly.

 

[akphidelt]

the growth of spending is at the lowest it's been in over 6 decades.

ointer:

Bullshit.

Again, you're an easily misled Obama voter.

Lol, these are the official numbers man. First President in 56 years that spent less than the previous year. Austerity at it's finest. Too bad Obama can't be like big government Reagan!!

 

[akphidelt]

I would be embarrassed to start a thread about economics and the US economy if my level of understanding about relevant information was that ^

Again, you were told to shut up, you persisted, and now you're be-clowning yourself.

Badly.

Lol, you keep showing a chart of spending to GDP, and I keep asking you... what if GDP decreases? Haha

 

[Acebb]

"Austerity"!!!

 

[Acebb]

Lol, you keep showing a chart of spending to GDP, and I keep asking you... what if GDP decreases? Haha

I've answered 3 times

Idiot.

 

[SheriffJoe]

The 1.6 million fewer people working.

That's how.

Wouldn't it be funny if that was an advertisement for Keynesian economics theory?

'Millions fewer working, but, hey, it could be like way worse!'

But that's the Keynesian snake oil in a nutshell -- "less peaks and valleys, no more boom and bust cycles"

So laughable it hurts -- one socially-engineered bubble after another.

Really, it's just pseudo-economics trying to justify massive government spending and economic intervention...not unlike the Climate Frauds.

 

[Acebb]

First President in 56 years that spent less than the previous year

ointer:

WTF does this drivel even mean?

Obama added $450 billion to Bush's last budget then increased federal spending 27% on top of that by the FY 2012 Budget.

Where do you get this stupid bullshit.

 

[akphidelt]

Uh, GDP was negative in 1982, yet we're still spending more as a % of GDP today.

That's how.

Again, you don't understand this topic at all. You have not one utter fucking clue about it.

3 years in a row Reagan increased government spending by over 10% and GDP grew by 7% in 1983. I wonder why? Lmao!! Too bad Obama can't be like big government Reagan. This is not looking good for you.

 

[Acebb]

Federal spending as a percent of GDP was lower in 1982 than it is today.

In 1982 US GDP contracted the last 2 quarters.

This idiot does not know what "% of GDP" means or why it is used.

 

[Acebb]

3 years in a row Reagan increased government spending by over 10% and GDP grew by 7% in 1983. I wonder why? Lmao!! Too bad Obama can't be like big government Reagan. This is not looking good for you.

Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989

Guess how many jobs were gained during that decline?

 

[Acebb]

But that's the Keynesian snake oil in a nutshell -- "less peaks and valleys, no more boom and bust cycles"

So laughable it hurts -- one socially-engineered bubble after another.

Really, it's just pseudo-economics trying to justify massive government spending and economic intervention...not unlike the Climate Frauds.

These people have reached the point where they will say anything to keep bitterly clinging to their discredited economic theory.

 

[akphidelt]

Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989

Guess how many jobs were gained during that decline?

Maybe because GDP increased. Do you understand basic math?

 

[akphidelt]

These people have reached the point where they will say anything to keep bitterly clinging to their discredited economic theory.

All I'm doing is providing facts. You seem to not understand basic math.