PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Poll: Scott Brown surges to double-digit lead over Martha Coakley


petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:06 PM
It seems things are getting worse for Martha Obama.

BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) - A poll released a day before the special Senate race shows Senator Scott Brown surging to a double-digit lead over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the open Massachusetts Senate seat.

The shift in favor of the Republican Party is a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda.

Brown has surged to a double-digit lead over Coakley in three Massachusetts communities identified as bellwethers, according to the latest SuffolkUniversitybellwether polling of the race for U.S. Senate.

Gardner, Fitchburg and Peabody all show solid margins for Brown, the state senator running against Coakley. The cities were identified as bellwether communities because in the most recent "like election" - the November 2006 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Republican challenger Kenneth Chase - the results in all three communities were within 1 percentage point of the actual statewide results for each candidate. Additionally, party registration in those cities is similar to the statewide voter makeup.

"Brown has continued to build on the momentum that we saw last week in the SuffolkUniversity statewide poll," said David Paleologos, director of the SuffolkUniversityPoliticalResearchCenter in Boston. "There's still a day left, and a number of factors, including weather, can affect turnout, but the latest bellwether polls suggest a solid lead for Brown."

SuffolkUniversity released a statewide poll Thursday, Jan. 14, that showed Brown (50 percent) leading Coakley (46 percent) by 4 points. The results showed a race within a margin of error of 4.38.

The bellwether polling, conducted Saturday, Jan. 16, and Sunday, Jan. 17, shows:



Brown (55%) leads Coakley (40%) by 15 points in Gardner. Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy polls 2%, while 3% are undecided.



In Fitchburg, Brown (55%) has a 14-point lead over Coakley (41%), with 2% for Kennedy and 2% undecided.

Peabody voters give Brown (57%), a 17-point lead over Coakley (40%), with Kennedy polling 1% and 3% undecided.

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk's bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.

Results of the November 2006 survey in the three bellwether communities closely traced the final statewide outcome.

Those 2006 results were as follows:

· Statewide: Edward M. Kennedy (D), 67%; Kenneth Chase (R), 29%; blanks, 4%
· Gardner: Kennedy, 68%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 3%
· Fitchburg: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 4%
· Peabody: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 29%; blanks, 4%

Party registration in the three bellwether communities largely mirrors statewide registration, with the following breakdown:

· Massachusetts statewide: Democrats, 36%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 52%
· Gardner: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 53%
· Fitchburg: Democrats, 34%; Republicans, 11%; unenrolled, 55%
· Peabody: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 9%; unenrolled, 56%

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/poll-scott-brown-surges-to-double-digit-lead-over-martha-coakley

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:08 PM
Martha Moxley.

Chiefshrink
01-18-2010, 01:14 PM
Martha Moxley.

Hey, hey, hey, her real first name is Marsha!!! Didn't you get the memo?:D:D

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:16 PM
Hey, hey, hey, her real first name is Marsha!!! Didn't you get the memo?:D:D

http://www.marthamoxley.com/

Norman Einstein
01-18-2010, 01:19 PM
If he wins by a double digit percentage tomorrow I'll be convinced. Until then Mass. is still a flaming liberal state.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:21 PM
If he wins by a double digit percentage tomorrow I'll be convinced. Until then Mass. is still a flaming liberal state.

And they probably always will be. But if they elect Brown it benefits the country as a whole.

Frankie
01-18-2010, 01:21 PM
Must be the centerfold pictures he took in 82.ROFL

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/cm/cosmopolitan/images/Ti/Scott-Brown-new3.jpg

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2010/01/14/scott-brown-poses-nude-in-cosmopolitan/

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:21 PM
I hope it's true but those university polls I hear are supposed to be useless.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:22 PM
And they probably always will be. But if they elect Brown it benefits the country as a whole.

I'll never say Massholes or Assachussetts again.

Frankie
01-18-2010, 01:23 PM
I'll never say Massholes or Assachussetts again.

You are a bundle of funny!

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:25 PM
I hope it's true but those university polls I hear are supposed to be useless.

They claim to have called every winner within 1% since 06. And if they are useless they sure seem to be driving the Coakley campaign into fits.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:30 PM
ARG has Bown up 52-45

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:31 PM
You are a bundle of funny!

Flu fluh

MONKEY!

