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.

sirlynchmob wrote:if this poll is any indicator, than romney doesn't stand a chance as he's against the majority of americans on the major issues.

Because those polls are biased.

If you ask "Should you get X benefit for free," most people will say yes. But if you ask people if they support the costs to provide those benefits, you see that the majority of Americans don't want to pay for them.

But really, the video is from the Young Turks, whose front page invites me to donate to "Recall Scott Walker." Not exactly an unbiased source.

sirlynchmob wrote:here's some food for thought, when it comes to defecits and spending republicans spend more and create more dept then democrates.

First, we've had this posted before, and it's demonstrably false. Second, it's from Talking Points Memo, whose front page associates George Wallace (D, Ala) with California Republicans.

biccat wrote:
First, we've had this posted before, and it's demonstrably false. Second, it's from Talking Points Memo, whose front page associates George Wallace (D, Ala) with California Republicans.

well if its demonstrably false, please demonstrate it.

Obama didn't take office in 2010.

biccat wrote:Obama didn't take office in 2010.

that's not what the chart is showing. 08 and 09 were still running under the budget bush passed.

"The fact that the national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to $15.6 trillion under Obama’s watch makes for easy partisan attacks. But the vast bulk of the increase was caused by a combination of revenue losses due to the 2008-09 economic downturn as well as Bush-era tax cuts and automatic increases in safety-net spending that were already written into law."

sirlynchmob wrote:that's not what the chart is showing. 08 and 09 were still running under the budget bush passed.

Bush passed the 2009 budget?

News to me. (best source I could find)

Posted: 3/12/2009
President Barack Obama has signed the FY 2009 federal budget into law, representing final action on the budget for the current fiscal year.

sirlynchmob wrote:here's some food for thought, when it comes to defecits and spending republicans spend more and create more dept then democrates.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php

Why does that skip 2009 and all the spending bills then?

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:that's not what the chart is showing. 08 and 09 were still running under the budget bush passed.

Bush passed the 2009 budget?

News to me. (best source I could find)

Posted: 3/12/2009
President Barack Obama has signed the FY 2009 federal budget into law, representing final action on the budget for the current fiscal year.

I know you just don't get how it works. Obama's last budget "In addition, Obama last year signed into law over $2 trillion in debt-reduction over the next decade." see that, he's put a budget (law) through that goes into the next two presidencies. just like the stuff Bush passed into law tied the hands of Obama.

It doesn't count the 2009 Omnibus spending bill and the Health Care bill.

sirlynchmob wrote:I know you just don't get how it works. Obama's last budget "In addition, Obama last year signed into law over $2 trillion in debt-reduction over the next decade." see that, he's put a budget (law) through that goes into the next two presidencies. just like the stuff Bush passed into law tied the hands of Obama.

...no, that's not how it works.

Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:here's some food for thought, when it comes to defecits and spending republicans spend more and create more dept then democrates.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php

Why does that skip 2009 and all the spending bills then?

asterisk

It's important to remember who actually votes on the budget.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I know you just don't get how it works. Obama's last budget "In addition, Obama last year signed into law over $2 trillion in debt-reduction over the next decade." see that, he's put a budget (law) through that goes into the next two presidencies. just like the stuff Bush passed into law tied the hands of Obama.

...no, that's not how it works.

yes it is, the '09 budget got passed oct 1st of '08. so all of '09 was still running under the bush administration. oct 1, '09 was the first chance obama had any input for the budget.

Even iof right, its wrong. Obama was in the Senate at the time (undoubtedly registering as "present")

sirlynchmob wrote:yes it is, the '09 budget got passed oct 1st of '08. so all of '09 was still running under the bush administration. oct 1, '09 was the first chance obama had any input for the budget.

Do you know what a Fiscal Year is?

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:yes it is, the '09 budget got passed oct 1st of '08. so all of '09 was still running under the bush administration. oct 1, '09 was the first chance obama had any input for the budget.

Do you know what a Fiscal Year is?

