Record Spending On 2012 Elections By GOP Groups

OpportunityCost said:

[...]Just a heads up but government appropriations are distinctly NOT the real world. As soon as the appropriations are done it goes into that year. The actual spending may occur later but if its not a budgetary line item it goes into the budget year its appropriated---IE 2009.

Saying its a given fiscal year and all responsibility goes to the previous year's President would be the case in normal circumstances. However, thats not quite how it played out. Are you willing to say Obama bears no responsibility for a budget he signed? A budget that increased the FY spending by $400B before the stimulus?

Click to expand...

In my earlier post I was clearly willing to assign that $400B to Obama, so you have resorted to a strawman. Again, a failure in a debate setting.

Given that you want to assign only about $400B of the FY2008 shortfall to Bush and/or Bush policies, while given that we know that at least the wars were being run off budget (which would increase the $400B by a significant amount), let's try a different approach -- one not susceptible to opinions, interpretations, or budgetary smoke-and-mirrors, although we will have to abandon the FY approach:

On 1/22/2008, the total public debt, as it is currently defined, was $9.2 trillion
On 1/20/2009, when Obama took office, the total public debt was 10.6 trillion ( Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) )

Clearly, during Bush's last year in office the effective annual deficit was $1.4 trillion. No smoke. No mirrors.

Karl said:

Ad hominem noted and dismissed. What about the Heritage Foundation (who agreed with the Concorde Coalition)?


Wrong. Again. We are at Debate Politics. The nature of debate involves some type of rational argument, generally bolstered by facts. Of course there is room and even points for flair or the dramatic or even the emotional (depending on the setting and the audience), but mere unsubstantiated opinions are for blogs.

To clarify, opinions are fine if the reasoning for the opinion is provided -- in which case one is providing a reasoned conclusion rather than a mere opinion. For example, while it may be your opinion that center left think tanks only produce lies or inaccurate information, your opinion alone does not qualify as debate (in fact, logical fallacies such as that will lose you points in a formal debate).


'Because I say so' is not an argument. At least not beyond, say, age 8

Click to expand...

Im not the one whining about the other guy stating his opinion and presenting his argument. Then we have Phys who is claiming his arguments are law. You guys are rediculous. Pointing out that Concorde Coalition is a center left think tank isnt an ad hom its adressing the point that their political viewpoint may color their conclusions. Its an argument that they may not be drawing accurate conclusions or may be cherry picking data. IE dont accept their conclusions and data as gospel because they may have an agenda. Its how thinking people approach data, cautiously and skeptically with corroboration or invalidation from other sources.

Karl, you are a total bloody hypocrit on most of the content of your post so be careful you dont fall off that high horse, you may hurt yourself. Stick to the topic and dont assume an arrogant lecturing posture, you dont have the balls or the brains to pull it off with aplomb.