Sabyen91:

GeneralJim: Sabyen91: That chart was woefully short of facts.

Okay, out of a sense of morbid curiosity, it's a chart showing the deficit amount by year. It has the deficit amount on one axis, and the year on the other. What other facts does it need?

[cdn.cheftalk.com image 599x314]

Hello, General Jim. How about showing the data behind your awful charts?

Awful charts? WTF? They are simple charts showing the amount of deficit spending by year. Do your handlers not allow you to see the facts?

The data comes from the freaking White House. Download the spreadsheet yourself from HERE. In case that's difficult for you, here is the relevant column of data, clipped out of the spreadsheet referenced above. Chart it yourself, and see what it looks like:

2000 - 236,241
2001 - 128,236
2002 - -157,758
2003 - -377,585
2004 - -412,727
2005 - -318,346
2006- -248,181
2007 - -160,701
2008 - -458,553
2009 - -1,412,688
2010 - -1,293,489
2011 - -1,299,595
2012 - -1,326,948 (EST)

GeneralJim: Sabyen91: GeneralJim: Sabyen91: That chart was woefully short of facts.

Okay, out of a sense of morbid curiosity, it's a chart showing the deficit amount by year. It has the deficit amount on one axis, and the year on the other. What other facts does it need?

[cdn.cheftalk.com image 599x314]

Hello, General Jim. How about showing the data behind your awful charts?
Awful charts? WTF? They are simple charts showing the amount of deficit spending by year. Do your handlers not allow you to see the facts?

The data comes from the freaking White House. Download the spreadsheet yourself from HERE. In case that's difficult for you, here is the relevant column of data, clipped out of the spreadsheet referenced above. Chart it yourself, and see what it looks like:

2000 - 236,241
2001 - 128,236
2002 - -157,758
2003 - -377,585
2004 - -412,727
2005 - -318,346
2006- -248,181
2007 - -160,701
2008 - -458,553
2009 - -1,412,688
2010 - -1,293,489
2011 - -1,299,595
2012 - -1,326,948 (EST)

Wow, thanks! Your cite is awesome!

Sabyen91:

Wow, thanks! Your cite is awesome!

I'm not understanding what your apparent sarcasm is about. The figures come from the OMB, and the charts are simple graphs of the data. Do you think the OMB is lying? Do you think the graphing programs are making inaccurate graphs? Do you not think that giving you the OMB spreadsheet, and the relevant data clipped out of the spreadsheet is somehow either lacking in credibility or honesty? Where's the beef?

Sabyen91:

GeneralJim: Pharque-it: Do you still believe in that stupid graph? You are beyond help. Sorry.

Just what is it you are denying? That graph, and the one below, are both accurate graphs of the amount of U.S. deficit spending by year, starting in 2000. Is it now politically correct to deny what has happened?

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 390x250]

Nope, still bullshiat.

Not according to the OMB... Or is it that you just don't accept ANYTHING from the White House?

DrBenway:

Speaking just for myself, I don't accept anything in green type.

I've seen this before -- you just don't like colored.

urban.derelict:
no, see, the value of a dollar is based -- not on gold, like the founders intended, which cannot possibly fluctuate wildly in value

Lolwut?

-- it is based on a multitude of markets that no one has oversight of; these markets can then be taken advantage of and artificially inflated causing an influx of investor money, than artificially deflated to suck value out of said market;

You're claiming that private investors can manipulate the dollar exchange rate? Do you have any clue the level of capital that would require? The Hunt brothers couldn't even manage to do that to the silver market.

and people 'in the know' take these to their advantage and manipulate the market for their own financial gain.

Seriously, stop while you're already looking stupid. Even central banks have tried to prop up a currency, and its hard if not impossible to do.


If illegal drugs were legalized the stock market would collapse,

Now we get in to seriously stupid territory. Tell me the entire value of the illegal drug market in the US. Compare it to GDP. No, wait, even better, tell me how a collapse in the price of weed or coke suddenly makes Microsoft stock worthless.

because the stock market is powered by the perpetual inflation caused by the 'war on (some) drugs' allowing po-po to repossess property without due cause, and sell it at a sheriff's auction; the proceeds go to the PD who confiscated the property; now you understand why they won't let go of the drug war?

Wait, confiscation of assets by law enforcement on drug charges - which is, what, maybe at most a couple of billion a year? Somehow causes inflation? Wouldn't selling assets at auction cheap cause deflation, if anything?

I hope you're trolling. Otherwise, you are beyond the realm of stupid. I expect dumb from gold bugs - "oh, the Founding Fathers, living in a largely cashless economy and with no clue of an economy where people don't live mostly on the things they make themselves, plus a little barter" - but the whole war on drugs angle is just super extra amazingly stupid.

GeneralJim: Awful charts? WTF? They are simple charts showing the amount of deficit spending by year. Do your handlers not allow you to see the facts?

