United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

Search

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
I just find it funny that you keep using spending as % of GDP without even understanding how dumb it makes you look.

You quite literally do not know what "percent of GDP" means or why OMB & CBO use it.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
Fun fact: Obama increased the largest Bush budget by more than 27% and 1 million people left the US labor force.

But hey, it totally could have been worse guys! So we need to spend more!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
So is it more important to grow the economy or have a low spending to GDP ratio? Lol
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
So is it more important to grow the economy or have a low spending to GDP ratio? Lol

Obama's high % to GDP ratio proves that government spending doesn't grow the economy.

Obama added over $800 billion in spending to Bush's largest budget and more than a million people left the US labor force.

You lose.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
There is no "austerity"

Sure there is. Already been shown to you many times. You keep using spending to GDP as your example that there isn't austerity and you can't even understand why that makes you look like a retard. I'll show you again to see if the lightbulb will go off in your head. I highly doubt it though.

fredgraph.png
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,437
Tokens
Hey fratfraud, post that phony chart where all your "economists" (Big Government left wing hacks) tell us things would be much worse without the "stimulus" again?

Is that what you mean by "basic math"?????

Because the "basic math" says you're full of shit.

The actual share of the the population with a job has collapsed and remains low.


The size of the U.S. labor force has also collapsed, partly due to discouraged Americans giving up looking for a job.


Those without a job have been without a job for a long, long, long time.


ECONOMIC GROWTH

This recovery has lagged others in terms of economic output or GDP growth. (via the Minneapolis Fed)


Economic growth in this recovery has not just lagged the best recoveries of the past or the average recoveries, but the worst other recoveries, too.
(via the Economic Policy Institute)


The result of the weak recovery is a huge gap between where the economy should be, in terms of growth, and where it is.
(via The Wall Street Journal)



And that output gap means there’s an income gap, as well.
(MKM Partners)


The slow, anemic recovery has contributed to keeping the housing market in a depressed state.

xc

The national debt has exploded during the Obama administration.
(Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget)


The White House itself admits that its new budget plan would keep the national debt on a dangerous and unsustainable trajectory.
(The White House)

The current economic picture doesn’t look anything like what the White House promised back in early 2009. (via theHeritageFoundation)

 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Obama's high % to GDP ratio proves that government spending doesn't grow the economy.

Obama added over $800 billion in spending to Bush's largest budget and more than a million people left the US labor force.

You lose.

Lol, you are hilarious... let's look at the facts. Maybe if Obama were allowed to spend like big government Ronnie, the economy would grow more.

fredgraph.png
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,437
Tokens
Lol, you are hilarious... let's look at the facts. Maybe if Obama were allowed to spend like big government Ronnie, the economy would grow more.

Reagan slashed just about everything domestically and let the economy be - which then bloomed like a rose.

Reagan was the antithesis of everything your Marxist leader believed and is doing.

Sorry that your 'theory' is in shambles and you're drowning in the water waiting for a life jacket...which will never arrive.

You are sunk, fratfraud.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Let me ask you a question... which scenario is better.

Scenario 1: Increase spending by 10% / GDP increases by 7.5% = Spending to GDP increases

Scenario 2: Decrease spending by 5% / GDP decreases by 4% = Spending to GDP decreases
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Reagan slashed just about everything domestically and let the economy be - which then bloomed like a rose.

Sorry that your 'theory' is in shambles and you're drowning in the water waiting for a life jacket...which will never arrive.

You are sunk, fratfraud.

Look at the king of the hill!! My hero, Big Government Ronnie! No wonder his economy was so good and created so many jobs. Big government at it's finest!

debt-increases-by-president.jpg
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,001
Tokens
Look at the king of the hill!! My hero, Big Government Ronnie! No wonder his economy was so good and created so many jobs. Big government at it's finest!

debt-increases-by-president.jpg

Posting flawed/dishonest chart for the 5th time.

Noticed it only includes 2 years for Obama, 8 years for Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

This kid is really stupid.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
It's hilarious, apparently to AceBB the entire goal of the economy is to have a low Spending to GDP ratio, lol. Screw growth and jobs, as long as that ratio is low we are all good!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,992
Messages
13,575,970
Members
100,889
Latest member
junkerb
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com