You're ******* deranged.
Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.
And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.
You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?
I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!
No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.
<smh>
The only way that you can possibly make the case that Reagan increased the national debt more than Obama did is use percentage of increase, Faun! That works for fans of Obama because the spending that was taking place when Barry took office was enormous as Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress tried to use government stimulus to avert a total collapse of our financial institutions! Obama didn't increase that level of spending...HE SIMPLY KEPT IT AT THE INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IT WAS AT IN 2008 FOR MOST OF HIS TWO TERMS!
Show the numbers then of Reagan's debt vs. Obama's...
PROOF?
Federal Spending Grew More Under Bush and Reagan than Under Obama
179 COMMENTS
TAGS
Taxes and SpendingU.S. HistoryPolitical Theory
02/10/2017
Ryan McMaken
Now that 2016 is gone and President Obama is a thing of the past, we can take a look back at just how much government spending grew during his tenure. It seems that in his eight year tenure, Obama never managed to top the enormous increases in government spending that occurred under presidents Reagan and George Bush. In fact, Obama doesn't even come close.
When we examine the federal spending that occurred under Obama, we find that it increased 15.8 percent from the 3.3 trillion in spending of Bush's final year (i.e., 2008) to the 3.8 trillion of Obama's final year of 2016.
Using this same method, we find federal spending increased 33.3 percent from the end of Clinton's term to the end of Bush's term.
The first graph shows how much federal outlays increased during each president's term since Lyndon Johnson:
Source:
US Office of Management and Budget, FRED, adjusted for inflation using CPI for all urban consumers.
Lyndon Johnson is so far the biggest spender since the Second World War, and he grew the budget 40 percent over his one-and-a-half terms — a feat that is impressively bad. Johnson combined massive amounts of war spending and spending on social programs to greatly expand government programs and government spending.
Since Johnson, however, it's been Ford, Reagan, and Bush that are our biggest spenders, with Bush somewhat replicating Johnson's "Guns and Butter" agenda of combining massive amounts of military spending with greater social spending.
It was George W. Bush, after all, who pushed through the Medicare D program to expand government spending on health care, and it was Bush — who ran as "
the education president" — who expanded federal spending on the Department of Education
beyond what any other president has done. Meanwhile, Bush's war spending increased rapidly.
Moreover, most of that growth occurred when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House, from 2001 to 2006. Over that six year period, federal spending increased 26 percent.
With Obama, however, federal spending largely went nowhere between 2009 and 2016. Much of the growth over the Obama terms can be attributed to the large jump in federal spending that occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. It should be noted, however, that our calculations here somewhat overstate Obama's spending and understate Bush's spending. That is, George W. Bush supported large amounts of federal "stimulus" — such as Bush's bailout of auto makers — which ended up in the 2009 budget. For the sake of simplicity, we'll attribute
all of that stimulus spending to Obama since it shows up in the 2009 fiscal year — which began under Bush on October 1, 2008. Even when we do this, however, Obama's spending growth amounted to 15.8 percent, which places it fourth behind Reagan, Bush, and Ford.
