United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[wabashwonders]

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.

Believe it or not, I still think he doesn't understand this.

 

[Acebb]

Or maybe you aren't getting enough revenue.

Federal revenue has never been higher.

Ever.

Revenues have increased every year of the Obama Presidency.

 

[Acebb]

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.

Obama has a dismal spending record

LOL

 

[Acebb]

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.

Actually you can.

The graph was really helpful in that regard.

It actually represents Obama spending more than Bush, and guess what, Obama is spending more than Bush.

Duh.

 

[akphidelt]

actually you can.

The graph was really helpful in that regard.

It actually represents obama spending more than bush, and guess what, obama is spending more than bush.

Duh.

lmao!!!

 

[akphidelt]

Believe it or not, I still think he doesn't understand this.

I was gonna question this than he responded. You are 100% correct, lol.

 

[Acebb]

lmao!!!

The fact that you are disputing this is comedy gold.

I guess when you're wedded to the idea that Obama is spending less than Bush you're confused.

 

[akphidelt]

The fact that you are disputing this is comedy gold.

I guess when you're wedded to the idea that Obama is spending less than Bush you're confused.

Lmao!! I'm not disputing that graph, I'm disputing your interpretation of it, which clearly indicates that you are really dumb. Even the cheerleading bitch, festeringZit, won't show his face after this one. Lol.

 

[Acebb]

I guess if you're a dummy you would look at that graph and think "Bush spent less than Clinton!"

 

[Acebb]

Lmao!! I'm not disputing that graph, I'm disputing your interpretation of it, which clearly indicates that you are really dumb. Even the cheerleading bitch, festeringZit, won't show his face after this one. Lol.

I'm not "interpreting" it in any manner that you can actually articulate.

You're too busy (at work!) mocking things I've never said.

 

[akphidelt]

I guess if you're a dummy you would look at that graph and think "Bush spent less than Clinton!"

I'm sure that's what you thought considering the fact you were using Clinton as an example of how reducing spending creates jobs, lol!!! You are my new favorite poster. This thread has been comedic gold!!

 

[Acebb]

What dismal record of spending?!

 

[Acebb]

I'm sure that's what you thought considering the fact you were using Clinton as an example of how reducing spending creates jobs, lol!!! You are my new favorite poster. This thread has been comedic gold!!

Actually,

I was using Clinton as an example of how when government spending is restrained, and it becomes smaller as a % of the economy, economic growth accelerates. This is true everywhere it is done.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Poor fratfraud. Beaten like a rented mule yet again.

The KO blow:

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

OOPS, indeed.

This is what happens when you line up with the biggest loser in cyberspace. Live and learn.

 

[akphidelt]

Lol, you know you are losing at life when Sheriff Joe comes in to save you, hahaha!!

 

[SheriffJoe]

 

[akphidelt]

Your Keynesian hero, Ronald Reagan increased the debt by almost 3 times more than every President before him at his time. Too bad Obama isn't given the same luxury and he has to act like a fiscal conservative. We need a big government Reagan type in office!!

 

[SheriffJoe]

If anything, this thread proves yet again why fiat money inevitably fails.

 

[akphidelt]

If anything, this thread proves yet again why fiat money inevitably fails.

No, you're just really dumb. Your argument is not new, crazy anti-govt freaks have been saying the same stuff for over a century. They are always wrong and just adjust the numbers as the new number that will bring the sky falling down. You guys are always wrong.

 

[SheriffJoe]

No, you're just really dumb. Your argument is not new, crazy anti-govt freaks have been saying the same stuff for over a century. They are always wrong and just adjust the numbers as the new number that will bring the sky falling down. You guys are always wrong.

Nope.

We're not always wrong. The list of failed currencies is virtually endless. For the US, it is only a matter of time.

Your problem (as a Keynesian) is you listen to stupid people with no skin in the game - academic-chair quarterbacks....the social engineers who have gotten us into this mess.

Eventually there will be a trigger that will burst the current bubble, not unlike the financial crisis in 2008...and that will be it. Maybe a war, oil crisis, or something else. The US has way too much leveraged debt (foreign debt, especially) to weather the next storm.

When the bubble bursts, we'll experience a massive severe deflationary depression during which hopefully many of the smart minds OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT will redesign a new economic system.

The ONLY reason fiat money exists in the first place is so governments can borrow at artificially low interest rates to fund their massive socialist states...which of course is why people like YOU defend the status-quo to its last gasp.

Think about it...in this day and age with modern technology, why the hell does anyone need government money in the first place?

Fuck the government and their self-destructive horse and buggy monetary systems!

Think thumb drive. Cash on a computer chip - virtual money, free of government.

It will happen.

Of course, you being stuck in the 20th century still giving Keynes hand jobs will be the last to see any of this coming.