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.
If we were discussing INCOME, or deficits of the federal government then the state of the economy would be a factor. We arent.. Try to stay focused.
Sorry but the war costs dont even come close to the increase.. Try to be factual..
Interest.. ok, now you have something true. Yes, interest went up in 2008 substantially, this despite a record low interest rate. Want to tell me why it went up so high in 2008? (by your own admission).. ANSWER.. SPENDING... The interest costs wouldnt have gone up by such a substantial amount unless spending went along to justify the need to borrow.. In reality the interest expense should have gone down, not up, because interest rates continue to drop and older higher interest bonds are paid for with newer lower interest rate bonds... Sorry, no cookie here either.
Nope.. as explained above they dont need to take that into account. Interest expense should have DROPPED.. not risen.. but the Democratics couldnt stop spending..
So one second the spending increases is because the economy went into a disaster, the next it increased because the economy has improved. Make up your mind because even the chart you posted shows the increases. Federal spending helps stimulate the economy best when it is around 19.1% (forget the actual figure but its around here), of the nations GDP.. by your own chart it shows its in the 35% range. This comes from federal reports.. But yet you continue to justify more spending, more spending, wooo, lets do more spending, and then moan and groan about how more spending isnt "real".. spare me the democratic spin justifying incompetence.
Ahh, but the part you conveniently ignored is that spending increased even when the economy increased. I know.. facts.. dam those facts..
Again, spending has DOUBLED.. now by your own admission this is true. And to dispell this you posted charts proving spending increased as a % of GDP, and you now blame federal borrowing for things like interest.. You mean the interest that SHOULD have gone down because of record low interest rates, but actually went up because of INCREASED spending?
You dont want to really discuss Obama care which per the CBO actually increased the cost more than what would have taken place without it.. do you?
There was no reduction in debt.. Another one of those facts you conveniently ignore.. But I challenge you to look at your own chart.. care to tell me who was in charge of Congress when the increase in spending as a % of GDP began to climb? Using your chart now because by your own admission it holds relevance..
It appears to be rather stable, including the war costs under the GOP maintained Congress and only began to climb again under Democratic control.. oooh no.. that looks like DEMOCRATS were the spenders.. both in real dollars, and % of GDP. We all know war spending has dropped right?
shhh, dont tell anyone.. we'll keep this as our little secret..
Income or spending, economic comparisons warrant perspective. And such perspectives take into account real versus nominal dollars, comparison against GDP etc. Ignoring them might be an enticing proposition but not a good idea when you’re arguing with folks with even basic awareness.
For someone demand “factual” arguments, how about him providing one? How about you demonstrate how little the war expense is over the years, complete with factual information? After all, what is a trillion here (war spending without taking into account interest on the debt payment, now and in the longer term) and a trillion there (2003 Medicare reform, passed without a provision to pay for it). And it isn’t like government is being overburdened with the inefficiencies in the system, right? For example, when the cost of health care has been pushed so high that it demands more than twice the premiums for coverage, that the government spending on the same wouldn’t be affected?
Clearly, you believe that no thought is necessary to be against spending. Perhaps I should have you start by asking, how would you rate the economic health of the country, beginning 2001? What would you consider the bright spots? How does it tie to spending issue, if one existed prior to the collapse?
Quote:
Again, spending has DOUBLED.. now by your own admission this is true.
Income or spending, economic comparisons warrant perspective. And such perspectives take into account real versus nominal dollars, comparison against GDP etc. Ignoring them might be an enticing proposition but not a good idea when you’re arguing with folks with even basic awareness.
I've never seen someoen talk out of both sides of their mouth all in the same pagragph as well as this.. On second the economy is improving, this means expanding governmental spending.. The next, the economy is tanking, this justifies improving governmental spending. Now you think income into the federal government has anything to do with spending.. WRONG.. Pretending it does might go well for some who dont know better but I'm not a fool...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
For someone demand “factual” arguments, how about him providing one?
I clearly posted a fact that not only did you not disagree with, but you posted numerous postings justifying those facts.. You can think the doubling of federal spending is justified and I think its not, but the facts are undeniable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
How about you demonstrate how little the war expense is over the years, complete with factual information?
