| Author | Message | ||
     Tom_b |
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/w ho-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenh ower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Its a nice spin - the bulk of his 'expenditures' are future taxation and revenue cycle 'responsibilities' and the article focuses on 'budgetary' expenditures. Ie the 'budgetary' spending of Obama is lower than the 'budgetary' spending of Reagan.... not hard to do when you haven't Written a budget in Years. This is the basic logic of 'quality' that is coming to the healthcare bill via ARHQ. Quality being a binary function of yes , no. Did you seek care > Was care Provided ? Yes = 'Quality' No = 'Lack of Quality' In everything in politics - always consider the source and the axe the grind from their side of the spinning wheel. 1) the report only bases numbers on percentages increase of term to term, indexing the last term of measure.... you will notice Carter is glaringly abscent from the graphed synopsis... 2) the numbers originated from reporting and methodology from the CBO.... the same guys that lied and moved numbers around about the health care bill .... an agency that is now on their 6TH ! ignorance to my FOIA request for the data, numbers and methodology of the original parameters of the Health Care bill. *Transparency in this administration means, you are of course free to ask - but if your request goes unanswered past 180 days it expires, and must be resubmitted. But thanks for asking Komrade. the analysis further absolutely ignores inflation and the failing of the purchasing power of the dollar. but that is obviously another level of econ from this snippet. | ||
| Sifo |
It is pretty much nothing but spin. It points out one of the problems of CBO reports. Garbage in, garbage out. There are a number of things at play that allow the CBO to report such low increases under BO. A big part of it was that the last budget passed under GWB included a big chunk of temporary spending. By never passing a new budget they have simply extended the previous budget along with the temporary spending that has now basically been made permanent. There are many other ways the government winds up spending more and more money each year, even while "cutting" the budget. If you ran your household finances this way you would likely find yourself homeless in a matter of a few years. It will simply take a bit longer with a government that can simply print cash. City's point about the bulk of the increase on BO care coming in the future should not be take trivially either. The bottom line, is that our country under BO is bleeding cash at a rate never before seen. It matters little how you play with the numbers to make things look good when you simply have more money going out than you have coming in. Here's an article that explains the lack of increased spending under BO. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/obamas_spen ding_and_the_dog_that_didnt_bark.html We have screwed ourselves, our kids, and our grand kids. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
When I was in sixth grade they taught Supply, Demand, Market directives and we did labs in 'watching and predicting stocks' This year my nephew is in sixth grade - his 'math' class is stuck in fractions and tables of computational processes.... where you can still pass the test if you 'show your work' on how you arrived at the wrong answer. be well warned - this is the generation that will decide your economic future just over the horizon. If you can't do the math - I don't care about how you 'arrived' your failed answer; if your rhetoric is more important than the numbers - you are not to be trusted. | ||
| Tom_b |
Wheeee...here we go  . it is always interesting that when a right winger espouses the virtues of both bushes and reagan it is gospel. But when anything other than right gospel is posted it is considered garbage and spin from an unreliable source (Message edited by tom b on September 03, 2012) | ||
| Sifo |
Tom, There are some simple facts. We are spending money far faster than we are making money. Unemployment is far higher than it was supposed to be years after the stimulus spending. This was predicted by conservatives, and ignored back then. These policies are NOT helping the economy. GWB was not vigilant on spending either, unless you compare to BO. The Republican Congress under GWB paid dearly for their irresponsible spending spree. Now it's the Democrat's turn. It's time to get back to some fiscal responsibility. Four years after blaming Bush for all of out economic ills and BO has only made things worse and still can only blame Bush. If this wasn't so serious it would be absolutely comical. There is NOTHING about spending future generations wealth that I see as comical however. Four years of not setting a budget and blaming someone else = FAIL. | ||
| Tom_b |
Yep.. i agree with a lot of what your saying SIFO. The current economic situation has been coming down the pike for a long time thanks to the last 15 or 20 years of bad govt. on both sides of the political spectrum. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Tom b, The difference here is this: What comes from the right makes some sense. What comes from the left rarely makes any sense. | ||
