Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2012, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,881,942 times
Reputation: 4512

Advertisements

That's % growth, not actual spending. Spending is measured in US Dollars. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:10 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,405,802 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrnTmr4Brkfst View Post
The budgets are made in advance. The president is currently in the process of making the 2013 budget. The 2009 budget was made by Bush.

Ignore defense spending is insane on the part of the Cato institute's study. While a president doesn't choose his geopolitical environment, he definitely chooses how to respond to it. It's not like Obama is a peacetime president and Reagan was president during an active war, it's the opposite. Massive military spending is massive government spending, military service people are government employees. It's exactly the same effect as a stimulus.
Quote:
The White House,
February 13, 2012.

That begins with putting the Nation on a path to living within our means...

Total, requirement to borrow from the public
(equals change in debt held by the public) ��
(Dollars amounts in billions)

2011 - 1,109
2012- 1,450
2013 - 1,059
2014 - 809
2015- 752
2016 - 783
2017 - 733
2018 - 690
2019 - 733
2020 - 760
2021 - 781
2022 - 808

Total, debt subject to statutory limitation4 �����������������������
(Dollars amounts in billions)

2011- 14,747
2012 - 16,334
2013 - 17,532
2014 - 18,485
2015 - 19,412
2016 - 20,379
2017 - 21,315
2018 - 22,235
2019 - 23,143
2020 - 24,069
2021 - 25,002
2022 - 25,936
FISCAL YEAR 2013

He thinks you people are GD idiots and you'll go way way out of your way to make sure he's proven right.

Thankfully there's no way in Hades that your creditors will ever let you borrow $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years without severe consequences up to and not limited to your first born, your wife and all of your arms and legs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,062,169 times
Reputation: 13772
Yeah, that $6 trillion in new debt, IT NEVER HAPPENED!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,466 posts, read 1,227,007 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
This is too easy. This is a recycled meme from several months ago. The Washington Post factcheck blog looked at it and gave it 3 pinocchios (max is 4). Cato's Dan Mitchell really put a microscope on it and came up with several alternate sets of numbers based on varying assumptions.
Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which President Is the Biggest Spender of All? | Cato @ Liberty


In his final table, gives spending growth by prez, minus defense and bailouts, based on the thought that a prez does not get to pick his geopolitical environment, and bailouts are usually a consequence of inherited catastrophes.

In that table the results were:



So Obama comes in as the next-to-biggest spender.

And as thecoalman points out above:



In short, the original MarketWatch piece was a deliberate fraud/hoax, and not surprisingly many people were taken in by it. Hopefully it's not to late for some of the early posters in this thread to go back and edit their embarrassing remarks.
Oh how convenient that defense and bailouts were taken out.

And yes Obama was given a huge budget? Your point? Saying the Dem controlled White House spends huge amounts of money compared to the GOP White House is still incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:32 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,138,641 times
Reputation: 2014
How about if you factor in the 1st year in office, instead of just 2010 - 2013?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,401,836 times
Reputation: 4190
Go smoke some dope and leave the math to the grown-ups.

Percentage increase vs absolute spending are two completely separate data sets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
You know what's really funny.

When people moaned about Exxons record profits you referenced TOTAL dollars and not the % of profit.

Now you a referencing the rate of CHANGE in spending but not the total dollars or even % of GDP etc.

Most of the posters here seem to be either patently dishonest or just too uneducated to perform a proper (or consistent) financial analysis.
Well, there you go.

Agreeing....


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,323,955 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELR123 View Post
Oh how convenient that defense and bailouts were taken out.

And yes Obama was given a huge budget? Your point? Saying the Dem controlled White House spends huge amounts of money compared to the GOP White House is still incorrect.
Taking out defense and bailouts seems reasonable to me Defense is a basic function of government and bailouts are generally the result of prior catastrophic decisions.

But if you don't like it, look at the WAPO link. He doesn't take out defense or bailouts. He just debunks the numbers that Rex Nutting produced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:56 PM
 
78,022 posts, read 60,232,230 times
Reputation: 49418
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Go smoke some dope and leave the math to the grown-ups.

Percentage increase vs absolute spending are two completely separate data sets.
We have a bunch of D-student algebra rejects floating around here drooling on the floor.

Hey guys, pottery class is down the hall.....and yes, I want fries with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,851,804 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
We have a bunch of D-student algebra rejects floating around here drooling on the floor.

Hey guys, pottery class is down the hall.....and yes, I want fries with that.
At times I believe they cannot be as stupid as they pretend to be. At other times I think...They really are that stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top