You don't get fooled again

Those stats are bogus.

I´m about as far right as they make them. I think government should stay as far out of private life as possible. As such both republicans and democrates are crazy as batshit to me.

/end discussion...because it´s over and also because I´m right.

ps. Deadcode for pres!

hfjhdhhhhhhhhhhhhhhsghhgfddfghhgfddfghhgfdfghhgfdfghhgfdfhghgfdfghhgfdfhghgfdfghhfgdfhghgdfhghgfdfhghgfdfhhfgdfhg

We all understand that this conversation is entirely academic and based on significant assumptions that are somewhat wrong right?
The president does not directly control the federal budget. Last I checked that was congress. Although the POTUS does have veto power.

Also deadcode is right on with what he is saying about the graph being meaningless without knowing what assumptions are being made. Almost every valid report has 100s of pages of analytes, assumptions, error analysis, and algorithms used and justifications for said algorithms. Without this supplemental data, graphs and charts and everything else in the report become propaganda.

Almost every cent of federal spending is voted on by congress in one shape or form. The problem is that when congress votes on a bill or budget, there is an excessive amount of non related crap attached onto the bill or budget. For example you can have a bill that increases money for military R&D, allows government financial support for abortion clinics, increases federal funding for the public school special needs fund in Wyoming, legalizes marijuana but imposes a sin tax on it, and cuts the wellfare benefits program in half. I realize this is an extreme example, but the purpose is not to be realistic. People need to keep in mind that nothing is simple in congress and nobody actually supports anything they vote on 100%.

My most brief reply would be this though:
This graph makes bush look bad and Obama look less bad (but still bad).

A more detailed reply would be more like this:
This graph does not provide a complete picture and contains several lies of omission. Tax cuts have no place in this graph for 2 reasons; 1 they aren't expenditures; 2 their affects on total amount of taxes collected is subject to debate.

The graph includes war and defense spending for bush but neglects much of the social spending under Obama.

Growth trends in spending are not taken into account.

And finally the raw data that this graph was compiled from is not included. Without this raw data it is very difficult to make an intelligent reply to this graph since we dont actually know what it is representative of. Tittles can be very misleading.

Sam you may be a stubborn bastard, but when it comes to political discussions you're the only objective voice on KDice.

That's not Sam silly boy...

Yah, I'm pretty sure it de10mile

He does a pretty good parody of me though even if he isn't saying the same things I might say.

it is indeed de10mile I cant remember any of my other accounts info.