The 2012 Three Ring Circus AKA The US Presidential Election

[Objectiveland]

Wow. The link I posted was written to refute the chart you showed! Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it.

I'm not sure why, because it doesn't actually refute anything. Percentage INCREASE of annual spending is not the same is total spending. Your source completely neglects this crucial fact. The fact that you literally linked to a source that says essentially the SAME thing as another one of my graphs is laughable. I KNOW that federal spending remains at the levels of Bush. I never denied that. But the amount of spending Obama himself has contributed only amounts to 1.4% increased spending.

Yes the percentage of growth is smaller and it flattens but the point is it does so at an already alarmingly high level.

Which I NEVER DENIED. YOU claimed that Obama is trying to cut taxes to cover for his spending, when it isn't HIS spending. I ALSO gave you a graph that showed that at least HALF of the deficit is due to Bush's shit, and the rest has little to do with Obama, rather it is a part of past debt that REPUBLICANS caused.

Make no mistake GW was a spender for sure but look You can't spend $100 one day then spend $1000 the next and then spend $1000 for the next three days and claim your spending growth flattened. So what it flattened you only have $100 to spend!

Do you know what the word growth means? Stop grasping at straws now that I've proven you wrong.

You are missing the point. If you spend $100, $100, $100, $1000 and I spend $1000, $1000, $1000, $1000 who has spent more? Your spending grew 900%. My spending grew 0%. Since my spending growth was flat does that mean you spent more? Since I am spending at your final level of $1000 and have less revenue is that your spending or mine?

[Norstal]

You two should just kiss each other, really.

[Mavorpen]

You are missing the point. If you spend $100, $100, $100, $1000 and I spend $1000, $1000, $1000, $1000 who has spent more?

Except this isn't how debts and deficits work. If you buy something that costs $100 to maintain, then change to something that costs $1000 to maintain, then YOU spent a lot. If I come in and take your place, and purchase something that requires $5 extra to maintain, YOU still spent more than me, because your debt carried over to me. I didn't physically spend more than you did. I'm simply paying the shit that YOU bought.

Your spending grew 900%. My spending grew 0%. Since my spending growth was flat does that mean you spent more? Since I am spending at your final level of $1000 and have less revenue is that your spending or mine?

Wrong, that's not how these things are calculated. Percentage increases in pending are calculated by adding up the total amount the current President has actually spent. In other words, bills that the President sponsors and decides to pay for themselves. And you're actually right about one thing: YOUR spending grew 0%. TOTAL federal DEBT however increased dramatically. I'll even give you THAT graph.



Notice that Obama STILL didn't beat out GHW and Reagan by Jan 31, 2012?

[Alien Space Bats]

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
Ayn Rand

Did you know that arsenic can be used for medicinal purposes?

For centuries, physicians have been using arsenic to cure certain diseases. Now it's being used to cure certain types of leukemia.

Mercury - another deadly poison - has also been used for medicinal purposes for a very long, long time.

In both cases, the trick lies in the dose; used sparingly and in the right way, and these poisons can actually do a great deal of good.

Then there's iodine - a necessary dietary supplement that can be lethal if taken in the wrong amounts.

Rand knew that iodine, arsenic, and mercury have these properties. She was no idiot. She simply chose to make a bad analogy for polemic purposes, painting the world in black and white when she knew damned well that it wasn't. That's called "intellectual dishonesty", and Rand routinely indulged in it with wanton abandon.

Sadly, her less sophisticated devotees eat this garbage up and accept the world of absolutes that she tried to peddle to them. It was obnoxious in her; it's simply pathetic in them.

[Objectiveland]

You are missing the point. If you spend $100, $100, $100, $1000 and I spend $1000, $1000, $1000, $1000 who has spent more?

Except this isn't how debts and deficits work. If you buy something that costs $100 to maintain, then change to something that costs $1000 to maintain, then YOU spent a lot. If I come in and take your place, and purchase something that requires $5 extra to maintain, YOU still spent more than me, because your debt carried over to me. I didn't physically spend more than you did. I'm simply paying the shit that YOU bought.

Your spending grew 900%. My spending grew 0%. Since my spending growth was flat does that mean you spent more? Since I am spending at your final level of $1000 and have less revenue is that your spending or mine?

Wrong, that's not how these things are calculated. Percentage increases in pending are calculated by adding up the total amount the current President has actually spent. In other words, bills that the President sponsors and decides to pay for themselves. And you're actually right about one thing: YOUR spending grew 0%. TOTAL federal DEBT however increased dramatically. I'll even give you THAT graph.



Notice that Obama STILL didn't beat out GHW and Reagan by Jan 31, 2012?

It's not ok to spend like crazy just because someone else did. Tax rates should be flattened and deductions removed (truthfully all federal income tax is theft) and entitlement spending should be halted and reversed.

[Mavorpen]

It's not ok to spend like crazy just because someone else did. Tax rates should be flattened and deductions removed (truthfully all federal income tax is theft) and entitlement spending should be halted and reversed.

