United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[SheriffJoe]

Just think about this, the abject imbecile who started this thread not only said that federal spending as a % of GDP is "not important" (it is so "unimportant" that economists within the Obama Administration put in in the yearly budget submission) he actually said it has nothing to do with actual spending.

While also going on to assert that a temporary, less than 1% reduction, in government spending is representative of "austerity"

You can't make this type of stupid up, folks.

fratfraud made the same assertion about European "austerity" in another thread.

Meanwhile, other economies around the world spend a fraction of what these basket case socialist states spend and are 10x more productive - his whole 'theory' about "government spending" is completely shot to hell.

The simple fact is the United States didn't become the world's biggest superpower with his regressive centrally-planned "spread the wealth" ideology.

Everyone concurs, fratfraud is permanently stuck on stupid.

 

[Acebb]

By the way, I don't know who this bozo is trying to fool, but total outlays by all governments -federal and state - are going to by higher in 2014 than they were in 2012.

The budgets on the books are slated to spend more in 2014 than the did in 2012, and they increased in 2013 ("It is estimated that expenditures returned to more typical growth levels in fiscal 2013 as both state and federal funds moderately increased"-National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO))


If you think this chart represents "austerity" you're a goof ball

 

[festeringZit]

By the way, I don't know who this bozo is trying to fool, but total outlays by all governments -federal and state - are going to by higher in 2014 than they were in 2012.

The budgets on the books are slated to spend more in 2014 than the did in 2012, and they increased in 2013 ("It is estimated that expenditures returned to more typical growth levels in fiscal 2013 as both state and federal funds moderately increased"-National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO))


If you think this chart represents "austerity" you're a goof ball

"If you think this chart represents "austerity" you're a goof ball"

Not only that, you've got to be either retarded, or so blindly married to political/economic ideology that you've lost all sense of reason.

I think FratFraud suffers from both maladies.

 

[Acebb]

What is most comical about this is that spending increased every year

FY 2012 federal outlays were $3.537 trillion

FY 2014 federal outlays are expected to be $3.778 trillion

You keep using % of GDP as if that means anything, lol. Basic math shows that should be the case. How dumb are you?

What is even funnier is that on Page 3, the Obama White House represents the budget as a % of GDP

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf

Again, you can't make up that kind of stupid, folks.

 

[Acebb]

And, let me also add, the goof who started this thread posted some chart saying that all governments - federal & state - spent a total of $2.7 trillion last year.

It looks like the goofball who started this thread got caught lying again as the federal government spent $2.7 trillion last fiscal year.

The increase to $3.7 trillion in FY 14 is not "austerity"

 

[SheriffJoe]

Uh oh, look out for the shitload of graphs from "Office of Democratic Leader" to debunk your points.

:nohead:

 

[Acebb]

fratfraud made the same assertion about European "austerity" in another thread.

Meanwhile, other economies around the world spend a fraction of what these basket case socialist states spend and are 10x more productive - his whole 'theory' about "government spending" is completely shot to hell.

The simple fact is the United States didn't become the world's biggest superpower with his regressive centrally-planned "spread the wealth" ideology.

Everyone concurs, fratfraud is permanently stuck on stupid.

Right.

You can show these people data and examples (every time the government gets smaller in relation to the economy, the economy grows) yet they still bitterly cling to the idea that government spending drives economic growth.

It is bizarre.

 

[akphidelt]

By the way, I don't know who this bozo is trying to fool, but total outlays by all governments -federal and state - are going to by higher in 2014 than they were in 2012.

The budgets on the books are slated to spend more in 2014 than the did in 2012, and they increased in 2013 ("It is estimated that expenditures returned to more typical growth levels in fiscal 2013 as both state and federal funds moderately increased"-National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO))


If you think this chart represents "austerity" you're a goof ball

Looks like austerity to me, lol. Do you not see what has been happening between 2011-2013. You obviously don't know what austerity is.

 

[akphidelt]

Only the most dishonest of people can look at this graph and say that we are not using austerity measures in our economy. The results speak for themselves. Too bad Obama can't spend like Big Government Reagan! This economy would be booming.

 

[akphidelt]

Is this English?

I have said 8 times now you have no utter clue how the % of GDP for federal spending is calculated.

Every single response you've made, including this one, indicates that.

