Reply With Quote
When measuring the same thing is 11% smaller than 20%?
From a quick look at this link
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...olor=c&local=s
It looks like our GDP increased 400% from 1960 to 2005. Perhaps that's why we spent more.
When measuring the same thing is 11% smaller than 20%?
WC, of course if we make more money, it's getting distributed accordingly. Our politicians would never actually use it to surplus or anything when they can garner votes due to fiscal promises.
My God... I know what you are saying. It is ridiculous. Why can't you wrap your head around what I'm saying?
20% of $628.9 B is $125.8B
11% of $3,172.2 B is 348.94B
Now this is almost a factor of three, in 2005 dollars. Why don't you understand this? The population only increased by about 72%. This means, in 2005 constant dollars, your 11% is is 61% larger, per capita, than the 20%.
Is that why liberals constantly want a larger budget, so their same slice of the pie gets bigger and bigger?
According to LnGrrrR, the GDP in 2005 is about 500% of 1960. Back to table 1.3, the federal government spent 17.8% of the GDP. 25% of GDP in 2009, 23.8% in 2010, and an estimated 25.3% for 2011. Now this must also be in constant dollars because the GNP for 2005 was 24 times larger than for 1960.
As the wealth of our nation increases from 1960 standards to modern day, does the government need that much more of our wealth to spend as well?
But that's not the case. You are taking 11% from something 5 times larger than the 20% came from.When measuring the same thing is 11% smaller than 20%?
Please... why don't you understand that?
That's my point. We are already spending 5 times what we spent back then, in fixed dollars. It's because of more and more programs. Because of that, other programs should get smaller percentages.
If we adjust for population, that five times is about 3 times as much per capita than we spent back then.
Do you think that's necessary?
Man o man...
lol not understanding normalized values
WC is really deep into the well of fail here.
You don't consider the 2005 dollars normalized?
Tell me. If what the OMB doesn't call "constant (FY 2005) dollars" in numerous tables, reports, etc. isn't a normalized value, then what is?
I think you stepped on it here. Now if I'm wrong, please explain how. If you haven't scoured numerous OMB and CBO do ents like I have, I suggest you see how they use that term before stepping on it again.
WC, I meant increased 300%, my bad. It seemed 2005 GDP was roughly 4X the GDP of 1960. That's what I get for posting late at night.
That was also in FY2005 dollars, right?
Now should our government need to expand more and more? After you factor in the 72(?)% increase in population, that's an increase of about 74% still per capita.
Is that necessary? How much longer can government expand before it completely chocks off the economy?
Meh......ok. I'll give you a break here since I failed to elaborate. My point was that they are normalized values, however you are using them out of context.
When I posted my comment, I didn't realize that Fuzzy had already pointed this out:
So my question to you is essentially the same as Fuzzys:
Why 2005? Why any specific year for that matter?
Scoring totals this year in the NBA will be down. It must be because the players suck.
Because that's what the published OMB data is.
I see you didn't follow the links. Is that your MO, to reply without looking at the links?
I specifically said table 1.3 of the link I provided. As for the 1960 benchmark, that was ElNono's. Not mine.
Here's a PDF of all those historical tables, rather than excel format. Please look at various tables and see how many of them adjust to constant FY 2005 dollars.
Historical Tables Budget of the U. S. Government
Table 1.3 is on page 26 (30 PDF). However, it is last years and 2010 is estimated. 2010 is actual in the latest excel file.
Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2016
What do cherry pick mean? I mean when comparing two arbitrary constants why not just compare them to a third completely different value; that wouldn't make the outcome entirely arbitrary too now would it? Oh thats right it does.
Might as well completely ignore other values that effect the set say like the total set of a particular sample(RE:GDP) while you're at it. I mean you have never seen graphs that list years as percentages of GDP have you? Oh wait thats what you always see.
Just stop; you are dumb and don't know what the you are doing. Your thought exercise has failed.
So?
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Here's a graph I put together some time back:
Note how SS has less than doubles while Health and Human Services is 9 times larger, the treasury is doubled, and the DoD is only about 40% of what it was at the beginning of the graph.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-05-2012 at 03:53 PM.
Sure it's the case. Are you this dumb?
He ain't teaching you basic math
Do you disagree that 20% of 100 is smaller than 11% of 500?
I disagree we're comparing amounts. We're comparing a percentage of a whole at any given time.
I also agree that you don't understand this basic concept.
In order for government to spend at the same rate as 1960 on children, they would need to be spending 20% of the whole today. They only spend 11% of the whole. So the rate at which they spend on children effectively declined from 1960 to today.
I'm sorry I can't dumb it down any more. You should consider enrolling in 5th grade class if you fail to grasp this kind of basic math.
You claim these numbers after you stole someone else's cooked numbers that you obviously have no idea what factors they used and then added your own numbers to it.
Whats WC's solution? Cook the numbers even more relative to another dataset. This isn't lincoln logs or legos. You cannot just add the pieces together and they fit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
