| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
2012/07/13 04:35:57
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
Slightly unrelated question ; is a think-tank legally a lobby? It seems that what they do shirks the lines betweem (poor) journalism and lobbying, without any of the responsabilities that come with those... ?
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
|
 |
|
2012/07/13 04:47:49
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Sneaky Lictor
|
Well, first define what "good" journalism is?
|
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 04:53:19
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
broodstar wrote:Well, first define what "good" journalism is?
This wasn't a stab at your references, just to say.
Good journalism is pretty simple. When you give an opinion piece, you call it an editorial, or simply an opinion piece.
Otherwise you relate facts.
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 04:54:58
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Their Wikipedia article actually pegs them pretty accurately. They publish materials and studies that are often used by lobby groups. Lobbiest lobby, HF advises them how to approach issues, tells them what they think the issues are the factors involved, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:07:20
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
LordofHats wrote:Their Wikipedia article actually pegs them pretty accurately. They publish materials and studies that are often used by lobby groups. Lobbiest lobby, HF advises them how to approach issues, tells them what they think the issues are the factors involved, etc.
Cool. Are Lobbies required to register themselves in the States, as in Canada? And if so, isn't the purpose of that defeated by the PACs? Edit : Thatcher? Really??
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/13 05:09:11
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:13:28
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Sneaky Lictor
|
Kovnik Obama wrote:LordofHats wrote:Their Wikipedia article actually pegs them pretty accurately. They publish materials and studies that are often used by lobby groups. Lobbiest lobby, HF advises them how to approach issues, tells them what they think the issues are the factors involved, etc.
Cool. Are Lobbies required to register themselves in the States, as in Canada? And if so, isn't the purpose of that defeated by the PACs?
Edit : Thatcher? Really??
No I don't this so, I remember during the primary, an argument of whether Gingrich was a lobbist or not.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/13 05:14:13
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:16:17
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Not sure. I don't really track lobbying. Lobby's however are more narrowly focused than PACs here, but the term lobby can both refer to an issue (the Abortion Lobby for example, which just refers to the groups and parties are pro-Abortion) or a specific lobbying group in the US (not sure how the term is used elsewhere).
At least in civics class, it was described to me as PAC's focus on national campaigns and shaping issues to suit the needs of the electorate and the nominees, and lobby's directly address the legislature to gain favor for their view on a specific issue.
And yes. Tatcher. Really. Should tell you all you need to know about their political opinions 
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:20:25
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
In a nutshell and probably too simplified:
Lobbies try to influence legislators to favor certain issues.
PACs try to influence people to favor certain candidates.
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:22:20
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
broodstar wrote:That's a problem I've seen in the party, everyone claims they are a "Reagan Republican" yeah he ended the cold war and all, but Lincoln was even more awesome of a president. That's what I want to know, where are the "Lincoln Republicans".
Reagan didn't even do that. The Soviet system collapsed because it was utterly flawed, such a chronic drain on economic development that the Soviet leadership eventually recognised they were being left behind by the capitalist countries and the calls from reformists got so loud they could no longer be ignored - once some reform was allowed it become obvious there was nothing worth keeping the current system and the whole thing disappeared faster than anyone could have guessed. Meanwhile the West just stood there, amazed that such a thing could be happening.
The Republican President who seems to have been forgotten about was Eisenhower. There was a guy who actually captured the Republican zeal for small government, unlike Reagan who talked about it a lot but did the exact opposite. I guess Eisenhower was the guy who talked about the threat of the military industrial complex (after he realised he'd been conned by the air force into building way more bombers than the Soviet threat could justify), and Republicans don't like talking about the fact that military spending is way bigger than it needs to be.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:24:39
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Sneaky Lictor
|
LordofHats wrote:Not sure. I don't really track lobbying. Lobby's however are more narrowly focused than PACs here, but the term lobby can both refer to an issue (the Abortion Lobby for example, which just refers to the groups and parties are pro-Abortion) or a specific lobbying group in the US (not sure how the term is used elsewhere).
