I'm sure everyone has their opinion, but after throwing away a bunch of $2000 HP printers in the last year, we've had enough.
I started buying Xerox and Oki printers and so far, they have been fantastic.
Your timing is prescient - all of our HP printers were recently replaced by Xerox machines at my workplace. They do put out some nice prints, although I wouldn't say they are better than the HP ones. I'm fairly insensitive to print-quality -- however, yesterday at a meeting with some clients that rarely see print-outs from my office, someone asked if we had just gotten new printers.
Anyway -- I have noticed that what I would call our Xerox "workgroup-class" printers are really loud. The analogy "It sounds like it's barfing a sheet of paper at a time" was used by two different people on two different occasions.
Check your atlas. I'm pretty sure there are no roads above the 75th parallel because there is a dearth of land up there upon which to build roads.:-) I think you mean 55th parallel, which would be accurate.
Sometimes I would just kill for a way to revise my slashdot comments. About 3 minutes after I posted, I did some googling and found that the 60th parallel separates the lower Canadian provinces from NWT, Yukon, and Nunavut.
Don't know where the long-distance roads stop, though. I was just in Quebec and remember looking at a road atlas to see how far north the road from Chicoutimi reached -- for some reason, the 75th stuck in my head. Don't know why, though...
From what I understand, northern Canada is somewhat remote. In fact, I understand there to be limited road access above the 75th parallel in much of the country. I would posit that it would be unfeasibly expensive to lay and maintain fiber cable out through difficult a media (permafrost) to support communities that number in the dozens.
Satellites seem to me to offer the best way to connect small settlements spread out across millions of square miles of the Canadian back country.
Perhaps Italians who have to live in Italy, just might be subject to Italian no matter where they hosts and are probably strongly represented in the group of people who administrate Italian Wikipedia??
Italian wikipedia authors and editors are likely to have also had some role in shaping English-versions of pages regarding those that could file suit in Italy. Given that, the best practical thing for wiki to do to protect its users from litigation is eliminating any article that any Italian editor had a role in. Instead, they cut just the Italian-language site, which suggests to me (and others -- see above) that Wikipedia just doesn't care for the law and wants its Italian-language users to protest the Italian government.
The law itself is abysmal, but there's no reason for it to affect Wikipedia.
Yeah this move makes no sense. You would think from Wiki Foundation's reaction that this law affects only Italian-language websites. After all, a tracert to it.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org shows the exact same IP: 208.80.152.201 -- this is presumably a US-based server. Even if Italy's laws are enforceable on a US-based foundation with US-based servers, if Wiki-foundation is taking down the Italian language website, it might as well take down the English language site, the German language site, and all the rest of them since any of them might have some criticism of someone that could file a suit in an Italian court...
It strikes me that in making this claim, Wikipedia is taking up a political fight. Wikipedia is not in any danger from the law, they're theatrically threatening to pull out, despite being unaffected, in order to draw attention to this. I'm against this abhorrent and ridiculous law, but I'm not in favor of Wikipedia making exaggerated claims and throwing its weight around on political issues.
I totally agree that the powers-that-be at wikipedia simply don't like the law and are making a big to-do about it, with its Italian-language users needlessly put in between.
Amazon does not require signatures for most purchases. I don't know what the dollar limit is, but unless you're buying a thick stack of books, my experience is that Amazon is going to have UPS just leave the stuff at your door.
I'm just speculating, but a risk-averse JPL may be concerned about using a JPEG because the extra work of compressing the raw image to a JPEG would be one more failure item on already very-complicated space probes.
Like I said, that's just my theory -- a quick google of "space probe image compression" didn't turn up anything for me; maybe others would have luck.
Discrediting my theory is a note on the Galileo Wikipedia entry regarding the use of data compression to improve throughput after the high-gain antenna was discovered as damaged:
Through implementation of sophisticated data compression techniques, arraying of several Deep Space Network antennas and sensitivity upgrades of receivers used to listen to Galileo's signal, data throughput was increased to a maximum of 160 bits per second.
