United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[akphidelt]

Hey asshole, stop trying to truncate what I said.

I even helpfully bolded it for you. Here is what I said: Every year from 1992 through 2000 federal spending as a % of GDP shrank and almost 20 million jobs were added during that time.

I'm not truncating anything. This is what you said...

Note the decline in federal spending in the chart in post #412 and the resulting job growth.

There was no decline in federal spending in any year from 1992 to 2000 and almost 20 million jobs were added during that time. Maybe you need a lesson on economics. Just ask me questions man, I'm full of answers. And very educated answers.

 

[Acebb]

Lol, I was trying to teach you basic math but I see now that's impossible since you are to hung up on high percentage means high spending and low percentage means low spending,lol. Let me ask you this assuming you understand basketball. If one player shoots 100% for the game and another shoots 33%, who made more baskets?

You aren't teaching me "basic math"

You do not understand what "percent of GDP" means, how is it is derived, or why economists use it.

I've already said this to you 3 times. There is no more need to respond with your stupid shit idea that you are applying "basic math" here.

 

[akphidelt]

You aren't teaching me "basic math"

You do not understand what "percent of GDP" means, how is it is derived, or why economists use it.

I've already said this to you 3 times. There is no more need to respond with your stupid shit idea that you are applying "basic math" here.

We do understand it, it is you that continues looking like an idiot thinking it reflects actual spending increases/decreases. Just hilarious! Why is it always the dumb ones are conservatives?

 

[akphidelt]

Fratfraud caught again lying multiple times in the last hour, truncating and distorting posts. Shit, this guy has no shame.

You just lied about me distorting posts. You should apologize.

 

[akphidelt]

In all of the years of their administrations (8 years for Clinton and Bush, 4 years for Obama), the average increase in spending per year was

• 1.19% for President Clinton
• 3.60% for President Bush: More than double Clinton’s increases.
• 4.67% for President Obama

Nobody said there was, asshole. You can stop now.

Your numbers aren't accurate. There was not a single time in which President Clinton was at 1.19% during his entire Presidency.

 

[Acebb]

Fratfraud caught again lying multiple times in the last hour, truncating and distorting posts. Shit, this guy has no shame.

These people are really pathetic.

 

[wabashwonders]

You aren't teaching me "basic math"

You do not understand what "percent of GDP" means, how is it is derived, or why economists use it.

I've already said this to you 3 times. There is no more need to respond with your stupid shit idea that you are applying "basic math" here.

I understand it perfectly. You are the one who needs a math lesson so answer my question, who made the most baskets?

 

[Acebb]

We do understand it, it is you that continues looking like an idiot thinking it reflects actual spending increases/decreases. Just hilarious! Why is it always the dumb ones are conservatives?

Um, you don't understand it which is why you came up with a dumbshit example, and pretended like 'what if gdp declines' was some sort of serious response.

and again asshole, you can't stop yourself from distorting what I said.

 

[akphidelt]

Of course if there were actual "Austerity" someone would be able to name a non-military spending program that has been cancelled.

If there were "austerity" there wouldn't have been 5 "emergency" extensions of unemployment benefits, more people on food stamps, more people on SSDI, more people not paying taxes, cash for clunkers, stimulus spending, auto bailouts, etc.

If you actually believe there is some sort of "austerity" taking place in the federal government - and again, federal spending is 20% higher than it was in 2009 - you are an abject imbecile. There is no other way to say it.

Austerity isn't just a reduction in federal government. State and local governments laying off firefighters, cops, teachers, etc... is austerity measures.

 

[Acebb]

I understand it perfectly. You are the one who needs a math lesson so answer my question, who made the most baskets?

you don't understand it which is why you came up with a dumbshit example, and pretended like 'what if gdp declines' was some sort of serious response.

 

[akphidelt]

Um, you don't understand it which is why you came up with a dumbshit example, and pretended like 'what if gdp declines' was some sort of serious response.

and again asshole, you can't stop yourself from distorting what I said.

Again, the fact you don't understand why I keep asking you "what if GDP declines" is hilarious. You honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's hilarious to watch though. Tell us again how spending declined during Clinton's years, lol.

 

[SheriffJoe]

fratfraud (and wabashwonders, aka Mister "Independent") also believe the Europeans are practicing "austerity"

Never mind that those governments practically control every aspect of the economy...never mind that government spending in most those cases hasn't been reduced to the necessary levels to achieve real econ growth, like many of the freer economies around the world enjoy.

Nope, because "only" a small increase = "austerity"

This Keynesian crackpot bullshit always originates from one source - Krugman - and the other lemmings just happily follow along.

An increase in spending (no matter how small) = "austerity"

It's a cult.

 

[Acebb]

Austerity isn't just a reduction in federal government. State and local governments laying off firefighters, cops, teachers, etc... is austerity measures.

This thread is about federal spending and Obama.

That was pretty pathetic, even by your standards.

 

[Acebb]

Again, the fact you don't understand why I keep asking you "what if GDP declines" is hilarious. You honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's hilarious to watch though. Tell us again how spending declined during Clinton's years, lol.

I understand why you're asking it. You don't understand what the words actually mean.

I never said once spending declined during the Clinton Presidency, you silly asshole.

 

[Acebb]

How do you know when someone is a big truth teller?

When they lie about what other people say. That's usually a good indicator.

 

[akphidelt]

And I'm not distorting anything. This is what you said...

Isn't it funny how the left loves to cite the Jobs record of Clinton?

Note the decline in federal spending in the chart in post #412 and the resulting job growth.

Every year from 1992 through 2000 federal spending as a % of GDP shrank and almost 20 million jobs were added during that time.

Government spending creating jobs is a laughable suggestion.

You even end it saying "Government spending creating jobs is a laughable suggestion"... when Government spending increased every year Clinton was in office, lol. You still don't understand basic math.

 

[Acebb]

And I'm not distorting anything. This is what you said...



You even end it saying "Government spending creating jobs is a laughable suggestion"... when Government spending increased every year Clinton was in office, lol. You still don't understand basic math.

It is a laughable suggestion.

Unless you've been reduced to pretending that a 1% increase in federal spending creates jobs.

 

[akphidelt]

This thread is about federal spending and Obama.

That was pretty pathetic, even by your standards.

Not at all. In fact the opening chart includes state and local spending. You are losing pretty badly here man. Haven't seen someone embarrass them self this bad in couple weeks since Sheriff Joe and festeringZit took a beating of epic proportions.

 

[akphidelt]

It is a laughable suggestion.

Unless you've been reduced to pretending that a 1% increase in federal spending creates jobs.

Your numbers are incorrect. There was not a single point in Clinton's 8 years in which he only increased spending by 1.19%. I'll show you the data again. Let's see how dishonest you continue to be.

 

[akphidelt]

fratfraud (and wabashwonders, aka Mister "Independent") also believe the Europeans are practicing "austerity"

Never mind that those governments practically control every aspect of the economy...never mind that government spending in most those cases hasn't been reduced to the necessary levels to achieve real econ growth, like many of the freer economies around the world enjoy.

Nope, because "only" a small increase = "austerity"

This Keynesian crackpot bullshit always originates from one source - Krugman - and the other lemmings just happily follow along.

An increase in spending (no matter how small) = "austerity"

It's a cult.

[h=1]IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece[/h]
http://www.theguardian.com/business...estimated-damage-austerity-would-do-to-greece