United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[akphidelt]

Except I already pasted what you cut off, silly asshole.

Here is a full sentence I wrote too Every year from 1992 through 2000 federal spending as a % of GDP shrank and almost 20 million jobs were added during that time.

This was a full sentence you wrote also...

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

There was never a decline in federal spending, lol.

 

[Acebb]

You did say Clinton reduced spending and you made a claim that Clinton averaged 1.19%. Both are wrong. You are batting .000. But you are a conservative... I'm not surprised, lol.

I did not say Clinton reduced spending you silly asshole.

 

[Acebb]

This was a full sentence you wrote also...

.

No shit, dummy.

Which is why I went on to write; Every year from 1992 through 2000 federal spending as a % of GDP shrank and almost 20 million jobs were added during that time.

 

[Acebb]

But of course the same idiot who doesn't understand what "percent of GDP" means as it relates to this topic is going to go tell everyone what I said by truncating posts!

LOL

 

[akphidelt]

It is funny how it never occurs to you that the information you have is incorrect.

I use the source where most factual economic data is gathered, lol. Trust me, your information is incorrect. There is no information as accurate as the FRED.

 

[akphidelt]

I did not say Clinton reduced spending you silly asshole.

You said it right here...

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

Are you claiming that you did not make this comment?

 

[Acebb]

This thread is totally about federal and state "austerity" guys!

Despite the fact that Obama and Bush are mentioned 2 sentences in! The idiot who started meant both, really, he did!!!

 

[Acebb]

You said it right here...

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

Are you claiming that you did not make this comment?

Hey dipshit: You cut out part of my comment, why do you think you're doing that?

 

[akphidelt]

Hey dipshit: You cut out part of my comment, why do you think you're doing that?

This was your whole comment

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.

Within that comment you said... Note the decline in federal spending in the chart in post #412 and the resulting job growth.

There was not a decline in federal spending during Clinton's years.

You also imply through the entire post that some how a decrease in spending as a % of GDP means the government is actually spending less, lol.

You've been doing it this entire thread and it's hilarious to see how dumb some people can be.

 

[Acebb]

This thread is totally about state & federal "austerity" guys!

Which is why it was mentioned for the 1st time on page 20 and crazy Republicans are totally implementing austerity measures in big states such as California, Illinois, and New York!!!

 

[Acebb]

There was not a decline in federal spending during Clinton's years.

You also imply through the entire post that some how a decrease in spending as a % of GDP means the government is actually spending less, lol.

You've been doing it this entire thread and it's hilarious to see how dumb some people can be.

I never said there was a decline in federal spending during the Clinton years. I've only repeated that 4 times now, asshole

I did not "imply" anything about a decrease in spending relative to GDP means less total spending.

You are pretty pathetic at this point.

 

[akphidelt]

This is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

First of all, the person who started the thread does not even know what "nominal spending" is and that is revealed in the sourcing. See, TPM is a liberal rag, and the Marketwatch column this was all based on was obliterated by the Associated Press and the Washington Post.

What makes the person who started this thread even weirder is that this stupid leftist talking point is two years old.

Anyway, this is an actual OMB table, not from TPM or some other silly leftist blog

Ok, you lose.

Thanks,

Bye

You've been using spending as % of GDP wrong since the very first post you made, thinking you were a big badass, lol. Hahahaha! Haven't seen someone get this embarrassed in their first thread in awhile. Just destruction.

Ok, you lose.

Thanks,

Bye

Hahahaha

 

[akphidelt]

I never said there was a decline in federal spending during the Clinton years. I've only repeated that 4 times now, asshole

I did not "imply" anything about a decrease in spending relative to GDP means less total spending.

You are pretty pathetic at this point.

You did in fact say it...

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

Not only did you say it but you implied the reduction in federal spending results in job growth. Damn, you are embarrassing yourself. Just apologize and get it over with. I'm not a bad guy at the end of the day.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Hey dipshit: You cut out part of my comment, why do you think you're doing that?

He's an intellectually dishonest POS, but cries like a little bitch when someone returns the favor.

Once again:

aus·ter·i·ty

noun\ȯ-ˈster-ə-tē, -ˈste-rə- also -ˈstir-ə-\: a simple and plain quality : an austere quality
: a situation in which there is not much money and it is spent only on things that are necessary
austerities : things that are done to live in a simple and plain way

------------------------------------------------------


"only things that are necessary"...yep, increasing spending sure sounds like "only things that are necessary"

Just like the bullshit baseline budgeting Democrats are always using. If you're not INCREASING spending to some predetermined level, you're CUTTING and throwing the poor out on the street!

The political class is so out of touch with reality that it is no wonder Americans are completely disgusted with Washington!

 

[Acebb]

Within that comment you said... Note the decline in federal spending in the chart in post #412

===============

Yeah stupid shit, and guess what is printed real big on the chart?

 

[akphidelt]

This thread is totally about state & federal "austerity" guys!

Which is why it was mentioned for the 1st time on page 20 and crazy Republicans are totally implementing austerity measures in big states such as California, Illinois, and New York!!!

You lose whether we talk about state or federal austerity. You've been destroyed in this thread.

 

[Acebb]

You've been using spending as % of GDP wrong since the very first post you made, t

The funniest part is you don't know why I posted the chart or how % of GDP is calculated.

 

[akphidelt]

Within that comment you said... Note the decline in federal spending in the chart in post #412

===============

Yeah stupid shit, and guess what is printed real big on the chart?

Federal Outlays as a Percentage of GDP

You aren't helping your cause, lol.

 

[SheriffJoe]

You lose whether we talk about state or federal austerity. You've been destroyed in this thread.

The state level is irrelevant. Rand Paul already beat your NYTs Keynesian weasel senseless on that point.

 

[Acebb]

Federal Outlays as a Percentage of GDP

You aren't helping your cause, lol.

Right dumbshit, which isn't "total federal outlays"

You've been reduced to truncating what I said in a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that you don't understand what % of GDP means as it relates to federal spending.