At least in civics class, it was described to me as PAC's focus on national campaigns and shaping issues to suit the needs of the electorate and the nominees, and lobby's directly address the legislature to gain favor for their view on a specific issue.
And yes. Tatcher. Really. Should tell you all you need to know about their political opinions
It is also argued that America isn't really a republican government anymore. One anti-corperatist discribe his view to be that the corperations hire the lobbies to write the bill and donate to the PACs to get reps. to vote for the lobbies bill.
|
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:26:26
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Kovnik Obama wrote:Slightly unrelated question ; is a think-tank legally a lobby? It seems that what they do shirks the lines betweem (poor) journalism and lobbying, without any of the responsabilities that come with those... ?
They're not lobbies or journalists. At least they're not supposed to be.
A think tank is actually a group of academics and intellectuals that are brought together to advance thinking on some matter, generally its assumed to be a matter of government policy, but technology companies use them fairly often too, and they're not uncommon in financial circles for investigating specific economic matters.
Of course, lots of think tanks were set up to really be, or quickly devolve into, lobby groups. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, spends little time exploring, questioning or refining matters of conservative economic policy, instead it just keeps shouting the same basic arguments over and over again.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:27:10
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
LordofHats wrote:Not sure. I don't really track lobbying. Lobby's however are more narrowly focused than PACs here, but the term lobby can both refer to an issue (the Abortion Lobby for example, which just refers to the groups and parties are pro-Abortion) or a specific lobbying group in the US (not sure how the term is used elsewhere). At least in civics class, it was described to me as PAC's focus on national campaigns and shaping issues to suit the needs of the electorate and the nominees, and lobby's directly address the legislature to gain favor for their view on a specific issue. And yes. Tatcher. Really. Should tell you all you need to know about their political opinions
Up here in the North, lobbyists are registered professionals, you get prison sentences for trying to influence an elected official if your name isn't on the list. In a nutshell and probably too simplified:
Lobbies try to influence legislators to favor certain issues.
PACs try to influence people to favor certain candidates.
That seems oddly... undemocratic, no?
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/13 05:29:17
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:29:56
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Best idea for a lobbist group would be the NRA
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog 
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 05:42:16
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Sneaky Lictor
|
sebster wrote:
The Republican President who seems to have been forgotten about was Eisenhower. There was a guy who actually captured the Republican zeal for small government, unlike Reagan who talked about it a lot but did the exact opposite. I guess Eisenhower was the guy who talked about the threat of the military industrial complex (after he realised he'd been conned by the air force into building way more bombers than the Soviet threat could justify), and Republicans don't like talking about the fact that military spending is way bigger than it needs to be.
Oh yeah, there are many that have played a huge role in American history, (Martian Luthur King Senior, all of the reconstruction) shoot, even before the founding, remember all the wigs. Hopefully we'll be able to continue our goal to reform the party and kick out the "establishment"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Of course, lots of think tanks were set up to really be, or quickly devolve into, lobby groups. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, spends little time exploring, questioning or refining matters of conservative economic policy, instead it just keeps shouting the same basic arguments over and over again.
Actually if you would like to read conservative philosophy, there is Hillsdale University where you can hear free podcasts by conservative philosophy.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/13 07:32:57
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 07:04:21
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
broodstar wrote:Actually if you would like to read conservative philosophy, there is Hillsdale University where you can hear free podcasts by conservative philosophy.
I could recommend Lord Crick's In defense of Politics, before jumping into partisan-based philosophy. Wonderful little book about the dangers of applying 'pre-packaged' values to the democratic process.
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 09:16:58
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Why is my version of the OP article:
|
 Avatar 720 wrote:You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 09:21:17
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
AustonT wrote:Why is my version of the OP article:
Well obviously you've been a bad boy and Santa's punishing you (sorry, I'm at the end of my night shift  )
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 13:32:55
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 13:47:51
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Jihadin wrote:Lincoln was also in a way different situation compare to today.
