I side with:

Holy sh*t you may actually be starting to understand the game! It's literally a non-stop game of yabut. Ya but if I take out (fill in the blank) and use only (fill in the year) as a basis and then ignore (fill in the blank) then my (party|candidate) looks pretty damn good huh?!?!?

So I'll counter part of your yabut with this snippet:

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%, a huge achievement.

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

It's been well overdone but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

So Obama at 5.4 % AS YOU STATED is more overall spending growth then Reagan ,Bush and Bush ?

 

Spending in 1981 - 678 billion

Spending in 1989-1.1 trillion

Obama hasnt come close to nearly doubling spending like Reagan did

 

No I stated Obama at 5.2% to give the benefit of the doubt, some say it's more like 5.5%. But just when I thought there was hope for AK, indeed there seems to be none (no change either ). You are completely missing the point. The first glaring "error" Nutting made was to put Obama at 1.4%, error in quotes as I suspect that was no error at all! How do I trust the validity of any of the other numbers? Apparently you do really enjoy the game of yabut.

 

Yabut!

Obama hasn't had 8 years in which to do it. From your source (the White House historical tables).

From 1981 to 1989 - spending increased $422 billion.
From 2009 to 2017 (estimate) - spending increased from $3.5 trillion to 4.5 trillion an increase of $1 trillion!

Now I'm not going to stoop to your level and ask which is bigger $422 billion or $1 trillion.

 

Forget nutter,I gave you the benefit of the doubt and used your numbers and they where still lower then Reagan ,Bush and Bush.Now you are are raising Obamas numbers to 5.5 % .Even at 5.5 % it is still lower then Reagans 8.7 % and Bushs 7.3 and 8.1 %

 

Now your comparing 1981 dollars to 2009 dollars

Even IF Obamas spending gos from 3.5 to 4.5 he still hasn't nearly doubled spending like Reagan did

 

How can I forget Nutter!?!?!? It's HIS table!

 

Yabut! You do know the game!

You post part of a table with NO other information than raw numbers. When I post a different part of the SAME table then we need to take other factors into account. See how it works yet?

 

Use your own table and Obama still hasn't come close to doubling spending like Reagan did