Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Re-inventing the languageFollow

#52 Apr 13 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
He said that last year too!

Erm... no? Are you just making this up as you go along? The tax cuts weren't set to expire a year prior.

Quote:
I'm also still unsure where the **** they got their numbers

Did you bother to look? They say they got them from the CBO. But... umm.... thanks for all the random numbers that don't say a single thing about the actual sources of the debt? I hope you got some typing practice out of it at least.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Apr 13 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
[quote=lolgaxe]Is Bjork recording another album and we just HAVE to stop that ****

Yes! Please god, yes!
#54 Apr 13 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Correct me If I am wrong but is Fiscal year 2009 (IE that glaring eyesore in that table) Bush's final fiscal year as far as budgets go? Hence that was really his recommended expenditures and not Obama's, and according to this table, under Obama's Fiscal Budget years spending has actually decreased.


In terms of most spending? Yes. However appropriations go on all year long and add to that number. So stuff like the stimulus bill fall in that year's spending, as well as any emergency funds allocated for things like extending unemployment benefits, etc. The exact sources of that spending get spread around though, so it's hard to read directly. Some of the biggest programmatic spending increases in 2009 were in Medicaid and "Income Assistance" (ie: care for people on welfare and unemployment). Actually, there were quite huge jumps in both of those areas. Those increases certainly were not because of Bush increases in funding for those programs in the proposed budget, but rather increases based on need as the year progressed.


Which was one of the things the right complained about during that year. Obama and the Dems seemed to be passing some new funding bill every other day. Their solution to every problem was to throw more money at it. That's why spending ballooned in that year. It was a pretty gross example of fiscal irresponsibility, but now they're trying to get the rest of us to pay for it.

Some of us predicted this was exactly what would happen, so it's doubly annoying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Apr 13 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Well, if I'm not mistaken, all of these "cool" posts/bases like England are from the Chair Force.
Correct, Greenland is an Air Force compound. And if there was ever a bloated pack of lost funds, it'd be the Air Force. You know that in joint bases like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force gets extra money for living in the same housing as everyone else, because of Sub-Standard Living Arrangements? They get money because the living arrangements aren't good enough for them, but good enough for everyone else. Does that sink in? Is there any real question why the economy is fucked up?

I really wouldn't pretend to care as much as it appears that I do if I wasn't quarantined due to an eye infection and having nothing to do.


Funny, we were talking about that today at work. This Lt was talking about how his NCO had a real mission (sand table and all) on how to steal water from the Air Force down range.

In Korea, it was the same way. If they lived on any non-Airbase, they got extra money for substandard housing.. The worst part about is, they actually attempt to justify it as if it isn't a complete waste of money.

At one time, I worked on a Korean Air Base and when the Marines came over for an exercise, they put up tents.... The Chair Force, they all got hotel rooms outside of the base and complained that they had to put away their own trays in the DEFAC...... I should stop...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#56 Apr 13 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I should stop...
Ha, my second deployment was to Iraq as Garrison MP. I was the Desk Sergeant on this particular day, and we got a call from the Flightline. Now, the Flightline is where the C1--s land and take off, shipping troops and equipment in and out. This area was, and I can't stress this enough, AIR FORCE ONLY. We, the soldiers tasked with policing the base, were not allowed on the Flightline. We had no jurisdiction on the Flightline. They have their own equivalent, who work the Flightline; Security Forces. We got generals calling us complaining that we stopped by the Flightline. I can't stress enough that we were not allowed anywhere near this mythical utopia.

Saying that, one day one of their knuckleheads drove a forklift into one of their T-Walls, managed to knock it down and destroy a generator. Now, guess who got the call to do the case on that? Security Forces called us and told us that we needed to come onto the Flightline and do the paperwork. I took the phone from the RTO, and the reason they gave us on why we needed to do their job was, and I swear to whatever and every God you can think of, "We're not equipped to do it." I went personally and got in their faces. I made the little SF E4 cry.

And that's the story of how I lost E6 for the first time. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Apr 13 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He said that last year too!

Erm... no? Are you just making this up as you go along? The tax cuts weren't set to expire a year prior.


Huh? They were set to expire at the end of last year. And guess what? During that year (which would be "last year") he argued strongly for letting those taxes expire for everyone making over $250k/year.

Do you need a map and both hands to figure this out? Perhaps crayons and finger puppet? ;)

Quote:
I'm also still unsure where the **** they got their numbers

Did you bother to look? They say they got them from the CBO.[/quote]

I'm sure they got their starting numbers from the CBO (my numbers are from the CBO too!). I'm curious where they got their end numbers. You know, the ones *they* calculated. I'm showing you my calculations based on the historical budget numbers from those years. So how did the NYT arrive at their numbers? Pulled them out of a rabbit's butt?

I just find it hard to accept that the deficit can more than double between 2008 and 2009 (almost exactly 2.5X as much in fact), and yet we're supposed to swallow the argument that Obama is only responsible for 10% of the entire deficit? Remember, I'm looking at historical data, so this is how much we actually spent in that year, not how much was projected in a budget. You just can't possibly explain the massive discrepancy between those numbers with anything other than "The Democrats went on a spending spree the moment they took control of the government in 2009".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Apr 13 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
The goal isn't about balancing the budget (although that's obviously an important consideration). The goal is to reduce the tax burden of the government on the people.
Heh, glad to hear you at least admit the mantra is a bunch of nonsense and is all about protecting the wealthy from paying taxes.

gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
I feel what it really comes down to are the goals.

-Republicans want tax cuts. Best way to do that? Cut spending on social programs to make cuts for certain portions of the population more palatable.
-Democrats want social programs. Best way to do that? Raise taxes on a certain portion of the population using rhetoric to make it more palatable.
Absolutely correct.
Ahahahaha. Man, you must be off today. First you admit that Republicans don't actually want to balance the budget, they just want to pay less in taxes. Now you're admitting that Republicans cut spending on those who need it most so that the rich can pay even less in taxes? I almost don't even need to respond, you make my own points for me.

