Federal Spending by the Numbers 2009

[rushmc 23]

Lucky, you like to spin the numbers

See what you think.

http://www.heritage.org/Home/Research/Reports/2009/07/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2009

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And this is a very interesting paragraph in the link

Quote

Of course, not all future spending is inevitable. In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without any tax hikes.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

It's from Heritage - he avoids places like that because it makes his Conservative Derangement Disorder flare up.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky, you like to spin the numbers

See what you think.

http://www.heritage.org/Home/Research/Reports/2009/07/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2009

I just refuse to address garbage like The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the likes. You have somehow deemed them a legitimate source.

Do I need to find the Cato Inst writing where they said FDR tripled taxes? It was Hoover with his Revenue Act of 1932, after that I just can't waste time with that garbage. Post gov data or a truely objective site.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And this is a very interesting paragraph in the link

Quote

Of course, not all future spending is inevitable. In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without any tax hikes.

It's all interesting when you have to ignore gov data and refer to partisan garbage. Hey, I'll post Moveon.org and we can have a masturbation party. Go find gov data and quit JOing alone.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It's from Heritage - he avoids places like that because it makes his Conservative Derangement Disorder flare up.

And if I posted Moveon you would be shitting allover teh place calling foul. I realize the RW works one-way only.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I just refuse to address garbage like The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the likes. You have somehow deemed them a legitimate source.

Hey, we can have a wikipedia article ready for you in 20 minutes. Simple cut n paste job.

Better yet, we'll send you over to the Onion!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do I need to find the Cato Inst writing where they said FDR tripled taxes? It was Hoover with his Revenue Act of 1932, after that I just can't waste time with that garbage. Post gov data or a truely objective site.

Just a bit of irony here. You made blatant errors in fact all the time, yet you still listen to yourself! OTOH, the rest of us do treat you like you treat Cato.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I just refuse to address garbage like The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the likes. You have somehow deemed them a legitimate source.

Hey, we can have a wikipedia article ready for you in 20 minutes. Simple cut n paste job.

Better yet, we'll send you over to the Onion!

So you think the Heritage Foundation is legit yet find Wikipedia illegit? I believe it. Wikipedia, as long as it cites reliable source can be legit, the HF is pure partisan crap. Of course you won't address that, will you?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Do I need to find the Cato Inst writing where they said FDR tripled taxes? It was Hoover with his Revenue Act of 1932, after that I just can't waste time with that garbage. Post gov data or a truely objective site.

Just a bit of irony here. You made blatant errors in fact all the time, yet you still listen to yourself! OTOH, the rest of us do treat you like you treat Cato.

Right, because you make the argument about me and not about the data.....it all makes more sense every day.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just refuse to address garbage like The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the likes. You have somehow deemed them a legitimate source.

Hey, we can have a wikipedia article ready for you in 20 minutes. Simple cut n paste job.

Better yet, we'll send you over to the Onion!

So you think the Heritage Foundation is legit yet find Wikipedia illegit? I believe it. Wikipedia, as long as it cites reliable source can be legit, the HF is pure partisan crap. Of course you won't address that, will you?

Do you have a clue as to why most ignore wiki?

Wow.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Not one reference as to the numbers, which of course are from gov sources

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Here some Lucky facts for you

Quote

President Obama's Budget

* Would permanently expand the federal government by 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
* Would raise taxes onall Americans by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade;
* Would raise taxes for 3.2 million small businesses and upper-income taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
* Would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
* Would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010--$143 billion higher than the recession-driven 2009 deficit;
* Would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020;
* Would dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren; and
* Would double the publicly held national debt to over $18 trillion.

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), pp. 146-179, Tables S-1 through S-14. Also includes the cost of House-passed cap-and-trade bill, which President Obama endorsed yet excluded from his budget tables.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

Here some Lucky facts for you

Quote

President Obama's Budget

* Would permanently expand the federal government by 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
* Would raise taxes onall Americans by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade;
* Would raise taxes for 3.2 million small businesses and upper-income taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
* Would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
* Would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010--$143 billion higher than the recession-driven 2009 deficit;
* Would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020;
* Would dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren; and
* Would double the publicly held national debt to over $18 trillion.

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), pp. 146-179, Tables S-1 through S-14. Also includes the cost of House-passed cap-and-trade bill, which President Obama endorsed yet excluded from his budget tables.

Maybe the goal is to have debt surpass assets.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Here some Lucky facts for you

Quote

President Obama's Budget

* Would permanently expand the federal government by 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
* Would raise taxes onall Americans by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade;
* Would raise taxes for 3.2 million small businesses and upper-income taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
* Would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
* Would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010--$143 billion higher than the recession-driven 2009 deficit;
* Would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020;
* Would dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren; and
* Would double the publicly held national debt to over $18 trillion.

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), pp. 146-179, Tables S-1 through S-14. Also includes the cost of House-passed cap-and-trade bill, which President Obama endorsed yet excluded from his budget tables.

Maybe the goal is to have debt surpass assets.

Scary shit huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just refuse to address garbage like The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the likes. You have somehow deemed them a legitimate source.

Hey, we can have a wikipedia article ready for you in 20 minutes. Simple cut n paste job.

Better yet, we'll send you over to the Onion!

So you think the Heritage Foundation is legit yet find Wikipedia illegit? I believe it. Wikipedia, as long as it cites reliable source can be legit, the HF is pure partisan crap. Of course you won't address that, will you?

Do you have a clue as to why most ignore wiki?

Wow.......