Translation: I was wrong, so I'll just go back to my shit about how TAXES U EBUL.

Quote me saying spending "like crazy" is okay. Go ahead.

[Mavorpen]

Also, address this.

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

- Ronald Reagan

Guess which president expanded Medicare, and increased the debt significantly.

And this.

Because they were terrible

And neither Obama, nor Romney like their plans 100%

[Not Safe For Work]

Again, everybody gives too much credit to the voting public not having a sizeable chunk of gullible racist assholes mixed in there somewhere. That's how we got in this mess in the first place circa 2010 in the first place and given how the presidential campaign is going, that sort of tactic still works.

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
Ayn Rand

Yes, but you have to remember that Ayn Rand was insane.

[Divair]

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
Ayn Rand

Yes, but you have to remember that Ayn Rand was insane.

Not according to the Ayn Rand cult, which he is a part of.

[The Black Forrest]

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
Ayn Rand

Yes, but you have to remember that Ayn Rand was insane.

Why do you hate nymphos?

[Not Safe For Work]

Yes, but you have to remember that Ayn Rand was insane.

Why do you hate nymphos?

I was going to make a comment about how they lack the ability to discern quality, and thus make very bad assumptions with disastrous results.

[Wilgrove]

So, looking at the latest battleground states polls, Obama is slated to win 290 to Romney's 248, assuming that Nevada goes blue, but even if Nevada goes red, Obama still wins with 284 to Romney 254. Florida will go to Romney, but Obama will get Ohio.

[Delmok]

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yes, but you have to remember that Ayn Rand was insane.

Why do you hate nymphos?

Gonorrhea.

[Objectiveland]

It's not ok to spend like crazy just because someone else did. Tax rates should be flattened and deductions removed (truthfully all federal income tax is theft) and entitlement spending should be halted and reversed.

Translation: I was wrong, so I'll just go back to my shit about how TAXES U EBUL.

Quote me saying spending "like crazy" is okay. Go ahead.

No. You never understood the point. You want to claim Obama is not a spender. Then when I showed he was the greatest of spenders you said it was because he had to to maintain GW's spending and there was nothing he could do about it.

"If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . . . How would she know it, if all the voices she hears are telling her that we must soak the rich?" Ayn Rand

[Free South Califas]

The irony of it all is that people like Huckabee were practically invented for the purpose of inserting into guillotines.

"How ya like the death penalty now, Huck? Chafe a bit?"

Apparently you don't know your French history and are just spouting platitudes to sound intelligent.

I'm autistic; It's practically impossible for me to predict the social impression I leave on others, so trying to engineer it would be pointless for me. Besides, I know you haven't seen my IQ test results, but suffice it to say that I don't feel that insecure about my intelligence. You, I'm not so sure about, but I'd bet against you if I had to choose.

I'm not an expert on the French Revolution, but I'm also intelligent enough to understand that objects can be used in different ways over the span of centuries. People are the masters of things, not the other way around. Note that I never said that guillotines were invented for dealing with people like Huckabee.

So what are the Log Cabin Republicans doing?

They support Romney. Go figure.

Edit: fixed my derp

I don't think your slur against people with developmental disabilities is at all appropriate, nor for that matter, very progressive. Don't worry, I've already been shamed into not reporting these slurs, so you're likely to get away with it.

[Mavorpen]

No. You never understood the point. You want to claim Obama is not a spender. Then when I showed he was the greatest of spenders you said it was because he had to to maintain GW's spending and there was nothing he could do about it.

What... Then pray tell, what is this:



This image that you keep ignoring over and over, that shows that I was NOT saying that spending UNDER Obama has somehow magically become zero. Face it, you fucking lost. You claimed that Democrats are trying to pay for THEIR spending. THEY are not going on a spending spree. THEY are PAYING for already existing programs. There's a difference between paying and spending. At least TRY to use words correctly.

[Revolutopia]

finally, I gave Romney the benefit of the doubt in Maine's 2nd Congressional District (where he's close, but probably still trails); all of this produced what I wanted - a unique 308-230 win prediction for the President.

Wasn't it Maine where there was a lot of noise about Romney and the National Republicans dicking over Ron Paul and giving the state to Romney? Thus, couldn't that open up the case where many of those disgruntled Maine "Paul" Republican might refuse to fall in line and instead stay home or vote Obama or more likely Gary Johnson in order to spite Romney?

[The Emerald Dawn]

finally, I gave Romney the benefit of the doubt in Maine's 2nd Congressional District (where he's close, but probably still trails); all of this produced what I wanted - a unique 308-230 win prediction for the President.

Wasn't it Maine where there was a lot of noise about Romney and the National Republicans dicking over Ron Paul and giving the state to Romney? Thus, couldn't that open up the case where many of those disgruntled Maine "Paul" Republican might refuse to fall in line and instead stay home or vote Obama or more likely Gary Johnson in order to spite Romney?

