Price of Gas is back up

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to doozy-day's comment:

     

    I think the point of this thread should be basic, without all of you economic experts ringing your own bells.......

    The price of gas is up, way up, the economy isn't improving, we are all being squeezed more than ever on everything from taxes, to groceries, to gas, to health insurance, with little or no end in sight.

    All Obama wants to do is campaign for a living, pick and choose the battles he knows he can win, and then go on vacation.

    Congress on the other hand, is forever in campaign mode because they don't know how to do anything else, it is all about the next election, and who wins.

    We are running out of money to cover all of these increases, and the governement won't stop spending.

    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

     




     

    So if you get a paycut at work, does that mean you now suddenly have a spending problem?

     




    When did the government take a paycut?? Last i rember the government still takes in hundreds of billions of dollars. They just spend more than they take in. The Government takes in more than enough money to sustain itself they just need to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    When baby-Bush took office, gov't receipts were 20% of GDP.

    When baby-Bush left office receipts were 15% of GDP.

    So unless you live under a rock or practice a peculiar brand of wingnut math, 20% down to 15% is an enormous paycut.




    Government took a paycut?

    Yet somehow we borrow 40% of everything the government spends, and have a budget North of a trillion larger than Bush's biggest budget.

     

    Yep.  You are convincing me, yawn.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to doozy-day's comment:

     

    I think the point of this thread should be basic, without all of you economic experts ringing your own bells.......

    The price of gas is up, way up, the economy isn't improving, we are all being squeezed more than ever on everything from taxes, to groceries, to gas, to health insurance, with little or no end in sight.

    All Obama wants to do is campaign for a living, pick and choose the battles he knows he can win, and then go on vacation.

    Congress on the other hand, is forever in campaign mode because they don't know how to do anything else, it is all about the next election, and who wins.

    We are running out of money to cover all of these increases, and the governement won't stop spending.

    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

     




     

    So if you get a paycut at work, does that mean you now suddenly have a spending problem?

     




    When did the government take a paycut?? Last i rember the government still takes in hundreds of billions of dollars. They just spend more than they take in. The Government takes in more than enough money to sustain itself they just need to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    When baby-Bush took office, gov't receipts were 20% of GDP.

    When baby-Bush left office receipts were 15% of GDP.

    So unless you live under a rock or practice a peculiar brand of wingnut math, 20% down to 15% is an enormous paycut.

     




    5% Doesnt mean diddly Squat when your talking Hundreds of billions of dollars. Again the government has more than enough money it just needs to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    Ummmm hey spanky, ya got your so-called "argument" bass ackwards as usual.

    It means the opposite of "diddly" because it is a RATIO.

    The larger the numbers and the larger the change in those numbers the larger the corresponding change in the related ratios.

    So when you talk about a 5% change in the GDP ratio of revenues to the US economy, you're talking about a $750 BILLION loss of revenue. Enough money to fund the Pentagon AND Education AND the VA every year.



    2008    Gas @ $4.00/gallon = Bush`s Fault!

    2013    Gas @ $4.00/gallon = Still Bush`s Fault

    Got it.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to doozy-day's comment:

     

    I think the point of this thread should be basic, without all of you economic experts ringing your own bells.......

    The price of gas is up, way up, the economy isn't improving, we are all being squeezed more than ever on everything from taxes, to groceries, to gas, to health insurance, with little or no end in sight.

    All Obama wants to do is campaign for a living, pick and choose the battles he knows he can win, and then go on vacation.

    Congress on the other hand, is forever in campaign mode because they don't know how to do anything else, it is all about the next election, and who wins.

    We are running out of money to cover all of these increases, and the governement won't stop spending.

    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

     




     

    So if you get a paycut at work, does that mean you now suddenly have a spending problem?

     




    When did the government take a paycut?? Last i rember the government still takes in hundreds of billions of dollars. They just spend more than they take in. The Government takes in more than enough money to sustain itself they just need to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    When baby-Bush took office, gov't receipts were 20% of GDP.

    When baby-Bush left office receipts were 15% of GDP.

    So unless you live under a rock or practice a peculiar brand of wingnut math, 20% down to 15% is an enormous paycut.

     




    5% Doesnt mean diddly Squat when your talking Hundreds of billions of dollars. Again the government has more than enough money it just needs to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    Ummmm hey spanky, ya got your so-called "argument" bass ackwards as usual.

    It means the opposite of "diddly" because it is a RATIO.

    The larger the numbers and the larger the change in those numbers the larger the corresponding change in the related ratios.

