Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So besides FOX news making outrageous inaccurate claims on Obama over spending
and The Highly Sponsored Liberal MSNBC making claims to just the opposite

If you do any real spending research / actual factual spending data
Obama is about "average" in Spending and on pace to "go down" in spending for 2012
So after his first 4 years Obama will be on par with Bush & Reagan in this regard

So considering that:
And adding to the mix that Romney passed a Healthcare plan EXACTLY like what Obama just passed
What is it about Romney / Obama = Obmney that makes you choose one guy vs. the other..?

Bush & Obama = Same Same on Military
I would have never believed that until I just watched it for the past 4 years

Obama / Romney = Same Same on Healthcare
If Massachusetts isn't in your political vocabulary you're in Republican denial

This just in =
We're pretty much getting the same guy, no matter who you vote for Obama / Romney = Obmney

As I told my niece and nephew (who've fully drunk the Obama koolaid) on Facebook...I'm not voting for EITHER guy because at the end of the day, they're the SAME guy.

AZGrizFan wrote:As I told my niece and nephew (who've fully drunk the Obama koolaid) on Facebook...I'm not voting for EITHER guy because at the end of the day, they're the SAME guy.

And this is what frustrated me too...
I voted for "change" and got George Bush all over again disguised as Obama

Fool me once / shame on you
Fool me twice / call it Mitt Romney

Bush / Obama / Romney = Same guy

Sure "it feels different" and "IT SAYS DIFFERENT STUFF"
but it acts the same

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:As I told my niece and nephew (who've fully drunk the Obama koolaid) on Facebook...I'm not voting for EITHER guy because at the end of the day, they're the SAME guy.

And this is what frustrated me too...
I voted for "change" and got George Bush all over again disguised as Obama

Fool me once / shame on you
Fool me twice / call it Mitt Romney

Bush / Obama / Romney = Same guy

Sure "it feels different" and "IT SAYS DIFFERENT STUFF"
but it acts the same

Vote Gary Johnson.

You can thank me later.

Chizzang wrote:So besides FOX news making outrageous inaccurate claims on Obama over spending
and The Highly Sponsored Liberal MSNBC making claims to just the opposite

If you do any real spending research / actual factual spending data
Obama is about "average" in Spending and on pace to "go down" in spending for 2012
So after his first 4 years Obama will be on par with Bush & Reagan in this regard

Something does not sound right.
Spending is spending. But at the very least, spending should correlate with revenue. If you are telling me that Obama is spending the same as Bush, then I'm saying that is too much because I am assuming that Obama'a revenue is far less than Bush's. The devil is in the details.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:So besides FOX news making outrageous inaccurate claims on Obama over spending
and The Highly Sponsored Liberal MSNBC making claims to just the opposite

If you do any real spending research / actual factual spending data
Obama is about "average" in Spending and on pace to "go down" in spending for 2012
So after his first 4 years Obama will be on par with Bush & Reagan in this regard

Something does not sound right.
Spending is spending. But at the very least, spending should correlate with revenue. If you are telling me that Obama is spending the same as Bush, then I'm saying that is too much because I am assuming that Obama'a revenue is far less than Bush's. The devil is in the details.

I'm open to ANYBODY showing me the facts that explain any different... Please do

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:
Something does not sound right.
Spending is spending. But at the very least, spending should correlate with revenue. If you are telling me that Obama is spending the same as Bush, then I'm saying that is too much because I am assuming that Obama'a revenue is far less than Bush's. The devil is in the details.

I'm open to ANYBODY showing me the facts that explain any different... Please do

Are you looking solely at "spending" data? That is all you initially said and I'm trying to determine if you saw the full financial picture or not. Not trying to be a turd here. Just trying to understand the kind of data you researched.

SunCoastBlueHen wrote:

Straight from OMB, huh? Start graphing your way around that, JellyBelly!

Kinda hard to argue with SCBH on this one Cleets.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
And this is what frustrated me too...
I voted for "change" and got George Bush all over again disguised as Obama

Fool me once / shame on you
Fool me twice / call it Mitt Romney

Bush / Obama / Romney = Same guy

Sure "it feels different" and "IT SAYS DIFFERENT STUFF"
but it acts the same

Vote Gary Johnson.