We can hope.

[Objectiveland]

No. You never understood the point. You want to claim Obama is not a spender. Then when I showed he was the greatest of spenders you said it was because he had to to maintain GW's spending and there was nothing he could do about it.

What... Then pray tell, what is this:



This image that you keep ignoring over and over, that shows that I was NOT saying that spending UNDER Obama has somehow magically become zero. Face it, you fucking lost. You claimed that Democrats are trying to pay for THEIR spending. THEY are not going on a spending spree. THEY are PAYING for already existing programs. There's a difference between paying and spending. At least TRY to use words correctly.

No. Obama is spending and the chart that you think I am ignoring shows it (~ 3.5 trillion a year over the last 3 years). You believe he is "paying" for GW's spending. That is exactly what Obama wants people to believe (so at least he fooled you). How high is the deficit going to have to get before he is spending or "paying"...LOL

[Mavorpen]

No. Obama is spending and the chart that you think I am ignoring shows it (~ 3.5 trillion a year over the last 3 years). You believe he is "paying" for GW's spending. That is exactly what Obama wants people to believe (so at least he fooled you). How high is the deficit going to have to get before he is spending or "paying"...LOL

Obama isn't SPENDING 3 trillion dollars. PLEASE tell me what he implemented that cost 3 trillion dollars. Go ahead. Tally up every dime he's spent and prove he spent 3.5 trillion dollars. I NEVER said that Obama hasn't spent any money. NEVER. I said that about HALF of the deficit is due to Bush, and the other half has little to do with Obama. As Factcheck.com put it:

So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

You lost. Get the hell over it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No. Obama is spending and the chart that you think I am ignoring shows it (~ 3.5 trillion a year over the last 3 years). You believe he is "paying" for GW's spending. That is exactly what Obama wants people to believe (so at least he fooled you). How high is the deficit going to have to get before he is spending or "paying"...LOL

Obama isn't SPENDING 3 trillion dollars. PLEASE tell me what he implemented that cost 3 trillion dollars. Go ahead. Tally up every dime he's spent and prove he spent 3.5 trillion dollars. I NEVER said that Obama hasn't spent any money. NEVER. I said that about HALF of the deficit is due to Bush, and the other half has little to do with Obama. As Factcheck.com put it:

So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

You lost. Get the hell over it.

Forget it. If his posting history is any indication, Objectiveland is the Randian equivalent of the Black Knight from Monty Python And The Quest For The Holy Grail, refusing to admit defeat even as his limbs are chopped off and he lies bleeding to death on the ground, screaming "Come back here! I'll bite your mooching socialist knees off!"

[Divair]

Obama isn't SPENDING 3 trillion dollars. PLEASE tell me what he implemented that cost 3 trillion dollars. Go ahead. Tally up every dime he's spent and prove he spent 3.5 trillion dollars. I NEVER said that Obama hasn't spent any money. NEVER. I said that about HALF of the deficit is due to Bush, and the other half has little to do with Obama. As Factcheck.com put it:



You lost. Get the hell over it.

Forget it. If his posting history is any indication, Objectiveland is the Randian equivalent of the Black Knight from Monty Python And The Quest For The Holy Grail, refusing to admit defeat even as his limbs are chopped off and he lies bleeding to death on the ground, screaming "Come back here! I'll bite your mooching socialist knees off!"

[Mavorpen]

Forget it. If his posting history is any indication, Objectiveland is the Randian equivalent of the Black Knight from Monty Python And The Quest For The Holy Grail, refusing to admit defeat even as his limbs are chopped off and he lies bleeding to death on the ground, screaming "Come back here! I'll bite your mooching socialist knees off!"

I'm half expecting, "FACTCHECK IS LIBERUL PLOT PAID FOR BY GUBMT LOOTURS!"

[Objectiveland]

No. Obama is spending and the chart that you think I am ignoring shows it (~ 3.5 trillion a year over the last 3 years). You believe he is "paying" for GW's spending. That is exactly what Obama wants people to believe (so at least he fooled you). How high is the deficit going to have to get before he is spending or "paying"...LOL

Obama isn't SPENDING 3 trillion dollars. PLEASE tell me what he implemented that cost 3 trillion dollars. Go ahead. Tally up every dime he's spent and prove he spent 3.5 trillion dollars. I NEVER said that Obama hasn't spent any money. NEVER. I said that about HALF of the deficit is due to Bush, and the other half has little to do with Obama. As Factcheck.com put it:

So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

You lost. Get the hell over it.

Lost what? You are either willfully ignorant or you genuinely don't understand this. My whole point is summed up in your last sentence. The spike from 2008-2009 was continued by Obama for 2010, 2011, 2012... (remember my $100 to $1000 example). You want me to believe the sitting President has no control over current spending levels (or "paying levels" to you)because of the previous President? Has no contrl over the deficit because of the previous President? The only thing that keeps him from really spending like he wants is the House...What a leader Obama is!