THIS year? How about none under Obama.

Who was president in 2011?

$3.6 trillion is not 10% higher than $3.52 trillion. The Congress hasn't even passed a budget this year. The increase there is entirely estimated from the submitted Obama budget for the year. According to the CBO actual spending at the federal level this year is up only 1% so far year over year, which is again below the inflation rate.

 

$3.8 T vs $3.52T.

ARgh economics fights are so futile.

Did these deficits appear out of thin air on January 21, 2009? President Obama signed the Deficit Expansion and Intentionally Wasteful Spending Act into law or something and I missed it?

No, the trillion dollar ones occurred after BO was enshrined. I believe the lame one said we would be somewhere in the area of a couple hundred billion by now. I will cut the deficit in half.....blah blah blah.

No, the trillion dollar ones occurred after BO was enshrined. I believe the lame one said we would be somewhere in the area of a couple hundred billion by now. I will cut the deficit in half.....blah blah blah.

...the deficit hit the trillion mark after he took office while the economy was circling the drain. Revenue lost to the recession was probably half of that or close to it (only talking about the annual deficit and not the stimulus because that's over).

 

Point being that the deficit is a structural thing that takes years to become the shape it is and is affected by many things, none of which Obama had any direct control over at that early point in his presidency. However, people are all too happy to pretend he did it all by himself and there were NO other factors leading up to it (and certainly not anything THEY had anything to do with! Never!).

I rather enjoy your rants...please do not stop. You aren't that guy, because you actually have something intelligent to say...

 

Unlike this person:

 

Hahaha wow.

...the deficit hit the trillion mark after he took office while the economy was circling the drain. Revenue lost to the recession was probably half of that or close to it (only talking about the annual deficit and not the stimulus because that's over).

 

Point being that the deficit is a structural thing that takes years to become the shape it is and is affected by many things, none of which Obama had any direct control over at that early point in his presidency. However, people are all too happy to pretend he did it all by himself and there were NO other factors leading up to it (and certainly not anything THEY had anything to do with! Never!).

 

Someone should tell that to Bill Clinton because he still tours the country claiming that he left the country without a deficit, even though he left Bush an nice little poo-present of a recession.

Someone should tell that to Bill Clinton because he still tours the country claiming that he left the country without a deficit, even though he left Bush an nice little poo-present of a recession.

 

In fairness, it's not like Clinton sent us into recession on purpose (the .com collapse did). Just as Bush didn't purposefully leave Obama with one. Such things are far out of a presidents control, that it gets annoying when presidents are blamed for them, or credited with our emergence from them.

$3.8 T vs $3.52T.

Why do you continue to quote this number? This number is not the actual spending totals for the government this year.

Why do you continue to quote this number? This number is not the actual spending totals for the government this year.

 

Why do you continue to post what the White House tells you to post? The reality is that there are not actual totals for this year, because this year isn't over yet.

In fairness, it's not like Clinton sent us into recession on purpose (the .com collapse did). Just as Bush didn't purposefully leave Obama with one. Such things are far out of a presidents control, that it gets annoying when presidents are blamed for them, or credited with our emergence from them.

 

All I am asking for is consistency. If Bush is responsible for this mess, Clinton is responsible for the mess after he left office.

Why do you continue to post what the White House tells you to post? The reality is that there are not actual totals for this year, because this year isn't over yet.

So why do you get to post that total as though it's actually real?

 

While there may be no official total for this year, it's not impossible to look at the partial year CBO reports and find information. The CBO statement as of yesterday said that spending in total was up 1% over last year. This should be totally unsurprising to anyone, because the government has been funded based on continuing resolutions for 2012 to keep the lights on...and continuing resolutions will not include substantial extra spending.

 

Basically then, by posting that number to say that spending has gone up by 10%, you've concluded that Congress will spend an extra $200 billion+ on new programs before the end of this budget year. While also campaigning.

 

So why do you continue to post numbers that you know to be false as evidence that spending has gone up 10%?

So why do you get to post that total as though it's actually real?

 

While there may be no official total for this year, it's not impossible to look at the partial year CBO reports and find information. The CBO statement as of yesterday said that spending in total was up 1% over last year. This should be totally unsurprising to anyone, because the government has been funded based on continuing resolutions for 2012 to keep the lights on...and continuing resolutions will not include substantial extra spending.

 

Basically then, by posting that number to say that spending has gone up by 10%, you've concluded that Congress will spend an extra $200 billion+ on new programs before the end of this budget year. While also campaigning.

 

So why do you continue to post numbers that you know to be false as evidence that spending has gone up 10%?

 

So why are you posting false numbers?

So why are you posting false numbers?

Where? I gave the $3.6 trillion through 2011 number, which is an actual, real number. However, that number would fail to make your case that federal spending has skyrocketed and the government hasn't engaged in austerity, since that number is 2.5% higher than the 2009 number and would actually represent a budget cut relative to inflation. So, you therefore needed to include the President's budget for 2012 estimate, close to $3.8 trillion, and pretend that somehow that number actually meant anything, in order to make your case.

I'm sure any minute now ss2k5 will be along with something to support one of his contentions...

Where? I gave the $3.6 trillion through 2011 number, which is an actual, real number. However, that number would fail to make your case that federal spending has skyrocketed and the government hasn't engaged in austerity, since that number is 2.5% higher than the 2009 number and would actually represent a budget cut relative to inflation. So, you therefore needed to include the President's budget for 2012 estimate, close to $3.8 trillion, and pretend that somehow that number actually meant anything, in order to make your case.

 

Of course you won't include this year. It would actually make you even more wrong than you were to start with. Even though my numbers are coming from the same federal sources you are using...

Of course you won't include this year. It would actually make you even more wrong than you were to start with. Even though my numbers are coming from the same federal sources you are using...

Frankly, Bull. I gave you the only real comparable number you could use this year, the CBO noting that spending has gone up year over year by 1% or less so far this year. Your numbers are comparing "Actual spending from a year that has passed" to "Presidential submitted budget for the next year which has not been passed and which actual spending has already not followed".

 

If at the end of the year, spending has surged by the amount you're predicting and comes in at $3.8, I will come back, apologize, and admit that I was wrong. Will you?

Of course you won't include this year. It would actually make you even more wrong than you were to start with. Even though my numbers are coming from the same federal sources you are using...

 

link pleez

link pleez

 

I have posted the links multiple times, and their sources are in there.

Frankly, Bull. I gave you the only real comparable number you could use this year, the CBO noting that spending has gone up year over year by 1% or less so far this year. Your numbers are comparing "Actual spending from a year that has passed" to "Presidential submitted budget for the next year which has not been passed and which actual spending has already not followed".

 

If at the end of the year, spending has surged by the amount you're predicting and comes in at $3.8, I will come back, apologize, and admit that I was wrong. Will you?

 

If you use the non-massages for electoral purposes numbers, sure.

I have posted the links multiple times, and their sources are in there.

 

I can't seem to recall this. Where were the links to? What are the sources for the data?

If you use the non-massages for electoral purposes numbers, sure.

So in other words, you will not stand behind your numbers.

I can't seem to recall this. Where were the links to? What are the sources for the data?

 

Again

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/local_spending_2011

So in other words, you will not stand behind your numbers.

 

lol, I won't stand behind your campaign fictions, no. I will stand behind the numbers.

Again

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/local_spending_2011

Total spending for local governments staying approximately constant/slightly decreasing across 2009-2011?