Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Three Charts Reminding The GOP That Domestic Spending
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
eeyrjmr
n00b
n00b


Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:08 am    Post subject: Three Charts Reminding The GOP That Domestic Spending Reply with quote

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/29/1510761/three-charts-domestic-spending-lows/?mobile=nc

Quote:

Republicans like to portray President Obama as a big government spender, despite the fact that government spending under Obama has grown at its slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration. The GOP is also trying to pretend the spending cuts that Obama has signed into law over the last two years simply didn't happen.


The Republican't seem hellbent on pushing the economy over the cliff into another recession with their childish antics in the Senate coupled with their lies with respect to Obama's spending.

Well the facts speak different and Obama is ready to show the rest of America how innopropriate having any Republican't in a position of influence really is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Republicans have been operating from rampant hysteria pretty much since Bush #2 left the whitehouse.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
The Republicans have been operating from rampant hysteria pretty much since Bush #2 left the whitehouse.

Surely not on this forum, the people are are far too evolved, or created, or whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

whenever i hear someone talk about "government spending by percentage of GDP" i always know the person talking is either a manipulating propagandist or an idiot. GDP is directly proportional to government spending. either you don't know that and you're mindlessly regurgitating nonsensical talking points without knowing anything about economics, or you do know that and you're trying to deceive people.

so which is it?

because we all know spending has skyrocketed and every year obama is in office, the unfunded liabilities he's keeping out of the "spending" column for future projections are moved to the spending column because they're incurred that year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
whenever i hear someone talk about "government spending by percentage of GDP" i always know the person talking is either a manipulating propagandist or an idiot. GDP is directly proportional to government spending. either you don't know that and you're mindlessly regurgitating nonsensical talking points without knowing anything about economics, or you do know that and you're trying to deceive people.

so which is it?

because we all know spending has skyrocketed and every year obama is in office, the unfunded liabilities he's keeping out of the "spending" column for future projections are moved to the spending column because they're incurred that year.


OR, you can't read the page that you posted.

From your own post

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),

Hence, GDP is NOT directly proportional to govt spending.

By definition, X is proportional to Y if there exists a constant a such that X= a*Y. For example, in Newtonian mechanics force is proportional to acceleration (via mass).


Last edited by juniper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
big dave wrote:
whenever i hear someone talk about "government spending by percentage of GDP" i always know the person talking is either a manipulating propagandist or an idiot. GDP is directly proportional to government spending. either you don't know that and you're mindlessly regurgitating nonsensical talking points without knowing anything about economics, or you do know that and you're trying to deceive people.

so which is it?

because we all know spending has skyrocketed and every year obama is in office, the unfunded liabilities he's keeping out of the "spending" column for future projections are moved to the spending column because they're incurred that year.


OR, you can't read the page that you posted.

From your own post

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),

Hence, GDP is NOT directly proportional to govt spending.

(not directly proportional in a literal a/b sense...) does it make you feel better if i say "government spending is one of the primary factors in the polynomial that is GDP"?

if you increase government spending, the GDP will increase too. unless you're in a third world country, you can massively increase government spending without having substantial effects on the GDP. crank the government spending into entitlements (i.e. welfare, medicare, obamacare) and then you can watch it get double counted in private consumption. this is how they come up with those morally bankrupt stats that say for every $1 spent on welfare, it puts $1.4-1.9 into the GDP. if you don't understand what the stat means, you might think that's great. but if you actually took a single course in economics or accounting, you'd know this is idiocy.


Last edited by big dave on Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
juniper wrote:
big dave wrote:
whenever i hear someone talk about "government spending by percentage of GDP" i always know the person talking is either a manipulating propagandist or an idiot. GDP is directly proportional to government spending. either you don't know that and you're mindlessly regurgitating nonsensical talking points without knowing anything about economics, or you do know that and you're trying to deceive people.

so which is it?

because we all know spending has skyrocketed and every year obama is in office, the unfunded liabilities he's keeping out of the "spending" column for future projections are moved to the spending column because they're incurred that year.


OR, you can't read the page that you posted.

From your own post

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),

Hence, GDP is NOT directly proportional to govt spending.

(not directly proportional in a literal a/b sense...)

if you increase government spending, the GDP will increase too. unless you're in a third world country, you can massively increase government spending without having substantial effects on the GDP.


do you mean to negate the last sentence? if not, it doesn't make sense given your previous assertions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

see ninja edit for clarification
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
see ninja edit for clarification


books cooking isn't a new game.

The point, however, is that much of the increase in spending vs GDP is not because of an increase in spending, but because of a drop in GDP. The deficit also, is not due in large part to increased spending (although some of it is), but is due to the economic slump -> less taxes collected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didn't read thread. @op: this is bullshit and has been debunked before. You can't just magically wave a fairy-wand and make deferred obligations into "not spending".

What the Democrats have done is the equivalent of your wife going out and racking up $15,000 on your credit cards, then buying new furniture under a "No Payments Until June!" agreement, then taking out a "0-down" (at 8%) new car loan for $50,000, and then saying, "You told me your salary got cut so we absolutely needed to cut back on the spending, so look! I charged it. :D See? I didn't spend a dime!".

And now they want us to actually believe that crap, and amazingly, some people (even some net taxpayers, who are going to foot the bill for this for decades to come) are so ignorant and misinformed that they do.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
(not directly proportional in a literal a/b sense...) does it make you feel better if i say "government spending is one of the primary factors in the polynomial that is GDP"?

if you increase government spending, the GDP will increase too. unless you're in a third world country, you can massively increase government spending without having substantial effects on the GDP. crank the government spending into entitlements (i.e. welfare, medicare, obamacare) and then you can watch it get double counted in private consumption. this is how they come up with those morally bankrupt stats that say for every $1 spent on welfare, it puts $1.4-1.9 into the GDP. if you don't understand what the stat means, you might think that's great. but if you actually took a single course in economics or accounting, you'd know this is idiocy.

