Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[TemplarKormac]

Let's recap shall we?

I present facts, you hail insults, and claim to have debunked those facts. Then you are incredulous when I agree you should be in kindergarten.

Lets review it blow by blow. You began insulting me the moment I trashed your argument. From then on out you you presented your version of facts with obscure charts and a comparison between Obama's spending and Reagan's, which ironically should mean that our economy is being fixed and our unemployed citizens are finding work. You then spewed something from a so called bipartisan review board that claimed Obama's big spending is mythical. On what planet did he not add $6.4 trillion to our national debt?

You spin facts, bfgrn, you don't tell them. Now, go back and sit in the circle with the rest of the kids, school isn't over yet for you.

I am being serious...are you old enough to understand how the world works? Do you understand automatic outlays that have nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies? Do you understand that if Obama did NOTHING our debt would increase?? Do you understand when an economy goes into a deep recession, revenues lag way behind outlays? Do you understand that when you add 2 wars that were off the books for 8 years into the budget, it will be reflected in our debt???

But you want to pile everything Obama walked into on his shoulders.

Ignorance is bliss...

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

 

[Bfgrn]

Lets review it blow by blow. You began insulting me the moment I trashed your argument. From then on out you you presented your version of facts with obscure charts and a comparison between Obama's spending and Reagan's, which ironically should mean that our economy is being fixed and our unemployed citizens are finding work. You then spewed something from a so called bipartisan review board that claimed Obama's big spending is mythical. On what planet did he not add $6.4 trillion to our national debt?

You spin facts, bfgrn, you don't tell them. Now, go back and sit in the circle with the rest of the kids, school isn't over yet for you.

I am being serious...are you old enough to understand how the world works? Do you understand automatic outlays that have nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies? Do you understand that if Obama did NOTHING our debt would increase?? Do you understand when an economy goes into a deep recession, revenues lag way behind outlays? Do you understand that when you add 2 wars that were off the books for 8 years into the budget, it will be reflected in our debt???

But you want to pile everything Obama walked into on his shoulders.

Ignorance is bliss...

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

 

[pinqy]

A simple Google search would answer your question. The government does sampling, but they only count people who say they are actively looking for work. However, they do not count underemployed or people who want a job and have given up.

So you're correct they don't automatically stop counting you once you're on unemployment, but you're wrong if you think that the unemployment rate doesn't dramatically under count the unemployed.

That’s not true either. They count all those. The media usually not utilize those numbers because they use the U3 rate – something that the government does as well – but BLS actually takes several different levels into account. I know that you know this though so I don’t know why you left that out.

It is not a matter of them not counting those individuals; it is a matter of politicians using the numbers that suit them the most at that particular moment. Obama will use U3 whereas republicans blasting him will commonly bring out the U6 numbers.

What it all boils down to is what numbers are convenient to whom. The U6 is inconvenient for both, for which I mean the establishment in both parties.

What's inconvenient about the U6 is that it is very subjective (therefore bigger margin of error) and it only goes back to 1994 and so can't be compared to any earlier time period. And it Isn't a measure of unemployment since it includes people who have jobs.

 

[Redfish]

I am being serious...are you old enough to understand how the world works? Do you understand automatic outlays that have nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies? Do you understand that if Obama did NOTHING our debt would increase?? Do you understand when an economy goes into a deep recession, revenues lag way behind outlays? Do you understand that when you add 2 wars that were off the books for 8 years into the budget, it will be reflected in our debt???

But you want to pile everything Obama walked into on his shoulders.

Ignorance is bliss...

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

Nope, you are the one who is wrong. When a president signs a budget bill he has the ability to stop or reduce spending in accordance with the provisions of the bill.

That is exactly why no house-passed budget bill has been allowed to reach the floor of the senate by Reid. the dems and obama are afraid that one might pass and then obozo would have to either sign it or veto it and admit that he does not give a shit about deficit spending and our ever increasing national debt.

