Thread: Reagan - 103% Spending Increase. Bush - 71% Spending Increase. Obama - 22% Increase

Originally Posted by James Cessna

You are correct, Dave.

Akphidelt is very unwilling to address and discuss the national debt issue.

The reason is, of course, the national debt is now up $3 trillion on Obama's watch!

By the way, here is a very good summay by CBS news of the problems we are facing in the very near future.

My attempt is not to address the debt issue. I'm simply talking about spending. Not that hard to grasp. I know it's difficult for you to understand simple things, but this is really not rocket science. This is merely showing the hypocrisy and lies coming from the right.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Only uneducated people compare President's in absolute terms.

You're comparing absolute terms by comparing three different President's spending increases. I compared the presidents to the first two years. Even when I compared Obama's only two years with Bush and Reagan's two years, Obama still spent close to both of them.

I also compared the spending in terms of numbers, not percentages. You only used percentages to mask the real numbers in the equation to make it sound like Obama spent "less" when that isn't the case.

And you're percentages are wrong so that shows you how bad your math is.

Reagan had an 68 percent increase, not 103 percent.
Bush had an 48 percent increase, not 71 percent.
Obama had an 25 percent increase, not 22 percent.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Wow, numbers really do not back up the claims of Republican's these days. If Obama was allowed to do what Reagan and Bush did, our economy might be better off.

(Numbers in billions)

Reagan Spending
Start: $551
Finish: $1,122
Increase: 103%

Bush Spending
Start: $1,827
Finish: $3,119
Increase: 71%

Obama Spending
Start: $3,119
Current: $3,826
Increase: 22%

The Republican's are literally holding the economy hostage with their anti-spending attitudes. Yet the Republican's had free reign to spend as much as they want in the past... and Reagan the biggest spender of all is wildly promoted as a fiscally conservative economic wizard. It is mind boggling how a country that is suffering from people not spending money wants to cut spending even more. Makes absolutely ZERO logical sense.

A more disingenuous use of data I've never seen. Both Reagan and Bush had 8 years in the White House. Obama has not even served 3 yet.

While Reagan's % is higher than Bush's, note that in dollars it was less than $600 Billion.

Do you really expect anyone to take this seriously?

Here's a chart that shows deficit spending...Obama vs Bush. Note that this only includes 2 years of Obama.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

You're comparing absolute terms by comparing three different President's spending increases. I compared the presidents to the first two years. Even when I compared Obama's only two years with Bush and Reagan's two years, Obama still spent close to both of them.

I also compared the spending in terms of numbers, not percentages. You only used percentages to mask the real numbers in the equation to make it sound like Obama spent "less" when that isn't the case.

And you're percentages are wrong so that shows you how bad your math is.

Reagan had an 68 percent increase, not 103 percent.
Bush had an 48 percent increase, not 71 percent.
Obama had an 25 percent increase, not 22 percent.

Lol, trust me, my percentages are correct. You are probably just using different dates. And no, I am not comparing President's in absolute terms, hence the percentages. You're out of your league in this debate my friend, I suggest you go to the nearest "I hate Obama circle-jerk" thread which will be a much better fit for you.

Originally Posted by Woogs

A more disingenuous use of data I've never seen. Both Reagan and Bush had 8 years in the White House. Obama has not even served 3 yet.

While Reagan's % is higher than Bush's, note that in dollars it was less than $600 Billion.

Do you really expect anyone to take this seriously?

Here's a chart that shows deficit spending...Obama vs Bush. Note that this only includes 2 years of Obama.

I'm not talking about deficit spending. And I have already shown that Reagan spent twice as much as Obama in relative terms with in the same time frame as President Obama.

You can't compare President's in absolute terms, that is illogical and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

And I have already shown that Reagan spent twice as much as Obama in relative terms with in the same time frame as President Obama.

Actually you haven't. You have chosen to use misleading percentages because they back up your claim because of the differences in the base number.

You can go on and on about absolute terms all you want but you can't hide the fact that you're using misleading figures in an attempt to prove others are being hypocritical.

That coupled with the insults is not doing much for your credibility.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Lol, trust me, my percentages are correct. You are probably just using different dates. And no, I am not comparing President's in absolute terms, hence the percentages. You're out of your league in this debate my friend, I suggest you go to the nearest "I hate Obama circle-jerk" thread which will be a much better fit for you.

Well I doubt your percentages are correct. It probably means that your start and finish numbers aren't correct. Maybe you wanna go back and double check that.

Also using percentages is comparing in absolute terms.

Someone increases spending from 12 billion to 23 billion. That's a 91 percent increase.

Another increases spending from 11 billion to 22 billion. That's 100 percent increase.

The difference between 23 minus 12 and 22 minus 11 are the same, 11. But the percentages are still difference. It only shows that percentages means nothing. It keeps the concern away from the real statistics. Who spent more money.

Reagan Spending Increase: $553 Billion
Bush Spending Increase: $1.119 Billion
Obama Spending Increase: $836 Billion

Anyways, you shouldn't discuss numbers or statistics with me. You'll be up way past your bed time.

Originally Posted by akphidelt

Almost 2/3rds of his stimulus was tax rebates.

Link.

Should he have went the Reagan approach and had massive amount of direct Government spending?

Once again Reagan fought for lower spending.

You can't skate out of this one

I'm sitting right here waiting for you to refute the facts as I quoted them and ready to point out the speciousness of your arguments such as comparing 8 years of spending to two. Did you really think you could get away with it?

Originally Posted by DDave

Actually you haven't. You have chosen to use misleading percentages because they back up your claim because of the differences in the base number.

You can go on and on about absolute terms all you want but you can't hide the fact that you're using misleading figures in an attempt to prove others are being hypocritical.

That coupled with the insults is not doing much for your credibility.

^^^this.

The OP is nonsense, and a bastardization of the realities of the situation.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

Well I doubt your percentages are correct. It probably means that your start and finish numbers aren't correct. Maybe you wanna go back and double check that.

Also using percentages is comparing in absolute terms.

Someone increases spending from 12 billion to 23 billion. That's a 91 percent increase.

Another increases spending from 11 billion to 22 billion. That's 100 percent increase.

The difference between 23 minus 12 and 22 minus 11 are the same, 11. But the percentages are still difference. It only shows that percentages means nothing. It keeps the concern away from the real statistics. Who spent more money.

Reagan Spending Increase: $553 Billion
Bush Spending Increase: $1.119 Billion
Obama Spending Increase: $836 Billion

Anyways, you shouldn't discuss numbers or statistics with me. You'll be up way past your bed time.

Lol, still talking about deficits aren't you? Can't get a grasp on spending can you?