At this rate, it can take upwards to 90 minutes to transmit a single high resolution image to Earth from Mars
At least part of this 90 minute transmission time is due to the maximum speed of light, not the date rate. According to NASA, it takes 10 to 20 minutes to get a signal from Mars to Earth:
How long does it take for a signal to be sent from Earth to Mars?
Signals to/from Mars travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second). It takes between 10 and 20 minutes for a signal to travel from Earth to Mars, depending on the relative position of the planets at that time.
If you already have a CD player, it's not that big of a deal. As has been said a million times already on this thread, Intel clearly anticipates that those that would be buying the SB-E already have a heat-sink/fan. I can attest to personally having the stock fan sitting in it's original box -- I used it with my i5-2500k just for the few days that it took to get my non-stock heat-sink/fan in.
It's just wasteful for them to ship that thing to me when it's just a piece of junk sitting in the box just in case I need to RMA the chip (if you RMA the chip, they'll expect the stock fan to be in the box as well).
Not sure what you mean by Corsair sheeple -- Corsair prices very aggressively, particularly on a short-term sale basis. They are generally not marketed to appeal to the highend hobbyist market (which is what I assume you mean by "sheeple."). For that, you're looking at like G. Skill -- that's a straight fanboy brand.
I'm not much of a memory buyer -- as in, I only buy it every 3 or 4 years -- but Corsair has worked decently for me so far and if when I do a motherboard upgrade that needs DDR4, I will probably buy Corsair if it's priced as aggressively as it is pricing its DDR3 memory at the moment.
If AMD is hoping to make a killing selling performance memory to "Ultra Pro" users, it's not going to do it by pairing it with Fusion. No performance user (gamers, CAD, etc) that is willing to shell out extra for AMD-branded memory is going to be using onboard graphics -- they would be using a discrete graphics card. In such cases, the relationship between main memory speed and onboard graphics is completely irrelevant. See this review breaking down Fusion's unsuitability for performance users:
When it comes to the desktop space, Llano’s prospects are decidedly less impressive in light of the competition. These APUs make for an ideal solution to replace entry-level PCs with crappy integrated graphics. And, they certainly could introduce a lot of graphics muscle to a segment historically light in that regard. If Llano catches a foothold there, the APU could impact peoples’ expectation of what a PC can do. Developers might start targeting a higher lowest common denominator in their games, and that’d of course be great news for PC gaming.
But once you reach outside of the budget basement and consider folks willing to use discrete graphics, the A-series’ utility is hamstrung. It’s easy to put an $80 Radeon HD 6670 in a cheap OEM box and walk away with something that easily trumps AMD’s product in both processing and graphics benchmarks.
The story in anandtech that you're quoting finds that higher bandwidth memory pushes up gaming performance when you're using the onboard video. That's certainly true, but the performance user willing to pay for performance memory is using a stand-alone video card. With a stand-alone card, the tomshardware results that I linked to are the relevant benchmark -- not the anandtech one you posted.
Don't get me wrong, AMD's on-die graphics are head-and-shoulders above even Intel's Sandy Bridge HD3000 graphics -- but they don't hold a candle to even basic video cards, like the Radeon 6670:
These APUs make for an ideal solution to replace entry-level PCs with crappy integrated graphics. And, they certainly could introduce a lot of graphics muscle to a segment historically light in that regard. If Llano catches a foothold there, the APU could impact peoples’ expectation of what a PC can do. Developers might start targeting a higher lowest common denominator in their games, and that’d of course be great news for PC gaming.
But once you reach outside of the budget basement and consider folks willing to use discrete graphics, the A-series’ utility is hamstrung. It’s easy to put an $80 Radeon HD 6670 in a cheap OEM box and walk away with something that easily trumps AMD’s product in both processing and graphics benchmarks.
Memory is memory -- it doesn't have anything to do with the on-die memory controller. It's an application thing; most applications users use daily aren't doing constant memory pages, so tossing faster memory in is not going to do much.