    So when you talk about a 5% change in the GDP ratio of revenues to the US economy, you're talking about a $750 BILLION loss of revenue. Enough money to fund the Pentagon AND Education AND the VA every year.



    And ill say again. The problem isnt Needing to increase revenue, the problem is the government needs  to appropriate its funds better. Increasing taxes is only gonna fund the government for 8 Days. what are we gonna do about the other 257?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to doozy-day's comment:

     

    I think the point of this thread should be basic, without all of you economic experts ringing your own bells.......

    The price of gas is up, way up, the economy isn't improving, we are all being squeezed more than ever on everything from taxes, to groceries, to gas, to health insurance, with little or no end in sight.

    All Obama wants to do is campaign for a living, pick and choose the battles he knows he can win, and then go on vacation.

    Congress on the other hand, is forever in campaign mode because they don't know how to do anything else, it is all about the next election, and who wins.

    We are running out of money to cover all of these increases, and the governement won't stop spending.

    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

     




     

    So if you get a paycut at work, does that mean you now suddenly have a spending problem?

     




    When did the government take a paycut?? Last i rember the government still takes in hundreds of billions of dollars. They just spend more than they take in. The Government takes in more than enough money to sustain itself they just need to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    When baby-Bush took office, gov't receipts were 20% of GDP.

    When baby-Bush left office receipts were 15% of GDP.

    So unless you live under a rock or practice a peculiar brand of wingnut math, 20% down to 15% is an enormous paycut.

     




    5% Doesnt mean diddly Squat when your talking Hundreds of billions of dollars. Again the government has more than enough money it just needs to appropriate it correctly.

     

     




     

    Ummmm hey spanky, ya got your so-called "argument" bass ackwards as usual.

    It means the opposite of "diddly" because it is a RATIO.

    The larger the numbers and the larger the change in those numbers the larger the corresponding change in the related ratios.

    So when you talk about a 5% change in the GDP ratio of revenues to the US economy, you're talking about a $750 BILLION loss of revenue. Enough money to fund the Pentagon AND Education AND the VA every year.

     



    And ill say again. The problem isnt Needing to increase revenue, the problem is the government needs  to appropriate its funds better. Increasing taxes is only gonna fund the government for 8 Days. what are we gonna do about the other 257?

     

     




     

    No, the problem is a COMBINATION of spending and revenues.

    The Fed needs to allocate it's funds better but it also needs to bring revenues at least up to pre-recession levels.

    At no time since 1950 has gov't revenues been as low as 15%.

    Historically, US gov't revenues have averaged just over 18% of GDP.

    That 3% diffrence between 15% and 18% represents about $500 billion in lost revenue per year.

    Since if we are operating at about a $1 trillion dollar deficit, it is fundamental logic which shows that in order to balance the budget it requires a revenue increse to historic averages combined with a cut in spending, a 50/50 proposition.

    Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output.

    And don't forget, the TWO largest and longest stretchs of economic prosperity in the US occured when taxes were higher, in the 60's exponentially higher, than they are today. So it's not the tax rate that is the problem.

     



    Let me ask you something Airborne.. If you have an Alcoholic Friend Do you get him to stop being an Alcoholic by giving him more alcohol? If you have even half a brain i think you'll Pick up where im going with this.

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    "Every country in the EU that has enacted austerity and tried to cut spending on their way to a prosperity is now in a double-dip recession."

     

    We`re in a recession.  What don`t you get?  

     
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    airborne: "Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output. '

    Why does anyone bother arguing with a fanatic who calls a US President "Baby Bush" ?

    'Cuz its fun poking holes in his specious blatantly contradictory  arguments...

    So, airborne blames Bush for "lost revenue" in 2008. Yet Obama is not to blame for lost revenue from 2009 to 2013,  due to the worst recovery from a recession in US history? (previously, the worst the recession, the better was the recovery!)

    That is the point, DUH ! Grow the private economy, let the private sector flourish, and tax revenues increase.

    Dont raise taxes and stifle the economy with job killing ObamaCare, and ruinous regulations...but the ideologues like airborne cant see beyond their noses...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    "Every country in the EU that has enacted austerity and tried to cut spending on their way to a prosperity is now in a double-dip recession."

     

    We`re in a recession.  What don`t you get?  

     




     

    Redefining economic terms to suit your ideology is not very convincing.

    Recession is TWO consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

    We've only had one initial report which most economists agree will be revised upward in the coming two months of re-evaluation.

     



    First of all.............you got proof of the "most economists agree" thing?  Secondly, if it`s like the MIRACULOUS drop of the unemployment rate 3 seconds before the election, it`s about as good as ...........well, ah-hem........your word. "Revised" numbers......LOL!

    Thirdly, Q2 will be worse.  Seen the Wal Mart numbers?  Seen the layoffs?  Job numbers?

    Good freakin luck!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    airborne: "Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output. '

    Why does anyone bother arguing with a fanatic who calls a US President "Baby Bush" ?

    'Cuz its fun poking holes in his specious blatantly contradictory  arguments...

    So, airborne blames Bush for "lost revenue" in 2008. Yet Obama is not to blame for lost revenue from 2009 to 2013,  due to the worst recovery from a recession in US history? (previously, the worst the recession, the better was the recovery!)

    That is the point, DUH ! Grow the private economy, let the private sector flourish, and tax revenues increase.

    Dont raise taxes and stifle the economy with job killing ObamaCare, and ruinous regulations...but the ideologues like airborne cant see beyond their noses...



    Liberalcrankup where is the proof that The Affordable Healthcare Act has killed jobs ...... or are you just using somebody elses talking points ?

    BTW how many jobs were killed by the banksters and others in the financial sectors ?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    airborne: "Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output. '

    Why does anyone bother arguing with a fanatic who calls a US President "Baby Bush" ?

    'Cuz its fun poking holes in his specious blatantly contradictory  arguments...

    So, airborne blames Bush for "lost revenue" in 2008. Yet Obama is not to blame for lost revenue from 2009 to 2013,  due to the worst recovery from a recession in US history? (previously, the worst the recession, the better was the recovery!)

    That is the point, DUH ! Grow the private economy, let the private sector flourish, and tax revenues increase.

    Dont raise taxes and stifle the economy with job killing ObamaCare, and ruinous regulations...but the ideologues like airborne cant see beyond their noses...

     




    You wingnuts are freaking hilarious.

     

    Ya'll keep regurgitating wingnut echo chamber baloney while ignoring reality.

    Ya'll are like broken records and you NEVER address any facts and figures.

    You keep droning on about taxes yet you are to ideologically ignorant to explain the reality that your tax meme is bullshiite.

    So explain to the class spanky how the two LONGEST economic expansions happened when taxes were much higher.

    In the 60's the top rate was 70% and yet the country experienced the second longest economic expansion in history.

    In the 90's the tax rates were higher and capital gains were taxed as ordinary income yet that decade produced the LONGEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY and the Federal budget was in SURPLUS.

    Spare the sloganeering and explain that basic FACT!!




    First of all.............you got proof of the "most economists agree" thing?  Secondly, if it`s like the MIRACULOUS drop of the unemployment rate 3 seconds before the election, it`s about as good as ...........well, ah-hem........your word. "Revised" numbers......LOL!

     

    Thirdly, Q2 will be worse.  Seen the Wal Mart numbers?  Seen the layoffs?  Job numbers?

    Good freakin luck!

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    You're all wrong.  During the last years of the Bush admin, the "analysts" who had been manipulating energy prices while working for Enron found their way to Wall Street.  The amount of money in the crude oil futures market went sky rocketing, which was odd considering the economy was suffering which usually causes gas prices to fall.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    airborne: "Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output. '

    Why does anyone bother arguing with a fanatic who calls a US President "Baby Bush" ?

    'Cuz its fun poking holes in his specious blatantly contradictory  arguments...

    So, airborne blames Bush for "lost revenue" in 2008. Yet Obama is not to blame for lost revenue from 2009 to 2013,  due to the worst recovery from a recession in US history? (previously, the worst the recession, the better was the recovery!)

    That is the point, DUH ! Grow the private economy, let the private sector flourish, and tax revenues increase.

    Dont raise taxes and stifle the economy with job killing ObamaCare, and ruinous regulations...but the ideologues like airborne cant see beyond their noses...




    You wingnuts are freaking hilarious.

    Ya'll keep regurgitating wingnut echo chamber baloney while ignoring reality.

    Ya'll are like broken records and you NEVER address any facts and figures.

    You keep droning on about taxes yet you are to ideologically ignorant to explain the reality that your tax meme is bullshiite.

    So explain to the class spanky how the two LONGEST economic expansions happened when taxes were much higher.

    In the 60's the top rate was 70% and yet the country experienced the second longest economic expansion in history.

    In the 90's the tax rates were higher and capital gains were taxed as ordinary income yet that decade produced the LONGEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY and the Federal budget was in SURPLUS.

    Spare the sloganeering and explain that basic FACT!!

     




     

    First of all.............you got proof of the "most economists agree" thing?  Secondly, if it`s like the MIRACULOUS drop of the unemployment rate 3 seconds before the election, it`s about as good as ...........well, ah-hem........your word. "Revised" numbers......LOL!

    Thirdly, Q2 will be worse.  Seen the Wal Mart numbers?  Seen the layoffs?  Job numbers?

    Good freakin luck!

     

     

     




    You wingnuts are hilarious.

     

    When the BEA shows bad news for the US economy, you poltroons cheer and point to it as gospel.

    When that very same bureau explains how they calculated those numbers you morons go all stoopid and suddenly don't believe them.

    The reason for the decline of -0.1% in q4 2012 is because gov't spending dropped in the 4th quarter

    and

    That the "advanced estimate" of GDP is always revised upward, 0.5% in the second month and 0.6% in the third month.

     

    When the BEA says anything that shows bad news for the US economy you cheer.

    When it contradicts your ignorant ideology then you idiots call the BEA heretics, in the same freakin breath you just used to cite it's numbers seconds ago.

     

    Let me know when ya'll stop squirming and dragging those goal posts all over the field, then we can talk.

    (QUOTE)



    We`ve been through this 10 times.  The government spent MORE in Q4/2012 than it did in Q3/2012, and it spent MORE in 2012 than it did in 2011!   Again......what don`t you get?

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    airborne: "Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output. '

    Why does anyone bother arguing with a fanatic who calls a US President "Baby Bush" ?

    'Cuz its fun poking holes in his specious blatantly contradictory  arguments...

    So, airborne blames Bush for "lost revenue" in 2008. Yet Obama is not to blame for lost revenue from 2009 to 2013,  due to the worst recovery from a recession in US history? (previously, the worst the recession, the better was the recovery!)

    That is the point, DUH ! Grow the private economy, let the private sector flourish, and tax revenues increase.

    Dont raise taxes and stifle the economy with job killing ObamaCare, and ruinous regulations...but the ideologues like airborne cant see beyond their noses...




    You wingnuts are freaking hilarious.

    Ya'll keep regurgitating wingnut echo chamber baloney while ignoring reality.

    Ya'll are like broken records and you NEVER address any facts and figures.

    You keep droning on about taxes yet you are to ideologically ignorant to explain the reality that your tax meme is bullshiite.

    So explain to the class spanky how the two LONGEST economic expansions happened when taxes were much higher.

    In the 60's the top rate was 70% and yet the country experienced the second longest economic expansion in history.

    In the 90's the tax rates were higher and capital gains were taxed as ordinary income yet that decade produced the LONGEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY and the Federal budget was in SURPLUS.

    Spare the sloganeering and explain that basic FACT!!

     




     

    First of all.............you got proof of the "most economists agree" thing?  Secondly, if it`s like the MIRACULOUS drop of the unemployment rate 3 seconds before the election, it`s about as good as ...........well, ah-hem........your word. "Revised" numbers......LOL!

    Thirdly, Q2 will be worse.  Seen the Wal Mart numbers?  Seen the layoffs?  Job numbers?

    Good freakin luck!

     

     

     




    You wingnuts are hilarious.

     

    When the BEA shows bad news for the US economy, you poltroons cheer and point to it as gospel.

    When that very same bureau explains how they calculated those numbers you morons go all stoopid and suddenly don't believe them.

    The reason for the decline of -0.1% in q4 2012 is because gov't spending dropped in the 4th quarter

    and

    That the "advanced estimate" of GDP is always revised upward, 0.5% in the second month and 0.6% in the third month.

     

    When the BEA says anything that shows bad news for the US economy you cheer.

    When it contradicts your ignorant ideology then you idiots call the BEA heretics, in the same freakin breath you just used to cite it's numbers seconds ago.

     

    Let me know when ya'll stop squirming and dragging those goal posts all over the field, then we can talk.



    Only one person moving the goal posts and it`s you.  The government spent more in 2012 than it did in 2011.  it spent more in Q4 than it did in Q3.  It`s pretty simple.  Government spending was UP and we still had a quarter of negative GDP.  That is a FACT!

    You can lie all you want.  The FACT and the TRUTH is ........government spending was UP!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    airborne: "Of course this doesn't take into account the year of lost revenue in 2008. That was an -9% contraction in the US economy which represented about $1.5 trillion dollars of lost economic output. '

    Why does anyone bother arguing with a fanatic who calls a US President "Baby Bush" ?

    'Cuz its fun poking holes in his specious blatantly contradictory  arguments...

    So, airborne blames Bush for "lost revenue" in 2008. Yet Obama is not to blame for lost revenue from 2009 to 2013,  due to the worst recovery from a recession in US history? (previously, the worst the recession, the better was the recovery!)

