Says a bunch...you just don't want to read it.
Printable View
Says a bunch...you just don't want to read it.
The problem with spending per capita is that immigration is at record numbers so, I like to see real spending numbers and not per capita. No doubt that Repubs are just as big at spending as the Dems, they just spend it on different things. And, what spending have the Repubs gone after since the mid-term elections other than Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood? Two areas that are hardly the problem of our deficit woes!
P S
I reserve the right to be critical of both bumbling political parties! http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...n1-blog480.jpg
So, if we look at raw numbers, and assume spending was constant, the population would have had to increase by over 9%. But ya'll keep trying to say that spending has exploded. So how much do you believe that population has grown since that spike around 2010?Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
Try again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambo
I realize that I'm wasting my time, but I'm getting burned out with work. Needed to clear my mind with some mindless debate.
With legal immigration over 1.2 million a year, 3,000,000 would have an impact on the per capita. And, an estimated illegal population estimated between 15mil and 25mil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz
In fact, I was just looking at the trends in USA population growth and my gut tells me that this is a huge part of our problems. At the end of WW2, the population in the USA was only 130,000,000.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/...ion_051807.pdf
Looks like I under-estimated! Immigration is averaging 1.8 million a year since 2005!!! So, we can added another 5,000,000. That is why the per capita numbers are not worth looking at.;)
roflmao...something we completely agree on!! this is way better than actually working!! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz
The government figures I could find for the first of each year:Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
2009 - 305 million
2010 - 308 million
2011 - 310 million
2012 - 312 million
So, since 2009, the percent increase in population is:
100 x [(312/305) - 1] = 2.3 %
Do you think that this accounts for the drop in growth of per capita spending?
The math works.
Try telling someone with a family of 4 earning $50,000/year that inflation is low.
There are a bazillion different ways to interpret some of the graphs ... what causes corporate taxes to go down? I might suspect that less corporate revenue to tax has an impact.
Why does personal income tax stay pretty level? If 50% of the taxes are paid by the top 1% (more for the top 10%), we could imagine that those taxpayers did not have as great a dip in income as the portion who pay little or no taxes. I can't help thinking about people like those in Congress who have never really felt any of the pinch; and the sleezy execs who created the financial mess & walked off with buckets of money as a result. Maybe the latter actually paid some taxes on that money?
You have a right to be angry...it is not fair. They screw up and we pay the price. You just made Buzz's point!
See the republicans want you to think that Obama is why people are in a pinch, when the last administration stood on the sideline and let them have their way, and the end result was they made money and left the common man with the mess.
Stop and listen to what he is trying to do, and that is give a common man some leaway and make a rich man pay for it. Like his mortgage refinancing initiative, lower student loan rates, etc. He is not offering handouts...he is offering air...something many need right now.
People are too busy listening to the right that blame him for the debt and high unemployment that he had nothing to do with to hear that he is trying to help good people.
Romney's plan is the same old plan...make it easier for the rich and the common man benefits from it.