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:33 PM
Must be the centerfold pictures he took in 82.ROFL

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/cm/cosmopolitan/images/Ti/Scott-Brown-new3.jpg

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2010/01/14/scott-brown-poses-nude-in-cosmopolitan/

Looks like he'll lock up the women's votes.

BTW that's already long been out in Mass. The fallout is over by now.
That and I'd say it helps him.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:34 PM
They claim to have called every winner within 1% since 06. And if they are useless they sure seem to be driving the Coakley campaign into fits.

Well that's good to know. I just said I heard that, not saying it was absolute.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:34 PM
I'll never say Massholes or Assachussetts again.

I won't. I love using those words when I go home to visit. It's fun!

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:35 PM
Looks like he'll lock up the women's votes.

BTW that's already long been out in Mass. The fallout is over by now.
That and I'd say it helps him.

This is the WORST they have on him. Beats defending someone who raped a 2 yr old with a hot curling iron and kept an innocent man in prison.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Frankie, you sure seem to post that picture an awful lot. I thought there were no gays in Iran. Is that because you all left?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:36 PM
This is the WORST they have on him. Beats defending someone who raped a 2 yr old with a hot curling iron and kept an innocent man in prison.

Fa fa Frankie!

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:37 PM
Holy shit! Even the Blue Mass Group has a poll out showing Brown ahead 51-46. It is getting harder and harder for the Boston Globe to keep spinning their BS for Coakley.

ROYC75
01-18-2010, 01:38 PM
Doomed ........ somebody is doomed.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:38 PM
Holy shit! Even the Blue Mass Group has a poll out showing Brown ahead 51-46. It is getting harder and harder for the Boston Globe to keep spinning their BS for Coakley.

I heard that the Globe just admitted that Coakley may only be up by 12%.

Norman Einstein
01-18-2010, 01:40 PM
Frankie, you sure seem to post that picture an awful lot. I thought there were no gays in Iran. Is that because you all left?

Is Frankie from Iran? What is the world coming to? does he post from there too?

Norman Einstein
01-18-2010, 01:41 PM
Doomed ........ somebody is doomed.

Better than the rest of us being fooked!

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:45 PM
Frankie, you sure seem to post that picture an awful lot. I thought there were no gays in Iran. Is that because you all left?

I LOVE the picture. It makes me wanna move back home. He can keep posting it. :redface:

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:45 PM
Is Frankie from Iran? What is the world coming to? does he post from there too?

I don't know the details, but I believe that he is Iranian. I don't know where he was born, but I know that he has referenced it in the past. In the interests of not spreading possibly incorrect information, that's as much as I can say with any certainty.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:46 PM
I LOVE the picture. It makes me wanna move back home. He can keep posting it. :redface:

I don't hate you for it. Sarah didn't do any spreads back in the day, did she?

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:46 PM
BTW Pete, Suffolk's poll's correct only since 2006? How long have they been at it? Not disputin' it just wonderin'!

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:47 PM
BTW Pete, Suffolk's poll's correct only since 2006? How long have they been at it? Not disputin' it just wonderin'!

I don't know. From the way they have made it sound, since 2006. The fact is you can't find a poll now that shows Coakley ahead aside from the "Tie" and the DailyKOS

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:49 PM
I don't know. From the way they have made it sound, since 2006. The fact is you can't find a poll now that shows Coakley ahead aside from the "Tie" and the DailyKOS

ROFL That must be where direckshun, banyon, kcnative, jAZ are hanging out now.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:50 PM
People in Mass. are complaing of 10+ polling calls a day for Coakley. She really seems to have the kiss of death.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:50 PM
ROFL That must be where direckshun, banyon, kcnative, jAZ are hanging out now.

Don't know about the first 3 but jAZ quit posting in DC.

Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 01:51 PM
How is Scott Brown winning a good thing again? Besides the fake rage on health care?

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:52 PM
How is Scott Brown winning a good thing again? Besides the fake rage on health care?

IT breaks the super majority. And the rage on health care is far from fake.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:52 PM
How is Scott Brown winning a good thing again? Besides the fake rage on health care?

Gridlock, for lack of a better word, is good.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:53 PM
I guess the Boston Globe has no other choice but to post the only poll showing a tie, the DailyKOS. That is saying a lot.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:53 PM
How is Scott Brown winning a good thing again? Besides the fake rage on health care?

