Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[Bob Woodward] Obama's madness
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
richk449 wrote:
You guys crack me up. Even with the data right in your face, you keep insisting that black is white. As BK would say, keep drinking the koolaide.


Obama's had trillion+ dollar deficits every year. No president in history has racked up so much debt so quickly. He'd already spent more money in his first term than GWB spent in 8 years.

Your blindness to this is ridiculous.

Could you please provide some evidence for the bolded part?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having smaller percentage of "spending increase" when the increase is measured compared to previous president doesn't say anything. Check total spending instead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Having smaller percentage of "spending increase" when the increase is measured compared to previous president doesn't say anything. Check total spending instead.

Don't forget to account for inflation and GDP growth if you look at it that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Prenj wrote:
Having smaller percentage of "spending increase" when the increase is measured compared to previous president doesn't say anything. Check total spending instead.

Don't forget to account for inflation and GDP growth if you look at it that way.

Ok.

...

So, did you look at it?


Or do you think that the difference between Obama and Bush comes from inflation and GDP growth? Silly californians! :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Prenj wrote:
Having smaller percentage of "spending increase" when the increase is measured compared to previous president doesn't say anything. Check total spending instead.

Don't forget to account for inflation and GDP growth if you look at it that way.

Ok.

...

So, did you look at it?

Or do you think that the difference between Obama and Bush comes from inflation and GDP growth? Silly californians! :lol:

I looked at it without correcting for inflation or GDP growth. Bush Jr.'s second term is very close to Obama's first term. I am guessing that if you made the corrections, you would find that more was spent under Bush, but without actually doing the math, I don't know for sure.

Did you look at it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, lets look at it together, what's the official, trustworthy source of information for our gentoo forums economic number crunching project that ALL parties can agree on?

And since we are talking about GDP growth and inflation, lets try to see where those come from, since inflation is not tsunami, earthquake or meteor shower, but a result of economic activities and decision making.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Ok, lets look at it together, what's the official, trustworthy source of information for our gentoo forums economic number crunching project that ALL parties can agree on?

I have been using FRED. I am open to other sources though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Muso wrote:
richk449 wrote:
You guys crack me up. Even with the data right in your face, you keep insisting that black is white. As BK would say, keep drinking the koolaide.


Obama's had trillion+ dollar deficits every year. No president in history has racked up so much debt so quickly. He'd already spent more money in his first term than GWB spent in 8 years.

Your blindness to this is ridiculous.

Could you please provide some evidence for the bolded part?


Sure
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Prenj wrote:
Ok, lets look at it together, what's the official, trustworthy source of information for our gentoo forums economic number crunching project that ALL parties can agree on?

I have been using FRED. I am open to other sources though.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FYFSD

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CASHBLRUA188A

edit: The deficits of FDR were used to buy infrastructure. A lot of that infrastructure is still useable today. Can't be said for the kind of deficit spending done now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Muso wrote:
richk449 wrote:
You guys crack me up. Even with the data right in your face, you keep insisting that black is white. As BK would say, keep drinking the koolaide.

Obama's had trillion+ dollar deficits every year. No president in history has racked up so much debt so quickly. He'd already spent more money in his first term than GWB spent in 8 years.
Your blindness to this is ridiculous.

Could you please provide some evidence for the bolded part?

Sure

Muso, you are a smart guy. Surely you realize that the link you posted doesn't support the claim you made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
You're the one spinning it. What do "spending increases" have to do with anything?
Good point. I guess I was spinning this whole time. Clearly, spending increases have nothing to do with how much spending increases.

Silly me, thinking that you could judge spending by the actual numbers. A long rant is a much better way to evaluate it.

Your logic is weak, Skywalker. Why are you talking about spending increases to begin with? This thread is not about spending increases; this thread is about judging the sanity of Woodwards declaration of Obama's "madness". You have created a strawman, by attacking an argument which has not been made: that Obama has increased spending over the course of four years more than other presidents. Don't knee-jerk, keep reading.

As I said in my post which you didn't read, spending does not occur in a vacuum, and it cannot be judged in a vacuum. The richk449 household doesn't decide whether its spending is reasonable in absence of all information other than spending totals (information such as how much income is coming in and whether its improving net worth), and neither do sane governments.

You're dick-dancing around the real issues, saying "ZOMG look over here at only this!" And, my post wasn't a "rant", it was as worthy of being read as yours (more worthy really, so go back and read it before you spew again).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Prenj wrote:
Having smaller percentage of "spending increase" when the increase is measured compared to previous president doesn't say anything. Check total spending instead.