Wiki is not an agenda-based site. I agree, they need to be scrutinized,but their agenda is to be a repository of true factual info that is not baised, The Heritage Foundation is purely agenda-based....get it?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Here some Lucky facts for you

Quote

President Obama's Budget

* Would permanently expand the federal government by 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
* Would raise taxes onall Americans by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade;
* Would raise taxes for 3.2 million small businesses and upper-income taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
* Would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
* Would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010--$143 billion higher than the recession-driven 2009 deficit;
* Would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020;
* Would dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren; and
* Would double the publicly held national debt to over $18 trillion.

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), pp. 146-179, Tables S-1 through S-14. Also includes the cost of House-passed cap-and-trade bill, which President Obama endorsed yet excluded from his budget tables.

I didn't even read it and won't. It's an opinion extrapolation of possibly gov data as far as I could tell

Again, WILL YOU GIVE CREDENCE TO ANY MOVEON.ORG SHIT I POST? I don't expect an answer to that, it would require honesty on your part.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Wiki is not an agenda-based site. I agree, they need to be scrutinized,but their agenda is to be a repository of true factual info that is not baised, The Heritage Foundation is purely agenda-based....get it?

Who is they? Wikipedia gets fed by anyone that ones, so the Heritage Foundation and the MoveOn folks can duke it out on the revisions.

The hope (and general result) is that consensus will eventually be reached that's of a reasonable factual level, but that result can't be used to defend in and of itself any given article there. It's hardly more reasonable to take any wiki article at face value than to disparage a HF article you can't even be bothered to open at face value.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Who is they? Wikipedia gets fed by anyone that ones, so the Heritage Foundation and the MoveOn folks can duke it out on the revisions.

Wikipedia gets revised by readers, but then overseen by their moderation staff. If the article is questionable, they state so and can lock it for any reason.

HF and Moveon duke it out....revisions? WTF? No, they are agenda-basd sites that post partisan BS. They take an honsest set of data and spin it their way. My experience is that weak-minded people refer to these agenda sites as they serve up pre-morphed BS packaged as tho it's legit.

Quote

The hope (and general result) is that consensus will eventually be reached that's of a reasonable factual level, but that result can't be used to defend in and of itself any given article there. It's hardly more reasonable to take any wiki article at face value than to disparage a HF article you can't even be bothered to open at face value.

Wiki is reference only, IMO. HF, Cato, Moveon, etc are there for entertainment but are factually unreliable. I realize the connies are hanging their hats on HF as they look at gov data and it spits in their eyes. I imagine some libs might do the same if gov data rejetced their points.

[champu 1]

Quote

Right, because you make the argument about me and not about the data.....it all makes more sense every day.

Quote

I didn't even read it and won't. It's an opinion extrapolation of possibly gov data as far as I could tell

Any time someone says something you don't agree with you should go to a source you hate and see if you can find any information about it there. Then you post the link to that source yourself, dismiss it as "partisan bullshit", and you can get back to leaning back in your chair with your arms folded in no time!

Quote

Wikipedia gets revised by readers, but then overseen by their moderation staff. If the article is questionable, they state so and can lock it for any reason.

Wikipedia has lofty goals and I think they do a "reasonably okay" job of them. You can read the talk pages of articles that are controversial and get the rationale and sources that go along with many of the edits, which is nice. But people use some pretty horrendous sources to write some of the material and if there's a dispute it usually degenerates down to, "he who speaks last is heard loudest."

So I'd recommend using wikipedia as a way to find sources and not refer to it as a source itself. You may find that what you were about to quote originally come from someone's blog or from an organization's mission statement page.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Any time someone says something you don't agree with you should go to a source you hate and see if you can find any information about it there. Then you post the link to that source yourself, dismiss it as "partisan bullshit", and you can get back to leaning back in your chair with your arms folded in no time!

I see, so if I post Moveon or the sorts you're gonna jump up and give it credence? See, when people can't make their own arguments, they turn to partisan trash pubs. If I wanted to argue with Cato, HF, etc I would just do so directly. I realize your side is so hammered by gov data that now you're regrouping to jump all over your parent repository of false info. I've proven enough false with the likes of the garbage sites you mention that it's not worth going back. However, if you or yours has the ability to put together an arg of your own, I welcome it. You can even plagiarize the rags to which you adore, but I'm not gonna start addressing any extremist fringe rags.

Quote

Wikipedia has lofty goals and I think they do a "reasonably okay" job of them. You can read the talk pages of articles that are controversial and get the rationale and sources that go along with many of the edits, which is nice. But people use some pretty horrendous sources to write some of the material and if there's a dispute it usually degenerates down to, "he who speaks last is heard loudest."

Sure, Wiki isn't gospel, just a good place to start. Therags, they're a good place to avoid. I've written thema nd they never seem to have the time to return my emails.

Quote

So I'd recommend using wikipedia as a way to find sources and not refer to it as a source itself. You may find that what you were about to quote originally come from someone's blog or from an organization's mission statement page.

Hard to say, but the site has no bias, unlike left or right extremist fringe rags.

[rushmc 23]

It only has the bias of those posting

And paid posters like you have more time to do it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It only has the bias of those posting

And paid posters like you have more time to do it

Where's my check? Thx tho, you called me a professional poster. You'd think if I was getting paid that I would spell-check. A little deduction and insight would go a long way.

[rushmc 23]

A little deduction and insight would go a long way.

YOUR words not mine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

A little deduction and insight would go a long way.

YOUR words not mine




Your endless emoticons, not mine. I guess that's what you do when you have nothing to add.