I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.

Ahhh, throw the poor into a pile to prop yourself that much higher up. Stay classy, Republicans.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#59 Apr 13 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Just to be absolutely clear about something, because I run into this confusion when presenting budget numbers sometimes:

The numbers I'm listing are historical budget numbers. These are generated after the year is over and all the spending and revenue receipts are calculated. That's why the tables only go to 2010.

These are not the numbers from budget bills passed the prior year.
These are not budget projections over the course of the year.
These are the actual amounts the government spent and took in revenue.


I use these numbers because they cut through the typical BS that happens when people rely on projections and proposed budgets for their numbers. Those are wonderful if we want to know what people think will happen. But I'm more interested in seeing what actually did happen. Learn from the past to make better decisions in the future. Shocking concept, I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Apr 13 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I should stop...
Ha, my second deployment was to Iraq as Garrison MP. I was the Desk Sergeant on this particular day, and we got a call from the Flightline. Now, the Flightline is where the C1--s land and take off, shipping troops and equipment in and out. This area was, and I can't stress this enough, AIR FORCE ONLY. We, the soldiers tasked with policing the base, were not allowed on the Flightline. We had no jurisdiction on the Flightline. They have their own equivalent, who work the Flightline; Security Forces. We got generals calling us complaining that we stopped by the Flightline. I can't stress enough that we were not allowed anywhere near this mythical utopia.

Saying that, one day one of their knuckleheads drove a forklift into one of their T-Walls, managed to knock it down and destroy a generator. Now, guess who got the call to do the case on that? Security Forces called us and told us that we needed to come onto the Flightline and do the paperwork. I took the phone from the RTO, and the reason they gave us on why we needed to do their job was, and I swear to whatever and every God you can think of, "We're not equipped to do it." I went personally and got in their faces. I made the little SF E4 cry.

And that's the story of how I lost E6 for the first time. Smiley: laugh


Yea, I somehow hurt a Tech SGT's feeling by asking him to do his job. I got a word back from a former NCO that the Flight God Wing Commander said that I wasn't able to talk to the TSgt directly. I'm like WTF?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#61 Apr 13 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He said that last year too!
Erm... no? Are you just making this up as you go along? The tax cuts weren't set to expire a year prior.
Huh? They were set to expire at the end of last year.

And he extended them for one year. He only extended them once. I've no idea what other point you thought you were making.

Quote:
Do you need a map and both hands to figure this out? Perhaps crayons and finger puppet?

It would be a refreshing change from giant text blocks of made up Gbaji-babble that says nothing so, sure... bring on the finger puppets and crayons.

Quote:
I'm sure they got their starting numbers from the CBO (my numbers are from the CBO too!). I'm curious where they got their end numbers.

Well, let us all know when you find out because your giant block of rambling completely failed to address the actual sources of any of the numbers. Which was sort of the whole point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Apr 13 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Flight God Wing Commander
Smiley: laugh Damn, that about sums it up perfectly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Apr 13 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The goal isn't about balancing the budget (although that's obviously an important consideration). The goal is to reduce the tax burden of the government on the people.
Heh, glad to hear you at least admit the mantra is a bunch of nonsense and is all about protecting the wealthy from paying taxes.


The wealthy aren't the only people who pay taxes. We are *all* affected by the tax burden. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll make more rational decisions about government tax policy.

Quote:
First you admit that Republicans don't actually want to balance the budget, they just want to pay less in taxes.


We want everyone to pay less in taxes. Why is that bad?

Quote:
Now you're admitting that Republicans cut spending on those who need it most so that the rich can pay even less in taxes?


Again: We all pay taxes in one way or another. My belief is that higher taxes reduce economic prosperity, which means fewer jobs and more people in need in the first place. Are you employed? How much does your boss pay in taxes? Now engage your brain and think about how his tax rate might affect your (or the next guy looking for a jobs) fortunes.


I also happen to believe that government not only shouldn't be in the charity business (with our money no less!), but is very bad at it to boot. And, if only we didn't have to tax so much so we could spend so much on helping the hungry and the poor, there would be more money in the hands of private citizens to help out those who are truly in need and not just those scamming the system.


And that's before even getting to the more philosophical argument that taxation is a seizure of the fruits of one's labor and is thus an infringement of some of our most basic rights and thus should be done as sparingly as possible.


Quote:
I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.


Jesus encouraged his followers to steal money from others? I thought he encouraged charity? You do understand that charity isn't charity unless the person with wealth chooses to help others with it, right? So if we take this analogy to its logical conclusion, we could argue that by taking the wealth from people, you are taking away their ability to help the poor and thus turning them into bad people.

It's the act of giving of your own property that counts.

Quote:
Ahhh, throw the poor into a pile to prop yourself that much higher up. Stay classy, Republicans.


No one ever becomes "not poor" under the alternative though. So the only ultimate result is an entire society of people who can't support themselves without government help. How does that make the world a better place? It might be brave and new, but absolutely not better.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Apr 13 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And he extended them for one year. He only extended them once. I've no idea what other point you thought you were making.


huh? You said he has promised to let the bush tax cuts on "the rich" expire. He made the same promise last year and failed to do so. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be here. Maybe you just misunderstood me or something. I was talking about the fact that he already tried to do what he's promising to do now, so I'm not sure how much import that promise really holds.


Quote:
Well, let us all know when you find out because your giant block of rambling completely failed to address the actual sources of any of the numbers. Which was sort of the whole point.


I don't know what their calculations were Joph. That's the whole point. I'm showing you my numbers, from the CBO historical budget data tables and doing my own math and just not seeing how they could possibly make the claim they are making. Now, given that I don't happen to have the NYT math calculations handy, I can only speculate as to how they arrived at their numbers. I'm guessing that it had a lot to do with wishful thinking and what they wanted their readers to believe.

But you're free to assume otherwise I suppose. Sucker!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Apr 13 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't know what their calculations were Joph. That's the whole point. I'm showing you my numbers...

...with no context about the genesis of those debts/deficits but, hey!, why would that matter?

