Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    2006 total spending: $2655.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2006_0.html
    2008 total spending: $2982.5 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html
    2011 total spending: $3603.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

    Yep, that government spending is significantly down.
    Those are some weird years you've chosen. Here's what I'd look at:

    2009: $3.52T (GDP $13.9T)
    2010: $3.46T (GDP $14.5T)
    2011: $3.60T (GDP $15.1T)

    Those are nominal dollars. Controlling for inflation, it's probably accurate to say that spending has decreased since O took office. It's certainly decreased as a percentage of GDP. Are either of those decreases "significant?" Well......

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    2006 total spending: $2655.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2006_0.html
    2008 total spending: $2982.5 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html
    2011 total spending: $3603.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

    Yep, that government spending is significantly down.
    Meant to say the rate is down...

    *****http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/hal2010/2012/05/24/Post_2_graph_1.png******

    In terms of the election...unless things really crater, Romney will only win by not being Obama. The left doesn't like him, the right doesn't like him and neither does the average guy.

    And in terms of negative campaigning, we'll see if 2008 was a departure or a vacation...the GOP has been particularly harsh going from a Clinton cruxifiction to 'black baby' McCain to 'swiftboating' Kerry. Obama highlighting that Bain's motives were not in fact to create jobs is pretty mild in comparison. And those comments will definitely not be seen in a negative light by most.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    It seems to me that Romney's winning strategy is to make sure everyone knows he is running for President, so that he does not get sucked into running a campaign against Obama. It is possible that Obama's relentless negative campaigning may start to drag down people's favorable view of Obama*; Romney himself doesn't want to get distracted into that kind of game (of course, as we've seen, he'll green-light surrogates to do that for him!).






    * when Obama himself started doing the attacks, rather than delegating them to others, I wondered whether he weren't making a mistake for this very reason; so far the preliminary dtaa seems to indicate that negative campaigning demeans the person doing it as well as the person to whom it is done.

    Leave a comment:


  • pirate
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    If only it was an accurate picture. We know that the Asia slowdown and European crisis are a major drag with the US doing fine in comparison. And this says nothing about the long term structural challenges we face of overseas increasingly educated, still cheap labor.

    We've already seen that the premise for the article of government spending is off...as government spending is down sigificantly. Guess I thought the post was referring to WSJ little sister outlet's big spending recommendation 'Stealth Destroyer a Perfect Fit for New Asia Strategy?'

    *****http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/root/212/96/CfakepathStealthDestroyer_20120604_051934.jpg******
    I read that article and thought the first several paragraphs looked to be accurate. I understand somebody disagreeing with the commentary that followed or whether this means jack regarding romney. But it sure seemed like the first half of the picture was accurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    If only it was an accurate picture. We know that the Asia slowdown and European crisis are a major drag with the US doing fine in comparison. And this says nothing about the long term structural challenges we face of overseas increasingly educated, still cheap labor.

    We've already seen that the premise for the article of government spending is off...as government spending is down sigificantly. Guess I thought the post was referring to WSJ little sister outlet's big spending recommendation 'Stealth Destroyer a Perfect Fit for New Asia Strategy?'

    *****http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/root/212/96/CfakepathStealthDestroyer_20120604_051934.jpg******
    2006 total spending: $2655.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2006_0.html
    2008 total spending: $2982.5 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html
    2011 total spending: $3603.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

    Yep, that government spending is significantly down.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    If Romney were to take a bigger stand on this, he'd probably win the election hands down: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main
    If only it was an accurate picture. We know that the Asia slowdown and European crisis are a major drag with the US doing fine in comparison. And this says nothing about the long term structural challenges we face of overseas increasingly educated, still cheap labor.

    We've already seen that the premise for the article of government spending is off...as government spending is down sigificantly. Guess I thought the post was referring to WSJ little sister outlet's big spending recommendation 'Stealth Destroyer a Perfect Fit for New Asia Strategy?'

    *****http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/root/212/96/CfakepathStealthDestroyer_20120604_051934.jpg******

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    If Romney were to take a bigger stand on this, he'd probably win the election hands down: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Pio
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Rimbaud View Post
    It's spelled dumbbells.

    I believe that correction puts me in the smug a*shole category.
    So it is--thank you, and yes it does.
    Last edited by Old Pio; 06-03-2012, 12:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Foxton View Post
    This is not a source. You should have learned what a source is long before 9th grade.
    Don't stop him, he's on a roll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rimbaud
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Old Pio View Post
    Most dumbells (and smug a*sholes) aren't smart enough for our military. They wouldn't last 5 minutes.
    It's spelled dumbbells.

    I believe that correction puts me in the smug a*shole category.

    Leave a comment:


  • pirate
    replied
    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Just cut fraud and waste...I'm sure that will take care of everything
    Just condone fraud and waste because it buys votes

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Pio
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by mookie1995 View Post
    sure. start with any and every federal "education" expense. department of education is dumb. all education expensing should be local, state at the highest level.

    outside of that? test. dumb kids go to mcdonalds training or army grunt training. wars used to be great to keep unemployment low and ne'er do wells out of jails. send them to a fox hole and they could die. billy bragg put it well, "...the sort a war takes away. and when there wasn't a war, he left anyway."
    Most dumbbells (and smug a*sholes) aren't smart enough for our military. They wouldn't last 5 minutes.
    Last edited by Old Pio; 06-03-2012, 12:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Foxton
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by geezer View Post
    No, the two-jobs-for-one as far as gov't spending goes is just basic economics. You SHOULD have learned it about 9th or 10th grade.
    This is not a source. You should have learned what a source is long before 9th grade.

    Leave a comment:


  • mookie1995
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Just cut fraud and waste...I'm sure that will take care of everything
    sure. start with any and every federal "education" expense. department of education is dumb. all education expensing should be local, state at the highest level.

    outside of that? test. dumb kids go to mcdonalds training or army grunt training. wars used to be great to keep unemployment low and ne'er do wells out of jails. send them to a fox hole and they could die. billy bragg put it well, "...the sort a war takes away. and when there wasn't a war, he left anyway."

    Leave a comment:


  • geezer
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Two economists in Ohio. A study which has been debunked.
    I wasn't referring to the study you were, but this (from your "debunked" link) is hilarious: "But economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, have raised questions of "cherry picking" and dismissed the study's findings."
    haha! Krugman is a stupid failure who's been riding his Obama-like piece of **** Nobel for years while he writes the same brainless column week after week for the New York Times. TERRIBLE source, guaranteed worse than whoever did the study he "debunked" by "raising questions." What an idiot. Krugman.

    No, the two-jobs-for-one as far as gov't spending goes is just basic economics. You SHOULD have learned it about 9th or 10th grade. This idiot Krugman is going on about something else altogether. I've never even heard of someone as stupid as Krugman until he showed up. And believe it or not, he's STILL calling for more stimulus spending after the complete disaster of the Obama years and accompanying depression the first stimulus caused.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X