Gadzooks, dude, if a Liberal told you anything, then why do you expect them to accept any facts you reply with as truth? Watch Bob Beckel... 
on "The Five" to see how well Liberal accept facts--
Posted on 07/28/2012 10:56:39 AM PDT by MNDude
Does anyone know where I can find what the US budget was year by year? I've been told by a liberal at work that we are spending less than ever now.
Heritage is a good place to start.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
I think libs like to parse “spending” by referring to spending as a percentage of GDP, which generally increases
However the GDP increases are shrinking more than spending!
Gadzooks, dude, if a Liberal told you anything, then why do you expect them to accept any facts you reply with as truth? Watch Bob Beckel... on "The Five" to see how well Liberal accept facts--
They are taking in less than in the recent past (but not ‘less than ever’!), but borrowing more to make up the difference between that and INCREASING spending.
Liberals use “shoe store math” to make these kind of claims.
What is shoe store math? Imagine that your wife goes to a shoe store to buy a pair of shoes. She finds them for $70, but they are having a “buy one pair, get a second pair for half off”, so she gets a second pair for $35 for a total of $105.
Then, she takes the “$35 saved” and buys a purse for $50 and comes home and tell you that she got the purse for only $15 (because the $35 was like found money) and the first pair of shoes for only $52.50 (a savings of $17.50 over the list price) so she actually came home with $2.50 more than she started with.
Federal spending as a function of GDP is at least 23 percent now, compared to a historical 18 percent average since WWII.
In fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was 25.2 percent, 24.1 percent, and 24.1 percent of GDP, respectively. In fiscal 2012, which will end on Sept. 30, the OMB estimates federal spending will be 24.3 percent of GDP.....Since 1945, taxation has gone as high as 20 percent of GDP only once, reaching 20.6 percent in 2000.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-fiscal-responsibility-co-chair-reduce-spending-21-gdp-1-point-higher-highest
I heard that same story but it was about a husband going to Bass Pro Shop.
I appreciate the illustration/explanation. A friend is a liberal academic political economist who obviously manipulates figures. What I can’t understand is, why would a mathematician manipulate figures to create smoke and mirrors, when the the end result is unsustainable debt?
Dear lord........my wife never told me she had been married before......please tell me you and she were legally divorced before I met her.........
>>I heard that same story but it was about a husband going to Bass Pro Shop.
My wife heard the same one, but I asked when I’ve ever taken advantage of a buy one, get one half off deal when I set out to only buy one in the first place? She reluctantly agreed.
FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2012*: $1,327 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
Bush Deficits
FY 2009: $1,413 billion*
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
*NOTE: Although 2009 spending was set in place before Obama took office, he was nevertheless in office during that year, and he INCREASED the deficit for that year with additional spending via both his omnibus spending bill and his stimulus bill.
Here's a good article for you: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/12/president-obama-spender-in-chief/
Obama is the No. 1 biggest spending president of the past 60 years, spending on average more than $3 trillion per year, almost $700 billion more per year than Bush.
>>What I can’t understand is, why would a mathematician manipulate figures to create smoke and mirrors, when the the end result is unsustainable debt?
Because the DESIRED result is unsustainable debt. It’s Cloward-Piven and the clock is ticking down to the end. They only have to distract us and hide their intentions for few more years and the damage will be irreversible (and that timeline is being very optimistic).
Thank you, again. I researched Cloward-Piven. If you will please answer another question, if the eventual result is the elimination of wealth and guaranteed income for the masses.... who pays the guaranteed income? If it hasn’t worked anywhere else on earth, how do these geniuses predict it will work here?
Posted by me on FR. Everything you could possibly want to know with all data.
You have reached your A-HA moment.
It NEVER has worked.
It NEVER will work.
Both for one SIMPLE reason - it is CONTRARY to the Laws of Nature.
Maybe this is what your coworker was referring to: Obama said recently that the rate of spending has slowed under his administration.
I don't even know if that's the case, but the key word here is "rate", and it is included to deliberately confuse the issue.
Suppose (for the sake of argument) that spending rose 15% per year under Bush. That is, each year the federal budget was 15% more than the year before.
Now comes Obama, and spending rises, say, 12% each year. Then Obama can claim he has slowed the rate at which the government is increasing its spending.
That is nothing to brag about! Obama is still spending more than he has taken in, and so he is adding even more to the federal deficit.
Besides that, 12% of a larger number can actually be more than 15% of a smaller number.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.