Indeed. He had quite a vampire insurgency to deal with.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 13:57:46
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
I hope you guys realise that what is being shown here is just the percentage growth in government spending, a percentage of a percentage and divorced from the figures that would make the data meaningful, namely the deficit balance and the federal income.
So let us assume the figurers are correct, and what I mean by that is not so much that has Forbes lied as much as how is the data tallied. What is included in the spending what is excluded what is offset, is deferred debt included, if it isnt then the figures are totally meaningless as the Greeks found to their cost when Athens put out glorious figures like these saying everything is OK.
So again let us assume the figures are correct, still what do they mean? The growth of government spending is not government spending itself, it says nothing about the deficit without looking at the growth in federal taxation income figures to compare it with. It wont matter if Bush increased spending 7% more than Obama did if he raised income by a similar amount. He may have he may not.
I find figures like this divorced from other statistics to be highly partisan. In fact is was difficult to find raw percentage growth in government spending figures, it doesn't appear to be of common use in establishing economic health. Normally government spending as a percentage of GDP is used instead.
Nevertheless is we are to measure economic success by Forbes' yardstick then let us do so. As Greece has managed to actually cut its gross government spending then the percentage growth in government spending will be negative, is this to say that the Greek government are doing a better job of managing an economy than Obama?
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 14:04:53
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Yep.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/13 14:27:44
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Orlanth wrote:I hope you guys realise that what is being shown here is just the percentage growth in government spending, a percentage of a percentage and divorced from the figures that would make the data meaningful, namely the deficit balance and the federal income.
The data is meaningful in and of itself, partisan or not. It expresses the percentage growth of government spending, nothing more, nothing less.
Pretending otherwise is to fail to understand statistics. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
Of course, lots of think tanks were set up to really be, or quickly devolve into, lobby groups. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, spends little time exploring, questioning or refining matters of conservative economic policy, instead it just keeps shouting the same basic arguments over and over again.
Well, sort of. HF, as LordofHats said before, basically serves lobby groups by producing studies that align with their goals. The idea being the lobby group can say "Look, this cluster of academics came to this conclusion too!" This doesn't affect politicians, but it does impact the public debate.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/13 14:30:21
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 09:27:01
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
dogma wrote:
The data is meaningful in and of itself, partisan or not. It expresses the percentage growth of government spending, nothing more, nothing less.
It doesn't quantify the qualifying criteria for 'government spending' so it can be something more or something less.
If the criteria only counts monies paid as spending then deferred debt can be classified as not spending as no federal monies have yet to be paid. As the US is deferring a lot of debt at the moment, though in all fairness isn't Obama's fault, it may heavily slew the current figures.
Use different criteria to qualify 'government spending' and it may be possible to paint Obama, fairly or unfairly, as a wastrel.
Also as stated before percentage growth is a figure relative to total spending, not total spending, the data is divorced from GDP figures or growth percentages. The data assumes spending more is irresponsible of itself wheras spending must be linked to income. Someone on a higher income can responsibly spend more than someone on a lower income, so ther figures shown are divorced from the data that would give the given data meaning. It indicates a higher standard of responsibility from Obama that may or may not fit the facts.
dogma wrote:
Pretending otherwise is to fail to understand statistics.
Another ad hominem from you dogma, please grow up.
To understand statistics you have to understand that they are reliant on application, naked statistics can be used to mislead, its a standard tool of propaganda.
Any competent statistician will tell you that using unrelated percentages over time for political data is unsound. To put simply 60% of 10 is 6, 40% of 20 is 8. 60 is bigger than 40 so 6 is bigger than 8. Basic statistical propaganda.