By the way, there's nothing fake about the rage against this health care debacle. It's the support that's fake. You don't see the Republicans handing out billions to vote against it.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Don't know about the first 3 but jAZ quit posting in DC.

I can't understand why.

Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 01:54 PM
IT breaks the super majority. And the rage on health care is far from fake.

Pete please. The Republicans haven't done anything to earn back anyones trust and watch there will be some compromise on health care that will be worse than a single payer system. With all that said I still hope Coakley losses. The Democratic party is the worst party in all of the Western world.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Pete please. The Republicans haven't done anything to earn back anyones trust and watch there will be some compromise on health care that will be worse than a single payer system. With all that said I still hope Coakley losses. The Democratic party is the worst party in all of the Western world.

I didn't see anything remotely close to saying that this is good because Republicans deserve an "attaboy".

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:57 PM
Pete please. The Republicans haven't done anything to earn back anyones trust and watch there will be some compromise on health care that will be worse than a single payer system. With all that said I still hope Coakley losses. The Democratic party is the worst party in all of the Western world.

Ugh, as if the Dems have done anything to keep their super majority. Gridlock is the key, son.

Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 01:57 PM
I didn't see anything remotely close to saying that this is good because Republicans deserve an "attaboy".

They are seen as the party that opposes government ran health care which is far from the truth. Both parties are bought and paid for by the insurance industry. You think the Republicans would actually support a true free market health care solution? doubtful.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:58 PM
If my source is correct, the DailyKOS poll was a total of 90 voters, 48 Brown, 41 Coakley. And they called that a tie.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:59 PM
They are seen as the party that opposes government ran health care which is far from the truth. Both parties are bought and paid for by the insurance industry. You think the Republicans would actually support a true free market health care solution? doubtful.

Billay, if only Repubs opposed the health care bill it would have passed on party lines already. There are a lot of Dems that don't want what is in the current bill. Thus the closed door meetings.

googlegoogle
01-18-2010, 01:59 PM
I'll never say Massholes or Assachussetts again.

Barney Frank i think is from there.

Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 02:01 PM
Billay, if only Repubs opposed the health care bill it would have passed on party lines already. There are a lot of Dems that don't want what is in the current bill. Thus the closed door meetings.

Yes some dems opposed a government option which is far better than the government mandated health care reform. I just don't see some sort of shit bill not getting passed.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:02 PM
They are seen as the party that opposes government ran health care which is far from the truth. Both parties are bought and paid for by the insurance industry. You think the Republicans would actually support a true free market health care solution? doubtful.

If two thieves are fighting over who gets to rob me blind and rape me, I'm not trying to figure out which one has fresher breath. I just want the fight to drag out as long as possible.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 02:02 PM
Yes some dems opposed a government option which is far better than the government mandated health care reform. I just don't see some sort of shit bill not getting passed.

A shit bill probably will get passed. And you will be able to thank no one other than the Dems for it.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:03 PM
If my source is correct, the DailyKOS poll was a total of 90 voters, 48 Brown, 41 Coakley. And they called that a tie.

I don't think that's right. The internals showed about 450 surveyed if I remember correctly.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 02:04 PM
People in Mass. are complaing of 10+ polling calls a day for Coakley. She really seems to have the kiss of death.

Yeah, but it's from both I hear. Coakley callers sound depressed from what I've heard. And Brown is usuing robocalls leaving them on voicemails.

Frankie
01-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Frankie, you sure seem to post that picture an awful lot. I thought there were no gays in Iran. Is that because you all left?

Nah, it's because we are sure of masculinity. We don't have to be homophobes.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:15 PM
Nah, it's because we are sure of masculinity. We don't have to be homophobes.

You could have at least posted a picture that showed his schlong.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 02:16 PM
You could have at least posted a picture that showed his schlong.

Agreed! :thumb:


He has small fingers though per that photo.

Frankie
01-18-2010, 02:18 PM
You could have at least posted a picture that showed his schlong.

If you wanna masturbate just use your own imagination.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:20 PM
Nah, it's because we are sure of masculinity. We don't have to be homophobes.

I guess you're so secure of your masculinity that you don't mind giving handjobs, either.

Chief Henry
01-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Frankie, you sure seem to post that picture an awful lot. I thought there were no gays in Iran. Is that because you all left?





He's tired of Camels

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:25 PM
If you wanna masturbate just use your own imagination.