Oh wait... where they came from was sort of the entire point.
Quote:
what they wanted their readers to believe.

When you don't have a real argument, you can always cry about the media instead. You'll always have that.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 9:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Apr 13 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jesus encouraged his followers to steal money from others? I thought he encouraged charity? You do understand that charity isn't charity unless the person with wealth chooses to help others with it, right? So if we take this analogy to its logical conclusion, we could argue that by taking the wealth from people, you are taking away their ability to help the poor and thus turning them into bad people.
Matthew 19:23 wrote:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[a] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
James 2:14-17 wrote:
My brothers, what use is it for a man to say he has faith when he does nothing to show it? Can that faith save him? Suppose a brother or a sister is in rags with not enough food for the day, and one of you says, 'Good luck to you, keep yourselves warm, and have plenty to eat', but does nothing to supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So with faith; if it does not lead to action, it is in itself a lifeless thing."
Luke 14:13 wrote:
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.
Timothy 6:17 wrote:
17 As for the rich in the present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.
Just the few I vaguely remembered and looked up (possibly) correct wording for. I don't remember anything about it being voluntary, but again I am a lapsed Catholic for like 15 years. Now, as I'm sure it'll get spun around, and I'll admit there could be passages that do say it needs to be voluntary. I just can't remember any of 'em. Everything I remember made it sound pretty mandatory from a bible point of view.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 11:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Apr 13 2011 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.


Jesus encouraged his followers to steal money from others? I thought he encouraged charity? You do understand that charity isn't charity unless the person with wealth chooses to help others with it, right? So if we take this analogy to its logical conclusion, we could argue that by taking the wealth from people, you are taking away their ability to help the poor and thus turning them into bad people.

It's the act of giving of your own property that counts.
If you think taxes = stealing, move to the United Arab Emirates. They pay 0%.

If you want to live in the US (or just about every other country in the world), then you agree that taxes are a necessity, the point of debate is the level.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 10:09pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#68 Apr 13 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
bsphil wrote:

If you want to live in the US (or just about every other country in the world), then you agree that taxes are a necessity, the point of debate is the level.


Tell that to GE.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#69 Apr 13 2011 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In terms of most spending? Yes.


So what is your point then? Bush is responsible for 1.4 trillion dollars of appropriated funds, (see Iraq and Afghanistan Wars). That are still being paid for by the American People. Regardless if Obama is President, or not those are Bush Presidency appropriations. Of curse if Obama shut up shop in both Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow to stop spending money there, you would call him out on that as well. Further more the Stimulus (the original) was a Bush policy, the secondary stimulus plan was an Obama policy, which primarily bailed out the automotive sector. Instead of just throwing money at wall street with no strings, the Obama stimulus has strings, specifically regarding GM, in which the American Public own 60% of GM Stock,to which they sold down to 26% for 13 billion.

GM has paid the loan portion off (as of last year) and the American public still own stock valued at 45B, (CDN public with 8.1B)

Where is the Wall street money bush gave out? Where did that money go?

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 12:10am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#70 Apr 13 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The TARP financial sector bailout and initial auto maker bailout was under Bush. What's commonly known as the "stimulus" was under Obama as well as the second auto bailout.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Apr 13 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Meh terminology aside, the Obama automotive bailout and stimulus have strings, you can follow, the Wall street bailout did not. Those are still funds that you are paying for, and Obama is not the only one on the hook for it. Gbajis hero Bush, is as much a culprit (if not more since his money seems to have vanished).

Gbaji argued about spending, in 2010 (obama's first fiscal budget) spending has decreased.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#72 Apr 13 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm just correcting you now before Gbaji has a flip-out later :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Apr 13 2011 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It always tickles me when people who aren't wealthy fixate on their pretty insignificant tax payments which are also a part of their civic duty.

I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation and you won't soon see me complaining about it, ESPECIALLY when it's the wealthy who are being taxed more for higher spending on social programs. Short-sighted money who can't grasp how a wider income gap actually harms them and then **** on the peons' stimulating social programs are supremely irritating. It reminds me of MMO noobs who overemphasize hitting big numbers without regard for their damage per second.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#74 Apr 13 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Also, lolgaxe, how could you have missed this one?

Quote:
22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
24 Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marveled at his answer, and held their peace.


Jesus' official answer: When the US govt. wants you to give ITS money back with ITS name on it, Jesus says you render that **** right up UNTO them.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#75 Apr 14 2011 at 3:47 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Kachi wrote:
I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation
How do you figure that?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#76 Apr 14 2011 at 3:51 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
Gbaji,

Did you overlook my post in regards to you?

Kachi wrote:
It always tickles me when people who aren't wealthy fixate on their pretty insignificant tax payments which are also a part of their civic duty.

I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation and you won't soon see me complaining about it, ESPECIALLY when it's the wealthy who are being taxed more for higher spending on social programs. Short-sighted money who can't grasp how a wider income gap actually harms them and then **** on the peons' stimulating social programs are supremely irritating. It reminds me of MMO noobs who overemphasize hitting big numbers without regard for their damage per second.


I feel you on that. I lose nearly $1,000 a month. :(
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#77 Apr 14 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji, can you normalize those numbers so they reflect the rize and fall of the GDP? It's pretty meaningless to post a percentage of a changing number. 62% of 100 is a lot less then 34% of 1000.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#78 Apr 14 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
In terms of most spending? Yes.


So what is your point then? Bush is responsible for 1.4 trillion dollars of appropriated funds, (see Iraq and Afghanistan Wars). That are still being paid for by the American People.


It's amazing that no matter how many times this is debunked, some people keep repeating it. That's not how appropriations work. Or how budgets work. The yearly costs for those wars are included in the final budget tallies of those years. Just because funds are pre-allocated in a budget bill does not mean that we don't account for them in that years budget calculations. This is exactly why I always use the CBO historical budget data sheets. Those include all the appropriations that occurred over the course of the year in question. It is how much we actually spent over the year, not just what was projected.