There is good reason why flat 'percentage growth of government spending' is not a commonly used indicator, unless linked to GDP, any government facing harsh austerity cuts can show 'better' figures than usual on that criteria, that doesn't truly indicate either competence or economic health, in fact in the cases of those government who have had austerity forcibly thrust upon them quite the opposite.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 14:57:14
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
I agree with the other posters who mention it doesn't matter how 2009 spending is assigned. There is ample evidence that had John McCain won he would have done the exact same thing - he endorsed not only the bank bailouts as well as the auto bailouts.
The only difference between the two is, of course, is that while Obama stands by those actions; John McCain later claimed he was "misled" on the financial bailouts and he was against the auto bailouts.
That's mavericky, alright.
|
 lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
 Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
|
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 18:20:03
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Orlanth wrote:
It doesn't quantify the qualifying criteria for 'government spending' so it can be something more or something less.
You used "quantify" incorrectly, you don't "quantify" terminology. The word you meant to use was "elaborate", and in that instance you are correct, the article does not elaborate on "government spending". However, "government spending" is an accepted quantity that is easily verifiable, which is to say the statistics as produced could have been developed in a basement with a cell phone.
You could argue that the methodology should have been provided...Oh, wait, if you click the hyperlink to Marketwatch its right fething there.
Orlanth wrote:
If the criteria only counts monies paid as spending then deferred debt can be classified as not spending as no federal monies have yet to be paid. As the US is deferring a lot of debt at the moment, though in all fairness isn't Obama's fault, it may heavily slew the current figures.
Use different criteria to qualify 'government spending' and it may be possible to paint Obama, fairly or unfairly, as a wastrel.
Deferred debt isn't government spending. Debt increases and spending are two distinct categories when discussing policy.
Orlanth wrote:
It indicates a higher standard of responsibility from Obama that may or may not fit the facts.
No, it indicates exactly what the numbers indicate, that under Obama spending has grown at a slower pace than under several previous Presidents. Adding anything else is speculative, and lame.
Orlanth wrote:
Another ad hominem from you dogma, please grow up.
That wasn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would require me to attack you in a manner oblique to the argument, I didn't. You might call my statement an Association Fallacy, but that's also wrong as there was no irrelevance. Apparently you don't understand fallacies either (not Ad Hominem either).
People that say a statistic isn't meaningful because it demonstrates nothing beyond itself do not understand statistics. This is a truism.
Orlanth wrote:
There is good reason why flat 'percentage growth of government spending' is not a commonly used indicator, unless linked to GDP, any government facing harsh austerity cuts can show 'better' figures than usual on that criteria, that doesn't truly indicate either competence or economic health, in fact in the cases of those government who have had austerity forcibly thrust upon them quite the opposite.
Did I say any different?
I don't think I did. I think you're upset because I undercut your grandiose, and misleading, (see what I did there) bs.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 18:44:41
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Ok, i'll bite.
dogma wrote:
You used "quantify" incorrectly, you don't "quantify" terminology. The word you meant to use was "elaborate", and in that instance you are correct, the article does not elaborate on "government spending".
Whatever, you understood what was written, try to be less picky please.
dogma wrote:
However, "government spending" is an accepted quantity that is easily verifiable, which is to say the statistics as produced could have been developed in a basement with a cell phone.
Total government spending, government spending as a percentage of GDP etc etc. There are several ways to read 'government spending' without even beginning to look at the criteria as to how it is
dogma wrote:
You could argue that the methodology should have been provided...Oh, wait, if you click the hyperlink to Marketwatch its right fething there.
You should read what you link to. Marketwatch spins the figures it doesn't describe, quantify or elaborate (however you want to say it) how the figures are calculated. It doesn't even properly source them except to say 'official government figures'. Which figures? Besides 'official government figures' as being under the current government perview tend to include a lot of spin, especially at election time.
This is not to say the data is incorrect, the best spun statistics are true they are just vague enough to be readable how you want them by altering the input and as in this case omitting data normally included such as what a percentage relates to..
You like to consider yourself fairly savvy Dogma, why can't you see the government figures can carry government spin?
dogma wrote:
Deferred debt isn't government spending. Debt increases and spending are two distinct categories when discussing policy.
