- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:41 am to cahoots
quote:
Spending was actually lower in 2012-2014 compared to, say, 2011.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 10:45 am
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:43 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Spending however increased well over $800B and has never been lowered from those supposed “emergency” levels.
First of all, spending had been increasing long before 2008. Check between 2005 and 2006. Huge % increase. Second, spending did decline after the emergency levels. 2010, 2012, and 2013 were all lower than prior years. Adjusted for inflation, the 2013 spending, for example, is much lower than 2009. It's lower in the absolute as well.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 10:45 am
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:46 am to boogiewoogie1978
There is no such thing as a conservative. Trump is destroying the GOP playbook of a conservative govt. Bush did the same thing. At least now we don't have to hear them say how more fiscally conservative they are than the Dems. Conservatives only exist on message boards and in their own minds.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:47 am to cahoots
That is extremely misleading though
Of course during recessions spending increased
Stimulus + more people on assistance
Of course during recessions spending increased
Stimulus + more people on assistance
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:48 am to Taxing Authority
Your chart is wrong. It's using estimated vs actual
It says 3.2 trillion for 2009. It was actually 3.5, etc.
It says 3.2 trillion for 2009. It was actually 3.5, etc.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 10:51 am
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:51 am to BugAC
quote:
I chuckle to think that you actually care about government spending.
It's ok, we know...ORANGE MAN BAD
At this point I chuckle to think that you or any "conservatives" do. Have some self-awareness, buddy. Let's build a wall! Let's start a 20-year War! Let's cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals! Let's give the military more money!
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:51 am to cahoots
quote:2005 spending was $2.56T.
Check between 2005 and 2006. Huge % increase.
2006 spending was $2.73T.
A whopping 6.6% increase.
quote:
Second, spending did decline after the emergency levels. 2010, 2012, and 2013 were all lower than prior years.
Nope. Not at any significant level.
2010: $3.738T
2011: $3.828T
2012: $3.780T
2013: $3.761T
quote:
Adjusted for inflation, the 2013 spending, for example, is much lower than 2009. It's lower in the absolute as well.
I’m not going to even bother with the cherry picking of using a bottom of a recession against a (albeit tepid) recovered number. As for absolute dollars...
2009 $3.517T
2013 $3.454T
So you’re talking about a $60B reduction.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 10:57 am
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:52 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
That is extremely misleading though
Of course during recessions spending increased
Stimulus + more people on assistance
It is ridiculous to hold presidents accountable to the same fiscal standards when one presides over a recession and another an expansion.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:53 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. Not at any significant level.
2010: $3.738T
2011: $3.828T
2012: $3.780T
2013: $3.761T
Where are you getting these numbers?
I'm look at multiple sources saying 2010 spending is 3.45 not 3.73
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 10:59 am
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:56 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
2005 spending was $2.56T.
2006 spending was $2.73T.
A whopping 6.6% increase.
quote:
Second, spending did decline after the emergency levels. 2010, 2012, and 2013 were all lower than prior years.
Nope. Not at any significant level.
2010: $3.738T
2011: $3.828T
2012: $3.780T
2013: $3.761T
Gee I wonder if there was something going on through all of that that made those numbers seem really high. Ahhh a fricking retarded war that made halliburton and kbr even richer. Now I remember.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:58 am to cahoots
quote:St Louis FRED. 1Q current spending annuitized seasonally adjusted.
Where are you getting these numbers?
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:00 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
National debt tops $22 trillion for the first time as experts warn of ripple effects
So, according to the left, we need open borders and a Green New Deal instead of spending cuts and lowering the debt.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:01 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Ahhh a fricking retarded war that made halliburton and kbr even richer. Now I remember.
literally every one of those years were under Obama. Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:01 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
St Louis FRED. 1Q current spending annuitized seasonally adjusted.
That is budgeted, not actual
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:01 am to Taxing Authority
Leftists talking money are the dumbest ones of all, aren’t they?
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:03 am to cahoots
quote:Not the annuitized rates. But it makes no difference. You can use whitehouse.gov tables if you like.
I'm look at multiple sources saying 2010 spending is 3.45 not 3.73
2010 $3.457
2011 $3.603
2012 $3.537
2013 $3.454
You’re still wrong.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 11:04 am
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:04 am to TigerMyth36
quote:Um. I said
bullshite. Most Republicans aren't fiscally responsible anymore.
quote:
But, at least there actually are people within the party who really want to deal with spending.
Then you said
quote:
Not really. Pretty small number.
Um. "Pretty small number" literally acknowledges that "there actually are people within the party who really want to deal with spending". Sheesh. Read much? Hell, I even point out in my post that they don't have the votes.
quote:Either "not really" is true, or "pretty small number" is true. BOTH can't be true.
It is a small number which doesn't in any way contradict what I said.
The very definition of a contradiction. quote:Which was my point but of course, long before the GND showed up, the Dems have had LOTS of ideas for how to spend money that DO have majority support in their caucus.
Yes, the Green Deal BS is tremendously more than any Republican could ever dream of spending
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:04 am to cahoots
quote:Its actual.
That is budgeted, not actual
Posted on 2/13/19 at 11:06 am to cahoots
quote:LOL. What?
Man you are really splitting hairs. Whether its "new" or not is mostly inconsequential.
New ON TOP of current is most certainly NOT splitting hairs.
quote:Most of those departments have automatic funding increases built in that it takes a vote to stop and any time someone tries, it's called a "cut". So pahfrickinglease.
Republicans are pumping funds into already bloated departments.
quote:Well. If BOTH sides basically haven't the guts to stop current spending and ONE side not only hasn't the guts to do that, BUT WANTS TO PILE ON, that's a pretty big fricking difference!
Not sure how that makes it better.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News