United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[Acebb]

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

He's added more debt that all the previous presidents combined.

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]

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.

Obama's dismal spending record is represented by any and all measures.

Especially this one

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]

What is funny is that you have 3 little monkeys jumping up and down squealing because they've spent 2 days responding to things I've never said.

Pat yourself on the back, monkey!

 

[wabashwonders]

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

You're a real idiot. Let me ask this. Is division basic math? Because every time we kept telling you it's basic math you kept saying we didn't know what we were talking about. You insisted we did not know how it was calculated. Maybe you didn't use the word complicated but again you implied that it was NOT basic math. So I ask again is division basic math or not ?

 

[Acebb]

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

Yeah he does, LOL

[h=1]National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office[/h]LOL

 

[The Guesser]

Stop it fellas. This is getting embarrassing for the poor guy.

 

[Acebb]

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

Who says something so stupid?

[h=1]Obama’s national debt rate on track to double[/h]

 

[akphidelt]

Who says something so stupid?

Obama’s national debt rate on track to double

He brings up debt when we are talking about his spending record, lol. You can't write better comedy than this. Even Sheriff Joe doesn't always sound this dumb... eh, it's close.

 

[The Guesser]

Please, please stop. It's Brutal.

 

[akphidelt]

You're a real idiot. Let me ask this. Is division basic math? Because every time we kept telling you it's basic math you kept saying we didn't know what we were talking about. You insisted we did not know how it was calculated. Maybe you didn't use the word complicated but again you implied that it was NOT basic math. So I ask again is division basic math or not ?

Here's the last thing he said about it...

"The chart did disprove what you're saying. Especially since you actually do not know what the % of GDP actually means. You have no idea how this figures are calculated nor do you have any idea what nominal spending means as the title of this thread was shown to be a lie."

What I want to know now is how HE thought the figures were calculated, lol.

 

[Acebb]

He brings up debt when we are talking about his spending record, lol. You can't write better comedy than this. Even Sheriff Joe doesn't always sound this dumb... eh, it's close.

Yes, when you have $1 trillion dollar deficits because you spend so much, they add to the debt.

Like ZOMG!!!!!!

 

[wabashwonders]

Here's the last thing he said about it...

"The chart did disprove what you're saying. Especially since you actually do not know what the % of GDP actually means. You have no idea how this figures are calculated nor do you have any idea what nominal spending means as the title of this thread was shown to be a lie."

What I want to know now is how HE thought the figures were calculated, lol.

Me too because it's obvious he had no clue. We even tried to help explain it earlier with our simple examples and he blew them off as if we didn't know what we were talking about. I didn't think anyone could be this dumb.

 

[Acebb]

What kind of idiot actually believes spending has added to the debt?

I mean, who even says something so stupid?

I guess Obama added more than $6 trillion to the debt because he spent so little.

 

[Acebb]

Me too because it's obvious he had no clue. We even tried to help explain it earlier with our simple examples and he blew them off as if we didn't know what we were talking about. I didn't think anyone could be this dumb.

No, I said they were stupid responses.

That fact remains.

 

[akphidelt]

Yes, when you have $1 trillion dollar deficits because you spend so much, they add to the debt.

Like ZOMG!!!!!!

Or maybe you aren't getting enough revenue. Is this going to be another Spending as % of GDP battle, lmao!!! You are hilariously stupid. But fun and entertaining so I encourage you to keep it up.

 

[Acebb]

Here's the last thing he said about it...

"The chart did disprove what you're saying. Especially since you actually do not know what the % of GDP actually means. You have no idea how this figures are calculated nor do you have any idea what nominal spending means as the title of this thread was shown to be a lie."

What I want to know now is how HE thought the figures were calculated, lol.

I know how the figures are calculated.

You are on the record as saying they have "nothing to do" with actual spending.

What is most comical about all of this, and you've beclowned yourself yet again, is that Wabash used.....wait for it....actual outlays to calculate the % of GDP.

OOPS

 

[Acebb]

Or maybe you aren't getting enough revenue.

Uh, that isn't responsive.

Obama is spending more than Bush ever did, more than anyone in the history of America.

Pretending that debt has nothing to do with it makes you an idiot.

 

[wabashwonders]

No, I said they were stupid responses.

That fact remains.

You have certainly made enough stupid responses in this thread to know what one is, that's for sure. Unfortunately for you, since this was about basic math our examples weren't stupid at all. You were the stupid one.

 

[akphidelt]

I know how the figures are calculated.

You are on the record as saying they have "nothing to do" with actual spending.

What is most comical about all of this, and you've beclowned yourself yet again, is that Wabash used.....wait for it....actual outlays to calculate the % of GDP.

OOPS

You are lying. Everyone here knows you are. I was saying they have nothing to do with "actual spending" as in you can't look at your graph and know whether or not a President is spending less or more.

 

[akphidelt]

Uh, that isn't responsive.

Obama is spending more than Bush ever did, more than anyone in the history of America.

Pretending that debt has nothing to do with it makes you an idiot.

Every President for the last 60 years was the biggest spending President in the History of America every single year they were in office. What point are you trying to make, lol.