Three different categories are currently on offer, roughly matching AMD's APU/CPU product categories; Entertainment, Ultra Pro and Enterprise. Oddly enough, the company is offering only 2GB modules with data rates at 1333.33MT/s and 1600MT/s, with 9-9-9 and 11-11-11 timings for the first two product ranges respectively."
The suggestion that 1600MHz is too slow for what AMD is calling "Ultra Pro" (they presumably mean gamers) is just not substantiated by the data:
We looked at different memory speeds for the LGA 1156-based Core i7-870 and chose to run DDR3-800, -1066, -1333, and -1600 at fast, as well as relaxed, timings. Although the differences were typically very small, there were a few applications that obviously benefited from faster memory. This wasn’t surprising, as we already did similar comparisons on most of the other popular platforms:
In all cases, we’ve seen significant performance differences when looking at the synthetic or low-level benchmarks. Memory bandwidth does increase considerably if you speed up the memory transfer rate, and tightening timings also improves performance by cutting latencies. However, only a marginal fraction of these benefits actually arrive at the application level. Even going for the fastest memory available will give you a performance boost that is probably smaller than the effect a faster processor speed bin would deliver.
The reason GDP has plummeted is that high tax rates,labor rates, and costs of massive regulation have encouraged business and manufacturing to leave the country in droves for decades for friendlier business pastures.
Corporate earnings are the highest they've been relative to worker wages (including benefits) since just before the Great Depression...If earnings were to suddenly revert to their historic average relative to wages...stocks would have to fall about 40% to return to their average level relative to earnings.
Have some companies moved production abroad? Yeah. But there are still 150 million people at work in this country full time. That's a freaking lot of people at work.
USA Today reported on a trend way back in 2010 of companies moving manufacturing work back to the US, despite what you characterize as high labor costs and massive regulation:
Chinese wages and shipping costs have risen sharply in the past few years while U.S. salaries have stayed flat, or in some cases, fallen in the recession. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturers have been frustrated by the sometimes poor quality of goods made by foreign contractors, theft of their intellectual property and long product-delivery cycles that make them less responsive to customer demand.
With the cost gap between the U.S. and other countries narrowing for other expenses, such as class-action lawsuits, making products in the USA is now about 22% higher than the average of nine of its largest trading partners, down from 32% in 2006.
How about, stop spending what you don't have? God forbid we slow the firehose of outgoing dollars for various programs we don't want or need. But if you say that, then it's, "Oh so you don't want traffic lights? What's wrong with you?" As if that's where the money is going. I've had it with the bullshit political rhetoric, and people just repeating what they heard on Fox News or Jon Stewart.
Stop spending my f'ing FEDERAL tax dollars on crap I don't want, in places I don't live in. That includes other countries AND other states.
What are these trillions of dollars being spent on "crap I don't want, in places I don't live in"? Seriously, the federal budget is X trillions of dollars. What are the programs that you want to knock out to reduce the deficit.
I ask because, frankly, your argument (or shall I say rhetoric) sounds exactly like the talk radio argument a la:
bullshit political rhetoric, and people just repeating what they heard on Fox News or Jon Stewart.
Without specifics, what you just said is just rhetoric.
According to the CBO, the cost of Obamacare alone: $2 trillion
First of all -- where are you getting that $2 trillion figure? Sounds like a talk radio number, honestly. Your argument is really very uncredible if you don't link to a reputable source. You're at your computer right now -- you don't have to do this stuff from memory.
Although you raise an intriguing point, I strongly doubt that S&P is willing to do this as a favor to Washington while the US Treasury is calling BS on their math:
S&P officials notified the Treasury Department early Friday afternoon it was planning to downgrade the U.S. government’s debt from the AAA rating it has held for decades, a government official said, and it presented its report to the White House. S&P has previously warned such a downgrade might come if Washington didn’t move to comprehensively tackle its long-term fiscal woes.
After two hours of analysis, Treasury officials discovered that S&P officials had miscalculated future deficit projections by close to $2 trillion. It immediately notified the company of the mistakes.
