United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[akphidelt]

First President in 6 decades to spend less after an entire year.

And yet it is still more than 20% higher than when he was sworn in.

Austerity!

Austerity doesn't have to start at the beginning of a Presidency.

 

[wabashwonders]

Um, when the spending records of Presidents are examined, it is as a % of GDP. For example:

Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:
– 25.2% of GDP in 2009
– 24.1% of GDP in 2010
– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

You quite literally do not know what all of this means.

I suggested you shut up 30 minutes ago, yet you keep doubling down on stupid.

Are you not implying with this post thAt because the % of GDP during Obama's years are historically high that means he had spent way more ? So yes, you are saying just because the percent is higher it means he spent more. Learn basic math and you won't look so dumb.

 

[Acebb]

You are dumb, no way did you graduate with any degrees. Plus we are talking about Spending/GDP. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that math. My 7 year old nephew can understand it. Apparently your boys Sheriff Joe and Acebb don't. Lol.

When someone is presented with federal spending as a % of GDP and they think "what if GDP declines" is an actual serious question, that person is an idiot.

 

[SheriffJoe]

You are dumb, no way did you graduate with any degrees. Plus we are talking about Spending/GDP. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that math. My 7 year old nephew can understand it. Apparently your boys Sheriff Joe and Acebb don't. Lol.

You make up definitions and pervert the English language to justify your failed ideology. You did the same thing trying to define European "austerity" - the way a sicko Keynesian like Krugman defines it. The government controls 50% of those economies, and socialist hacks like you call a reduction of a 1-2 % (or in most cases, no reduction at all!) "austerity"

Simply laughable.

 

[akphidelt]

When someone is presented with federal spending as a % of GDP and they think "what if GDP declines" is an actual serious question, that person is an idiot.

It was more of a mocking question, not necessarily a serious question, as you were using % of GDP to argue that the Government was spending more. It just made you look really dumb, not gonna lie.

 

[festeringZit]

You are dumb, no way did you graduate with any degrees. Plus we are talking about Spending/GDP. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that math. My 7 year old nephew can understand it. Apparently your boys Sheriff Joe and Acebb don't. Lol.

Would you like to place a wager on that, and put some money where your troll mouth is?

I have at least 3 college degrees, 2 of which are from state universities, and 1 is at a Master's level or higher, all in the math/science area. Would you like to bet bitch boy?

 

[wabashwonders]

Yeah Wabash, I guess my graduate work in mathematics didn't prepare me for basic arithmetic.

Idiot.

Apparently not.

 

[akphidelt]

Are you not implying with this post thAt because the % of GDP during Obama's years are historically high that means he had spent way more ? So yes, you are saying just because the percent is higher it means he spent more. Learn basic math and you won't look so dumb.

Lol!! Made him look silly. And he keeps wondering why I keep asking him "what if GDP decreases".

 

[akphidelt]

Would you like to place a wager on that, and put some money where your troll mouth is?

I have at least 3 college degrees, 2 of which are from state universities, and 1 is at a Master's level or higher, all in the math/science area. Would you like to bet bitch boy?

If you do, you certainly don't show it. And no I don't want to make a bet with you whether you have degrees or not, lol. You're a weirdo regardless.

 

[festeringZit]

Would you like to place a wager on that, and put some money where your troll mouth is?

I have at least 3 college degrees, 2 of which are from state universities, and 1 is at a Master's level or higher, all in the math/science area. Would you like to bet bitch boy?

I'll tell you what I'll do for you, I won't require the $6K minimum that Vit did in the poker bet. How about a $500 minimum? Is that reasonable? And we can go as high as you like.

Let's do this. OK Fraud?

 

[akphidelt]

When someone is presented with federal spending as a % of GDP and they think "what if GDP declines" is an actual serious question, that person is an idiot.

Let me ask you a question...

Year 1:
Spending 100
GDP 1000
Spending to GDP 10%

Year 2:
Spending 90
GDP 800
Spending to GDP 11.25%

Get out your Conservative Calculator. Did Govt spending go up or down? Lol

 

[festeringZit]

If you do, you certainly don't show it. And no I don't want to make a bet with you whether you have degrees or not, lol. You're a weirdo regardless.

Yeah, I thought so. Pansy ass little poser.

 

[akphidelt]

Yeah, I thought so. Pansy ass little poser.

I'm not going to make a bet with you and give you my name and address. You're a creeper.

 

[Acebb]

Are you not implying with this post thAt because the % of GDP during Obama's years are historically high that means he had spent way more ? So yes, you are saying just because the percent is higher it means he spent more. Learn basic math and you won't look so dumb.

No, I even helpfully said When the spending records of Presidents are examined, it is as a % of GDP.Which is in response to the suggestion that Obama is spending less than Bush.

 

[festeringZit]

I'm not going to make a bet with you and give you my name and address. You're a creeper.

You don't have to, it's very simple. All you have to do is post up the money with a Mod, happens all the time on here.

You still going to back out like the pansy ass troll pussy that you are?

 

[Acebb]

Lol!! Made him look silly. And he keeps wondering why I keep asking him "what if GDP decreases".

Hilarious.

GDP was negative in 1982, yet the % of GDP spending is higher today.

You really should stop talking about this because you have not one clue what it all means.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Keynesian/socialism in a nutshell:

Spending other people's money = worst possible value

This why the old Soviet economy and Eastern Europe imploded and why welfare states all over the world are on life support.

 

[akphidelt]

No, I even helpfully said When the spending records of Presidents are examined, it is as a % of GDP.Which is in response to the suggestion that Obama is spending less than Bush.

When conservatives examine spending records that's what they use. When normal people examine Government expenditures they simply use increases and decreases to Government expenditures. Basic math says during a recession Spending to GDP will go up. You can either reduce spending to try to drive spending down and spending to GDP up or you can increase spending (what Reagan did) to drive GDP up which can also result in lowering the spending to GDP.

It's really basic math that you are not understanding, lol.

 

[akphidelt]

Hilarious.

GDP was negative in 1982, yet the % of GDP spending is higher today.

You really should stop talking about this because you have not one clue what it all means.

And then spending increased 10% and GDP increased 7.5%. I guess spending to GDP % is more important than growth and jobs, lol. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[akphidelt]

You don't have to, it's very simple. All you have to do is post up the money with a Mod, happens all the time on here.

You still going to back out like the pansy ass troll pussy that you are?

I'm not going to bet you whether you have degrees you freak. Settle down. Lol