No part of the deficits we're running right now is the result of pushing the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to later years. The only effect we could apply would be the deficits from those years and the degree to which they affected the debt. But as I've shown previously, that debt was stable and sustainable right up until the mortgage crisis caused a meltdown in 2008. They are not why our spending is so ridiculously high right now and it is dishonest to suggest that they are.


Quote:
Regardless if Obama is President, or not those are Bush Presidency appropriations.


And they were accounted for in the deficits during those years. They do not hide for years and then magically appear. What process do you think would cause that to happen? Engage the brain and think about this. It's a lie. Stop repeating it.

Quote:
Of curse if Obama shut up shop in both Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow to stop spending money there, you would call him out on that as well.


The amounts we're spending on those things are absolutely tiny in comparison to the other spending increases in recent years. That spending has gone down over time. Perhaps we should be looking at what spending has increased? 4 years ago we were spending more on Iraq and Afghanistan than we are today, and yet the deficit was relatively small (like 1/8th the size of today) and the debt ratio was shrinking. Today, the deficit is huge and our debt ratio is out of control.

Clearly, this had nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:
Further more the Stimulus (the original) was a Bush policy, the secondary stimulus plan was an Obama policy, which primarily bailed out the automotive sector. Instead of just throwing money at wall street with no strings, the Obama stimulus has strings, specifically regarding GM, in which the American Public own 60% of GM Stock,to which they sold down to 26% for 13 billion.


Yeah. What Joph said. You clearly don't have even a basic understanding of what happened.

Quote:
GM has paid the loan portion off (as of last year) and the American public still own stock valued at 45B, (CDN public with 8.1B)

Where is the Wall street money bush gave out? Where did that money go?


Hahahah! That's funny. You do understand that the money "handed to wall street" has actually been paid back, with interest? The only parts of TARP which is still in the red is the money handed out for teacher pensions and for the auto industry. So basically, they bailed out the evil big businesses and got their money back, and they bailed out some union run organizations as well and are still waiting to get that back.

Um... But all told TARP was more or less a success. It did prevent a whole slew of bankruptcies and did allow companies to recover and was more or less deficit neutral over time (although the payments we got back were unfortunately swallowed up in more debt incurred in 2009 and 2010 so we didn't really see it). The disasters were the Stimulus bill passed in 2009, and numerous follow up bills and bits of "recovery targeted" legislation and amendments slipped into all sorts of things over those two years. Those have cumulatively not just spent trillions of dollars in the short term with nearly zero effect, but have in many cases committed us to continued spending going forward.

Even many parts of the stimulus which are theoretically "one time" expenses are likely to continue to cost us. That's because the stimulus bill didn't just inject money into various segments of the economy in an attempt to help things along, but rather created "systems" for creating government subsidized work projects and funding. If history is any indicator, those programs wont be magically shut down when the initial stimulus money runs out. Once people and businesses become dependent on those funds (which they inevitably will), they'll cry about ever cutting them. We'll be looking at extensions for these new "necessary programs" sometime around 2019.

Maybe we'll have the will to cut them then, but maybe we wont. In any case, his method of dealing with a short term problem has saddled us with both short term debt (and lots of it) and long term spending commitments. And that was all 100% the Dems doing. The GOP opposed this stuff every step of the way.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 4:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Apr 14 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Gbaji, can you normalize those numbers so they reflect the rize and fall of the GDP? It's pretty meaningless to post a percentage of a changing number. 62% of 100 is a lot less then 34% of 1000.


I already posted the latter portion of that timeframe in dollars rather than percent of GDP. I'll throw it in here again for you:

 
Year    Revenue         Spending        Deficit         Debt         Debt% 
2006	2,406.9		2,655.1		-434.5		4,829.0      36.5 
2007	2,568.0		2,728.7		-342.2		5,035.1      36.2 
2008	2,524.0		2,982.5		-641.8		5,803.1      40.3 
2009	2,105.0		3,517.7		-1,549.7	7,544.7	     53.3 
2010	2,161.7		3,455.8		-1,371.1	9,017.8      62.1 


As you can see, the huge jump in spending in 2009 and 2010 is not an illusion created because of falling GDP. Those are "real" spending increases. And they're pretty massive. You can also see that about 400B of our deficit delta can be accounted for as lost revenue from the economic conditions of today, but the remainder is all spending increases. You're free to do your own math, but it's hard to escape the numbers on this. There's just no way to blame the last two years deficits on taxes or even mostly on the economy. Spending is clearly a huge factor.

And while I try to stick to historical budget numbers when making comparisons, the projected budget for 2011 is supposed to be 3.8 Trillion dollars, with 1.4 to 1.5 Trillion in deficit. Which, if it bears out, is interesting because it means that revenues (in terms of dollars at least) will have returned to just about 2006-2007 levels, but we'll still have a massive deficit anyway. Obviously, there's no perfect way to determine how those numbers will compare straight across with the historical ones until they become historical themselves, but it's clear that spending is still increasing and it's killing us and blunting the effect of what economic recovery is happening.


And I'll point out again for the record that during this entire time (and going back 10 years), we have not changed the tax rates in any significant way. All of the revenue losses can be attributed to economic downturn. The spending increases though? One time stimulus spending simply can't account for what we're seeing here. The trend is upwards even in the absence of additional "new" spending, meaning that we're looking at programmatic spending increases which are unsustainable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Apr 14 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
All of the revenue losses can be attributed to economic downturn. The spending increases though? One time stimulus spending simply can't account for what we're seeing here.
Except it does. The change in spending can absolutely be traced to stimulus spending. That's basic economic theory, too. Spending increases and tax breaks on workers in bad times, spending cuts and tax increases in good times. That's the government's role in the economy, to lessen the severity and pain from the regular down cycles of the economy and pay for it with the regular up cycles of the economy. We've tried the system with no regulation and no intervention when the house of cards falls apart, and it's disastrous for the average citizen. Reaganomics is **** get over it already.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 7:47pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#81 Apr 14 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
All of the revenue losses can be attributed to economic downturn. The spending increases though? One time stimulus spending simply can't account for what we're seeing here.
Except it does.


