Look at the numberrs again.
Lmao. Your defending Obama against FDR during WWII. Is that how far you're reaching? My gosh the extent Libs go to protect The One. More importantly, you were the one that referenced Obama deficits as compared to Reagan's. That is why I focused on Reagan.
In the first year or two Obama was in office, when the entire economy was falling apart, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was high. Now it is smaller than most of the time that Reagan was in office. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
Opie, you were fun to have an exchange with a few years ago. You were normally pretty easy, but you did win a few with your sticktoitiveness. Now you have reverted to outright deception and you have lost the ability to back off when wrong. what has happened to your(integrity?) desire to exchange ideas and positions?In the first year or two Obama was in office, when the entire economy was falling apart, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was high. Now it is smaller than most of the time that Reagan was in office. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
Opie, you were fun to have an exchange with a few years ago. You were normally pretty easy, but you did win a few with your sticktoitiveness. Now you have reverted to outright deception and you have lost the ability to back off when wrong. what has happened to your(integrity?) desire to exchange ideas and positions?
And your position as non partisan has become a nose up brown liberal about everything until the bitter end. Remember the time you were social liberal and conservative financial. Friend, you have totally fallen ..... .
I'm just pointing out the fact. For sure there are a lot of different ways to spin things but it was WVPATX that was saying how bad Obama's spending is and it was him contrasting it to that of Reagan. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is the measure that economists use. Go to the link and see how we're doing now on that as compared to the Reagan years.
Absolute numbers across time are useless. That's why I answered his useless "Obama has run up more debt" remark with an equally useless "Total GDP is way higher today than under Reagan. But the deficit as a percentage of GDP is not absolute and is not useless.
I'm just pointing out the fact. For sure there are a lot of different ways to spin things but it was WVPATX that was saying how bad Obama's spending is and it was him contrasting it to that of Reagan. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is the measure that economists use. Go to the link and see how we're doing now on that as compared to the Reagan years.
Absolute numbers across time are useless. That's why I answered his useless "Obama has run up more debt" remark with an equally useless "Total GDP is way higher today than under Reagan. But the deficit as a percentage of GDP is not absolute and is not useless.
I'm just pointing out the fact. For sure there are a lot of different ways to spin things but it was WVPATX that was saying how bad Obama's spending is and it was him contrasting it to that of Reagan. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is the measure that economists use. Go to the link and see how we're doing now on that as compared to the Reagan years.
Absolute numbers across time are useless. That's why I answered his useless "Obama has run up more debt" remark with an equally useless "Total GDP is way higher today than under Reagan. But the deficit as a percentage of GDP is not absolute and is not useless.
Shortie on this one. The only value you have when you do a comparative of Debt and GDP. Is GDP growth sufficient to pay off the added Debt? It is a justifiable action of increasing Debt if that growth can pay off the new debt and a bit of the old debt. Hopefully it is very visible that an error has occurred if are only incurring more Debt to attain positive GDP growth. Debt eventually has to be paid. That includes internal debt for SS when the payments come due.I'm just pointing out the fact. For sure there are a lot of different ways to spin things but it was WVPATX that was saying how bad Obama's spending is and it was him contrasting it to that of Reagan. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is the measure that economists use. Go to the link and see how we're doing now on that as compared to the Reagan years.
Absolute numbers across time are useless. That's why I answered his useless "Obama has run up more debt" remark with an equally useless "Total GDP is way higher today than under Reagan. But the deficit as a percentage of GDP is not absolute and is not useless.