Another Right-wing lie exposed thanks to math....which they no longer believe in. Government Spending is Down in the Obama Era —By Kevin Drum Tue Jan. 22, 2013 4:22 PM PST227 The chart below has been making the rounds today, so I thought I'd colorize it and annotate it to drive home its point a little more clearly. Republicans like to say we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem, but the evidence doesn't back that up. Total government spending didn't go up much during the Clinton era, and it's actually declined during the Obama era. In the last two decades, it's only gone up significantly during the Bush era, the same era in which taxes were cut dramatically. What we have isn't a spending problem. That's under control. What we have is a problem with Republicans not wanting to pay the bills they themselves were largely responsible for running up. View attachment 1269 http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=yDwJUarKL6SF2AX_voDYAQ&ved=0CCUQ9QEwBA
I did not realize that the US populations was growing so fast. The government's spending has gone up 19.2% since Obama moved in yet your chart shows a decrease in the spending per capita. Apparently the population is now 363,000,000+ as that would be a 19% increase since 2008. Someone needs to publish that info. BTW, my data came from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2006USrn 2013 = $6.37T 2012 = $6.23T 2011 = $6.06T 2010 = $5.94T 2009 = $5.97T 2008 = $5.34T 2007 = $4.95T 2006 = $4.70T
Again, you are hampered by your inability to understand math, statistics, and data in general. Life must be a big old mystery to people like you and also make you utterly ripe for manipulation. Spending per capita cannot be compared to total government spending unless you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm sure you are satisfied with your cursory knowledge of the issue but I will wait for another poster with actual knowledge.
So show me where just one of your numbers is correct. BTW, for 2012 the spending was $6.23T with an actual population of about 313M. That is $19,904 per capita. Your entire chart is "adjusted" to fit an agenda.
Again, your figures = Total Budgeted 2012 Government Spending vs. my figures = Per capita spending. What part of that is confusing you?
I have no idea how you can tell me any figure has been "budgeted" since the Senate has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years. And, FWIW, the caption on the numbers I posted is "Spending Actual" The last time I checked "Per capita spending" defined as spending ($6.23T) divided by the population (313M). And that equals $19,904 per capita. If you think they are using a different definition, please let me know what their definition is. So far all you have managed to prove is how mathematically challenged you are and how partisanly blind you are.
All you've managed to prove once again is that your home brewed numbers don't agree with numbers you don't like so you prefer the numbers you came up with without actually knowing how to calculate the figures in the first place. Typical Right-wing math. No wonder you guys don't believe in math.
I have shown you exactly where my number came from. And here are their references (listed on each page); Data Sources for 2006: GDP: Measuring Worth - US GDP Federal: Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2 and 7.1 State and Local: State and Local Gov. Finances > data sources for other years > data update schedule.
I don't disagree with the numbers you posted, I disagree with your interpretation of them especially as they relate to the numbers I posted. Again apples and oranges.
(They) have a problem with the government financially helping people ("spending problem"). They believe in the idea of "every man for himself" (little to no taxes). We can either help each other, or not. They've made it very clear that they do not want the government to help others. I call that many things, most of which are negative in nature, some of which are: selfish, uncaring, compassionless, and heartless...usually followed by "bastards", which is probably the most appropriate word I'd use for them. Do we have a spending problem? Not IMO. IMO, we have a republican problem.
You mean you disagree with the numbers I used for "spending per capita" or the fact that I divided the total spending by the total population? Come on, Teddy. It isn't very complicated. Your source had an agenda and they chose numbers to drive that point home. I chose independent numbers without any agenda.
Being a Dick again Dick. I guess it comes naturally to you. You know they have an agenda because they are not FOX? Step outside of the bubble sometime.
You have yet to tell me what is wrong. The number I got came from the Census Bureau (under Obama's control) and usgovernmentspending is run by an Indian (Asian type Indian). Now MJ is "is a politically left-wing[2] American magazine" according to Wiki. Now I really wonder just which side is in the bubble.
Even if I buy into those number (and you can color me skeptical), how does it show there isn't a spending problem? All that graph shows is that Bush ran up the tab and Obama has pretty much kept it there for 4 years. In my opinion that is just another shell/blame game graph that hides the reality...there is a spending problem and it started around 2001 and continues today.
Fortunately, I can get another job pretty easy. I might have to cover a territory instead of a single hospital but my pay would be higher. Time vs Money...I choose the Time as long as the Money is at least pretty decent. But I am lucky that way. Many others aren't. Unemployment is going to be side effect of cutting government spending too far too quick. But not necessarily if it is done in a responsible way. We didn't get here overnight. It took a decade or more. BTW...I think the President has made the VA pretty much immune from sequestering. And it should probably stay that way since we are still sending kids off to be broken.