How do you figure? The spending in 2010 was only about $60B less than the spending in 2009. By far the biggest stimulus spending was done in 2009. If everything else stayed the same, we should have expected spending to drop by 300-400B dollars in 2010. That it didn't shows us that either we spent as much on "one time" spending in 2010 as in 2009 *or* that programmatic ongoing spending increases passed in 2009 (and which took effect starting in 2010) offset what should have been a reduced spending load.

The projected spending for next year absolutely suggests that they dumped a bunch of ongoing spending in there in addition to the large "one time" stuff.

Quote:
The change in spending can absolutely be traced to stimulus spending.


Again, only if that spending increase only showed up for a year, then tapered off in following years. That's the expected spending change pattern from "one time" expenses. But that's not what we're seeing here at all. We saw spending spike up in 2009. Then stay about the same in 2010. And now it's projected to increase some more in 2011. How many years does spending have to stay at this level before we can say that it's not just a "one time" thing?


Quote:
That's basic economic theory, too. Spending increases and tax breaks on workers in bad times, spending cuts and tax increases in good times.


I don't agree with that economic theory, but even if that's the case, then the Dems aren't following it at all. They increase spending and taxes in good times, and then they increase spending and taxes *more* in bad times. To be fair, the GOP cuts taxes and spending in good times and bad, so they're flip sides of the same coin, I suppose. I guess I'm just not sure where you got this theory that no one seems to follow.

You're basically arguing that we should run ourselves into massive debt when the economy is already struggling, effectively making it harder to recover, and when things go well, raise taxes for no apparent reason, but cut services at the same time. Do you think that the government running a surplus in good times is a good idea? I don't. I think in good times are when we should let the economy run free (ie: leave as much money in the hands of the people as possible). When things aren't so great, we can spend some money, but it should focus on addressing the core problem and not just treating the symptoms.

I just think that raising taxes because revenues are down as a result of an economic downturn is an absolutely moronic idea. Most economic downturns occur because there isn't enough money flowing around through enough hands in the private economy. Raising taxes only reduces the amount of that money flow and will at the least slow down any recovery.


Quote:
That's the government's role in the economy, to lessen the severity and pain from the regular down cycles of the economy and pay for it with the regular up cycles of the economy.


Again, only if you think that government is the best place to put our money when the economy is going well. I disagree. I also don't think that the left would *ever* allow you to do this because the second you had a surplus they could get their hands on, they'll find things to spend it on. This is actually why the whole "Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit" rhetoric exists. They aren't angry that he turned a surplus into a deficit. That's exactly what they would have done with it. They are upset because he did so by giving that money back to the people in the form of tax cuts instead of spending it on social programs as they would have done.


Neither party would follow your theory.


Quote:
We've tried the system with no regulation and no intervention when the house of cards falls apart, and it's disastrous for the average citizen. Reaganomics is bullsh*t, get over it already.


People keep saying this, and yet the only thing that ever seems to pull us out of economic troubles is conservative economic principles. I suppose this is more: "repeat this often enough and people will repeat it some more and then eventually even more people will repeat it, and then maybe someday so many people will believe it that it doesn't matter if it's true".

We've never had "no regulation" or "no intervention". The actual key difference between liberal and conservative economic policies is that the right will use both demand and supply side tools as needed, while the left will not use the supply side tools. There is never a single answer that is always the right answer. Those on the right understand this. Those on the left do, but can't allow themselves to act on that because it undermines their social agenda. It's hard to get people to continue to support the idea that the only way they can succeed is to support a government policy of taking from the rich to give to everyone else if too many people see how important the rich having that money is to building and maintaining a healthy growing economy.

Supply side economic tools rely on allowing the profit motive to encourage those with money to invest it in ways which increase employment and provide us all with better products for less cost. The left can't afford to allow people to think that this works, or their whole ideology comes crashing down.


Never mind that it does work. They have to make sure people don't believe it does. And if that means that we spend a decade wallowing at the bottom of a recessionary pit looking up and wondering how to get out? Well, they have the big picture to worry about. And if the people suffer, it's an opportunity for them to blame it all on the rich, so it's all good, right?

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 7:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Apr 14 2011 at 11:27 PM Rating: Good
I heard Boehner call the plan to replace Medicare with a voucher system a "transformation". I suppose it's transforming it from something into nothing...
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#83 Apr 15 2011 at 12:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation
How do you figure that?


I'm not going to go into my financial situation, but when I say "probably" I am merely making a statistical assumption about the amount of taxes the rest of you will pay. How I figure that is between me and the IRS.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#84 Apr 15 2011 at 1:59 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Gbaji, can you normalize those numbers so they reflect the rize and fall of the GDP? It's pretty meaningless to post a percentage of a changing number. 62% of 100 is a lot less then 34% of 1000.


I already posted the latter portion of that timeframe in dollars rather than percent of GDP. I'll throw it in here again for you:

 
Year    Revenue         Spending        Deficit         Debt         Debt% 
2006	2,406.9		2,655.1		-434.5		4,829.0      36.5 
2007	2,568.0		2,728.7		-342.2		5,035.1      36.2 
2008	2,524.0		2,982.5		-641.8		5,803.1      40.3 
2009	2,105.0		3,517.7		-1,549.7	7,544.7	     53.3 
2010	2,161.7		3,455.8		-1,371.1	9,017.8      62.1 


As you can see, the huge jump in spending in 2009 and 2010 is not an illusion created because of falling GDP. Those are "real" spending increases. And they're pretty massive. You can also see that about 400B of our deficit delta can be accounted for as lost revenue from the economic conditions of today, but the remainder is all spending increases. You're free to do your own math, but it's hard to escape the numbers on this. There's just no way to blame the last two years deficits on taxes or even mostly on the economy. Spending is clearly a huge factor.