| Sifo |
Tom, Here's the thing, and it is basically what Pwnzor is saying... The policies of the right are marginally sustainable; As long as you never have an economic slow down. The policies of the left aren't sustainable ever and will collapse the economy. What policies do you really think caused the real estate meltdown? That is after all what we currently have an economic hangover from right now. BO has had 4 years of his failed agenda at this point in time. Do you really suggest 4 more years of the same thing? The federal deficit is going to hit $16 trillion this week. Are you comfortable with that record? I know I'm not. Given the choice of going broke on Wednesday or Friday, I will certainly pick Friday, in hopes that by Thursday we can devise a plan to make until Saturday. Welcome to the TeaParty.  | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
What party wants to shut down coal and oil despite the ramifications on a stagnant economy? What party wants you to pay taxes on carbon you produce? What party makes it harder for business to startup and operate? What party would rather expand the EPA and TSA than make it easier start up a small business? | ||
| Tom_b |
LOL @ johnny.. actually my politics are not with either party. I honestly think they both suck.. I admire the fiscal conservative nature of SOME republicans as well as admire some of the social programs of SOME democrats. | ||
| Aesquire |
Please insert here a long winded rant on how I don't like the economy we now have and who I blame. Substitute your own if you like. Simply. The R's spent too much and we fired them. The D's spent too much and we have to fire them. Please fire them. Thought this applied here better than my rant. The really amazing thing about this really bad movie, is that the Director hated the source material, missed the point of the story completely, and thought the "news" and this lecture was a slam on the principles he detested. ( my favorite parts of the film. "do you want to know more?" ) And the Truth still makes sense. | ||
| Tom_b |
good on aesquire | ||
| Brumbear |
smoke and mirrors | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The sad thing is that this overcooked graph and article is the only one Progressives can point to. It's patently false, and they know it, but it gets trotted out like somehow it's Kryptonite. Were we running $1.1T annual deficits BEFORE Obama? Nope.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Here's another:  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
 | ||
| Tom_b |
i have to ask.. wasn't this provided by the CBO that others previously were calling hogwash?.. is it hogwash or not? | ||
| Sifo |
i have to ask.. wasn't this provided by the CBO that others previously were calling hogwash?.. is it hogwash or not? As I said earlier, garbage in, garbage out. Then I gave a quick explanation of the problems with that particular CBO report, and provided a link that explained it in more detail. The CBO only works with what they are given and doesn't take many basic economic principles into account. It is in many ways like computer modeling. A computer model can give good results, even when certain aspects are greatly simplified from the real world. That same model can produce absolute garbage when fed a load of crap. The bottom line is that you have to examine with a critical eye what was done. Simple enough? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Exactly Tom_b. The graph is selecting a VERY narrow set of data points to make a point and create a narrative that simply isn't correct. Focusing on a single tree while an entire forest is staring you in the face........ | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The reason the CBO wont show me, or anyone their numbers for the PPACA projections is because they are not based on any modelling that includes ACTUAL revenue spending, actual costs, and historical precedence. It is all based of indexed derivative modelling.... ie when you plug in a value at the beginning of the string of functions - you can 'predict' the end number..... Just a quick anedote to show the numbers are faulty. The bill requires by LAW every man woman and child in America to have a base line health assessment completed by 2015 - or face a fine. The service is free to the patient.... however the doctor is able to currently bill at current about $38 to Medicaid / Medicare for the service. Now - take that number and multiply it by our current population..... http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html now add the same services for 35-41 MILLION illegals ..... *best estimates from the guys that ACTUALLY do the job and please explain to me how this bill only 'costs' one trillion dollars over TEN years.... Their methodology of calculation - does not even take into account the basic required programs that they say are to be enforced. PS The 'health assessment' form is not a check up - it is little more than the registration questionaire you answer in the lobby, but now it is REQUIRED to be answered by a physician. Read the bill - the twits that signed it certainly didn't. |