The data comes from the freaking White House. Download the spreadsheet yourself from HERE. In case that's difficult for you, here is the relevant column of data, clipped out of the spreadsheet referenced above. Chart it yourself, and see what it looks like:

2000 - 236,241
2001 - 128,236
2002 - -157,758
2003 - -377,585
2004 - -412,727
2005 - -318,346
2006- -248,181
2007 - -160,701
2008 - -458,553
2009 - -1,412,688
2010 - -1,293,489
2011 - -1,299,595
2012 - -1,326,948 (EST)

Legit figures, to be sure. However, he has only been president for 3 1/2 years, and I believe the FY10 budget was the first one he oversaw. Could be wrong on that.

AT, in this instance, is just flat wrong, which should surprise exactly 0 people.

MisterRonbo: Lolwut?

Illuminati.

RadioAaron: GeneralJim: Awful charts? WTF? They are simple charts showing the amount of deficit spending by year. Do your handlers not allow you to see the facts?

The data comes from the freaking White House. Download the spreadsheet yourself from HERE. In case that's difficult for you, here is the relevant column of data, clipped out of the spreadsheet referenced above. Chart it yourself, and see what it looks like:

2000 - 236,241
2001 - 128,236
2002 - -157,758
2003 - -377,585
2004 - -412,727
2005 - -318,346
2006- -248,181
2007 - -160,701
2008 - -458,553
2009 - -1,412,688
2010 - -1,293,489
2011 - -1,299,595
2012 - -1,326,948 (EST)

Legit figures, to be sure. However, he has only been president for 3 1/2 years, and I believe the FY10 budget was the first one he oversaw. Could be wrong on that.

AT, in this instance, is just flat wrong, which should surprise exactly 0 people.

Question from a non-American: Does the change in the funding rule for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars affect these figures?

Fury Pilot: Question from a non-American: Does the change in the funding rule for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars affect these figures?

Only "off-budget" numbers. I would have to reopen the file (and I'm lazy, and won't), but in it there are three sets of numbers: proposed or "on-budget," the "off-budget" (supplemental, war stuff, stimulus, etc.), and then the total. I don't know which ones were cited here, but I know they appear there.

Another important point here that GeneralJim ignores is that the wars went onto the actual budget when the Democrats took over the House. I know it did - at the latest - when Obama entered the White House.

Those wars were pretty much off the books when GW was in office.

RadioAaron: Fury Pilot: Question from a non-American: Does the change in the funding rule for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars affect these figures?

Only "off-budget" numbers. I would have to reopen the file (and I'm lazy, and won't), but in it there are three sets of numbers: proposed or "on-budget," the "off-budget" (supplemental, war stuff, stimulus, etc.), and then the total. I don't know which ones were cited here, but I know they appear there.

Another important point here that GeneralJim ignores is that the wars went onto the actual budget when the Democrats took over the House. I know it did - at the latest - when Obama entered the White House.

Those wars were pretty much off the books when GW was in office.

Thanks.

While I tend to simply lurk on politics threads, I do see a lot of numbers thrown around about how much the deficit and/or debt has increased under Obama and wonder how many of these numbers are misleading because of how that change in funding affects reporting.

Can someone post the American Stinker's article, as I refuse to give those clowns a click.

If not, I can safely know that WHATEVER is on that site is nothing but a flaming bag pile of dog poo.

Mi-5: Can someone post the American Stinker's article, as I refuse to give those clowns a click.

If not, I can safely know that WHATEVER is on that site is nothing but a flaming bag pile of dog poo.

If someone else gives them a pageclick for you, that's still giving them a pageclick.

I'm not gonna bother clicking on the link but I'll bet dollars to donuts American Propagandist is trying the old "Attach costs of failed GOP policies to Obama and the Dems" trick again.

/Bush's tax cuts + the costs the wars finally going on the books = Oh Noes! Fartbongo is spending Trillions on teh socialismz!

o5iiawah: Tyrano Soros: I didn't realize Obama was writing budget bills for the past 5 years. I guess that frees up the House to focus on abortion.

Obama didn't pass a budget either during his first 2 years and sure as hell wont sign anything out of the house.

It is pretty sad when the Ryan budget, which balances in 30 years is the single greatest assault on seniors, minorities and other *insert victim group here*

You're missing the point of this thread, and 5 other like it on FARK right now.

The point of it is not to make an honest assessment of Obama's record in office, or to compare what he's done against what he promised, it's to attack anyone who question's Obama's record.

MrBallou: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WTF did I just read?

Careful, you'll ruin your eyes trying to read that so that it makes sense.

[i1244.photobucket.com image 77x27]
hover, right click, Adblock Plus: Block Image...

http://img0.fark.net/images/2012/links/americanthinker.jpg

/never risk accidentally clicking one of these links again.

actually, it wasn't 5 years. and it wasn't 5 trillion.

he spent 6 trillion and he did it in 3.5 years.

give the man some credit.

Barack Obama has increased the national debt by more than a trillion dollars for five years in a row

Good.

BTW bean counters, sh*t costs money. I'll bet you didn't know that.

colon_pow: actually, it wasn't 5 years. and it wasn't 5 trillion.

he spent 6 trillion and he did it in 3.5 years.

give the man some credit.