And while I try to stick to historical budget numbers when making comparisons, the projected budget for 2011 is supposed to be 3.8 Trillion dollars, with 1.4 to 1.5 Trillion in deficit. Which, if it bears out, is interesting because it means that revenues (in terms of dollars at least) will have returned to just about 2006-2007 levels, but we'll still have a massive deficit anyway. Obviously, there's no perfect way to determine how those numbers will compare straight across with the historical ones until they become historical themselves, but it's clear that spending is still increasing and it's killing us and blunting the effect of what economic recovery is happening.


And I'll point out again for the record that during this entire time (and going back 10 years), we have not changed the tax rates in any significant way. All of the revenue losses can be attributed to economic downturn. The spending increases though? One time stimulus spending simply can't account for what we're seeing here. The trend is upwards even in the absence of additional "new" spending, meaning that we're looking at programmatic spending increases which are unsustainable.


Can you please address my post?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#85 Apr 15 2011 at 3:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Kachi wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation
How do you figure that?


I'm not going to go into my financial situation, but when I say "probably" I am merely making a statistical assumption about the amount of taxes the rest of you will pay. How I figure that is between me and the IRS.
A bit presumptuous aren't we then?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#86 Apr 15 2011 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I heard on the radio today that in 1835 we fully paid off the national debt. That was the only year we've ever been debt free. The following year began the longest depression in US history. Paying off the debt didn't cause the depression itself, but poor management of the surplus by the states did. Interesting history.
thank you NPR
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#87 Apr 15 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How do you figure? The spending in 2010 was only about $60B less than the spending in 2009. By far the biggest stimulus spending was done in 2009. If everything else stayed the same, we should have expected spending to drop by 300-400B dollars in 2010.

You...

You have no idea how the spending was allocated. You should probably just stop talking because every post just makes you look stupider for your assumptions and less of a credible source no matter how many long rambling paragraphs you type.

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 7:24am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Apr 15 2011 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,948 posts
Interestingly enough, Jon Stewart mocked Obama for this exact topic last night on the Daily Show. Unlike gbaji, however, he also talked about the plan (and apparently Stewart actually listened to the speech, as he didn't try to make the ridiculous claim that it's all about raising taxes). This came two days after ripping parts of Ryan's plan, especially how changing Medicare was exactly the same idea as "Obamacare," and how cutting Medicare/Medicaid would have almost the same effect as letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

I need to watch the Daily Show more often - I think maybe that was the fifth episode I've ever seen!
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#89 Apr 15 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
The sad realization that the only real unbiased news comes from a channel dedicated to comedy.

I has it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Apr 15 2011 at 4:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How do you figure? The spending in 2010 was only about $60B less than the spending in 2009. By far the biggest stimulus spending was done in 2009. If everything else stayed the same, we should have expected spending to drop by 300-400B dollars in 2010.

You...

You have no idea how the spending was allocated. You should probably just stop talking because every post just makes you look stupider for your assumptions and less of a credible source no matter how many long rambling paragraphs you type.


What part of my explaining at length that various spending bills (including the stimulus, but not limited to it) in 2009 included a combination of direct appropriations *and* programmatic spending schedules for future years. That's kinda been one of my key points here, that the spending wasn't "one time", but is ongoing.

My follow up point is that it's clear that the graph you presented (which I've seen many times before btw), clearly doesn't tell us the whole picture, or we should expect to see significant spending decreases starting this year. We're not, are we? In fact, what we've seen historically is spending jump in 2009, then stay flat in 2010 (but it appears smaller relative to GDP because GDP started growing again). And now in 2011, when the spending for stimulus should be starting to taper, we're seeing it increase again. As I keep saying, there's more spending going on than just the one time stuff the Dems keep claiming was necessary to save the economy. They used the emergency to spend some one time stuff, but also used it to slip in a **** of a lot of ongoing expenditures that we can't afford.

That is abundantly clear from the data totals. Funny how the totals contradict the table you linked to, but you accept the table as showing us the whole picture anyway. I guess that study was right after all!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Apr 15 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
[My follow up point is that it's clear that the graph you presented (which I've seen many times before btw), clearly doesn't tell us the whole picture, or we should expect to see significant spending decreases starting this year. We're not, are we?

So you've seen that graph lots of times and... just never actually looked at it? Most of the difference between 2010 and 2011 is in tax breaks. The difference between the rest is ~$50B. Why in God's name did you think we'd see a $350B drop between 2009 and 2010?

And why would you say the biggest stimulus spending "by far" was in 2009? It wasn't. Not even close.

Look, you should really just quit while you're behind. Attempting to lecture us all about how spending bills work is just embarrassing to read from you. You're wrong no matter how hard you try and spin it and continually getting basic facts wrong doesn't do much to help you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Apr 15 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Can you please address my post?


Could have re-stated the question instead of making me search for it. I'm assuming you're referring to this post:

Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
it's not about blaming parties. it's about where the deficit came from. I'm going to show you some historical budget numbers to illustrate what I'm talking about:

There's something that I don't understand, because I don't much about politics. I'm currently looking at Bill O'Reilly (Very Conservative) and Sen. Kucinich (Dem) gave different different numbers accrediting Pres. Clinton as setting up the country with success with less than $2 trillion (?) in debt and that Pres. Bush increased it by a trillion and now Pres Obama has done the same.. So what am I missing?


Frankly, I'm still not sure what your question was, much less how it related to the data I was presenting, or the point I was making, but I'll take a stab at it anyway (and give a lesson on debt calculations in the process. Yay!).

The problem is that "debt" can be calculated several different ways. National debt is the total amount of outstanding treasury bills. Some people will use that number as though it has something to do with how far "in debt" we are, but that's not really accurate (and it makes the issue confusing because people are using different numbers). National debt comes in two parts: Intergovernmental Debt and Debt Held by Public.