One of obama's primary goals was to destroy the US economy, and he has almost accomplished that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ummm, no, I did this for a living. You seem to be confused. Let's try one more time....Unemployment does NOT only mean receiving benefits. The government classifies as unemployed ANYONE 16 or older not in prison or an institution who is not working but is looking for work. Most are not receiving any Unemployment insurance benefits so it's odd to claim we're paying them.

Did what for a living? Collect unemployment checks or write them? Show me, exactly, where I said unemployment only means receiving benefits. Did they not teach you how to read and write where you worked?

More insults because you don’t want to face your own words?

When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

That statement claims that getting off unemployment (the paycheck) means that the government doe not consider you unemployed. That is false as pointed out over and over again. You have tried to qualify this statement by bringing in other tangential straw men like the fact that unemployment checks encourages people to stay unemployed or that many get jobs after they run out of unemployment BUT you have done so in a lame effort to avoid admitting that you were completely incorrect in this initial statement.

Two retards that don't know what the word "only" means.

 

[Vox]

this hack wants us to believe that the GROWTH of spending not ACTUAL SPENDING is what matters

Hello? Are there any adults in the room to help you??
the question should be directed at YOU
Yes, spending is actual spending, but WHAT spending is Obama's policies and what spending is not his doing?

If your answer is ALL of it is Obama's fault, you are either a moron or a disingenuous partisan hack.

Of course it is Obama's fault

the slowing of the GROWTH of the spending is imposed on him by Republican-dominated Congress - thank's God - and he still is spending MORE than any other president in the history of this country - with a deficit over a trillion a year.

 

[pinqy]

Did what for a living? Collect unemployment checks or write them? Show me, exactly, where I said unemployment only means receiving benefits. Did they not teach you how to read and write where you worked?

More insults because you don’t want to face your own words?

When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

That statement claims that getting off unemployment (the paycheck) means that the government doe not consider you unemployed. That is false as pointed out over and over again. You have tried to qualify this statement by bringing in other tangential straw men like the fact that unemployment checks encourages people to stay unemployed or that many get jobs after they run out of unemployment BUT you have done so in a lame effort to avoid admitting that you were completely incorrect in this initial statement.

Two retards that don't know what the word "only" means.

This should be fun....explain then the standards the government uses. You only mentioned those receiving benefits as being counted so there was no way to infer who else you had in mind And now you're saying you didn't mean only those on benefits but refuse to say who you do mean.

So stop ducking and say exactly who you think the govt classifies as unemployed.

 

[Vox]

they'll keep trotting out the same phony graph until the end of time because just like fdr's "greatness" all they can do is lie

this

 

[RKMBrown]

More insults because you don’t want to face your own words?

That statement claims that getting off unemployment (the paycheck) means that the government doe not consider you unemployed. That is false as pointed out over and over again. You have tried to qualify this statement by bringing in other tangential straw men like the fact that unemployment checks encourages people to stay unemployed or that many get jobs after they run out of unemployment BUT you have done so in a lame effort to avoid admitting that you were completely incorrect in this initial statement.

Two retards that don't know what the word "only" means.

This should be fun....explain then the standards the government uses. You only mentioned those receiving benefits as being counted so there was no way to infer who else you had in mind And now you're saying you didn't mean only those on benefits but refuse to say who you do mean.

So stop ducking and say exactly who you think the govt classifies as unemployed.

Who the hell cares what crap the bs ue rate is based on? Everyone knows it's complete bull carp and grossly under reports the actual number of unemployed people who are capable of working. The point of discussion was the people being paid to collect unemployment till it runs out then filing for disability or early retirement or finally going back to work. The point of the discussion was that our debt would be better served if UE checks ended at 3months vs.. years. You, for some reason, want to deflect that discussion to some inane discussion about bls statistics. You want to know what's reported... find the survey questions and calculate statistics for how many people lie on surveys to give you a base line + median of error. I read the survey in the past, it was bull carp.