You're the one who said you were secure in your masculinity. :rolleyes:

Chief Henry
01-18-2010, 02:26 PM
ROFL That must be where direckshun, banyon, kcnative, jAZ are hanging out now.

Jiz has been silent for what seems like months.

memyselfI
01-18-2010, 02:27 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

bluehawkdoc
01-18-2010, 03:14 PM
If I am a Coakley advisor, I am calling Playboy for a centerfold spread for Martha ASAP. It's their only chance...

patteeu
01-18-2010, 07:32 PM
They are seen as the party that opposes government ran health care which is far from the truth. Both parties are bought and paid for by the insurance industry. You think the Republicans would actually support a true free market health care solution? doubtful.

The Republicans are constrained by what the people will accept. Unfortunately, and whether you believe it or not, the people won't accept a completely free market approach. Please revisit Ron Paul's poll numbers in the last presidential election cycle for proof. I'd like to think that people just refused to vote for Paul because of his unconscionable foreign policy views, but I know better than that.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:15 PM
The Republicans are constrained by what the people will accept. Unfortunately, and whether you believe it or not, the people won't accept a completely free market approach. Please revisit Ron Paul's poll numbers in the last presidential election cycle for proof. I'd like to think that people just refused to vote for Paul because of his unconscionable foreign policy views, but I know better than that.

Bullshit. Most didn't even know Paul's stands. Or who he was.
Paul never even ran on all his beliefs because as he said at his rallies, we didn't get to where we were overnight and can't get back to things that fast. He only promised to take the govt back to the 2000 year budge.

As to FP, the American people are definitely with him regarding our current war. Even Laura Ingrahm whined about the isolationist tendencies of the American people rearing it's head. It's just a certain faction that support such an endless war. What's unconscionable is that faction thinks making over the world is workable. It's breaking us financially. Some people never learn. This was a reason why Rs were voted out don't forget!

The hard core Bushies are what 28%. Most don't agree with you.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 08:17 PM
Bullshit. Most didn't even know Paul's stands. Or who he was.
Paul never even ran on all his beliefs because as he said at his rallies, we didn't get to where we were overnight. As to FP, the American people are definitely with him regarding our current war. Even Laura Ingrahm whined about the isolationist tendencies of the American people rearing it's head. It's just a certain faction that support such an endless war. What's unconscionable is that faction thinks making over the world is workable. It's breaking us financially. Some people never learn. This was a reason why Rs were voted out don't forget!

Paul made his run too much about Iraq, if you ask me.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 08:18 PM
Bullshit. Most didn't even know Paul's stands. Or who he was.
Paul never even ran on all his beliefs because as he said at his rallies, we didn't get to where we were overnight. As to FP, the American people are definitely with him regarding our current war. Even Laura Ingrahm whined about the isolationist tendencies of the American people rearing it's head. It's just a certain faction that support such an endless war. What's unconscionable is that faction thinks making over the world is workable. It's breaking us financially. Some people never learn. This was a reason why Rs were voted out don't forget!

Keep telling yourself that. You guys are good at self-deception.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:19 PM
Paul made his run too much about Iraq, if you ask me.

Then you didn't really follow him. Besides, even if he did, that was a major reason the voters drove out the Rs. Polls show more not favoring either that war or the one in Afghanistan either. This is where the Rs, NCs, are out of touch. It's such circumstances that could lead to another Perot rising.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:20 PM
Keep telling yourself that. You guys are good at self-deception.

I see you haven't been cured of your projection problem. It's the NeoCons that are delusional. Not the FP realists. ( never mind the isolationists even)
Clue: You are out of power at the executive level.

wild1
01-18-2010, 08:21 PM
Paul made his run too much about Iraq, if you ask me.

I would have voted for him any other year but his cut-and-run stance in the middle east was not the right answer.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 08:22 PM
I would have voted for him any other year but his cut-and-run stance in the middle east was not the right answer.

Not the way he presented it in the debates. I like Paul. But he came off like a ferret.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:22 PM
I would have voted for him any other year but his cut-and-run stance in the middle east was not the right answer.

Yes it was. It was brilliant and perfect because he knows the cause which is occupation. Meanwhile, we're broke.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 08:24 PM
Yes it was. It was brilliant and perfect because he knows the cause which is occupation. Meanwhile, we're broke.