Intergovernmental Debt is not "real". It's an accounting measure. Each year, the government passes a budget. That budget includes funds that are mandated (non-discretionary), and estimates of discretionary spending for various areas of government spending. This money is pre-allocated because a budget bill is law. When it's passed, the government must provide those programs with that money. This is most relevant for non-discretionary spending areas, since those represent past laws which mandate specific spending for various things. So you might have a federal budget for "school lunch programs" (just an arbitrary example btw). And we might have passed a law which mandates that this program must receive 100 Million in funding each year. But what happens if we only spend 80M? Well, the government accounting office periodically audits government programs and compares their projected spending (or mandated spending) to their actual spending. And when there is a surplus, it takes the money out of the programs account and puts it in the treasury. But since that money is given to that program by law, they can only de-allocate the money by law. We can't pass a law every time this is done (literally thousands of times each year), so what the treasury does is put treasury bills into the account for that program in the amount of the surplus. That way, the treasury owes that program that money, so it didn't really take it. In the meantime though, we can spend that money on other things (like costs that pop up throughout the year that we didn't anticipate when we passed that years budget).

The point is that it's not "real debt" because all we did was move it from one place to another. The program was over budgeted in the first place. It didn't need the money, and next years budget will allocate another batch of funds, so it's never going to miss it. It's just like shifting money from your checking account to your savings account. You didn't actually lose any money, and you don't "owe yourself" money. The need for printing of treasury bills is purely because of the legality of the move, it doesn't represent money we actually owe. Now obviously, if we spend that money it counts as money that was spent. But it was budgeted to be spent, so aside from an accounting measure, it doesn't affect the total amount of spending at all.

Over time, the amount of intergovernmental debt can become quite large (in fact, during the middle of the Bush administration it accounted for about 2/3rds of the national debt). So congress periodically passes an accounting bill which erases this debt from the books (remember when I said it can only be done by passing a law?). Of course, the money isn't real, and the debt isn't real, so this is all a formality. Of course, some ignorant people will inevitably claim that the government is cheating somehow by just "erasing debt" by passing a law to make it disappear. The reality is that there never was any actual debt in the first place, so there's nothing untoward going on.


Debt Held by Public is real debt. When the government actually spends money it doesn't have, it must borrow it. So after borrowing money it already has from programs that don't need it (see above), if there still isn't enough revenue coming in to cover costs, the government has the treasury print up treasury bills and offer them for sale to the public (this process actually goes on all the time, but I'm trying to simplify things here). The public (which is anyone *not* the US government) buys the bills. This is how we managed deficits. If the government spends 200B more than it took in revenue that year, it must sell 200B worth of treasury bills to cover the difference. It gets the money it needs to operate, and the people who paid that money get a bill that will hopefully pay them back with interest later.

This debt has to be paid off eventually (with interest). Congress can't just erase this with a stroke of the pen. This is the debt figure I've been talking about. You can look at it simplistically as the cumulative value of all past deficits. It's not quite that simple since we're constantly paying off those debts to those holding t-bills and then borrowing more, but you can view it as just a cumulative number since it more or less works out that way. What this means is that if you run a 200B deficit in one year, your total debt will increase by 200B (both national debt and "debt held by public" obviously).

It's debt held by public that is the problem. If that debt gets too high, then the nation may suffer negative effects, just as if you borrow too much. Of course the question is "how much is too much?". This is why the only sane way to measure that debt is to compare it to GDP. Since GDP represents the total "size" of the nations economy, it's the best yardstick to measure the total public debt.


I have no clue why numbers given by various pundits may differ. I can only show you the historical data I use and go from there. The numbers I presented come from the CBO and since they are historical, they are accurate (ie: not projections or predictions). These are accountings of how much we actually spent and how much we borrowed, and how much we owed on that debt at the end of each year. IMO, it's the best method to view government spending trends, and that's why I use them.


Was there a specific question you had? As I just said, my position and opinions on this issue are based on looking at the actual data from the cbo and doing math. I don't just listen to what some pundit said (in fact, I generally ignore their numbers because they are almost always wrong on both sides). I look at the actual data and make up my own mind. And what I'm doing in this thread is posting those numbers and attempting to show how they don't match up with the claims being made right now. It's why I don't put stock in pundits. They tend to focus on one set of numbers that benefit their point of view while ignoring the "big picture". What I'm showing is that big picture. No cherry picking. No clever math. Nothing even particularly complex. Here's what we spent. Here's what we got in revenue. Here's what we borrowed. Here's the resulting debt figure. From that you should be able to draw some easy conclusions.


At least I hope people can. To me, these numbers aren't that complex.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Apr 15 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
So you might have a federal budget for "school lunch programs" (just an arbitrary example btw). And we might have passed a law which mandates that this program must receive 100 Million in funding each year. But what happens if we only spend 80M? Well, the government accounting office periodically audits government programs and compares their projected spending (or mandated spending) to their actual spending. And when there is a surplus, it takes the money out of the programs account and puts it in the treasury. But since that money is given to that program by law, they can only de-allocate the money by law. We can't pass a law every time this is done (literally thousands of times each year), so what the treasury does is put treasury bills into the account for that program in the amount of the surplus.

Amusingly enough, this sort of thing made up a not-insignificant percentage of the "budget cuts" recently passed. There wasn't a real saving, they just took unspent money out of various programs (and lowered the judgment cap on some criminal liability fund). For example, $1.7B in unspent 2010 Census funds that now have no home, $3.5B in CHIP funds that weren't needed and $2.5B in highway funds that were for projects that were ruled ineligible due to various reasons. In total, the $38.5B "cuts" actually cut less than half of that in real spending.

Edit: And speaking of said budget, Obama signed it this afternoon and issued a signing statement saying "Haha... no" to the bit about the "czars".

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 6:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Apr 15 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
[My follow up point is that it's clear that the graph you presented (which I've seen many times before btw), clearly doesn't tell us the whole picture, or we should expect to see significant spending decreases starting this year. We're not, are we?

So you've seen that graph lots of times and... just never actually looked at it? Most of the difference between 2010 and 2011 is in tax breaks. The difference between the rest is ~$50B. Why in God's name did you think we'd see a $350B drop between 2009 and 2010?


Um... Wow! This chart doesn't say what you seem to think it does Joph.

