Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

The report is 12 pages long okie and includes a lot of pictures. It took me all of 2 minutes to find out FOX lied. I only had to read ONE table and the notes for that table. It's the table that is clearly marked building assets on page 2.

It's nice that you can post the same link I did okie but you can't be bothered to check it out. I also posted the link to the actual report.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY2009_FRPR_Statistics.pdf
Funny thing is when I posted the link earlier you said you would check it out. I said you wouldn't. It seems I was right. You are the lying sack if **** I expected you to be.

1 Reply

@parados,

I made my claim that you wouldn't check it out here...

http://able2know.org/topic/47327-703#post-4460397

parados wrote:

okie wrote:

You may have some good points. I have run out of time right now. Will get back to this later.

I am tired of you BS okie. You will not get back to it later. You will not admit that FOX obviously has misled in it's story. Yet it is obvious that FOX did just that.
This is just your attempt to run away from the truth and hope no one brings it up later.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

This is just your attempt to run away from the truth and hope no one brings it up later.

Typical scumbag right wing ploy - taught in their "Repukelican 101" course......

0 Replies

@parados,

What about this in the report on page 5, parados? There may be some disagreement of interpretation regarding some of the numbers, such as what constitutes a building and structure, or whether it is leased or not, but I do not think Fox made something up out of nothing.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY2009_FRPR_Statistics.pdf
Total Federal Buildings and Structures
2008 - 895,000
2009 - 911,000
16,000 more in 2009 than 2008.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, Are you looking to make a mountain out of a molehill? That's less than a 2% increase. What government programs has less of an increase? Does the increase in the US population have something to do with that increase?

1 Reply

@okie,

I already addressed that okie. If you think roads, bridges and airfield pavements are buildings then I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

FOX stated "buildings". Are you arguing FOX is so stupid they don't know the difference between a road and a building? Or are you arguing you are the one that is that stupid?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Are you looking to make a mountain out of a molehill? That's less than a 2% increase. What government programs has less of an increase? Does the increase in the US population have something to do with that increase?

The point is that Obama pledged to decrease the buildings inventory.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

What about this in the report on page 5, parados? There may be some disagreement of interpretation regarding some of the numbers, such as what constitutes a building and structure, or whether it is leased or not, but I do not think Fox made something up out of nothing.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY2009_FRPR_Statistics.pdf
Total Federal Buildings and Structures
2008 - 895,000
2009 - 911,000
16,000 more in 2009 than 2008.

Those numbers not only include roads, bridges, airfield pavements etc. It also counts multiple leases per building and NOT buildings which is what I pointed out earlier. FOX should have checked facts. It's an easy thing to do. It doesn't require a doctorate. It only requires the ability to read foot notes which any HS student should be able to do.

0 Replies

@parados,

okie has never learned to read and translates what he reads correctly. The title of the link "he" posted says "buildings and structures." That would mean other than buildings, and can include roads, railways, airfields, bridges, dams, national parks, hell, everybody gets the idea, right? (except okie).

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

The point is that Obama pledged to decrease the buildings inventory.

And do you have solid evidence that the number of buildings was increased?

Do you know what a building is okie? Your argument seems to imply you don't.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I already addressed that okie. If you think roads, bridges and airfield pavements are buildings then I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

FOX stated "buildings". Are you arguing FOX is so stupid they don't know the difference between a road and a building? Or are you arguing you are the one that is that stupid?

Okay, here are these numbers for buildings from the same table, from the government's own figures, not Fox's. I think these numbers are for only "buildings," not "buildings and other structures."
From page 5 from the following.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY2009_FRPR_Statistics.pdf
Total Federal Building Assets
2008 - 406,000
2009 - 429,000
Gain of 23,000
Total Area of Building Assets
2008 - 3.26 billion square feet
2009 - 3.34 billion square feet
Gain of 71.0 million square feet

3 Replies

@okie,

No, that is the number of building assets.
It seems you can't read foot notes

Try reading this one.

2 May include multiple leases in one building.

You aren't counting buildings okie.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, For your figures/numbers to have any relevance, you must also show what was spent on structures. You do know what structures are, don't you? Structures are part and parcel of that total spending on "buildings and structures." Get my drift?

0 Replies

@parados,

Here's a simple question for you okie...

If I have 5 leases on 5 floors of a single building, how many buildings do I have offices in?

If I count those 5 leases as 5 building assets, how many buildings is it?

1 Reply

@parados,

Bottom line is FOX News lied about what was in the report.

1 Reply

@parados,

Use some sense, parados, if the government moves two agencies out of two different buildings, and moves them into two different parts of another building, that is not saving anything and it is not decreasing building assets on the roles. Another example would be if they moved out of two smaller buildings into one larger building, it saves nothing. The proof is seen in the increase of square footage, in the table, parados.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, I had to laugh when I saw who those buildings were leased to; the huge majority was to our military.

When do you want to cut our military, okie? How much do you want to cut?

You are way out of your league trying to argue on any issue; you lose before you even begin.

okie, You do remember my question, right? When and how much of the buildings leased to our military do you want to cut?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Bottom line is FOX News lied about what was in the report.

Perhaps they could have clarified the data a bit better, but it appears that the way GSA presented the data is the biggest problem, not Fox. In fact, it appears that government building square footage increased by about 8% in just one year, parados, and that proves Fox had the general thrust of the news right, that the government was increasing their building space, not decreasing it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Use some sense, parados, if the government moves two agencies out of two different buildings, and moves them into two different parts of another building, that is not saving anything and it is not decreasing building assets on the roles.

It is NOT increasing the number of buildings. Did FOX lie or not? You are attempting to justify that lie okie by telling your own lies it seems.

The problem with your square footage argument okie is you don't know which agency is increasing its square footage. Sending more troops to Afghanistan increases our square footage since overseas military installations are part of the numbers. Building bases overseas would increase square footage and make the US bases under utilized since the personnel are now overseas.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I had to laugh when I saw who those buildings were leased to; the huge majority was to our military.
When do you want to cut our military, okie? How much do you want to cut?
You are way out of your league trying to argue on any issue; you lose before you even begin.
okie, You do remember my question, right? When and how much of the buildings leased to our military do you want to cut?

It is me laughing at your illogical reasoning in your attempt to defend any government expenditure, parados. In fact, I have been to more than one military installation, and I am not at all convinced the buildings are all being managed correctly or needed. One example is a large amount of new buildings being constructed, among other things. I do not think it is a foregone conclusion that since I am pro-national defense, that I also think the military always spends the money in efficient ways.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know