We went broke for reasons besides Iraq.

wild1
01-18-2010, 08:24 PM
Yes it was. It was brilliant and perfect

You sound like a starry-eyed Obama worshipper

because he knows the cause which is occupation. Meanwhile, we're broke.

We were already broke.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:24 PM
Not the way he presented it in the debates. I like Paul. But he came off like a ferret.

He doesn't have charm. Neither did Mac. Obama had it in spades. I guess you like voting on charm. See what that brings.

People who are attracted to Paul are attracted to his ideas—not charm or lack of.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 08:25 PM
He doesn't have charm. Neither did Mac. Obama had it in spades. I guess you like voting on charm. See what that brings.

People who are attracted to Paul are attracted to his ideas—not charm or lack of.

:spock:

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:27 PM
We went broke for reasons besides Iraq.

Sorry, but FP is a major reason. In fact in 1988 Paul said changing that alone would allow us to get rid of the Income Tax with no other change in govt. You forget history as well, the system we're operating on which is mercantilist is what broke all the European Empires eventually. That's a fact. We're the biggest empire ever now. Sorry, but that is not sustainable long term. Our bankruptcy is definitely related to that including that all such wars are funded via inflation and printing money. That has a lot to do with things.

donkhater
01-18-2010, 08:37 PM
Bullshit. Most didn't even know Paul's stands. Or who he was.
Paul never even ran on all his beliefs because as he said at his rallies, we didn't get to where we were overnight and can't get back to things that fast. He only promised to take the govt back to the 2000 year budge.

As to FP, the American people are definitely with him regarding our current war. Even Laura Ingrahm whined about the isolationist tendencies of the American people rearing it's head. It's just a certain faction that support such an endless war. What's unconscionable is that faction thinks making over the world is workable. It's breaking us financially. Some people never learn. This was a reason why Rs were voted out don't forget!

The hard core Bushies are what 28%. Most don't agree with you.

This. The neocons still don't f***ing get it.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 08:51 PM
I see you haven't been cured of your projection problem. It's the NeoCons that are delusional. Not the FP realists. ( never mind the isolationists even)
Clue: You are out of power at the executive level.

The fact that wrt the GWoT Obama has largely continued Bush foreign policies with little but rhetorical differences* is strong evidence that you are wrong about the mood of the American people.

----------------
* and where he's deviated on such things as increased engagement with Iran he's failed

patteeu
01-18-2010, 08:51 PM
I would have voted for him any other year but his cut-and-run stance in the middle east was not the right answer.

Same.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 08:57 PM
I see you haven't been cured of your projection problem. It's the NeoCons that are delusional. Not the FP realists. ( never mind the isolationists even)
Clue: You are out of power at the executive level.

I like RP a lot. That said, it's a bit of a stretch for a Ron Paul supporter to lecture anyone on using election results to take a hint that people aren't behind your guy.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 09:03 PM
Sorry, but FP is a major reason. In fact in 1988 Paul said changing that alone would allow us to get rid of the Income Tax with no other change in govt. You forget history as well, the system we're operating on which is mercantilist is what broke all the European Empires eventually. That's a fact. We're the biggest empire ever now. Sorry, but that is not sustainable long term. Our bankruptcy is definitely related to that including that all such wars are funded via inflation and printing money. That has a lot to do with things.

The fraction of the federal budget consumed by defense spending has been trending downward for decades. Meanwhile, entitlements and interest on the debt have been trending upward. Defense spending isn't what is causing our fiscal problems.

Here's a comparison of 1968 and 2008:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

petegz28
01-18-2010, 09:07 PM
Hey, knuckleheads! This isn't a Ron Paul thread. Go start your own if that's what you want to talk about!!

:p

wild1
01-18-2010, 09:18 PM
The fraction of the federal budget consumed by defense spending has been trending downward for decades. Meanwhile, entitlements and interest on the debt have been trending upward. Defense spending isn't what is causing our fiscal problems.

Here's a comparison of 1968 and 2008:


http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer1-23-06.gif

Frankie
01-18-2010, 09:28 PM
You're the one who said you were secure in your masculinity. :rolleyes:

Yes. Think for once. I am secure in mine, hence I have no problem posting a nude male model senate candidate. I'm not so sure about yours, hence my assumption that you would like to masturbate to the pic.

God, it feels like explaining a punchline to a child!:D

Frankie
01-18-2010, 09:31 PM
We went broke for reasons besides Iraq.

