The Socialist Senator from Oklahoma?

[bsd058 296]

I wouldn't call what an actuary does economics by any means.

Just walking away...I hope you have a great day!

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Just walking away...I hope you have a great day!

I don't call myself a biologist, because I had to take the freshman level course in college to get a degree in mathematics.

[bsd058 296]

I don't call myself a biologist, because I had to take the freshman level course in college to get a degree in mathematics.

I didn't call myself an actuary.

I'm studying for the designation, though.

Anyways. My approach might seem counter-intuitive, but I think it makes sense. Perhaps I'm just not explaining it well enough.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I work in the industry.

If you worked in biology, then I would call you a biologist.

Anyways. My approach might seem counter-intuitive, but I think it makes sense. Perhaps I'm just not explaining it well enough.

That's okay. They gave this a Nobel Prize for Economic Science. He doesn't have a clue either.

[bsd058 296]

That's okay. They gave this a Nobel Prize for Economic Science. He doesn't have a clue either.

Ok. And by the way, I cannot call myself an actuary yet. I don't have my FSA. I'm only working towards the ASA right now. So... I suppose that works to your advantage too.

k I'm out for the night. Have a good one.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ok. And by the way, I cannot call myself an actuary yet. I don't have my FSA. I'm only working towards the ASA right now. So,,,that works to your advantage too.

I decided not to take the statistics track, and went more toward applied mathematics and computer science. That was 25 years ago.

Good luck with your career. You gotta do what you gotta do to get your ticket punched, then it is up to you what you do with it from there. I ended up in business, when nobody was hiring in my field of study at the time I graduated.

[kytwell 179]

[quote name=' timestamp='1354814178' post='5858434]

Washington (CNN) - In a significant development in the fiscal cliff standoff, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a leading deficit hawk, said Wednesday he would support higher tax rates on wealthier Americans as part of a broader deal with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to avoid the crisis.

"I know we have to raise revenue," the senator from Oklahoma told MSNBC. "I don't really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future."

...

Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans from Maine, said later Wednesday they, too, would support the tax rate increase on the wealthy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/05/gop-senator-backs-tax-rate-hike-on-wealthy/

Doesn't matter he's a Senator and the Dems already hold the majority the Senate.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Growth in government spending needs to keep pace with growth in GDP.

Government spending under Obama has increased at a rate of 1.4%. GDP increased more than that - 2.7% in the last quarter for which data is available: Q3/12. That means that government spending has grown slower than GDP. This is why the deficit to GDP ratio has shrunk over the last few years.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Government spending under Obama has increased at a rate of 1.4%. GDP increased more than that - 2.7% in the last quarter for which data is available: Q3/12. That means that government spending has grown slower than GDP. This is why the deficit to GDP ratio has shrunk over the last few years.

Where did you find that lie?

Year	GDP-US $ billion nominal	Population-US million	Total Spending-fed percent GDP	
2001	        10286.2	                        285.082	                18.11	a
2002	        10642.3	                        287.804	                18.90	a
2003	        11142.2	                        290.326	                19.38	a
2004	        11853.3	                        293.046	                19.34	a
2005	        12623	                        295.507	                19.58	a
2006	        13377.2	                        298.109	                19.85	a
2007	        14028.7	                        300.733	                19.45	a
2008	        14369.1	                        303.380	                20.76	a
2009	        13939	                        306.051	                25.24	a
2010	        14508.2	                        308.746	                23.82	a
2011	        14958.6	                        311.592	                24.09	a
2012	        15601.5	                        314.123	                24.33	b
2013	        16335	                        316.847	                23.28	b
2014	        17155.6	                        319.594	                22.63	b
2015	        18177.8	                        322.366	                22.33	b
2016	        19261.1	                        325.010	                22.47	b
2017	        20368.6	                        327.676	                22.25	b

Legend:
i - interpolated between actual reported values
a - actual reported
g - 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com
b - budgeted estimate in US fy13 budget

Edited December 7, 2012 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where did you find that lie?

Year	GDP-US $ billion nominal	Population-US million	Total Spending-fed percent GDP	
2001	        10286.2	                        285.082	                18.11	a
2002	        10642.3	                        287.804	                18.90	a
2003	        11142.2	                        290.326	                19.38	a
2004	        11853.3	                        293.046	                19.34	a
2005	        12623	                        295.507	                19.58	a
2006	        13377.2	                        298.109	                19.85	a
2007	        14028.7	                        300.733	                19.45	a
2008	        14369.1	                        303.380	                20.76	a
2009	        13939	                        306.051	                25.24	a
2010	        14508.2	                        308.746	                23.82	a
2011	        14958.6	                        311.592	                24.09	a
2012	        15601.5	                        314.123	                24.33	b
2013	        16335	                        316.847	                23.28	b
2014	        17155.6	                        319.594	                22.63	b
2015	        18177.8	                        322.366	                22.33	b
2016	        19261.1	                        325.010	                22.47	b
2017	        20368.6	                        327.676	                22.25	b

Legend:
i - interpolated between actual reported values
a - actual reported
g - 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com
b - budgeted estimate in US fy13 budget

Thanks for confirming what I just said. Obama came in when the federal government was set to spend 25.24% of GDP (see FY 2009 which started a couple of months before he was even elected). Relative to GDP, government spending has since actually declined. It was Bush who came in when the government was set to spend just over 18% of GDP. By the time he left, spending had exploded to over 25% of GDP. It was the Republican that increased federal spending like no other.

[kytwell 179]

2007maybe), 2008 for sure, 2009 for sure and 2010(maybe) wouldn't those years be owned by the Democrat controlled Congress? I am pretty certain the Dems retook the house after the Nov.2006 mid-term elections.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2007maybe), 2008 for sure, 2009 for sure and 2010(maybe) wouldn't those years be owned by the Democrat controlled Congress? I am pretty certain the Dems retook the house after the Nov.2006 mid-term elections.

But then the out of control spending the Republicans have complained about for the last couple of years would actually be their very own. I am pretty certain the Republicans retook the House after the Nov 2010 mid-term elections.

[kytwell 179]

yep the Repubs are spenders too

Edited December 7, 2012 by kytwell

[Póg mo 1,749]

Damn right they are, it maybe convenient to ignore Dubya's legacy, but their is no getting away from the fact that he helped a great deal to put the US in the position it is currently in with regards public pending!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thanks for confirming what I just said. Obama came in when the federal government was set to spend 25.24% of GDP (see FY 2009 which started a couple of months before he was even elected). Relative to GDP, government spending has since actually declined. It was Bush who came in when the government was set to spend just over 18% of GDP. By the time he left, spending had exploded to over 25% of GDP. It was the Republican that increased federal spending like no other.

The lies continue. I thought so.