So you have now come down to blaming the wars for the increase in $1.75T a YEAR in spending increase alone between now and 10 years ago... I thought Obama stopped wartime spending, here you are telling me he's spending record levels of nearly $2T a year on it..
Anyone with any knowledge on the subject knows that we spend about $100B a year on the wars.. So how do you blame the wars for yearly increase of $1.75T? I'd like to see your math on this.. Please make Einstein proud and explain to us simple folks how $100B a year in expenses is responsible for $1.75T a year in expenses..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
After all, what is a trillion here (war spending without taking into account interest on the debt payment, now and in the longer term) and a trillion there (2003 Medicare reform, passed without a provision to pay for it).
First you start out by saying the increase didnt exist, then it turned into the increase existed because it was justified, now you are telling me the increase isnt justified because it was spent on "wars", (when clearly you probably cant tell me how the wars are responsible for $1.75T a year in increases) and now you go on to list other expenses responsible for the increase and criticize them..
Wait, you JUST said the increase was due to the economic condition, and now you are listing various reasons it increased that has nothing to do with the economy.. Which is it? Spin spin spin..
btw, I didnt support the medicare reform either and would support its repeal.. but then you liberals would be moaning about how we are killing old people..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And it isn’t like government is being overburdened with the inefficiencies in the system, right?
Ahh, now its inefficiencies in the system to blame for increased costs and the doubling of the federal expenses.. btw, I agree with you, but this is completely different than the argument you put forther just previously. Had you discussed this previously rather than denying the truth and trying to spin it into everything imaginable, we would have been able to have a conversation on facts. Clearly though you arent blaming $1.75T a year on inefficiencies are you? Maybe 58% of the people want government shut down until the inefficiencies can be "fixed"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
For example, when the cost of health care has been pushed so high that it demands more than twice the premiums for coverage, that the government spending on the same wouldn’t be affected?
Actually no.. government dictates ICD9, ICD10, UCR rates.. Government and government alone. Government dictates how much will be paid to health care providers. Many might argue that its governments fault that healthcare costs have increased dramatically because the rate provided by government doesnt begin to cover the costs.. I guess many would be those who again want to discuss facts.. You see Einstein, the same healthcare costs increases most of society has to face does is not true for government. The increase they face in costs is due to expanded benefits, not expanded costs. Did they have some increases, yeah.. but no where close enough to explain away the doubling of spending..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Clearly, you believe that no thought is necessary to be against spending. Perhaps I should have you start by asking, how would you rate the economic health of the country, beginning 2001? What would you consider the bright spots? How does it tie to spending issue, if one existed prior to the collapse?
In 2001 we were doing ok, but we went into a recession in 2002, and again in 2007.. Whats this have to do with the topic? Federal spending was CUT in the mid 1990's which led to economic growth.. You arent going to deny this are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Why do you lie?
ooh please.. you JUST justified the doubling of spending and even tried to list reasons for its increase.. Now you are pretending it doesnt exist..
i'm through.. you cant even stay focused on this thread and keep your own story straight.. You are jumping along wherever the wind blows and flip flopping right in your own paragraphs..
Governments in America were instituted to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent. Anything more is suspect. Anything less is unacceptable.
I've never seen someoen talk out of both sides of their mouth all in the same pagragph as well as this.. On second the economy is improving, this means expanding governmental spending.. The next, the economy is tanking, this justifies improving governmental spending. Now you think income into the federal government has anything to do with spending.. WRONG.. Pretending it does might go well for some who dont know better but I'm not a fool...
Bascailly the only way governasmnt will be shutdown is if Obama does not realise the reality of the new situatio he is in. He c;early has losss control of the leasership of his party as thier is widesread difference withinthe party. His job is to take all those special interest groups who think their issue is priority and control them. We saw what turnigthem lose freely resulted i with the stimulus that never did what it was sold has and a healthcare bill that is a hodgepodge with even democratic states wanting exemptions now.
You said you receive nothing from federal taxes. Federal taxes provide you with military support, among other things, so like I said -- that's a lie.