 

[Bfgrn]

this hack wants us to believe that the GROWTH of spending not ACTUAL SPENDING is what matters

Hello? Are there any adults in the room to help you??
the question should be directed at YOU
Yes, spending is actual spending, but WHAT spending is Obama's policies and what spending is not his doing?

If your answer is ALL of it is Obama's fault, you are either a moron or a disingenuous partisan hack.

Of course it is Obama's fault

the slowing of the GROWTH of the spending is imposed on him by Republican-dominated Congress - thank's God - and he still is spending MORE than any other president in the history of this country - over a trillion a year.

Explain this graph from the Heritage Foundation...

 

[Bfgrn]

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

Nope, you are the one who is wrong. When a president signs a budget bill he has the ability to stop or reduce spending in accordance with the provisions of the bill.

That is exactly why no house-passed budget bill has been allowed to reach the floor of the senate by Reid. the dems and obama are afraid that one might pass and then obozo would have to either sign it or veto it and admit that he does not give a shit about deficit spending and our ever increasing national debt.

One of obama's primary goals was to destroy the US economy, and he has almost accomplished that.

Econ 101 shit for shit for brains right wing turds...

Definition of Mandatory Spending

What is "mandatory spending"? What is the definition of the term "mandatory spending"?

"Mandatory spending" is government expenditures that are "automatically obligated by virtue of previously-enacted laws".

This compares to "discretionary spending", which is spending that is set on a yearly basis by Congress.

Some examples of "mandatory spending" expenditures in the United States are:

-Social Security
-Medicare
-Interest on National Debt
-Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program

"Mandatory spending" makes up the majority of US government expenditures.



Government Expenditure Theories - Automatic Spending vs Discretionary Spending - Who is really in control of spending?

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy.

 

[Hoffstra]

let us know when spending gets to within 5% of where they were in FY 2008

 

[Vox]

Explain this graph from the Heritage Foundation...

WHAT is there to explain?

spending is the highest under Obama - and the Heritage foundation graph simply approves it.

contrary to the lying OP.
even if you twist and turn the figures to % of GDP or the RATE of spending GROWTH

 

[Vox]

let us know when spending gets to within 5% of where they were in FY 2008

I would be perfectly fine if it goes to 100% of where it was in FY 2008 - it is still much better than the FY 2012

 

[Mac1958]

.

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate.

Can't even agree on the raw data.

.

 

[Hoffstra]

let us know when spending gets to within 5% of where they were in FY 2008

I would be perfectly fine if it goes to 100% of where it was in FY 2008 - it is still much better than the FY 2012

which the GOP shares ownership with Obama

 

[Vox]

.

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate.

Can't even agree on the raw data.

.

it is not the DATA.

it is the way our libtard posters are twisting the DATA in order to lie.

here is the real figures of AMOUNT of spending per year - not the RATE of growth of spending, not the percentage of spending to GDP and not any other fudged way to lie that "government spending is low under democrat":
Federal Spending Exceeds Federal Revenue by More than $1 Trillion

 

[Vox]

let us know when spending gets to within 5% of where they were in FY 2008

I would be perfectly fine if it goes to 100% of where it was in FY 2008 - it is still much better than the FY 2012

which the GOP shares ownership with Obama

nope, it does not. not to the same extent.

 

[Vox]

here is even more frightening graph:

Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income

Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income

When federal spending grows faster than Americans' paychecks, the burden of government on taxpayers becomes greater. Over the past four decades, median-income Americans' earnings have risen only 24 percent, while spending has increased 288 percent.

 

[Vox]

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

The federal government is spending more per household than ever before. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by 152 percent, from $11,900 in 1965 to $30,015 in 2012. From 2012 to 2022, it is projected to rise to $34,602 – a 15 percent increase.

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

But for our libtard OP and his supporters - "the spending is lower under democrat"