Gold Member
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,979
- 500
- 130
heh heh do you understand that 23% = 23% ?
Why bring up percentages? Do you have trouble with numbers larger than 100?
Frank does. Hence the percentages. He doesn't seem to understand that Reagan had a budget one year that was 23% of GDP and that is the same as Obama's budget in 2010. He also doesn't understand that Obama's deficit last year was 9% of GDP, which of course, is a lot less than 23%.
What is you point? I'll presuppose everything, and give you whatever point you are trying to prove by continually pointing to Reagan to justify the present. The very fact that you are invoking Reagan's legacy to somehow prove some point relevant to the present, which I'm still not sure if that is even your intention, shows how desperate you are.
Deficit spending and debt, which even after accounting for inflation are dramatically higher under Obama than Reagan, are supposed to be a good thing. In fact, you have argued that point to me in the past; that it isn't because of Reagan's economic policies but deficit spending and debt are what caused the unprecedented economic growth under Reagan.
What the hell is your point?
![eusa_eh :eusa_eh: :eusa_eh:](/styles/smilies/eusa_eh.gif)