You can thank me later.

Thanks SCBH.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:So besides FOX news making outrageous inaccurate claims on Obama over spending
and The Highly Sponsored Liberal MSNBC making claims to just the opposite

If you do any real spending research / actual factual spending data
Obama is about "average" in Spending and on pace to "go down" in spending for 2012
So after his first 4 years Obama will be on par with Bush & Reagan in this regard

Something does not sound right.
Spending is spending. But at the very least, spending should correlate with revenue. If you are telling me that Obama is spending the same as Bush, then I'm saying that is too much because I am assuming that Obama'a revenue is far less than Bush's. The devil is in the details.

I don't think revenue has gone down, or at least not by much.

Bush's last deficit was $1.4T. The 2012 deficit is $1.27T. A little progress, but not much.

Deficits like that cannot be undone in just a few years without crashing the economy, especially when it comes to spending cuts.

Even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget until the 2030s.

Tod wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:
Something does not sound right.
Spending is spending. But at the very least, spending should correlate with revenue. If you are telling me that Obama is spending the same as Bush, then I'm saying that is too much because I am assuming that Obama'a revenue is far less than Bush's. The devil is in the details.

I don't think revenue has gone down, or at least not by much.

Bush's last deficit was $1.4T. The 2012 deficit is $1.27T. A little progress, but not much.

Deficits like that cannot be undone in just a few years without crashing the economy, especially when it comes to spending cuts.

Even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget until the 2030s.

Deflection, but it doesn't address Chiz's original post about how Obama has been unfairly portrayed as a spender by Fox and defended by his pocket media MSNBC. If the OMB figures are correct, he's hardly on track with Reagan or the Bush's but rather triple with roughly the same revenue.

ASUG8 wrote:

Tod wrote: I don't think revenue has gone down, or at least not by much.

Bush's last deficit was $1.4T. The 2012 deficit is $1.27T. A little progress, but not much.

Deficits like that cannot be undone in just a few years without crashing the economy, especially when it comes to spending cuts.

Even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget until the 2030s.

Deflection, but it doesn't address Chiz's original post about how Obama has been unfairly portrayed as a spender by Fox and defended by his pocket media MSNBC. If the OMB figures are correct, he's hardly on track with Reagan or the Bush's but rather triple with roughly the same revenue.

That sheet is based on 2005 dollar values..?
would those values be different in 2012
Unless I'm not understanding that properly

what should really concern people is that, despite SEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF FLAT OR DECLINING REVENUE RECEIPTS, the government makes it's deficit projections on revenue magically increasing at the rate of anywhere from 5-10% PER YEAR over the NEXT six years. When millions and millions and millions of Americans can't find work, where exactly is that magical money going to come from? And when it predictably does NOT come in, what's the deficit REALLY going to be?

And finally, why on God's green earth do we need a federal government in 2017 that is twice as big as it was in 2004????

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Deflection, but it doesn't address Chiz's original post about how Obama has been unfairly portrayed as a spender by Fox and defended by his pocket media MSNBC. If the OMB figures are correct, he's hardly on track with Reagan or the Bush's but rather triple with roughly the same revenue.

That sheet is based on 2005 dollar values..?
would those values be different in 2012
Unless I'm not understanding that properly

No offense, really, but if you're asking that kind of a question based on looking at the OMB data... And sadly, there are tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans out there who probably aren't even as intelligent as you.

Whenever anyone makes a table showing money values over time, you can't just look at the simple value. $1 in 1950 amounted to a lot more than $1 today. Inflationary effects always need to be taken into account, so any data like this is normalized to the same basis. You can base it on 2005 dollars or 2012 dollars or 1856 dollars. It doesn't matter, as long as you pick a reference point and go from there. You do that so you can then make a direct comparison between the amounts.