Don't forget to account for inflation and GDP growth if you look at it that way.

Ok.

...

So, did you look at it?


Or do you think that the difference between Obama and Bush comes from inflation and GDP growth? Silly californians! :lol:

It's a red herring anyway, even if one accepts it. What matters most in judging Obama's spending is that 30% of it is money we don't have. Bush was bad enough, ranging from about 7% to 15%, but 30% on an ongoing basis is a recipe for disaster.

Moreover, when pressed to bring that deficit down, he becomes the crazy threatening to crash the car if he doesn't get his way. That's what Woodward is talking about. He sent all his minions out to threaten the decimation of all the most treasured government services and programs. It's irrelevant that Woodward happens to be reacting to only one of those (the cancellation of a Naval cruise, which directly impacts National Security by reducing our ability to exert pressure in Iran, Syria, Northern Africa, and elsewhere). Obama has similarly gone straight after every piece of Republican pork he could manage to, within the leeway given by the sequestration.

That's the "madness". He's making the American people into "collateral damage" of his fiscal battle. He's saying, "Fuck you, I'll wreck it, and I'll even make them believe you did it, because I can Vulcan Mind Trick!" That's what this is about, not total spending levels artificially presented (through richk449's cherry-picking) in absence of revenue and GDP context.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Your logic is weak, Skywalker. Why are you talking about spending increases to begin with? This thread is not about spending increases; this thread is about judging the sanity of Woodwards declaration of Obama's "madness". You have created a strawman, by attacking an argument which has not been made: that Obama has increased spending over the course of four years more than other presidents. Don't knee-jerk, keep reading.

So you concede that by recent historical standards, spending under Obama has been low? If so, it might be possible to have a meaningful conversation about this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Your logic is weak, Skywalker. Why are you talking about spending increases to begin with? This thread is not about spending increases; this thread is about judging the sanity of Woodwards declaration of Obama's "madness". You have created a strawman, by attacking an argument which has not been made: that Obama has increased spending over the course of four years more than other presidents. Don't knee-jerk, keep reading.

So you concede that by recent historical standards, spending under Obama has been low?


:lol:

You're hopeless.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
You're hopeless.

No, I am apparently just the last idiot who actually believes in silly things like facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
I don't believe that what is happening to Greece can happen to us, since the specific circumstance preventing their recovery (lack of control over the currency) does not apply to us.

And yet our recovery is dog shit. If only Greek politicians had a printing press, and if only the US had Greek politicians!
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Your logic is weak, Skywalker. Why are you talking about spending increases to begin with? This thread is not about spending increases; this thread is about judging the sanity of Woodwards declaration of Obama's "madness". You have created a strawman, by attacking an argument which has not been made: that Obama has increased spending over the course of four years more than other presidents. Don't knee-jerk, keep reading.

So you concede that by recent historical standards, spending under Obama has been low? If so, it might be possible to have a meaningful conversation about this topic.

You want facts? Reconcile what you just said against these verifiable facts (source data link below):

1. Point of Fact: U.S. Federal Government Spending has never been higher.

2. Point of Fact: U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has never been higher, except during World War II.

3. Point of Fact: The average annual Federal outlay under G.W. Bush was $2,328.2 Billion. The average annual Federal outlay under B.H. Obama has been $3,635.2 Billion (an increase of $1.3 Trillion per year).

4. Point of Fact: U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has been an average of 5% higher than under G.W. Bush.

Source Data.

By no stretch of the imagination, by no conceivable twisting of definitions or bastardization of reality is it true that "by recent historical standards, spending under Obama has been low."

You are either trolling, or you have been seriously over-imbibing of the Kool Aid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
How do you decide whether you are "spending too much"? Is it based on some arbitrary benchmark? Is it based on how much you spent last year? No, only a fucking idiot would do that.

Like the DOD? :lol:
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Muso wrote:
You're hopeless.

No, I am apparently just the last idiot who actually believes in silly things like facts.


Apparently you do not. You like spin that tries to whitewash Obama's insane spending levels.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
How do you decide whether you are "spending too much"? Is it based on some arbitrary benchmark? Is it based on how much you spent last year? No, only a fucking idiot would do that.

Like the DOD? :lol:

DoD, like all Federal Government agencies, is not in the business of deciding whether it is spending too much. Like all government agencies, it spends its budget, period.

