Did somebody say graphs!?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] You do know the radical majorityof that deficit was actually based on the Bush adminstration right? The Bush adminstration specifically and intentionally kept the costs of the two wars (Afghan and Iraq) out of any kind of deficit.. But Obama adminstration put it within the budget, hence why we see a radical increase right at his office even though he didn't pass anything what so ever.. This isn't suggesting that I am in favor of some of Obama's spending plans, but this is just ridiculous.. Furthermore where did Obama or democrats in general started bringing in Patriotism in whats Patriotic and what isn't? Because since 9/11 that has been firm territory rhetoric with which the Republicans have wielded not the other side.Hubadubalubahu

So the first graph is from a place called hyscience.com and at the bottom if you enlarge the graph in that fine black print it says:

Sources:OMB historical tables, SBC Republican calculations

For presidents Clinton and Bush, only debt added during their first terms is included.

Compares average annual rate of growth in debt under Obama to the average rate under George W. Bush and Clinton.

The second graph is from http://www.westernfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/budget-create-deficits-850-570x289.jpg

A republican site that is just a less professional Fox news wannabe.

The third graph is from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama-hockey-stick-e1312806903899.jpg

Even worse site than the second. But the main problem is the graph itself. You are holding the president accountable for spending that has little to do with him. On extremely vauge graphs.

The federal budget is divided into three major categories. Mandatory spending, which is funding that continues without Congress having to approve it each year. Three programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, comprise almost 70 percent of all mandatory spending. Discretionary spending which is funding that Congress must reappropriate anew each year. And then Interest payments which are the annual costs associated with the federal debt. As the federal government runs deficits and borrows money, it builds up an accumulated level of debt. The government, just as any other borrower, has to pay interest on that debt. The amount of interest it pays on its publicly held debt is a function of the size of the debt and interest rates.

There are two broad categories within discretionary spending: spending that is related to national defense, especially the military, and spending that is not. Now, non-defense spending usually makes up less than half of discretionary spending and includes things that you may find are less painless to cut spending on then you make them out to be. This includes:

Income security

Education, training, employment, and social services

Health

International affairs

Veterans benefits and services

Administration of justice

Natural resources and environment

Transportation

General science, space, and technology

Community and regional development

General government

Commerce and housing credit

Agriculture

Energy

Now if you want to argue with graphs and charts like you so love to do, at least make sure you are analyzing them thoroughly and understand what they are showing before you try to use them in a argument. And also make sure they do not misconstrue the facts to support your agenda. (looking at you graph number one.) Now if you find out what Obama has signed to spike an increase in government spending then by all means present it, but otherwise there is no reason to waste time talking about this with you, especially with the type of "sources" you're looking at, and a failure to analyze your own information.

Not sure why this debate even made it into a second topic. But im not surprised when we are talking about a guy who treats our presidents like they are some sort of governmental omnipotent beings.

Your joke sucks. Who the hell just makes a username consisting of random letters?

If you somehow frame your brother and get him sent to prison for a while they will most likely force medical care on him if they see he is in pain.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="peterw007"]In science, you put faith into the scientific community to interpret observed phenomena.peterw007

So when NASA releases pictures of galaxies from the Hubble Space Telescope, there is obviously no faith involved, as I could just reproduce such incredible images with my billion dollar telescope that I have lying around?

A small portion of scientific studies is self-replicable, but the vast majority of modern studies and conclusions require extremely expensive equipment and lots of study in order to conduct and test them.

The very fact that I can hardly understand scientific jounals is a testament to their deliberate obscurity.

-

For the vast majority of science, you and I can only put our faith in the scientists (and the associated independent peer reviewers) involved in pursuing that study.

You would be amazed at what you could learn from a highschool physics class. Granted I retained none of that knowledge but I haven't applied it since then. But I do remember that the class alone was easily the most informative in my entire time at highschool.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

I've stayed out of this argument and thread because the TC didn't ask my opinion. This thread has been entertaining though. That said, I do notice that alot of atheists in this thread have disdain for the God of Abraham/God of Isaac/God of Moses/God of sayyy-gaa. To atheists in this thread that have expressed disdain to God: Why is that? And why to my God?

Why is there no hate stated in the thread for polytheistic gods, or the muslim god, or the hindu god, etc.?

sayyy-gaa

By hate filled bigots do you mean people that are taught to love their neighbors as themselves? People that are taught to care for the widowed and orpphaned? People that are taught to have a meek spirit and walk in humility? People that are taught to spread love above all else because it's the greatest fruit of the spirit?

If that's what you mean I agree with you. If not, then it is a discussion for another thread.

My problem with that is it doesn't mean the people in question abide by such teachings. My friends mom was always talking about god this god that and was a "devout" Christian. Go five years into the future said mom commits adultery, she divorces the husband, and takes the kid to florida and lives off of alimony and another man. If I had to guess to this day she is probably still a "devout" Christian.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

Philokalia

the seamen invades the womb...Alright im tired of trying to justify the evil action of Abortion, I can only put myself in that mindset for so long.

Its refreshing to see an atheist actually say Abortion is immoral though. Despite being a Zeitgeistian.

A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg, the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote; the first cell of the new human being. And you calling me a Zeitgeistian is probably hilarious to you but doesn't make it true. Also im an agnostic atheist. I also used the Dead Sea Scrolls in that argument, does that make me Hebrew too? I just think your opinion of athiest's is so jaded in a way that you lash out at every person who even discusses religion with you.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

To me it is immoral because you are snuffing out a possible life. Just because you don't want a kid doesn't mean there are not plenty of people who would give that child a great life.

Philokalia

But that life is a parasite leeching off the mother. It has no right to life, its not a person.

A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

I'm pretty sure abortion is a immoral thing in anybody's eyes, it's just something some people gotta do. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who saw nothing wrong with aborting an unborn fetus. Even in your naturalistic viewpoint. Pro choice doesn't mean pro morals

Philokalia

How is abortion immoral to you? The baby doesn't feel anything right? It doesn't have senses?

To me it is immoral because you are snuffing out a possible life. Just because you don't want a kid doesn't mean there are not plenty of people who would give that child a great life.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

What the f*ck are you on about? You have ceased to make sense. You are the one saying incest is harmless and then went on to say that it is harmless because they can have an abortion. :lol: Are you really so dense not to see the irony in a good christian using abortion as an example of something harmless?

Philokalia

Again this isn't my argument im bringing up. This is the result of a purely naturalistic way of thinking about the system. Instead of looking this emotionally, look at it in a cold and calcuated way with naturalism in mind, or the sole principle that harm is the main indicator of what is immoral. Then you would see. But you are stuck in a sea of emotionalism.

You just have a hard time grasping that what I'm saying isn't what I truely believe. But thats fine, ignore the obvious context.

I'm pretty sure abortion is a immoral thing in anybody's eyes, it's just something some people gotta do. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who saw nothing wrong with aborting an unborn fetus. Even in your naturalistic viewpoint. Pro choice doesn't mean pro morals

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

The question does have relevance. My starting point was the the bible encourages bad morals. You are a follower of the bible so your answer to that question is very relevant to prove or disprove what I said.

The fact that you keep insisting on dodging such a simple question is pretty dumb.

Philokalia

The fact you want to avoid the obvious conclusion of your own morals is frightening.

What the f*ck are you on about? You have ceased to make sense. You are the one saying incest is harmless and then went on to say that it is harmless because they can have an abortion. :lol: Are you really so dense not to see the irony in a good christian using abortion as an example of something harmless?