Obama has raised the national debt by over three trillion dollars. He added more debt in the first 19 months of his presidency than all presidents from Washington through Reagan combined. If Obama supporters are really going to try to pin everything on Republicans, they're going to be in for a big disappointment in next year's election.
First of all, I don't know where you're getting "three trillion dollars" from. Would be awesome if you could, y'know, provide the source for this data.
Second of all, the President didn't increase the debt single-handedly. You cannot point out any amount of programs that he himself pushed for that led to a deficit of $3 trillion since his first budget (the 2010 budget, since the 2009 budget was Bush's).
Thirdly, the deficit would have been greatly reduced if not for the continued impact of the 2001/2003 tax cuts for the wealthy instituted by President Bush and his congress. Obama is opposed to this and claimed to try to get rid of these (although he didn't, really, in my opinion try that hard. He sold out, in my opinion). Anyway, this would have reduced the deficit.
The bottom line -- you can't blame Obama for an addition to the debt of three trillion dollars. Did he preside over a three trillion dollar increase in the debt? Yes....well, maybe -- I'd still like to see the math on this. But George Bush presided over the worst terrorist attack the United States has suffered. Does that mean that he caused it? No -- any number of things led to the attacks; he was just the guy in the seat for when it happened. Obama is the guy in the seat during the period the debt increased.
One other note -- the President doesn't get to choose what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. You know that there are programs that he wants gone, spending that he wants gone that the republicans insist on funding.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure everyone has their opinion, but after throwing away a bunch of $2000 HP printers in the last year, we've had enough.
I started buying Xerox and Oki printers and so far, they have been fantastic.
Your timing is prescient - all of our HP printers were recently replaced by Xerox machines at my workplace. They do put out some nice prints, although I wouldn't say they are better than the HP ones. I'm fairly insensitive to print-quality -- however, yesterday at a meeting with some clients that rarely see print-outs from my office, someone asked if we had just gotten new printers.
Anyway -- I have noticed that what I would call our Xerox "workgroup-class" printers are really loud. The analogy "It sounds like it's barfing a sheet of paper at a time" was used by two different people on two different occasions.
Check your atlas. I'm pretty sure there are no roads above the 75th parallel because there is a dearth of land up there upon which to build roads. :-) I think you mean 55th parallel, which would be accurate.
Sometimes I would just kill for a way to revise my slashdot comments. About 3 minutes after I posted, I did some googling and found that the 60th parallel separates the lower Canadian provinces from NWT, Yukon, and Nunavut.
Don't know where the long-distance roads stop, though. I was just in Quebec and remember looking at a road atlas to see how far north the road from Chicoutimi reached -- for some reason, the 75th stuck in my head. Don't know why, though...
From what I understand, northern Canada is somewhat remote. In fact, I understand there to be limited road access above the 75th parallel in much of the country. I would posit that it would be unfeasibly expensive to lay and maintain fiber cable out through difficult a media (permafrost) to support communities that number in the dozens.
Satellites seem to me to offer the best way to connect small settlements spread out across millions of square miles of the Canadian back country.
Perhaps Italians who have to live in Italy, just might be subject to Italian no matter where they hosts and are probably strongly represented in the group of people who administrate Italian Wikipedia??
Italian wikipedia authors and editors are likely to have also had some role in shaping English-versions of pages regarding those that could file suit in Italy. Given that, the best practical thing for wiki to do to protect its users from litigation is eliminating any article that any Italian editor had a role in. Instead, they cut just the Italian-language site, which suggests to me (and others -- see above) that Wikipedia just doesn't care for the law and wants its Italian-language users to protest the Italian government.
The law itself is abysmal, but there's no reason for it to affect Wikipedia.
Yeah this move makes no sense. You would think from Wiki Foundation's reaction that this law affects only Italian-language websites. After all, a tracert to it.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org shows the exact same IP: 208.80.152.201 -- this is presumably a US-based server. Even if Italy's laws are enforceable on a US-based foundation with US-based servers, if Wiki-foundation is taking down the Italian language website, it might as well take down the English language site, the German language site, and all the rest of them since any of them might have some criticism of someone that could file a suit in an Italian court...