Like all government agencies, they are given a mission and specific tasks, and they ask firmly for at least as much as necessary to accomplish them to a minimal standard, and also ask for more based on degrees to which it will allow them to more fully deliver. Based on that feedback, Congress and the President decide what they are actually going to get, i.e., how much "national security" (defense and ability to influence world events) they are going to buy.

That role, of deciding whether they are "spending too much", rests entirely within the hands of the White House and Congress. Since World War II, our Congresses and Presidents have invested heavily in the very costly process of maintaining a technological advantage over our potential adversaries (or at least parity with them). Since Vietnam, they have invested even more in minimizing American body count (e.g., standoff weapons, smart weapons, etc.).

That, far more than our interventionist proclivities or the size of our military, is what makes our military-related spending so large. We spend a shit-load on developing weapons good enough to defeat enemies without a lot of Americans being killed in the process.

Other countries have different philosophies The Chinese and Russians have historically been happy to throw bodies into the meat grinder instead. Since World War II, the Europeans have been content largely relying on U.S. military power to protect them (while indoctrinating their populations not to worry, because nothing bad could ever really happen).


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
How do you decide whether you are "spending too much"? Is it based on some arbitrary benchmark? Is it based on how much you spent last year? No, only a fucking idiot would do that.

Like the DOD? :lol:

DoD does not decide whether it is spending too much. Like all government agencies, it spends its budget, period. Like all government agencies, they ask firmly for at least as much as necessary to accomplish what they have been tasked with (by minimal standards), and ask for more based on degrees to which it will allow them to more fully accomplish those tasks. Based on that feedback, Congress and the President decide what they are actually going to get, i.e., how much "national security" (defense and ability to influence world events) they are going to buy.

That role, of deciding whether they are "spending too much", rests entirely within the hands of the White House and Congress. Since World War II, our Congresses and Presidents have invested heavily in the very costly process of maintaining a technological advantage over our potential adversaries (or at least parity with them).

That, and not our interventionist proclivities or the size of our military, is what makes our military spending so large. We spend a shit-load on developing weapons good enough to defeat enemies without a lot of Americans being killed in the process. Other countries have different philosophies The Chinese and Russians have historically been happy to throw bodies into the meat grinder instead. Since World War II, the Europeans have been content largely relying on U.S. military power to protect them.

Didn't you tell me that procurement costs were based on how much was spent last time? Or something along those lines that resulted in continuously escalating prices? I think you are saying only an idiot would do that.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you're referring specifically to procurement, then I might have been telling you about cost estimating methodology, which often gives too much weight to historical costs because bottoms-up engineering-style cost estimates are not only expensive and time consuming but notoriously inaccurat (because they overlook complexities of mammoth-scale programs).

My experience as a program and project manager is that costs magically manage to conform, to a great deal, to expectations or what the market will bear.

Still, it is not the role of the military to decide if they are "spending too much"; that is the role of the President and Congress.

It's also worth noting that, when it comes to military spending, a president actually has far more control than other areas of the budget, because it is he and his staff who define the National Security Policy, which is what drives the need for various military capabilities. When it comes to military spending, Congress has more of a veto / modify role than a strategic planning role. This is the reverse of all other areas, where it is Congress who specify what needs to be done, and the President / Executive Branch merely execute. The other areas that are similar are intelligence, foreign relations, and trade, but of these, only intelligence has significant costs. Nowadays, with the rapid expansion of Federal law enforcement, I suppose we'd have to lump law enforcement in there too, because the President can apparently be "selective" in enforcing the law.

Besides these outward-facing activities, the rest are all driven by Congress (to mean that Congress has much more of a role in specifying up front how much money needs to spent on them, as opposed to being an approving authority).

But you digress. I am still waiting for richk449 to acknowledge the FACTS he said nobody but he uses as the basis for thought. :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
But you digress. I am still waiting for richk449 to acknowledge the FACTS he said nobody but he uses as the basis for thought. :lol:

Hush. I am waiting for my dear leader to issue his instructions to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
But you digress. I am still waiting for richk449 to acknowledge the FACTS he said nobody but he uses as the basis for thought. :lol:

Hush. I am waiting for my dear leader to issue his instructions to me.

You trolled us good. :x :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
But you digress. I am still waiting for richk449 to acknowledge the FACTS he said nobody but he uses as the basis for thought. :lol:

Hush. I am waiting for my dear leader to issue his instructions to me.

You trolled us good. :x :lol:

I'll respond at some point. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I don't have time right now.
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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