Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) lol, I won't stand behind your campaign fictions, no. I will stand behind the numbers. So basically, any number that doesn't show what you like will be labeled "Campaign fiction" and ignored.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) Again http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/local_spending_2011 Total spending for local governments staying approximately constant/slightly decreasing across 2009-2011?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 10:03 AM) If you use the non-massages for electoral purposes numbers, sure. So in other words, you will not stand behind your numbers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) 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?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) 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%?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 10:31 PM) $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.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 10:19 PM) THIS year? How about none under Obama. Who was president in 2011?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 10:03 PM) Nope. Up over 10%. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 09:42 PM) Which is completely wiped out by increases in federal spending. Austerity is a unicorn in the US. Federal outlays have been basically constant since 2009.

Never Forget!

Beautiful throw

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:57 PM) Which dropped all of $30 billion, or less than 1% between 2010 and 2012. State spending dropped by $60 billion during that time, while local gov spending went up by $40 billion. If you trace back to 2009, total spending is up for both and for combined. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/local_spending_2011 Of course, when you have 2% inflation, that becomes a 2-2.7% decrease in actual spending per year.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) Let Danks get some at bats................Tank has not had a productive AB in 2 weeks. Danks...just hit.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:46 PM) He's just awesome. For as good as Prince is, I'd still take my chances with him over Cabrera. Huh?

Dammit Dayan

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:26 PM) What happened to DeAza and Youk? Sorry, I've been travelling for the last 48 hours. Happy to see Sale looks back to normal. Tigers just tied Yanks at 2-2. Youk has a leg thing, De Aza has a sore lower back, neither are serious, day to day.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:21 PM) Meh not unless you're going to skyrocket tax rates. 4%, or 2%, or whatever is really not going to break the economy and cause s*** to fall out of the sky. In reality we have not had taxes this low in what, like 60 or 70 years? They weren't even this low for Reagan. Sadly he's right here. A $100 billion yearly tax increase would hit GDP as much as $50 billion in spending cuts. There's no reason to do either until unemployment gets down closer to 6% or so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:26 PM) For the most part the spending cuts mantra really hasn't born itself out in reality here either. As long as you ignore the states and local governments.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:32 PM) I heard Tebow was traded to the Jets! Can you confirm this rumor for me? Perhaps via ESPN? It's so sad that the other 29 nfl teams all ceased to exist so suddenly. At least their widows can take comfort in tebows rippling, rain soaked chest.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:10 PM) I hate election years in general and while 2012 isn't as bad as I thought it'd be for someone who's active on social networking it seems like there's quite a bit of meaningless bulls***. I do remember actually talking about public policy in 2008 even if some of it was about stuff that was never really going to happen (cap and trade, high speed rail, etc.) but what are we talking about now... basically nothing. But seriously, literally everything the Romney campaign says is stupid and/or a bold-faced lie. I know this is true of every elected official but Romney goes to new levels with it. The Wierd thing for me is, I find myself caring about the minutiae less this year, despite the fact that Romneys actual policy proposals follow the truly crazy Ryan budget. Whether that's burnout or the fact that I'm comparing to 2008 Obama + "omg credit default swaps are going to f***ing kill us all!", I dunno.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:01 PM) Oh wow. I didn't read up too much on this, but it sounded like they would be further apart. That's not far at all. The skycrane wasn't going to fall that far away, it was right above the rover when it cut loose, and it just needed to get a little to the side. I am kinda surprised the others are so close, but remember how thin Mars's atmosphere is...there's no stron air current to deflect anything, the heat shield came down on a line at 1000 kph and the chute/shell came down at 200 kph, so not a lot of chance to change direction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:06 PM) What's giving me fatigue is Balta's f***ing avatar. It's the only revenge I can take on the world for the existence of Tebow.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 08:23 PM) Our first two guys in the lineup don't even have OBPs above .300. Have fun hitting with no one on Dunn and Paulie. BECAUSE OF THE HOME RUNS

Lead him off more often!