Reply With Quote
Yeha we shouldn't trust them but rather your dumbass? Uh-huh....
I will go with Bert on this one:
I started looking into "domestic spending" a little. From 1960 to 2009, the federal budget went from $92.2 billion to $3,517.7 billion. In 2005 adjusted dollars, that is $628.9 B to $3,172.2 B. During this time, the population went from 179,323,175 to 308,745,538 (1960 & 2010 census.) Extrapolation of the 2009 population would be 292,418,108. Federal spending has increased by 5.044 times over that 50 years, 209% over dollars and population, to 309%.
Something I'll bet your figure doesn't include are Social; Security and Medicare receipts, offsetting costs for the elderly.
If we take your 9.5% (found the 2009 number, but not your reference) of the federal spending on children for 2009, and reduce it by 6, to 3.5%, then it is a factor of 2.7, yet the spending factor was 3.1%, so spending on children, per capita, has increased by 14%. Not decreased.
Be careful how the wordings of articles tricks people.
I used table 1.3 and census data.
OMB Historical Tables
I didn't double check my math, so feel free to.
Keep in mind, the 6 percentage point decrease rounded to one significant digit could be 5.5% to 6.499%. I wonder if the spending only went down to 4% rather than the 3.5% I calculated. That would make the program 30% more rather than 14%.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-04-2012 at 11:19 AM.
Yeha we shouldn't trust them but rather your dumbass? Uh-huh....
I will go with Bert on this one:
A virtual guarantee that your argument will fail tbh.
Who's twisting words and reading minds now?
http://www.urban.org/projects/kids_share.cfm
Follow the Kid's Share 2011 link for the full latest report in PDF format.
No surprises there.
Is it a twist?
Time and time again, when a proposal is made here in the politics section, you and other liberals blow off the idea because it is a small amount of positive increase. You will not find any single solution.
Oh this is grand. You earlier quote something that says costs are under 10% in 1960 and 6% less in 2009, to an executive summary of what you ask me to follow saying it's 11% of the budget in 2010.
I said I'm not intimately familiar with the programs. I have not raised my children under such programs.
How much do you consume of these programs?
Or is it an attempt to make someone double check my work to find fault, and see it's correct?
Another page and simply more sophistry from the village idiot. Thanks WC for your jr high attempt at accounting. I needed the laugh.
Fuzzy doesn't deserve a response, but I would like to point out that the 9.5% number for 1960 times the approximate 14% increase I calculated comes to 10.83%, and the last material ElNono linked says 11%. ElNono previously linked material suggesting the number went down by 6 percentage points.
I would say that a class of programs that consume 11% of the budget does deserve some attention to find ways to cut.
Did I ever say that? What do you think?
The idea sucks on it's own merits, but your claim that the government spends "huge amounts of money" is misguided too and this is a fact.
BTW, your idea was "blown off" by at least one conservative poster here too.
Figure 8. Government overall spent 20% in 1960. It's 11% nowadays. As I said before, the difference between 1960 and now is that back then States carried the burden more heavily, where now it's mostly the federal government. They're all government though.
So, is it a huge amount of spending?
Nothing. I get no government assistance. The difference between you and me is that when I suggest solutions to problems, I make attempts not to talk out of my ass.
Government spent 20% of the entire budget in 1960... apparently, kids were much more of a problem then.
And sure, every expense in the budget deserves some attention. What's far from clear is that it deserves sterilization/eugenics.
If we use those numbers it's 55% of the 1960 level... Except that would only be true if the budget maintained no growth except of population and inflation. The government is 309% of the 1960 levels adjusting for population and inflation. That makes that 55% around 170%. So it has increased by 70%, right?
Absolutely. That is way too much.
Why would you need to adjust the percentages of a whole for "inflation and population growth"? This is where your ignorance shows it's true colors.
Not as a percentage of total federal spending, it isn't. But now again you're arguing with the report, not me.