Deferred debt is when you spend, and defer payment until later. Thus with deferred debt there is definite expenditure, but the tally of the cost can be included later. This is precisely what Gordon Brown did over here in 2008-9, its not a trick unique to one country
dogma wrote:
No, it indicates exactly what the numbers indicate, that under Obama spending has grown at a slower pace than under several previous Presidents. Adding anything else is speculative, and lame.
So what you are saying is that all government statistics can be honestly read at face value.  I hope you are just trolling me because you don't like to not have an answer, surely you can't be that naive. Manipulating statistics is one of the oldest spin tools in the book and an unrelated percentage is one of the easiest ways to spin statistics.
A statistic like the one given must be linked to GDP or tax income to have any use. If you don't understand why please reread the earlier thread, it explained everything clearly enough.
dogma wrote:
I don't think I did. I think you're upset because I undercut your grandiose, and misleading, (see what I did there) bs.
Ahh assuming on my state of mind again, and writing off whole comments as ' bs' without adequate explanation.
I hope you grow up and learn that being rude doesn't actually add weight to your arguments.
To all: I have no problem with what Marketwatch is doing, its election time and newspapers and their related bodies have no obligation to be unbiased. If Fox can tilt a story the way it likes so can Marketwatch. However when statistics are floated it pays to look twice, and to take drawn conclusions with a fair pinch of salt if they include unrelated statistics as this example does.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/14 21:39:18
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 21:35:23
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Orlanth wrote:Ho hum, I have stopped feeding troll for today.
Assuming that I'm trolling, which is an assumption that provides me no end of amusement, you don't stop feeding me by making halfhearted attempts at bowing out. You simply stop responding.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 21:41:00
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
On second thoughts I decided better than to leave this one.
The above edit started before your most recent reply.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 22:04:41
Subject: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Orlanth wrote:
Whatever, you understood what was written, try to be less picky please.
No, I actually didn't. I know what I thought you meant, but I may have been wrong.
Orlanth wrote:
Total government spending, government spending as a percentage of GDP etc etc. There are several ways to read 'government spending' without even beginning to look at the criteria as to how it is
Entirely wrong, and not just because Wikipedia says so; everyone else says so too.
Orlanth wrote:
You should read what you link to. Marketwatch spins the figures it doesn't describe, quantify or elaborate (however you want to say it) how the figures are calculated.
Do you really think that "spin" is distinct from description?
Orlanth wrote:
It doesn't even properly source them except to say 'official government figures'. Which figures?
Yeah, it does source them properly, it links them. That's proper sourcing. If you can't do 2 minutes of research, you have no place commenting.
Orlanth wrote:
You like to consider yourself fairly savvy Dogma, why can't you see the government figures can carry government spin?
Of course they can, that doesn't mean that they aren't "meaningful" which was the whole origin of this dispute.
Orlanth wrote:
Deferred debt is when you spend, and defer payment until later. Thus with deferred debt there is definite expenditure, but the tally of the cost can be included later. This is precisely what Gordon Brown did over here in 2008-9, its not a trick unique to one country
No, that isn't deferred debt. Deferred debt is the promise of payment on a given debt in the future. Debt is itself a deference of financial loss due to spending.
I defer a debt if I owe 10 USD on my car, don't have the money, and promise to pay 12 USD next month.
Orlanth wrote:
So what you are saying is that all government statistics can be honestly read at face value.
Not at all. I'm saying that the statistic indicates exactly what it indicates.
Orlanth wrote:
I hope you grow up and learn that being rude doesn't actually add weight to your arguments.
I call spades what they are.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/14 22:05:17
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
|
|
|
2012/07/14 22:08:28
Subject: Re:Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
call spades what they are.
You better be dang sure to count your books so we don't sandbag Automatically Appended Next Post: Also pick another analog. That one is a bit shady Dogma. I still love joo ogre style
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/14 22:09:58
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