The year between the Dog Year and Chicken Year?

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:yes it is, the '09 budget got passed oct 1st of '08. so all of '09 was still running under the bush administration. oct 1, '09 was the first chance obama had any input for the budget.

Do you know what a Fiscal Year is?

yes, and apparently you do not. that's why obamas chart starts at '10

sirlynchmob wrote:

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:yes it is, the '09 budget got passed oct 1st of '08. so all of '09 was still running under the bush administration. oct 1, '09 was the first chance obama had any input for the budget.

Do you know what a Fiscal Year is?

yes, and apparently you do not. that's why obamas chart starts at '10

What time period did "Fiscal Year 2009" cover?

I thought a fiscal was something you had to go to the doctor to get a prescription ointment to cure.

Frazzled wrote:Even iof right, its wrong. Obama was in the Senate at the time (undoubtedly registering as "present")

was he on the budget committee? nope.

Did he vote? Well it is Obama. That could be a definite "maybe."

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:yes it is, the '09 budget got passed oct 1st of '08. so all of '09 was still running under the bush administration. oct 1, '09 was the first chance obama had any input for the budget.

Do you know what a Fiscal Year is?

yes, and apparently you do not. that's why obamas chart starts at '10

What time period did "Fiscal Year 2009" cover?

do you remember posting this as to why the chart I posted was wrong?

biccat wrote:Obama didn't take office in 2010.

the '09 budget passed oct 1st '08 bush signed it
the '10 budget passed oct 1st '09 obama signed it

I'm glad you learned what a fiscal year is though. good for you.

sirlynchmob wrote:the '09 budget passed oct 1st '08 bush signed it

No, read the link I posted above. The 2009 Fiscal Year budget wasn't signed into law by President Bush, it was signed into law in March by President Obama.

For lack of a better source, here's Wikipedia: "The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 – September 2009. The final FY2009 budget was signed by President Barack Obama on March 12, 2009."

In late September 2008 Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that provided for government funding through March 2009. Another continuing resolution was passed in early March 2009 and lasted until the President signed the FY 2009 budget in mid-March, 2009.

Remember that the "stimulus package" (ARRA) of $700b+ passed Congress in February, 2009 and was signed by President Obama that same month. Shortly thereafter, another $400b+ "Omnibus spending bill" was passed. That is at least $1.1T+ of 2009 spending that can be directly attributed to President Obama.

Further, this $1.1 trillion was not supposed to be part of the baseline budget. It was supposed to be temporary. But somehow the extra trillion dollars has become part of baseline spending.

biccat wrote:Mr. Obama has played numerous rounds of golf and taken a number of vacations since then.

Heh, I remember the controversy. Quite interesting, considering the amount of vacations his predecessor had taken. Makes you wonder who is starting these spins, but I suppose it's no secret that the big media have long since ceased to be unbiased.

Corpsesarefun wrote:I keep misreading the title as electron and thinking it's something interesting.

sebster wrote:I don't speak German, but from what I can see of the numbers, that looks like monthly spending amounts during the primaries.

No, that's the "donation volumes" amassed in the various candidates' Super PACs. I would hope that it's their total volume and not what is spent every single month, else US elections are an even bigger waste of money than I had thought.

d-usa reminded me of an important detail, though: these Super PACs aren't technically part of a candidate's campaign but an independent contributor. This allows them to amass a lot of money from otherwise limited sources and gives the candidates the support to distance themselves from particularly dirty smear-campaigns as we've seen them again in the past couple months. Do we have accurate graphs/comparisons of what the candidates themselves have at their disposal?

This article is pretty interesting, too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins

Lynata wrote:No, that's the "donation volumes" amassed in the various candidates' Super PACs. I would hope that it's their total volume and not what is spent every single month, else US elections are an even bigger waste of money than I had thought.

Obama's has already raised in excess of $200 million dollars, and will have raised in excess of $500 million before the campaign is done.

Obama's receipts just in minor contributions, amounts under $200, is greater than Romney's total warchest.