Whats with all the weird obfuscation? Federal spending is 20% of the US GDP. You can use whatever word you want to describe it, but 20% is 20%.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

BK - can you explain the "deferred obligations" in more detail?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ahenobarbi
Developer
Developer


Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 345
Location: Warsaw, PL

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Whats with all the weird obfuscation? Federal spending is 20% of the US GDP. You can use whatever word you want to describe it, but 20% is 20%.

The problem is:
Code:
    GDP = GovtSpending + SomethingElse
    GDP = 100 units
    GovtSpending = 20% GDP = 20 units
    SomethingElse = 80 units

Now if GovtSpending doubled to 40 units (without SomethingElse changing)
Code:
    GovtSpending = 40 units
    SomethingElse = 80 units
    GDP = 120 units
    GovtSpending = 40/120 = 33.(3)% GDP

The spending doubled but it increased only 13.(3)% of GDP. It doubled but the value-as-percentage-of-gdp increased only by 66.(6)%. So this is a shitty metric (as in it doesn't really show you how much the spending really increased).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
big dave wrote:
(not directly proportional in a literal a/b sense...) does it make you feel better if i say "government spending is one of the primary factors in the polynomial that is GDP"?

if you increase government spending, the GDP will increase too. unless you're in a third world country, you can massively increase government spending without having substantial effects on the GDP. crank the government spending into entitlements (i.e. welfare, medicare, obamacare) and then you can watch it get double counted in private consumption. this is how they come up with those morally bankrupt stats that say for every $1 spent on welfare, it puts $1.4-1.9 into the GDP. if you don't understand what the stat means, you might think that's great. but if you actually took a single course in economics or accounting, you'd know this is idiocy.

Whats with all the weird obfuscation? Federal spending is 20% of the US GDP. You can use whatever word you want to describe it, but 20% is 20%.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

BK - can you explain the "deferred obligations" in more detail?

It's the old story of "better to ask forgiveness than permission". Obamacare is a good example. Create a trillion dollar obligation, all of it pushed off until after the election when either (a) some other poor bastard will have to bear responsibility for the actual "spending", or; (b) you will have "more flexibility". Almost every major program championed by Obama has been one that inserts the larva under the skin and little cost, but commits the Government to paying for massive spending and expansion of the program later. That spending that must happen later is not the fault of the poor bastard who gets stuck cleaning up the mess, it's the fault of the person who forced it down everybody's throat.

Far more significant, though, what this piece of bullshit propaganda does is deny responsibility for perpetuating a one-time emergency-level of spending as though it was intended to be the "new normal". I'm sorry, but you can't jack up spending by a Trillion dollars a year, then point back to 2009 when we spent an extra $1.6 Trillion for a crisis, and then act like, "Who me?" Obama is trying to push off all responsibility for 2009 and then call that the benchmark against which to compare his spending. It's complete crap: these morons are trying to sweep about a Trillion dollars a year (on average) in new spending under the carpet.

Furthermore, all of the increase in 2009 was in fact under Obama (he and McCain both agreed to the TARP, and most of it was spent by his administration, along with all of the stimulus). Maybe we can also say, "but he had to do the TARP and the stimulus", and let's say, "okay fine", don't blame him for that. HOWEVER, forgiveness for an extra $1.5 Trillion or so of one-time spending way back then is NOT permission to continue spending at nearly those same levels year after year, and it's certainly not a credible argument why doing so "isn't happening" or "isn't his fault".

And then we've also got the Quantitative Easing, which is spending in the sense that it devalues every dollar in circulation. Every time the Fed does that, they're taking money right out of your wallet and bank account, and doing what they see fit with it. None of that's accounted for here.

And then there's the accumulating interest on the debt that's now growing at an unprecedented rate. A fair comparison would have to include not only spending but all future obligations, to include the present value of new debt incurred.

So, in short, this is a piece of bullshit propaganda, with bullshit "facts", and it's making its way around the liberal echo chamber, being forwarded in email from uninformed, credulous moron to uninformed, credulous moron, all of whom collectively admire the splendor of the emperor's new clothes fap fap fap, and who go around telling each other that those who disagree them "do not live in a fact-based world". I hate to be the one to break the news, but anybody who reads that crap and believes it needs an intervention to reveal to them it is THEY who are not living in a fact-based world.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahenobarbi wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Whats with all the weird obfuscation? Federal spending is 20% of the US GDP. You can use whatever word you want to describe it, but 20% is 20%.

The problem is:
Code:
    GDP = GovtSpending + SomethingElse
    GDP = 100 units
    GovtSpending = 20% GDP = 20 units
    SomethingElse = 80 units

Now if GovtSpending doubled to 40 units (without SomethingElse changing)
Code:
    GovtSpending = 40 units
    SomethingElse = 80 units
    GDP = 120 units
    GovtSpending = 40/120 = 33.(3)% GDP

The spending doubled but it increased only 13.(3)% of GDP. It doubled but the value-as-percentage-of-gdp increased only by 66.(6)%. So this is a shitty metric (as in it doesn't really show you how much the spending really increased).

Especially if GDP simultaneously drops by 10% or so. :lol:

Smoke and mirrors. The hand is quicker than the eye. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Abracadabra, magic money from nowhere!

Step back from the shell game and take a look: ignoring the TARP, Stimulus, etc., etc., we've gone from $2.9 Trillion to $3.8 Trillion. How is that not a massive increase? How?

Then throw in all the other stuff I talked about above (all the deferred spending, present value of new debt, devaluation of the domestic currency base through quantitative easing).
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum