(10-28-2014 01:23 PM)BobL Wrote:  Your link takes me to the main page, I have no idea which table you are referring to.

Oh give me a break, Bob. You're not unintelligent. I'm confident that you can find 'the federal budget, outlays, receipts and deficit' on their site. I was pointing out that the source taking issue with those numbers was the white house... and not trying to provide a link to the data.

Here you go: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Quote:It is not ignored...the article states that in the end TARP only cost 22 billion which meshes with your figures. It also states that to assign the cost of TARP to Bush and the payback to Obama would be unfair so all spending and revenue resulting from TARP has been excluded.


Again I used their numbers only to reply to another post not to make an assertion either way.

Its tiring when I read bogus statements, whether it be Obama has tripled the debt, or that Obama has reduced the deficit by 2/3, when the facts are quite different.

I didn't say you were using them in any way... I said Cato was. The minute you start excluding things, numbers get skewed.... just as you allude to in your final comment about Dems. To think they don't have an agenda just like everyone else is silly and I know you don't think they don't. Their agenda is essentially to point out that BOTH parties are complicit. I agree, but that doesn't make them without bias.

Case in point

from 2007-2008, we went up by 300byn... Between 2008 and 2009, spending went up by 800byn and has remained there... meaning that it was 1.1trill more in 2009 than 2007, and still 1.1 trilllion in 2010 and 2011 and is projected to go up another trillion over the next 5 years.

I don't know exactly what year that 500byn was spent and I suspect it may have crossed numerous years... as did the repayment... but I built a spreadsheet based on the numbers you quoted and it implies a far smaller increase in spending, EVEN IF you take out the 500byn for TARP... which was only spent once, and not spent every year.

My point being that if we attribute the 2008 spending all to Bush, and then take 500byn out of 2009 for Obama for TARP, we STILL went up by 300byn in 2009... equal to Bush's increase... and in 2010, we SPENT AGAIN the 500byn allocated to TARP in 2009 (that wasn't spent on TARP in 2010) and essentially called it 'flat' spending... and then again in 2011 we spent that 500, PLUS another 250byn.

It doesn't change their point (to someone against increased spending like a libertarian) It merely shows that the moment you start choosing data to exclude, you can show a bias. 300byn in 2008 for Bush is 9%, but 300byn in 2010 for Obama is only 6%, and 250byn in 2011 is only 2%. Those numbers don't add up, even when you adjust for the higher gross numbers. I find that politicians tend to use percentages to make numbers look smaller, and 'the numbers' to make them look bigger. Same with investment guys. If you have a 100% gain in year one and a 50% loss in year two, you APPEAR to still be ahead, but you're not.

(10-28-2014 02:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 01:23 PM)BobL Wrote:  Your link takes me to the main page, I have no idea which table you are referring to.

Oh give me a break, Bob. You're not unintelligent. I'm confident that you can find 'the federal budget, outlays, receipts and deficit' on their site. I was pointing out that the source taking issue with those numbers was the white house... and not trying to provide a link to the data.

Here you go: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Quote:It is not ignored...the article states that in the end TARP only cost 22 billion which meshes with your figures. It also states that to assign the cost of TARP to Bush and the payback to Obama would be unfair so all spending and revenue resulting from TARP has been excluded.


Again I used their numbers only to reply to another post not to make an assertion either way.

Its tiring when I read bogus statements, whether it be Obama has tripled the debt, or that Obama has reduced the deficit by 2/3, when the facts are quite different.

I didn't say you were using them in any way... I said Cato was. The minute you start excluding things, numbers get skewed.... just as you allude to in your final comment about Dems. To think they don't have an agenda just like everyone else is silly and I know you don't think they don't. Their agenda is essentially to point out that BOTH parties are complicit. I agree, but that doesn't make them without bias.

Case in point

from 2007-2008, we went up by 300byn... Between 2008 and 2009, spending went up by 800byn and has remained there... meaning that it was 1.1trill more in 2009 than 2007, and still 1.1 trilllion in 2010 and 2011 and is projected to go up another trillion over the next 5 years.

I don't know exactly what year that 500byn was spent and I suspect it may have crossed numerous years... as did the repayment... but I built a spreadsheet based on the numbers you quoted and it implies a far smaller increase in spending, EVEN IF you take out the 500byn for TARP... which was only spent once, and not spent every year.

My point being that if we attribute the 2008 spending all to Bush, and then take 500byn out of 2009 for Obama for TARP, we STILL went up by 300byn in 2009... equal to Bush's increase... and in 2010, we SPENT AGAIN the 500byn allocated to TARP in 2009 (that wasn't spent on TARP in 2010) and essentially called it 'flat' spending... and then again in 2011 we spent that 500, PLUS another 250byn.

It doesn't change their point (to someone against increased spending like a libertarian) It merely shows that the moment you start choosing data to exclude, you can show a bias. 300byn in 2008 for Bush is 9%, but 300byn in 2010 for Obama is only 6%, and 250byn in 2011 is only 2%. Those numbers don't add up, even when you adjust for the higher gross numbers. I find that politicians tend to use percentages to make numbers look smaller, and 'the numbers' to make them look bigger. Same with investment guys. If you have a 100% gain in year one and a 50% loss in year two, you APPEAR to still be ahead, but you're not.

Actually I found the budgets at the GPO, using google...did not feel like searching the WH site.
Keep in mind when you use straight up numbers(rather than percentagesor adjusted numbers) it is also misleading as it does not represent the time value of money. So 300 Billion in 2008 might be 330 Billion in 2010.

(10-28-2014 03:21 PM)BobL Wrote:  Actually I found the budgets at the GPO, using google...did not feel like searching the WH site.
Keep in mind when you use straight up numbers(rather than percentagesor adjusted numbers) it is also misleading as it does not represent the time value of money. So 300 Billion in 2008 might be 330 Billion in 2010.

Fair enough point... though percentages would be subject to the same issue. The only way to address that would be some sort of 'constant dollar' calculation, which has its own biases (the argument about the 'real' rate of inflation).

I don't think we're disagreeing that while figures don't lie, liars CAN figure... and that there are dozens of ways to 'view' things that should be 'facts'.

I just think it important to know who the likely audience of a piece like that was and take it for what it was intended to demonstrate and nothing more. It probably wasn't intended for Bush OR Obama supporters, but more for people (mostly imo centrists and republicans) equally disgusted with them both...

What I mean is that someone who supports Obama isn't going to vote for a Libertarian. Someone who doesn't support Obama MIGHT if he saw that Obama and Bush were essentially the same... ESPECIALLY if Obama was somehow 'better'.

I think the choice of titles and data is intended to drive those who speak loudest against Obama's spending (fiscal conservatives) to a 3rd party rather than back to a Republican.

(10-28-2014 10:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Not all the facts are positive

But those aren't the facts democrats want to talk about.