I didn't say we'd see a $350B drop between 2009 and 2010. I honestly have no clue where you're getting this stuff. Are you just making things up to argue against now?

What I have been saying is that the stimulus and other "one time" (or short time at least) spending programs clearly don't tell us the whole picture. It's why just looking at this graph by itself is meaningless. The historical data doesn't match.

If that graph told us the whole picture, then spending should have gone up between 2009 and 2010. But it didn't. It stayed flat. And spending should have gone down between 2010 and 2011. But it didn't. It's projected to increase pretty dramatically again. So. That graph, while pretty, obviously doesn't tell us anything about the total spending going on. Which is what I've been saying all along.


Quote:
And why would you say the biggest stimulus spending "by far" was in 2009? It wasn't. Not even close.


Because I'm not focusing in on just one bill Joph. I'm looking at how much we actually spent. How about you explain to me how our spending increased by $550B dollars between 2008 and 2009? If that spending increase isn't accounted for in that one bill you found a pretty graph for, then the obvious conclusion is that that one bill doesn't tell us the whole story. Because no amount of pretty graphs changes the fact that spending increased by $550B dollars between 2008 and 2009.

Since we can assume that any massive spending increase during that time frame was in some way related to "stimulus" (whether in that one bill or not), my statement is correct. I'm just not getting caught up on the exact laws passed which approved the spending. I'm looking at how much was spent and when. It's just amazing to me that I can show you historical charts of what we actually spent and you'd attempt to refute them with a silly graph showing projected spending for one spending bill.


Really? Haven't I just spent several posts now talking about how projections are nice, but they are no substitute for going back after the fact and looking at how much we actually spent, and actually taxed, and actually borrowed?

Way to totally fail there Joph!

Quote:
Attempting to lecture us all about how spending bills work is just embarrassing to read from you. You're wrong no matter how hard you try and spin it and continually getting basic facts wrong doesn't do much to help you.


I'm not talking about how spending bills work. I don't really care about that. I'm looking at the big picture. I'm looking at how much we actually spent. How the **** can that not be more relevant than the silly little stuff you're trying to argue? I don't care what bills the spending was in, whether it was appropriated, or allocated, or budgeted. At the end of the day, what matters is that our spending increased dramatically once the Dems took control, and instead of it dropping back down as we'd expect if it was just a temporary measure resulting from the economic meltdown of 2008, it appears to be continuing to increase.


And that it itself only part of a larger point showing that tax rates didn't go down during this time period. Cute charts aside, no tax law changes were passed. Thus, the problems were in right now are not the result of tax cuts, but are because of spending increases. Thus the idea that we should solve this problem with tax increases *and* spending cuts is ludicrous. We should solve it with spending cuts. Period. Anything else simply rewards the Democrats for racking up spending and putting us in this situation in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Apr 15 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
So you might have a federal budget for "school lunch programs" (just an arbitrary example btw). And we might have passed a law which mandates that this program must receive 100 Million in funding each year. But what happens if we only spend 80M? Well, the government accounting office periodically audits government programs and compares their projected spending (or mandated spending) to their actual spending. And when there is a surplus, it takes the money out of the programs account and puts it in the treasury. But since that money is given to that program by law, they can only de-allocate the money by law. We can't pass a law every time this is done (literally thousands of times each year), so what the treasury does is put treasury bills into the account for that program in the amount of the surplus.

Amusingly enough, this sort of thing made up a not-insignificant percentage of the "budget cuts" recently passed. There wasn't a real saving, they just took unspent money out of various programs (and lowered the judgment cap on some criminal liability fund). For example, $1.7B in unspent 2010 Census funds that now have no home, $3.5B in CHIP funds that weren't needed and $2.5B in highway funds that were for projects that were ruled ineligible due to various reasons. In total, the $38.5B "cuts" actually cut less than half of that in real spending.


Um... Assuming they are actually decreasing the budgeted amounts for those programs though, it *does* count as actual savings though. While the money wasn't being spent in those programs, had you paid attention you'd have realized that in past years the money was being re-allocated via intergovernmental transfers into the treasury and then appropriated for other things. By not putting that money in those programs, it's money that isn't available to be re-appropriated for other things.

At the end of the day, it does mean that we have 38.5B fewer dollars to spend before we have to borrow more money. Which is precisely the point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Apr 15 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I didn't say we'd see a $350B drop between 2009 and 2010. I honestly have no clue where you're getting this stuff.
gbaji previously wrote:
If everything else stayed the same, we should have expected spending to drop by 300-400B dollars in 2010.

Yeah, so anyway...

Nice try.

Typed a whole lot of words though so at least you got the secretarial practice in.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Apr 15 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... Assuming they are actually decreasing the budgeted amounts for those programs though, it *does* count as actual savings though.

They're not. It was allocated monies for one time expenses that never got used. They didn't get the "savings" by lowering the CHIP budget or anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Apr 15 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation
How do you figure that?


I'm not going to go into my financial situation, but when I say "probably" I am merely making a statistical assumption about the amount of taxes the rest of you will pay. How I figure that is between me and the IRS.
A bit presumptuous aren't we then?


If I hadn't said "probably" in the first place, it would have been a presumption. Statistically, it is a fact that I probably stand to lose more than anyone here. However, if I were to equivocate, I could accuse you of being presumptuous for being bold enough to inquire about my finances. :P I won't do that, though. That's just silly.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#99 Apr 15 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
Gbaji,

Thanks...

I am not going to read that in one sitting, but I will read it throughout the weekend. After reading the first paragraph, I'm sure you addressed at least part of my concern.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#100 Apr 15 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
I'd point out why your assumption was incorrect but you've clearly been quite oblivious to the reasons up to now despite the fact that they've been very clearly stated in the past, so I'll just continue to leave you to your blind assumptions.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#101gbaji, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 6:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Those statements were based on the spending pattern though, not your pretty little graph. Do you see how one has nothing to do with the other? I have already stated multiple times that the increased spending can't be attributed just to one time "stimulus" spending and it certainly can't be attributed just to the one recovery act your graph shows.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT