United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[Acebb]

Just like the equation you didn't understand, I don't need to write out what nominal spending is. It's a very easy thing to understand, lol. You are really dumb, but entertaining.

Of course you abjectly refuse to write out your definition of 'nominal spending' and everyone reading knows why.

 

[SheriffJoe]

"It's all about math...just leave it to the Fed to figure it out" :Carcajada:

 

[Acebb]

Obviously math is not your strong suit.

There is no disputing Obama has spent more in inflation adjusted $ than Bush.

 

[akphidelt]

Obama has spent more in real, inflation adjusted, and as a % of GDP than Bush did.

This is all in the WH' budget document I linked to 5 or 6 times.

You can stop with your dumb chart now.

He has increased nominal spending by the lowest rate in the last 60 years.

 

[wabashwonders]

Obama has spent more in real, inflation adjusted, and as a % of GDP than Bush did.

You're left saying talking about the rate of increase now.

Which of course Obama is I believe hovering around 3.5% but that's kind of a silly metric considering he increased federal spending by more than a trillion in just 5 short years.

Saying "Obama only increased some of the largest increases every by a tiny amount, guys!!" isn't really persuasive.

Spending in 2008, Bush's last year was at 2982B. Last year, spending was at 3454B, which is 472B, a far cry from the trillion you say.

 

[akphidelt]

There is no disputing Obama has spent more in inflation adjusted $ than Bush.

No one is arguing on a federal level that he hasn't spent more than Bush. You can easily tell that by looking at the chart I posted, lol. You are really dumb. Basic math just alludes you.

 

[Acebb]

So the fact that Bush spent at a rate of 5.8% increase over all 8 years means nothing? So you don't think Obama should be able to spend at the same rate? Obama had increased spending at a rate of 2.7% thru 5 years.

I never said it "means nothing"

I was actually critical and disgusted with Bush for going along with all this spending madness.

The problem always becomes that an increase becomes next year's baseline.

And Obama took Bush's baseline and increased it by $1.4 trillion.

 

[Acebb]

No one is arguing on a federal level that he hasn't spent more than Bush. You can easily tell that by looking at the chart I posted, lol. You are really dumb. Basic math just alludes you.

Hey dum-dum,

Presidents don't spend on a state level.

You can stop now.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Hey dum-dum,

Presidents don't spend on a state level.

You can stop now.

I have been telling him that for months.

Krugman is his pimp!

 

[Acebb]

No one is arguing on a federal level that he hasn't spent more than Bush. You can easily tell that by looking at the chart I posted, lol. You are really dumb. Basic math just alludes you.

Obama has spent more than Bush in inflation adjusted, real and % of GDP.

You responded to that sentence 5 or 6 times saying it was not true.

You are an abject imbecile who can not keep his silly lies straight.

You can stop now, dummy, you have nothing informed or useful to say.

LOL

 

[akphidelt]

Hey dum-dum,

Presidents don't spend on a state level.

You can stop now.

Never said Presidents spend on a state level. You are just very confused.

 

[akphidelt]

Obama has spent more than Bush in inflation adjusted, real and % of GDP.

You responded to that sentence 5 or 6 times saying it was not true.

You are an abject imbecile who can not keep his silly lies straight.

You can stop now, dummy, you have nothing informed or useful to say.

LOL

Inflation adjusted is real spending, retard. LMAO!!!

 

[Acebb]

Spending in 2008, Bush's last year was at 2982B. Last year, spending was at 3454B, which is 472B, a far cry from the trillion you say.

Obama added $450 billion to Bush's last budget.

Spending this year will be more than $3.7 trillion.

That's how you get to a $1.4 T increase.

 

[wabashwonders]

Obama has spent more in real, inflation adjusted, and as a % of GDP than Bush did.

You're left saying talking about the rate of increase now.

Which of course Obama is I believe hovering around 3.5% but that's kind of a silly metric considering he increased federal spending by more than a trillion in just 5 short years.

Saying "Obama only increased some of the largest increases every by a tiny amount, guys!!" isn't really persuasive.

This post right shows you do not understand basic math. If Obama was increasing spending at a rate of 3.5% each year no way it would have increased by a trillion after 5 years. Learn basic math before you try to debate this stuff

 

[Acebb]

This post right shows you do not understand basic math. If Obama was increasing spending at a rate of 3.5% each year no way it would have increased by a trillion after 5 years. Learn basic math before you try to debate this stuff

Obama added $450 billion to Bush's last budget.

Spending this year will be more than $3.7 trillion.

 

[Acebb]

This post right shows you do not understand basic math. If Obama was increasing spending at a rate of 3.5% each year no way it would have increased by a trillion after 5 years. Learn basic math before you try to debate this stuff

You really, really need to stop saying "learn basic math" when you have no clue as to when spending took place or who appropriated it.

 

[akphidelt]

This post right shows you do not understand basic math. If Obama was increasing spending at a rate of 3.5% each year no way it would have increased by a trillion after 5 years. Learn basic math before you try to debate this stuff

I think the retard is confused and trying to say Obama's first year was $1 trillion more than Bush's first year, so apparently that means Obama increased spending by $1 trillion. I've never seen someone so stupid on this site and that includes Sheriff Joe.

 

[wabashwonders]

I never said it "means nothing"

I was actually critical and disgusted with Bush for going along with all this spending madness.

The problem always becomes that an increase becomes next year's baseline.

And Obama took Bush's baseline and increased it by $1.4 trillion.

He did not. Bush spent 2982B in 2008, Obama spent 3454B last year. Where are you getting a 1.4T increase?

 

[Acebb]

Never said Presidents spend on a state level. You are just very confused.

Keep saying it, dope.

 

[Acebb]

He did not. Bush spent 2982B in 2008, Obama spent 3454B last year. Where are you getting a 1.4T increase?

Bush did not, Obama signed a $450 B supplemental appropriations bill in March 2009.