We are discussing the DOUBLING of federal spending.. Are you telling me the federal government spending on military defense has doubled? Clearly you would recongize the difference between federal spending to benefit "society" and not the individuals right? Unless you are now claiming military spending is being spent to protect ME.. Is that your claim, that I'm soo important that we have a national defense to protect one individual? I said I receive nothing from the government.. True.. your example of military support is ridiculous because I dont own a military production facility.. They do not PAY me.. Its there for the common good, not any individual...
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
What claims?
Try to follow along with the discussion. It might be tough but the postings are even numbered for your assistance..
THIS claim
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Spending doubled in nominal terms, not real terms.
I'm now asking you to provide a source..
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Untrue. I asked you to provide a source.
Its not difficult to find a source.. Try the US Government directly, this way you cant claim numbers are being manipulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Oh, so now I'm on the "left".
Just the other day I was being lambasted for being "on the right".
I dont care what another poster claimed.. Really.. I dont..
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
False, never said that.
I guess you just asked me to source it because you believed me.. I dont know about you but I always ask those that actually post information that I believe to validate their claims..
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
This also did not happen.
Must be having trouble following along with the thread because clearly I posted a graph to indicate this to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Also false.
Yes.. I know.. I was being sarcastic..
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Now, this part is true.
Yeah. you are such an expert on federal spending that you asked me to source a very known fact to just about ANYONE.. I'm done with you until you figure out how to follow those little numbers in the thread.. I know sometimes they can get to be big numbers, like 40, 50 etc.. but its not that difficult..
Start with Education, training, employment and social services— These programs assist citizens in developing and learning skills to expand their potential opportunities and job placement possibilities. Outlays for this function were $125.1 billion for fiscal 2010, an increase of 60 percent or $46.9 billion from fiscal 2009 outlays.
Thats a 60% increase in ONE year.. Yeah.. no increases in spending going on.. Just ask these "experts" who will tell you thats due to inflation..
For you liberals denying the increases are taking place.. maybe you should call the Treasury Department and tell them you know more than they do.. http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/index.html
We are discussing the DOUBLING of federal spending..
No we aren't, we're discussing a poll.
Quote:
Are you telling me the federal government spending on military defense has doubled?
No
Quote:
Clearly you would recongize the difference between federal spending to benefit "society" and not the individuals right?
No
Quote:
Unless you are now claiming military spending is being spent to protect ME..
no.
If so you receive services from the U.S. military, in the form of protection and security.
Quote:
Is that your claim, that I'm soo important that we have a national defense to protect one individual?
hmm.. No.
Quote:
I said I receive nothing from the government.. True..
Indeed.
Quote:
your example of military support is ridiculous because I dont own a military production facility.. They do not PAY me.. Its there for the common good, not any individual...
You are a member of society, and you benefit. You don't have to be a military contractor to benefit from the military. Technically you don't even need to pay taxes.
Quote:
I'm now asking you to provide a source..
A source for what?
Quote:
Its not difficult to find a source.. Try the US Government directly, this way you cant claim numbers are being manipulated.
Well that's just ridiculous, US Gov't manipulates numbers regularly.
Quote:
I dont care what another poster claimed.. Really.. I dont..
Do what?
Quote:
I guess you just asked me to source it because you believed me.. I dont know about you but I always ask those that actually post information that I believe to validate their claims..
Well, no, I've seen your posts before and I know how imprecise you are, how you ignore the big picture in favor of some useless tidbit of data.
My favorite is how you change topic two or three times within the same post! Sometimes you argue opposite sides of the same argument, and both arguments are wrong! I think it is hilarious.
Quote:
Must be having trouble following along with the thread because clearly I posted a graph to indicate this to be true.
You failed to demonstrate that you know the difference between real dollars and nominal dollars.
Quote:
Yeah. you are such an expert on federal spending that you asked me to source a very known fact to just about ANYONE..
and you couldn't even do it correctly! LOL
Quote:
I'm done with you
Oh NO!
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.
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.
In reality the interest expense should have gone down, not up, because interest rates continue to drop and older higher interest bonds are paid for with newer lower interest rate bonds... Sorry, no cookie here either.