It strikes me that in making this claim, Wikipedia is taking up a political fight. Wikipedia is not in any danger from the law, they're theatrically threatening to pull out, despite being unaffected, in order to draw attention to this. I'm against this abhorrent and ridiculous law, but I'm not in favor of Wikipedia making exaggerated claims and throwing its weight around on political issues.
I totally agree that the powers-that-be at wikipedia simply don't like the law and are making a big to-do about it, with its Italian-language users needlessly put in between.
Amazon does not require signatures for most purchases. I don't know what the dollar limit is, but unless you're buying a thick stack of books, my experience is that Amazon is going to have UPS just leave the stuff at your door.
Like these?
Wrong.
Hmm...okay, why?
however this 90 minute figure is probably arrived at by taking the size of the image and dividing by the 6mbps transfer rate.
So let me correct that for you:
Probably Wrong.
I'm just speculating, but a risk-averse JPL may be concerned about using a JPEG because the extra work of compressing the raw image to a JPEG would be one more failure item on already very-complicated space probes.
Like I said, that's just my theory -- a quick google of "space probe image compression" didn't turn up anything for me; maybe others would have luck.
Discrediting my theory is a note on the Galileo Wikipedia entry regarding the use of data compression to improve throughput after the high-gain antenna was discovered as damaged:
Through implementation of sophisticated data compression techniques, arraying of several Deep Space Network antennas and sensitivity upgrades of receivers used to listen to Galileo's signal, data throughput was increased to a maximum of 160 bits per second.
From the summary:
At this rate, it can take upwards to 90 minutes to transmit a single high resolution image to Earth from Mars
At least part of this 90 minute transmission time is due to the maximum speed of light, not the date rate. According to NASA, it takes 10 to 20 minutes to get a signal from Mars to Earth:
How long does it take for a signal to be sent from Earth to Mars?
Signals to/from Mars travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second). It takes between 10 and 20 minutes for a signal to travel from Earth to Mars, depending on the relative position of the planets at that time.
Side note: Seriously? A fine for profane language? What the fuck?
Yeah, that's bullshit.
If you already have a CD player, it's not that big of a deal. As has been said a million times already on this thread, Intel clearly anticipates that those that would be buying the SB-E already have a heat-sink/fan. I can attest to personally having the stock fan sitting in it's original box -- I used it with my i5-2500k just for the few days that it took to get my non-stock heat-sink/fan in.
It's just wasteful for them to ship that thing to me when it's just a piece of junk sitting in the box just in case I need to RMA the chip (if you RMA the chip, they'll expect the stock fan to be in the box as well).
Good one. I have a since of humor...
That's true. If you loose your iPhone mid-contract, you're going to have to replace it, which would run you about $650.
Not sure what you mean by Corsair sheeple -- Corsair prices very aggressively, particularly on a short-term sale basis. They are generally not marketed to appeal to the highend hobbyist market (which is what I assume you mean by "sheeple."). For that, you're looking at like G. Skill -- that's a straight fanboy brand.
I'm not much of a memory buyer -- as in, I only buy it every 3 or 4 years -- but Corsair has worked decently for me so far and if when I do a motherboard upgrade that needs DDR4, I will probably buy Corsair if it's priced as aggressively as it is pricing its DDR3 memory at the moment.
If AMD is hoping to make a killing selling performance memory to "Ultra Pro" users, it's not going to do it by pairing it with Fusion. No performance user (gamers, CAD, etc) that is willing to shell out extra for AMD-branded memory is going to be using onboard graphics -- they would be using a discrete graphics card. In such cases, the relationship between main memory speed and onboard graphics is completely irrelevant. See this review breaking down Fusion's unsuitability for performance users:
When it comes to the desktop space, Llano’s prospects are decidedly less impressive in light of the competition. These APUs make for an ideal solution to replace entry-level PCs with crappy integrated graphics. And, they certainly could introduce a lot of graphics muscle to a segment historically light in that regard. If Llano catches a foothold there, the APU could impact peoples’ expectation of what a PC can do. Developers might start targeting a higher lowest common denominator in their games, and that’d of course be great news for PC gaming.