(1+1/n)^n
Exponential versus linear. Can anyone chime in on the significance of something like this that is measured say as is in this case, annually.
From 1950-1960 and a little further out, you didn't even have to graduate high school to find a job with enough pay to support a family of 4
Of course we pay more for kids now...they need more to get by and just maybe... do well?
We could throw out the increased govt spending, like teaching and buying kids PC's, electronics and go back to 1960's standards.
Did I mention today's kids are lazy? They should obtain well paying jobs and experience for having a pulse, just like baby boomers had.
Oh yea, that's complicating the issue. Nevermind.
See now you asshole. You don't understand how I am deriving at these numbers, and instead of asking for clarification, you call me ignorant. Well guess what. You are the ignorant one here.
OK, how about we all have 20 different programs that want 10% of the budget each...
Why do I even try to have a rational discussion with you?
Did you look at table 1.3 from the OMB historical page? I don't think you did. If you did, you will note that they adjusted each years budget to 2005 dollars. I used those numbers when getting the five fold increase from 1960 to 2009. This is what I am calling inflation adjusted. The real numbers have the 2009 outlays of about 38 times the 1960 outlays. Now by adjusting for population as well, I decrease the differences that I could have presented. However, i am trying to find realistic numbers here. The population in 2009 was about 72% more than in 1960, therefore we can expect a 72% increase in the 2009 budget over the 1960 budget when using the fixed 2005 dollars. It didn't go up 72% though, it went up 404%!
When your ignorant ass figures this out, and stops being the first to do the name calling, we can continue. Let me know when you comprehend things better. Until, Good-Bye moron.
Why 2005 dollars? Oh because you are trying to cherry pick. You still suck at statistics. Why normalize to a completely different economic climate that was 2005? Either you are stupid or you did it to fudge data.
Thats even before we take your 'benchmark of 1960 or anything else. Its obvious what you did. You picked poles and went with them.
Why not 1995 dollars or 2008 or even better the most recent data? Thats the problem we have taken stats and know how to do things like this. You don't so we make fun of you.
When you start with the insults I know two things:
1) You can refute what I posted
2) You're getting your ass kicked and exposed
We've yet to have a rational discussion, considering every time I disagree with you and post the data to back it up, you come back with insults.
As far of the rest of "your numbers", who cares? You're arguing with a report, not me. When I need information I go to the sources that report that, not to somebody that just wrote 10 posts ago that had no clue what the programs look like.
I'm done here. Feel free to keep talking out your ass.
Let's try to make this dumb-proof:
- In 1960 the US government used 20% of their expenses on children (in 1960 dollars, with 1960 population)
- In 2011 the US government used 11% of their expenses on children (in 2011 dollars, with 2011 population)
lol adjusting percentages for population
lol adjusting percentages for inflation
WC, how much bigger is our GDP relative to 1960, as a percentage?
I didn't look that up. You can find the table in the link I provided as easily as I can.
Isn't it laughable that Fuzzy doesn't know why I use 2005 dollars?
My God, he's an ignorant .
And 20% of 1960 spending is less than 11% of 2009 spending, by a huge factor. Without population adjustments for comparison, that 11% is equivalent to about 55% of the 1960 number because the government grew by about a factor of 5 over that time.
You entirely miss why the two adjustments are needed. Don't be patting yourself on the back yet. Think about it first.
If I were sober, I would try to show you again. Right now, laughing my ass off over you.
Wow, just wow. This is basic math.
At any given time T, the budget total is X and spending on children is a percentage of X.
Of course the amounts differ. That's exactly why you use percentages.
smh
But a smaller percentage of a larger pot can be larger. You have to do the math.
Wow, just wow. This is basic math.
At any given time T, the budget total is X and spending on children is a percentage of X.
Of course the amounts differ. That's exactly why you use percentages.
smh
A smaller percentage is a smaller percentage than a larger percentage...
I mean, do I really have to dumb it down this much?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