ROFL

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 09:44 PM
ROFL

You're right. It was the line item on our budget that amounted to 2% of our GDP that broke us. Try taking your eyes off of the naked dude long enough to look at the graphs that were just posted.

cookster50
01-19-2010, 07:12 AM
I'll never say Massholes or Assachussetts again.

Never say never.

BucEyedPea
01-19-2010, 06:42 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer1-23-06.gif

GDP is a phony-baloney Keynesian (self avowed socialist who said the way to destroy capitalism is to debauch the currency) statistic and measures govt spending as part of the economic mix. What a deception to rely on.

I love how NCs rely on socialism when they need it. It also does not account for the off the budget spending, and the inflation via printing dollars to pay for it. The stealth tax. All our wars have been funded via inflation except for the Mexican war and ended up with a crashed economy. Swing and a miss!

This is why liars use statistics. And The National Review is one of the leading Neo Conservative mags.

BucEyedPea
01-19-2010, 06:49 PM
The fraction of the federal budget consumed by defense spending has been trending downward for decades. Meanwhile, entitlements and interest on the debt have been trending upward. Defense spending isn't what is causing our fiscal problems.

Here's a comparison of 1968 and 2008:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

Nice to see you using statist stats. You don't save more than you spend period. I'd take the time to refute but it's a hijack.

Amnorix
01-19-2010, 07:32 PM
The fraction of the federal budget consumed by defense spending has been trending downward for decades. Meanwhile, entitlements and interest on the debt have been trending upward. Defense spending isn't what is causing our fiscal problems.

Here's a comparison of 1968 and 2008:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif


1968 -- the height of the Vietnam War and before the full implementation of teh Great Society programs that were implemented under LBJ. Nice year to use as a reference.

Actually, it seems that defense spending has been a steady 20'ish percent of the federal budget since the late 70s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png

Amnorix
01-19-2010, 07:35 PM
Since the early 60s, however, using inflation adjusted dollars, military spending has actually been reasonably steady, though it's risen in the last few years. Amazing that we're spending more now on the military in inflation-adjusted dollars than we did during the Vietnam War, or during the second half of teh Cold War...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG/500px-InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG)

patteeu
01-19-2010, 07:38 PM
1968 -- the height of the Vietnam War and before the full implementation of teh Great Society programs that were implemented under LBJ. Nice year to use as a reference.

Actually, it seems that defense spending has been a steady 20'ish percent of the federal budget since the late 70s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png

I took what I could easily find. Your chart shows the same downward trend and as we can all see it started well before Vietnam. Yes, the GWoT has resulted in a slight counter-trend, but if you looked at entitlements as a fraction of budget over the same time period it would be obvious that it's primarily entitlements driving our debt ever upward, not defense spending.

patteeu
01-19-2010, 07:39 PM
Nice to see you using statist stats. You don't save more than you spend period. I'd take the time to refute but it's a hijack.

Sure you would.

Amnorix
01-19-2010, 07:49 PM
I took what I could easily find. Your chart shows the same downward trend and as we can all see it started well before Vietnam. Yes, the GWoT has resulted in a slight counter-trend, but if you looked at entitlements as a fraction of budget over the same time period it would be obvious that it's primarily entitlements driving our debt ever upward, not defense spending.

Well, it shows flat over a 30 year period, really. That's not much of a trend, to say the least.

You can slice the stats a million ways. Obviously with real (i.e. inflation adjusted) spending on the military being flat or even increasing over a 40 year period, the military has nothing to complain about regarding its level of funding.

The reason it's so much less a percentage of total federal outlays from teh 50's etc because, as you say, the federal government has greatly expanded its programs since then. Entitlement programs being the largest expenditures, but even things like homeland security, veterans affairs (both expressly excluded from that chart), the national highway costs (started under Ike) take up a fair bit.

Plus the ever increasing amount allocated to interest on the federal debt, of course. :shake:

Saul Good
01-19-2010, 07:51 PM
Since the early 60s, however, using inflation adjusted dollars, military spending has actually been reasonably steady, though it's risen in the last few years. Amazing that we're spending more now on the military in inflation-adjusted dollars than we did during the Vietnam War, or during the second half of teh Cold War...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG/500px-InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG)

If he was cherry-picking, he would have used 1958 as a reference.