And while I was an Obama voter in '08 and currently undecided now, there's no getting around the fact, by any accurate measure, that spending versus revenues has greatly increased under Obama. And from the table we're now at levels not seen since WWII when we were fighting Germany and Japan on two fronts. Now, whether someone uses that to make a decision on whether or not to elect him is a personal decision, along with a host of other topics, but there's no denying that he's greatly increased spending versus revenue in his first term.

AZGrizFan wrote:what should really concern people is that, despite SEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF FLAT OR DECLINING REVENUE RECEIPTS, the government makes it's deficit projections on revenue magically increasing at the rate of anywhere from 5-10% PER YEAR over the NEXT six years. When millions and millions and millions of Americans can't find work, where exactly is that magical money going to come from? And when it predictably does NOT come in, what's the deficit REALLY going to be?

And finally, why on God's green earth do we need a federal government in 2017 that is twice as big as it was in 2004????

Eh, that's why you should only look to where we've been - the amount of machinations to come up with a prediction of where we are going is so blantantly rigged that projections aren't worth the ink used to print them (assuming you haven't gone green and are still printing on actual paper).

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:what should really concern people is that, despite SEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF FLAT OR DECLINING REVENUE RECEIPTS, the government makes it's deficit projections on revenue magically increasing at the rate of anywhere from 5-10% PER YEAR over the NEXT six years. When millions and millions and millions of Americans can't find work, where exactly is that magical money going to come from? And when it predictably does NOT come in, what's the deficit REALLY going to be?

And finally, why on God's green earth do we need a federal government in 2017 that is twice as big as it was in 2004????

Eh, that's why you should only look to where we've been - the amount of machinations to come up with a prediction of where we are going is so blantantly rigged that projections aren't worth the ink used to print them (assuming you haven't gone green and are still printing on actual paper).

That's easy to say on the revenue side...but long-term decisions (and expenses) are being introduced on the EXPENSE side that depend on that magical revenue....

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
That sheet is based on 2005 dollar values..?
would those values be different in 2012
Unless I'm not understanding that properly

No offense, really, but if you're asking that kind of a question based on looking at the OMB data... And sadly, there are tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans out there who probably aren't even as intelligent as you.

Whenever anyone makes a table showing money values over time, you can't just look at the simple value. $1 in 1950 amounted to a lot more than $1 today. Inflationary effects always need to be taken into account, so any data like this is normalized to the same basis. You can base it on 2005 dollars or 2012 dollars or 1856 dollars. It doesn't matter, as long as you pick a reference point and go from there. You do that so you can then make a direct comparison between the amounts.

And while I was an Obama voter in '08 and currently undecided now, there's no getting around the fact, by any accurate measure, that spending versus revenues has greatly increased under Obama. And from the table we're now at levels not seen since WWII when we were fighting Germany and Japan on two fronts. Now, whether someone uses that to make a decision on whether or not to elect him is a personal decision, along with a host of other topics, but there's no denying that he's greatly increased spending versus revenue in his first term.

To your point, to normalize the dollars over time I just did a quick percentage of over/underspend from 2000-2011. This illustrates it a little better.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
That sheet is based on 2005 dollar values..?
would those values be different in 2012
Unless I'm not understanding that properly

No offense, really, but if you're asking that kind of a question based on looking at the OMB data... And sadly, there are tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans out there who probably aren't even as intelligent as you.

Whenever anyone makes a table showing money values over time, you can't just look at the simple value. $1 in 1950 amounted to a lot more than $1 today. Inflationary effects always need to be taken into account, so any data like this is normalized to the same basis. You can base it on 2005 dollars or 2012 dollars or 1856 dollars. It doesn't matter, as long as you pick a reference point and go from there. You do that so you can then make a direct comparison between the amounts.

And while I was an Obama voter in '08 and currently undecided now, there's no getting around the fact, by any accurate measure, that spending versus revenues has greatly increased under Obama. And from the table we're now at levels not seen since WWII when we were fighting Germany and Japan on two fronts. Now, whether someone uses that to make a decision on whether or not to elect him is a personal decision, along with a host of other topics, but there's no denying that he's greatly increased spending versus revenue in his first term.

