Obama on Letterman

[Jeff Young]

Percentage of what?

Percentage increase over prior spending. Read the article dude, it's short.

 

[craig]

Tom,

I know you strongly feel that you are right and Obama has ruined everything.

So if you are really right why is Obama winning the election by a wide margin?

Gallup's at 47% to 47% thats pretty close.

 

[Jeff Young]

You have to look at a wide variety of polls to get the true picture, there are anamolies on both sides. Some polls have Obama up 7 or 8 points, Gallup has it tied. The truth is probably in the 4-5 point range.

The bigger problem for Romney is the electoral map. Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Iowa -- all trending Obama. Only NC is trending Romney.

The "path to victory" in the electoral college doesn't look very good for Romney right now. Sure could change quickly, elections do sometimes, if the election were held today, Obama beats Romney by nearly the same margin as he beat McCain in 2008 in the electoral college.

 

[Bob Fechter]

So you criticize me for using a Forbes blog, but you can use a Forbes editorial written by an avowed left winger. HAhahahahahaha.

Common misconception. Actually, a big chunk of that new debt was already in place in the 2009 Budget Bush put together. Obama's 2010 budget cut spending, as will his 2013 projected budget.

Obama has, percentage wise, increased spending the least of any President since Eisenhower. From Forbes, a non-partisan source:


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

See:

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

 

[Mark]

There should have been a drum-roll in there first Bob!

Here we see 1st class evidence of exactly why posters who demonstrate a propensity to simply copy and paste junk from the inter web to (I suppose) make their points better than they could make them themselves, often shoot themselves in the foot.

You are far less likely to contradict yourself if you use your own brain instead of using someone elses.



Continue, please......

 

[Jeff Young]

What the fuck is wrong with you guys?

Bob's "Forbes" article had no science it on a science topic.

The article I cite is NUMBERS about MONEY which is what Forbes does. Show me the numbers are wrong, like National Geographic and scientists showed us the energy guy prattling on about sea ice numbers doesn't know what he is talking about.

Do you read Better Homes and Gardens for advice on what wheel bearing grease to use?

 

[Jim Craik]

You know Jeff, I'm not too sure these folks read your article, after all Forbes is a known left wing supporter. I think a graph might clear things up.

Notice that the long lines showing big government growth are Reagan and Bush and the short lines showing slow government growth are Clinton and Obama.

If you really care about runaway growth in government spending you need to vote Democrat.

 

[Jeff Young]

There should have been a drum-roll in there first Bob!

Here we see 1st class evidence of exactly why posters who demonstrate a propensity to simply copy and paste junk from the inter web to (I suppose) make their points better than they could make them themselves, often shoot themselves in the foot.

You are far less likely to contradict yourself if you use your own brain instead of using someone elses.



Continue, please......

A disturbing trend amongst older white male conservatives appears to be put their hands over their eyes and ears, chanting "nananananananananana" and ignoring science and numbers, all while claiming this is "critica thinking."

Stuff like: a vast majority of the world's scientists say the earth is warming, and most believe if it is due to human activity. Response: No way, can't be, it was cold today and by the way we've been around for billions of years so it can't be true.

Weird.

At least in the US, until the 80s or so, the Republican (conservative) party used to be the party of science, common sense, logic, reason, etc. The Democrats were the feel gooders. Now, we have something like 50% of our population who doesn't believe in evolution, most of them conservatives, or things like Bob's post above where he equates a blog by a non-scientist on climatology with actual budget numbers from Forbes.

Like John Stewart said the other night, there is Chaos on Bullshit Mountain!

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff, here is the great "Chaos on Bullshit Mountain" clip. Quite revealing.

 

[Tom P]

Percentage increase over prior spending. Read the article dude, it's short.

Jeff, Obama (33.9%) does have a smaller percentage than Bush (46.2%), but Bush's $4.9 trillion is a percentage of a smaller amount $10.7 trillion where Obama's $5.44 trillion is a percentage of $16.02 trillion. Amazing phenomenon as the number goes up the percentage comes down. Brilliant reasoning though!

 

[Doug S.]

Jeff, here is the great "Chaos on Bullshit Mountain" clip. Quite revealing.

Hilarious...hadn't seen it!

One must keep in mind, though, that he is a comedian...just as is Rush Limbaugh (although Stewart is MUCH funnier, IMHO).

Remember when Pat Paulsen ran for POTUS back in the 70's and his main self-stated reason was that he was funnier than the other candidates? IIRC, the Smothers Brothers had to stop his appearances on their show because some governmental organization insisted that they allow his "opponents" equal time....but, I've never had a great memory, and I've slept since then, so....:huh:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jeff Young]

Jeff, Obama (33.9%) does have a smaller percentage than Bush (46.2%), but Bush's $4.9 trillion is a percentage of a smaller amount $10.7 trillion where Obama's $5.44 trillion is a percentage of $16.02 trillion. Amazing phenomenon as the number goes up the percentage comes down. Brilliant reasoning though!