Just think about this for a minute, you actually just typed that federal spending as a % of GDP doesn't have anything to do with how much the government actually spends. You actually said this. And to be clear, what the federal government spends as a % of GDP actually relates to what the government's outlays are.

To say you're both dumb and uninformed on this matter is a massive understatement.

You still don't get basic math. It's absolutely hilarious!

 

[akphidelt]

You don't have a job, loser.

What does me having a job or not matter in how bad you have embarrassed yourself this thread? Lmao!

 

[akphidelt]

Just think about this, the abject imbecile who started this thread not only said that federal spending as a % of GDP is "not important" (it is so "unimportant" that economists within the Obama Administration put in in the yearly budget submission) he actually said it has nothing to do with actual spending.

While also going on to assert that a temporary, less than 1% reduction, in government spending is representative of "austerity"

You can't make this type of stupid up, folks.

You are taking my comment out of context. Of course spending is part of the equation. But if the % goes up it does not mean actual spending went up. That's what you still can't grasp, lol. That's why I keep asking you, what if GDP decreases, lol. And you still don't get it!! This has been one of the more hilarious threads I've seen in awhile. Thanks for that man.

 

[akphidelt]

LMAO, you still don't get it. The comedy continues...

This guy is hilarious!! I've never seen someone try so hard to backtrack out of not understanding what he was talking about.

 

[wabashwonders]

What is most comical about this is that spending increased every year

FY 2012 federal outlays were $3.537 trillion

FY 2014 federal outlays are expected to be $3.778 trillion




What is even funnier is that on Page 3, the Obama White House represents the budget as a % of GDP

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf

Again, you can't make up that kind of stupid, folks.

Nice chart. Amazing that spending is estimated to continue to increase to as high as almost 5 trillion by 2020 but the % to GDP actually drops a full percentage point by then to 21.6% from 22.7% it's at now. Do you get it now that your % to GDP does not necessarily show how much is actually being spent?

 

[Acebb]

You are taking my comment out of context. Of course spending is part of the equation. But if the % goes up it does not mean actual spending went up. That's what you still can't grasp, lol. .

Except I didn't say if spending as a % of GDP goes up, total spending goes up.

Anywhere.

Ever.

What I said, and you can go back and read it, is that Obama has spend more as a % of GDP and more in total dollars.

This will be the 4th time I said that.

Idiot.

 

[Acebb]

Nice chart. Amazing that spending is estimated to continue to increase to as high as almost 5 trillion by 2020 but the % to GDP actually drops a full percentage point by then to 21.6% from 22.7% it's at now. Do you get it now that your % to GDP does not necessarily show how much is actually being spent?

Except I didn't say if spending as a % of GDP goes up, total spending goes up.

Anywhere.

Ever.

What I said, and you can go back and read it, is that Obama has spend more as a % of GDP and more in total dollars.

This will be the 5th time I said that.

 

[Acebb]

This guy is hilarious!! I've never seen someone try so hard to backtrack out of not understanding what he was talking about.

Except I'm not "backtracking" anything.

Idiot.

 

[Acebb]

By the way, I don't know who this bozo is trying to fool, but total outlays by all governments -federal and state - are going to by higher in 2014 than they were in 2012.

The budgets on the books are slated to spend more in 2014 than the did in 2012, and they increased in 2013 ("It is estimated that expenditures returned to more typical growth levels in fiscal 2013 as both state and federal funds moderately increased"-National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO))


If you think this chart represents "austerity" you're a goof ball

There is no austerity in America.

The WH Budget document shows this.

See page #3 FY 13 & FY 14 are higher than FY 12.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf

Thanks.

 

[akphidelt]

Except I didn't say if spending as a % of GDP goes up, total spending goes up.

Anywhere.

Ever.

What I said, and you can go back and read it, is that Obama has spend more as a % of GDP and more in total dollars.

This will be the 4th time I said that.

Idiot.

You've implied it numerous times throughout this thread. In fact your very first post was showing it as if it actually meant Obama was spending more than other Presidents.

Here is one comment 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 during the time you were referencing.

 

[Acebb]

You've implied it numerous times throughout this thread. In fact your very first post was showing it as if it actually meant Obama was spending more than other Presidents.

Here is one comment 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 during the time you were referencing.

I didn't "imply" anything, you jobless troll.

You seem to think your stupid lies are somehow indicative of what was said.

You don't even remember the dumb shit you said, because it is all false. Which is why you're accusing me of saying something I never did.