I'm no "accountant" nor do I really claim to be...
I'm an Engineer and have my strengths and weaknesses - and I am not afraid to ask a stupid question or reveal my weaknesses, I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am
However: You explanation pleases me and makes sense

You're allowed to ask a stupid question about Photovoltaic power cell devices or wireless digital transmission packeting technologies... and I'll go gently

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
No offense, really, but if you're asking that kind of a question based on looking at the OMB data... And sadly, there are tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans out there who probably aren't even as intelligent as you.

Whenever anyone makes a table showing money values over time, you can't just look at the simple value. $1 in 1950 amounted to a lot more than $1 today. Inflationary effects always need to be taken into account, so any data like this is normalized to the same basis. You can base it on 2005 dollars or 2012 dollars or 1856 dollars. It doesn't matter, as long as you pick a reference point and go from there. You do that so you can then make a direct comparison between the amounts.

And while I was an Obama voter in '08 and currently undecided now, there's no getting around the fact, by any accurate measure, that spending versus revenues has greatly increased under Obama. And from the table we're now at levels not seen since WWII when we were fighting Germany and Japan on two fronts. Now, whether someone uses that to make a decision on whether or not to elect him is a personal decision, along with a host of other topics, but there's no denying that he's greatly increased spending versus revenue in his first term.

I'm no "accountant" nor do I really claim to be...
I'm an Engineer and have my strengths and weaknesses - and I am not afraid to ask a stupid question or reveal my weaknesses, I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am
However: You explanation pleases me and makes sense

You're allowed to ask a stupid question about Photovoltaic power cell devices or wireless digital transmission packeting technologies... and I'll go gently

When are we going to see a car powered by one?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I'm no "accountant" nor do I really claim to be...
I'm an Engineer and have my strengths and weaknesses - and I am not afraid to ask a stupid question or reveal my weaknesses, I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am
However: You explanation pleases me and makes sense

You're allowed to ask a stupid question about Photovoltaic power cell devices or wireless digital transmission packeting technologies... and I'll go gently

When are we going to see a car powered by one?

2008

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
No offense, really, but if you're asking that kind of a question based on looking at the OMB data... And sadly, there are tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans out there who probably aren't even as intelligent as you.

Whenever anyone makes a table showing money values over time, you can't just look at the simple value. $1 in 1950 amounted to a lot more than $1 today. Inflationary effects always need to be taken into account, so any data like this is normalized to the same basis. You can base it on 2005 dollars or 2012 dollars or 1856 dollars. It doesn't matter, as long as you pick a reference point and go from there. You do that so you can then make a direct comparison between the amounts.

And while I was an Obama voter in '08 and currently undecided now, there's no getting around the fact, by any accurate measure, that spending versus revenues has greatly increased under Obama. And from the table we're now at levels not seen since WWII when we were fighting Germany and Japan on two fronts. Now, whether someone uses that to make a decision on whether or not to elect him is a personal decision, along with a host of other topics, but there's no denying that he's greatly increased spending versus revenue in his first term.

I'm no "accountant" nor do I really claim to be...
I'm an Engineer and have my strengths and weaknesses - and I am not afraid to ask a stupid question or reveal my weaknesses, I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am
However: You explanation pleases me and makes sense

You're allowed to ask a stupid question about Photovoltaic power cell devices or wireless digital transmission packeting technologies... and I'll go gently

Well, I'm an engineer too - you didn't have to take a course on project management and the ensuing topics of present value and rates of return? Finance (not to be confused with economics) is sort of important. Just saying.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I'm no "accountant" nor do I really claim to be...
I'm an Engineer and have my strengths and weaknesses - and I am not afraid to ask a stupid question or reveal my weaknesses, I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am
However: You explanation pleases me and makes sense

You're allowed to ask a stupid question about Photovoltaic power cell devices or wireless digital transmission packeting technologies... and I'll go gently

Well, I'm an engineer too - you didn't have to take a course on project management and the ensuing topics of present value and rates of return? Finance (not to be confused with economics) is sort of important. Just saying.

Apparently not at Harvard.