    That is the point, DUH ! Grow the private economy, let the private sector flourish, and tax revenues increase.

    Dont raise taxes and stifle the economy with job killing ObamaCare, and ruinous regulations...but the ideologues like airborne cant see beyond their noses...

     




    You wingnuts are freaking hilarious.

     

    Ya'll keep regurgitating wingnut echo chamber baloney while ignoring reality.

    Ya'll are like broken records and you NEVER address any facts and figures.

    You keep droning on about taxes yet you are to ideologically ignorant to explain the reality that your tax meme is bullshiite.

    So explain to the class spanky how the two LONGEST economic expansions happened when taxes were much higher.

    In the 60's the top rate was 70% and yet the country experienced the second longest economic expansion in history.

    In the 90's the tax rates were higher and capital gains were taxed as ordinary income yet that decade produced the LONGEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY and the Federal budget was in SURPLUS.

    Spare the sloganeering and explain that basic FACT!!

     




     

    First of all.............you got proof of the "most economists agree" thing?  Secondly, if it`s like the MIRACULOUS drop of the unemployment rate 3 seconds before the election, it`s about as good as ...........well, ah-hem........your word. "Revised" numbers......LOL!

     

    Thirdly, Q2 will be worse.  Seen the Wal Mart numbers?  Seen the layoffs?  Job numbers?

    Good freakin luck!

     




    You wingnuts are hilarious.

     

    When the BEA shows bad news for the US economy, you poltroons cheer and point to it as gospel.

    When that very same bureau says that:

    The reason for that decline of 0.1% is gov't spending dropped in the 4th quarter

    and

    That the "advanced estimate" of GDP is always revised upward, 0.5% in the second month and 0.6% in the third month.

     

    When the BEA says anything that shows bad news for the US economy you cheer.

    When it contradicts your ignorant ideology then you idiots call the BEA wrong, in the same freakin breath you used to cite it's numbers seconds ago.

     

    Let me know when ya'll stop squirming and dragging those goal posts all over the field, then we can talk.

     




    Remember when Tacobreath (aka Jmel) placed all his faith in the Rasmussen polls that proved, without a doubt, that Obama could not possibly be reelected to a second term as president?

     

    Good God, that was funny!

    (QUOTE)



    Wasn`t just Rasmussen stoooooopid, it was Gallup, Suffolk, CNN,U of Colorado, and many, many others.

     

    I had the NFL playoffs wrong too.  I had last years World Series wrong, I may have the Sweet-16 wrong in my bracket in March too.

    What`s next from you stalking troll...........na-na-na -na-na -na?

    Are you standing in the corner with your hands over your ears and stomping your feet?  

    J-WAD/ tantrum:

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Price of Gas is back up

    Good morning airborne, check this our before you take your meds (or maybe wait until after)

     

    Real Federal Spending Up $822.90 Per American Since 2008

     

    February 22, 2013 

    (CNSNews.com) - Inflation-adjusted per capita federal spending went up $822.90 from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, according to official data from the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.

    Real federal spending also increased $2437.64 per household between 2008 and 2012.

    In constant 2012 dollars, the federal government spent $3,176,376,470,000 in 2008 and $3,538,446,000,000 in 2012, according to the U.S. Treasury. (The 2008 spending number was adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

    On April 1, 2008 (the midpoint in the federal fiscal year which ends on Sept. 30), there were 303,381,938 people in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and on April 1, 2012 there were 313,336,712.

    The $3,176,376,470,000 that the federal government spent in fiscal 2008 equaled $10,469.89 for each of the 303,381,938 people who lived in the United States that year. The $3,538,446,000,000 the federal government spent in fiscal 2012 equaled $11,292.79 for each of the 313,336,712 people who lived in the United States that year.

    Thus from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012 inflation-adjusted federal spending per person increased by $822.90.

    That means that over the past four years, the federal government has increased its spending on average by about another $206 each year for every man, woman and child in the country.

    There were 111,115,000 households in the country in April 2008 (the midpoint in the fiscal year) and 114,055,000 households in April 2012. The $3,176,376,470,000 the federal government spent in fiscal 2008 equaled $28,586.39 per household. The $3,538,446,000,000 the federal government spent in fiscal 2012 equaled $31,024.03 per household. Thus from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012 inflation-adjusted federal spending per household increased by $2437.64.

    That means that over the past four years, the federal government has increased its spending on average by about another $609.41 each year for every household in the country.

    In order to cut real federal spending in fiscal 2013 back to the level it was at in fiscal 2008, the federal government would need to cut actual spending this year to a level that is $362,069,530,000 below what it was last year.

     

     

    CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS. 

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share