United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[akphidelt]

If you're going to troll in here, could you at least learn the difference between "you're" and "your?"

Idiot.

Lol. Are you really critiquing my use of "Your bad" on the Internet. Damn, you're pathetic. Lol. And by the way in context it's the correct usage.

 

[Acebb]

You keep using % to GDP as if that means anything, lol. I'm talking about spending.

Comedy gold. You don't know what % of GDP means, how it is calculated or why economists use it.

I mean, who types something so effing stupid?

Its hilarious. Basic math says during a recession GDP decreases and spending can stay the same while spending to GDP will increase. Deficits will also increase. Therefore spending to GDP an debt to GDP will always increase during bad economic times with normal or stagnant expenditures. It's really a meaningless statistic. The only thing that matters is real growth. But they use these % because it makes it seem like the government is spending more when in reality it's because GDP is decreasing or growing slowly. They are really dumb people.

The current federal spending as a % of GDP is higher today than it was in 1982. In 1982, America experienced successive quarters of negative GDP. America today is experiencing zero successive quarters of negative GDP.

You have not one freakin' clue what you're talking about here. You don't know what % of GDP means, how it is calculated or why economists use it.

This stupidity should get you to shut up.

You won't, of course.

 

[Willie99]

Also Fact:

The FY 2009 Budget (to which Obama added $450 billion; it was $2.3 T) was $2.7 trillion +.

The FY 2014 outlays are expected to be $3.7 trillion

That is not "slow growth" that is not "austerity"

The goof ball who started this thread is an imbecile.

Acebb, how many times can you bury the poor soul? never mind the 10,001 times he been buried before, even by the really smart helicopter Ben

at some point, you have to stop beating a dead horse

 

[Acebb]

Good point Willie!

 

[wabashwonders]

If you're going to troll in here, could you at least learn the difference between "you're" and "your?"

Idiot.

Lol, Zit trying to be grammar police and got it wrong! His use of your in this case was correct, lol.

 

[festeringZit]

I think he really knows that he's full of shit, and he's just leveling us (i.e. trolling).

 

[festeringZit]

Lol, Zit trying to be grammar police and got it wrong! His use of your in this case was correct, lol.

Actually the sentence is ambiguous, and it could have gone either way. But, considering that he's used the same wrong spelling earlier in the thread, he
doesn't have much leg to stand on.

Dumb ass.

 

[akphidelt]

Except you can't point to a post # where I did "say it" Liar.

Already did many times. It's not out fault you don't know basic math and you can't admit you were wrong.

 

[akphidelt]

Comedy gold. You don't know what % of GDP means, how it is calculated or why economists use it.

I mean, who types something so effing stupid?



The current federal spending as a % of GDP is higher today than it was in 1982. In 1982, America experienced successive quarters of negative GDP. America today is experiencing zero successive quarters of negative GDP.

You have not one freakin' clue what you're talking about here. You don't know what % of GDP means, how it is calculated or why economists use it.

This stupidity should get you to shut up.

You won't, of course.

Who cares if it's higher, lol. Spending and growth is much lower than in the 80s. Maybe if Obama could spend like Reagan spent our spending to GDP would go down, lol.

 

[akphidelt]

Actually the sentence is ambiguous, and it could have gone either way. But, considering that he's used the same wrong spelling earlier in the thread, he
doesn't have much leg to stand on.

Dumb ass.

You really looked dumb there, lol!!! The most pathetic thing on the internet besides grammar police are grammar police who get shit wrong. How embarrassing.

 

[akphidelt]

Also Fact:

The FY 2009 Budget (to which Obama added $450 billion; it was $2.3 T) was $2.7 trillion +.

The FY 2014 outlays are expected to be $3.7 trillion

That is not "slow growth" that is not "austerity"

The goof ball who started this thread is an imbecile.

Austerity doesn't have to start on the day a president got in to office. I'm talking about the present. You can't seem to grasp this. But wrong way Willie agrees with you. That would make me confident, lol!!

 

[Acebb]

Already did many times. It's not out fault you don't know basic math and you can't admit you were wrong.

No you didn't.

Liar.

 

[wabashwonders]

Actually the sentence is ambiguous, and it could have gone either way. But, considering that he's used the same wrong spelling earlier in the thread, he
doesn't have much leg to stand on.

Dumb ass.

Do you always have to use a derogatory remark like dumb ass in every post? And it's obvious when he said your bad what he meant. But as usual the righties on here can't admit when they are wrong. Keep trolling though and I'm sure you will find more mistakes to post.

 

[Acebb]

Austerity doesn't have to start on the day a president got in to office. I'm talking about the present. You can't seem to grasp this. But wrong way Willie agrees with you. That would make me confident, lol!!

Uh, the government is spending more in FY '14 than last year.

That is not "austerity"

Idiot.

 

[Acebb]

Who cares if it's higher, lol. Spending and growth is much lower than in the 80s. Maybe if Obama could spend like Reagan spent our spending to GDP would go down, lol.

I "care" that it is higher "lol" because what you said is not at all true.

I even bolded the part of what you said which is flatly false

LOL

Spending is higher today than it was in the 1980's.

You're just typing lie after lie, now.

 

[akphidelt]

No you didn't.

Liar.

Of course I did. You are lying now. Just be a man and admit you made a mistake. Not the end of the world. I've embarrassed many people like you in my life. Just another day.

 

[akphidelt]

I "care" that it is higher "lol" because what you said is not at all true.

I even bolded the part of what you said which is flatly false

LOL

Spending is higher today than it was in the 1980's.

You're just typing lie after lie, now.

You're taking things out of context and confusing nominal spending with relative spending. I'm not surprised. You aren't that smart.

 

[Acebb]

Claim:

Basic math says during a recession GDP decreases and spending can stay the same while spending to GDP will increase. Deficits will also increase. Therefore spending to GDP an debt to GDP will always increase during bad economic times with normal or stagnant expenditures. It's really a meaningless statistic.

Note: the dope who made this claim can not respond to the fact that America today is not facing any GDP decrease but America in 1982 was, yet spending as a % of GDP is higher today than in 1982.

The dope who made the claim can not and will not address this with anything other than "LOL" or an outright lie.

 

[Acebb]

Of course I did. You are lying now. Just be a man and admit you made a mistake. Not the end of the world. I've embarrassed many people like you in my life. Just another day.

You are embarrassing yourself with the silly, bullshit lies.

Break out the w2, clown!

 

[akphidelt]

Uh, the government is spending more in FY '14 than last year.

That is not "austerity"

Idiot.

You can define it any way you want. It's the lowest spending growth we've had in over 50 years at the state and federal level. Whether you call that austerity or not does not matter. The fact is your policies are destroying this economy. We should use Ronald Reagan's policies and spend like its going out of style!!