Do I have to post this, AGAIN?

RadioAaron:

Another important point here that GeneralJim ignores is that the wars went onto the actual budget when the Democrats took over the House. I know it did - at the latest - when Obama entered the White House.

Those wars were pretty much off the books when GW was in office.

I like your selective honesty... It must be highly convenient. You know what I mean... In a month where unemployment increases, the method to compute unemployment changes, giving a lower "official" number -- and Obama is hailed for lowering unemployment.

And, let's not forget that every farking military funding bill has bullshiat education and social "Klingons" on it. Nope, that's all military money. But, yeah, just jack the numbers any way you want.

And, while it is not an excuse, note that Obama has continued the Bush practice of funding Afghanistan with the same "war supplementals" that Bush used, although you claim not. It just quit being reported with outrage. And, Obama had promised not to do that, unlike Bush. So, not only is Obama no better than Bush, he's also more hypocritical. Article on the process HERE.

In the abstract, yes, I agree. Funding should be simple, and on the books, and discussed openly. But we are in an era of huge-money politics, and sliminess seems to be the standard. However, the big mistake in this is to believe a crooked Chicago politician's word that he will be "different" somehow. Obama's only "benefit" here is that the press doesn't give him quite as much shiat as GWB got, although they SHOULD, as long as race isn't the only issue involved. Obama is a cross between GWB and Carter, with a little National Socialism styled corporate cronyism thrown in.

But, yeah, ignore the fact that Obama is doing the same thing, and rail at GWB for it. Obama has had a chance to improve upon the practices of GWB, and has uniformly chosen to continue them. If you have contempt for some of the practices of GWB, and you probably SHOULD, then you should also have the same contempt when Obama does them. Or are you just a racist-based political animal?

Fury Pilot:

While I tend to simply lurk on politics threads, I do see a lot of numbers thrown around about how much the deficit and/or debt has increased under Obama and wonder how many of these numbers are misleading because of how that change in funding affects reporting.

The numbers have less effect than you might think. Other spending, first, is much larger. Second, while Obama talked about stopping the "war supplementals" that GWB used, he did not, and continued to fund the Afghan War off the books. The only thing that stopped was the criticism of the President for using those "war supplementals" to hide the cost. Here is a study showing the "best guess" at the total cost of the recent military actions:


Source: Amy Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, CRS, RL33110, March 29, 2011
Full paper HERE.

Mi-5:

Can someone post the American Stinker's article, as I refuse to give those clowns a click.

If not, I can safely know that WHATEVER is on that site is nothing but a flaming bag pile of dog poo.

Your refusal to view information that is not slanted to the left is noted with approval, comrade.

LordJiro:

Mi-5: Can someone post the American Stinker's article, as I refuse to give those clowns a click.

If not, I can safely know that WHATEVER is on that site is nothing but a flaming bag pile of dog poo.

If someone else gives them a pageclick for you, that's still giving them a pageclick.

Not only that, but, based on his stupid comment, I just spent a minute giving the site twenty clicks. Too bad I can't dedicate them to him...

/ AND I'm not going to post the article, either. Someone else will have to click for it.

Animatronik:

The point of it is not to make an honest assessment of Obama's record in office, or to compare what he's done against what he promised, it's to attack anyone who question's Obama's record.

That does indeed seem to be the point of much of Fark.


Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism,
as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini

DrBenway:

GeneralJim: DrBenway: Speaking just for myself, I don't accept anything in green type.

I've seen this before -- you just don't like colored.

How embarrassing. I had no idea you were born using green type. My most humble apologies for my callous comment.

No worries... Many people are colorist, and unaware of it.

/ Congratulations! You have a sense of humor.

GeneralJim: Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism,
as it is the merger of corporate and government power.


Sounds like the Republican party platform that you so blindly defend.

Corporatism... like their denial of global warming for example

Why do you never show up into topics at the beginning? Why do you always run in at the last minute to get the last word and pretend you won?

intelligent comment below:

GeneralJim: Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.

Sounds like the Republican party platform that you so blindly defend.

I don't defend Republicans. I do highly criticize Democrats, and other stupid people. You just are not bright enough to see past the US/THEM barrier, and realize there are more than two viewpoints. And, by the way, NO President has been more corporatist than Obama. There was this ONE guy, but he wasn't a President, he was a Chancellor.

Corporatism... like their denial of global warming for example

It's not my fault that you're too dim to see a hoax when it's right in front of you. And, it is one more thing that is not a DEM/REP binary. GWB supported the hoax pretty well.

Why do you never show up into topics at the beginning? Why do you always run in at the last minute to get the last word and pretend you won?

I don't. I get to them when I do. I often go a whole day without reading Fark. And, why is it you dimwits are so wound around the axle over posting times? I note that YOU farkwits DO tend to bunch up posts at the end. Another case of you doing what you falsely accuse others of doing, right? Let me go get a stick -- I need to scrape you off of my shoe.