Sorry Dominico, but I think Bob has a valid point.

But that's okay, you [being the literal 'Hand of god' in this situation] can prove us wrong.

How about a nice little article, with some analysis on the White House's own figures regarding the exploding debt. You know the ones:

Total spending in the last 10 years $28 Trillion. Toalt spending in the next 10 year $43 Trillion.

Now we know historically revenues are about 18 % of GDP. So does the white House forsee a huge explosion on GDP over the next 10 years, or are we just totally DOOMED?

How about that premise?

And hey, if you all are not up to it, then by all means it seems like it's about time for another story about Bachmann.

You asked for it...

You ain't seen nothing yet

CONCERT CALENDAR: Randy Bachman and Fred Turner will be packing them in Sept. 9 when they headline at Western Fair grandstand

A recent flurry of announcements confirmed Randy Bachman and Fred Turner, touring as Bachman & Turner will be ripping through the BTO songbook as a 2011 Western Fair grandstand headliner

http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/2011/07/25/18467741.html

It's on! and it's in OVERDRIVE!

I've become accustomed to the multiple articles on the GOP candidates. It's great to see the Leftwingers go absolutely bananas over each candidate and have them shriek in pain "Oh [that candidate] isn't as good as President Barack 'I went to Harvard and I'm so smart' Obama".

Fact is, any GOP candidate would be a better President than Obama. He is that bad.

So FR, keep doing what you're doing, because if nothing else, it is your sandbox.

The comical part is, Bob (lots of numbers) sure spends an inordinate amount of time on a website he claims to loathe... lol

He must be a glutton for punishment...

In real life someone would of b!tch slapped him by now for his constant whining!

Domenico,

appreciate your response; impressed you can keep track of all posters named "Bob".

While an "avid" Red Sox fan, maybe just a "semi-avid" reader of First Read.

Js1

with a nonsensical statement like "Fact is, any GOP candidate would be a better President than Obama. He is that bad."

"you've "jumped the shark"

Any one ever figure out how he got that plum professorship at U. of Chicago? He had never taught, had published no articles, so what gives?

And bye the way JAS1 - Dominico and the gang are going to come out with something negative on Obama. Well, ok, something slightly less adoring maybe.

If only O'Donnell would run for Pres.

Spanky,

Not quarreling with your spending amounts or your premise and do not want to spend any time debating /discussing/arguing about spending and percentages of GDP. That's between you and FR.

I just want to correct the % of GDP you state. That’s it.

The last time federal spending dipped below 18 percent of GDP was 1966. Back then there were 100 million fewer people living in the United States, the median age was nearly eight years younger, and the average cost of health care was one-fifth of what it is now. In fact, no president in the last 50 years ever proposed a budget that would bring spending that low. President Reagan’s budget proposals never dropped below 21 percent of GDP, and actual spending under Reagan averaged over 22 percent. Even the budget passed by the Republican House, with all its cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, keeps spending above 18 percent of GDP for the next 30 years.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/spending_cap.html

df: Js1 with a nonsensical statement like . . . .

Sorry to have disappointed you danger. I guess we'll all just have to put up with your comments that just seem to comment about other people's comments. Maybe some day you'll have an original thought, but pardon us for not waiting, or not caring.

Yep, that's what I expected...thanks!

Fact is, any GOP candidate would be a better President than Obama. He is that bad.

Really? Please explain this, then...

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Spanky:

Any one ever figure out how he got that plum professorship at U. of Chicago? He had never taught, had published no articles, so what gives?

Who knows? It might go to where he finished in his class. My Evidence professor was fresh out of school, also, and a prodigy by some calculations. But she wasn't President of the Harvard Law Review.

His official title was "Senior Lecturer," but Harvard considered him a "professor." He must have been good at it. This is from an official statement by the University of Chicago on the subject:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

(emphasis added)

Hope this helps.

Ira - noted. The point being revenue has been consistent, the spending is now way out of whack.

AM - I was in the car last weekend with a close friend and fellow atty. He is one of the weary Obama supporters still trying not to lose hope. He is also from Ill. and we were wonder just how that job came about. My friend was law review and is very smart, but neither of us could have gotten into U. of Chi., let alone get a professorship like that.

In other words we were J.

Sapnky..

One other point and you need to remember that the numbers I'm going to use are PRIOR to the debt ceiling negotiations and $2.8 trillion in cuts.

From the OMB projections for 2021..based on a 3% growth in 2021:

Spending will be 24% of GDP

Revenues will be 21% of GDP.

Guessing that narrows a ton with the $2.8 trillion in debt reduction.

Just as an FYI.

[Sorry Dominico, but I think Bob has a valid point.]

And Schpanky has an "opinion", DAMMIT!

[But that's okay, you [being the literal 'Hand of god' in this situation] can prove us wrong.]

Wow...a schmat goy like you buying in to conspiracy theories?

Say it ain't so, Schmoe err....Schpanky!

...yeabut...yeabut...yeabut...I thought you said...oh never mind...I don't want to embarass you...you're doing a terrific job all by your lonesome.