United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[wabashwonders]

Rocket science! You should win a Nobel Prize.

My brain is tired from all that complicated figuring.

 

[Acebb]

Rocket science! You should win a Nobel Prize.

Right, so you offered no explanation.

Why do you think that is?

Too busy at work?

 

[akphidelt]

Now we have someone actually disputing that spending went up during Obama's first term.

Where did I dispute that?

 

[akphidelt]

Right, so you offered no explanation.

Why do you think that is?

Too busy at work?

I was just going to say Spending/GDP. I actually didn't want to tell you because of the comedic value you were providing me. It's literally very easy and the fact you didn't know it, which I knew you didn't, is hilarious. But you are a conservative. So not surprised.

 

[Acebb]

In the first 4 years of their administrations, spending (inflation adjusted 2005 $) was:

• 19% higher under Bush than Clinton
• 41% higher under Obama than Bush
• 67% higher under Obama than Clinton

 

[Acebb]

Now we are talking 2005 inflation adjusted numbers. That's what you guys have to resort to in arguing whether or not Obama is increasing spending less than previous Presidents. Regardless of what adjustments you use, he is still increasing spending at the lowest rate in the last 6 decades.

In the first 4 years of their administrations, spending (inflation adjusted 2005 $) was:

• 19% higher under Bush than Clinton
• 41% higher under Obama than Bush
• 67% higher under Obama than Clinton

 

[akphidelt]

My brain is tired from all that complicated figuring.

Crazy man, even The Quants have trouble with that one.

 

[akphidelt]

My brain is tired from all that complicated figuring.

I truly don't think he understood at all what I meant when I kept asking him "what if GDP decreases". Like literally, he had no clue.

 

[wabashwonders]

Crazy man, even The Quants have trouble with that one.

This guy is unbelievable. So obvious he has no clue what's going on and he says we are the dumb ones. He thinks simple division is complicated!!! That alone says it all.

 

[The Guesser]

Good job Boys. It must be fun to have a new one to play with when Wrong way and Casper are otherwise occupied.

 

[Acebb]

I truly don't think he understood at all what I meant when I kept asking him "what if GDP decreases". Like literally, he had no clue.

Too bad I already responded.

See, since GDP "decreased" for 2 Quarters in 1982, yet the % GDP to federal spending was higher in 2013 when there was no decrease, you can't respond to this.

You quite literally have no idea what to say. Which is why "what if GDP decreased" is a comically stupid response.

 

[wabashwonders]

I truly don't think he understood at all what I meant when I kept asking him "what if GDP decreases". Like literally, he had no clue.

Lol, that's when I got interested because I knew then he didn't know simple math and was going to make a fool of himself. This has been a funny thread thanks to Ace, lol

 

[Acebb]

This guy is unbelievable. So obvious he has no clue what's going on and he says we are the dumb ones. He thinks simple division is complicated!!! That alone says it all.

Can you point out where I said it was "complicated" again?

 

[Acebb]

Lol, that's when I got interested because I knew then he didn't know simple math and was going to make a fool of himself. This has been a funny thread thanks to Ace, lol

This is example 22 of you responding to something I never said.

 

[Acebb]

Lol, that's when I got interested because I knew then he didn't know simple math and was going to make a fool of himself. This has been a funny thread thanks to Ace, lol

Really? I didn't know "simple math" because I pointed out facts?

Why are you obsessed with responding to things I never said?

 

[akphidelt]

Too bad I already responded.

See, since GDP "decreased" for 2 Quarters in 1982, yet the % GDP to federal spending was higher in 2013 when there was no decrease, you can't respond to this.

You quite literally have no idea what to say. Which is why "what if GDP decreased" is a comically stupid response.

It's a calculation, what happened between 1982 and 2013 all plays in to what changes to spending or GDP does to spending as % of GDP. The fact you can't comprehend that is hilarious. And the fact you think that is a meaningful comparison is even more hilarious.

 

[Acebb]

It's a calculation, what happened between 1982 and 2013 all plays in to what changes to spending or GDP does to spending as % of GDP. The fact you can't comprehend that is hilarious. And the fact you think that is a meaningful comparison is even more hilarious.

So in other words, you are pretending that it is a rational response to say to Obama's dismal spending record to say "what if GDP decreases" "LOL"

You have no idea how idiotic this is.

 

[akphidelt]

Good job Boys. It must be fun to have a new one to play with when Wrong way and Casper are otherwise occupied.

It was a blast, lol. And he came in so arrogant like a typical Repub. But damn, poor guy. Kind of feel sorry for him.

 

[akphidelt]

So in other words, you are pretending that it is a rational response to say to Obama's dismal spending record to say "what if GDP decreases" "LOL"

You have no idea how idiotic this is.

He doesn't have a "dismal spending record". I still don't think you get it, lol.

 

[akphidelt]

Lol, that's when I got interested because I knew then he didn't know simple math and was going to make a fool of himself. This has been a funny thread thanks to Ace, lol

It was hilarious. And he kept telling me it was a stupid question, and he kept posting the Spending as % of GDP chart. And I'm sitting there just laughing my ass off about how he really didn't understand what I was talking about. And he just referenced again Obama's dismal spending record based on this chart. It is just beyond hilarious.