Uh, wot?

Percentage increase versus the budget immediately preceding "yours" is the only way to compare growth rates over time.

And just so you know, this "amazing phenomenon" is called "math" in that a percentage involves a numerator and a denominator, and as the denominator increases, the percentage goes down.

Yet another example of what I was talking about above.

 

[Tom P]

That's funny. Most people who I talk to who voted for him and will vote for him again (white, black, latino, male, female) do so because:

1. He stewarded us through the worst economic recession in our life times.

2. He's improved our standing with our allies in the rest of the world.

3. He ended the war in Iraq and is the only candidate who has a plan for getting us out of Afghanistan.

4. He backs equal rights for gay folks.

5. He is the first President to get something done with our health care issue -- we are the only Western democracy with millions of people with no access to health care, and we spend 30% more per capita on health care than other countries for worse results.

6. He offered a reasonable budget deficit reduction plan of 2-3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases, which the Tea Zombies in the House rejected.

7. He believes in the basic principle that a easonable progressive income tax is the fairest means of collecting revenue for government.

1. Surely you jest, gas doubled, unemployment still .7% higher, credit rating lowered, $5.44 trillion in new debt, housing still in the shitter, etc. Might as well be following PeeWee Herman. Sorry PeeWee.
2. Yeah, that leading from behind is really inspirational. I also like the part where he pats the Soviet presidents hand and makes a promise for after the election. `
3. We left Iraq in turmoil, bombings and death daily. When we leave Afghanistan the same thing will happen.
4. You got one right, I'm relieved.
5. Medicaid and Medicare are full of fraud, and you think this giant government plan that nobody read, with thousands of hidden agendas will make every thing ducky.
6. If you remember correctly, Reids senate unanimously voted down Obama's "reasonable" budget as well and they haven't voted to make a budget in over 3 years.
7. He believes in getting a voting base through entitlements and hammering the rich.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Ridiculous, My blogger was basing his article on real scientific data, young's article was an editorial by an admitted left wing operative manipulating numbers (where have we seen that before?). Then the liberal hyenas come in and get a nut off of a clip from a website who's motto is, "read less, learn more."

Perfect that says it all, "don't bother listening to both sides, just listen to comics like stewart!"

 

[Mark]

And just so you know, this "amazing phenomenon" is called "math" in that a percentage involves a numerator and a denominator, and as the denominator increases, the percentage goes down.

Best statement thus far. I Know we don't agree on most things Jeff. But credit where credit's due.

 

[Tom P]

Uh, wot?

Percentage increase versus the budget immediately preceding "yours" is the only way to compare growth rates over time.

And just so you know, this "amazing phenomenon" is called "math" in that a percentage involves a numerator and a denominator, and as the denominator increases, the percentage goes down.

Yet another example of what I was talking about above.

It's called fuzzy math to distort the largest debt gain in hystory in the shortest timespan. $5.44 trillion in under four years is alot more than $4.9 trillion in 8 years last I knew.

 

[Jeff Young]

Ridiculous, My blogger was basing his article on real scientific data, young's article was an editorial by an admitted left wing operative manipulating numbers (where have we seen that before?). Then the liberal hyenas come in and get a nut off of a clip from a website who's motto is, "read less, learn more."

Perfect that says it all, "don't bother listening to both sides, just listen to comics like stewart!"

Ok Bob, show us what you got math wise. How were those figures manipulated?

Your Forbes guy took raw data -- Antartic ice increasing -- and jumped to a conclusion (no global warming) without any scientific explanation as to why.

The National Geo article and others involve scientists explaining the reasons why the extreme decrease in sea ice in the Arctic and the increase in the Antarctic are not inconsistent.

Like I said, I have no idea when why or how the Republican party became the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-common sense party and instead turned to religion, fear and "it just ain't right." That stuff is what made the Democrats the mess they were in the 70s and 80s. Bad way to go.

 

[Mark]

Steady Jeff, Claiming your science fact are common sense is a little shakey.

I think opposite to you on Global Warming and think my reasons are far more logical and 'common sense'

Firstly, most of these facts you rely on are impossible to prove without access to a time machine. Best guesses are just guesses. Alot of this stuff cannot be proven period.

Scientists also thought that the Thalidomide drug was a good idea. Oh yes and DDT.

 

[Tom P]

Damn, I forgot Jeff if a lawyer. The fabrication of "facts" and "fuzzy logic" fit right in to his argument. Geez, just saying lawyer leaves a bad taste. Good day "Dude".

 

[Bob Fechter]

It goes beyond that, the "scientific" community has been caught several times altering data to get the results they want.

Then, they say the debate is over, case closed. Move on to the next issue.

There was a time when the debate in science was never over.