But once you reach outside of the budget basement and consider folks willing to use discrete graphics, the A-series’ utility is hamstrung. It’s easy to put an $80 Radeon HD 6670 in a cheap OEM box and walk away with something that easily trumps AMD’s product in both processing and graphics benchmarks.
The story in anandtech that you're quoting finds that higher bandwidth memory pushes up gaming performance when you're using the onboard video. That's certainly true, but the performance user willing to pay for performance memory is using a stand-alone video card. With a stand-alone card, the tomshardware results that I linked to are the relevant benchmark -- not the anandtech one you posted.
Don't get me wrong, AMD's on-die graphics are head-and-shoulders above even Intel's Sandy Bridge HD3000 graphics -- but they don't hold a candle to even basic video cards, like the Radeon 6670:
These APUs make for an ideal solution to replace entry-level PCs with crappy integrated graphics. And, they certainly could introduce a lot of graphics muscle to a segment historically light in that regard. If Llano catches a foothold there, the APU could impact peoples’ expectation of what a PC can do. Developers might start targeting a higher lowest common denominator in their games, and that’d of course be great news for PC gaming.
But once you reach outside of the budget basement and consider folks willing to use discrete graphics, the A-series’ utility is hamstrung. It’s easy to put an $80 Radeon HD 6670 in a cheap OEM box and walk away with something that easily trumps AMD’s product in both processing and graphics benchmarks.
Memory is memory -- it doesn't have anything to do with the on-die memory controller. It's an application thing; most applications users use daily aren't doing constant memory pages, so tossing faster memory in is not going to do much.
Three different categories are currently on offer, roughly matching AMD's APU/CPU product categories; Entertainment, Ultra Pro and Enterprise. Oddly enough, the company is offering only 2GB modules with data rates at 1333.33MT/s and 1600MT/s, with 9-9-9 and 11-11-11 timings for the first two product ranges respectively."
The suggestion that 1600MHz is too slow for what AMD is calling "Ultra Pro" (they presumably mean gamers) is just not substantiated by the data:
We looked at different memory speeds for the LGA 1156-based Core i7-870 and chose to run DDR3-800, -1066, -1333, and -1600 at fast, as well as relaxed, timings. Although the differences were typically very small, there were a few applications that obviously benefited from faster memory. This wasn’t surprising, as we already did similar comparisons on most of the other popular platforms:
In all cases, we’ve seen significant performance differences when looking at the synthetic or low-level benchmarks. Memory bandwidth does increase considerably if you speed up the memory transfer rate, and tightening timings also improves performance by cutting latencies. However, only a marginal fraction of these benefits actually arrive at the application level. Even going for the fastest memory available will give you a performance boost that is probably smaller than the effect a faster processor speed bin would deliver.
The reason GDP has plummeted is that high tax rates,labor rates, and costs of massive regulation have encouraged business and manufacturing to leave the country in droves for decades for friendlier business pastures.
Labor rates in the US relative to corporate profits are very low today:
Corporate earnings are the highest they've been relative to worker wages (including benefits) since just before the Great Depression...If earnings were to suddenly revert to their historic average relative to wages...stocks would have to fall about 40% to return to their average level relative to earnings.
Have some companies moved production abroad? Yeah. But there are still 150 million people at work in this country full time. That's a freaking lot of people at work.
USA Today reported on a trend way back in 2010 of companies moving manufacturing work back to the US, despite what you characterize as high labor costs and massive regulation:
Chinese wages and shipping costs have risen sharply in the past few years while U.S. salaries have stayed flat, or in some cases, fallen in the recession. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturers have been frustrated by the sometimes poor quality of goods made by foreign contractors, theft of their intellectual property and long product-delivery cycles that make them less responsive to customer demand.
With the cost gap between the U.S. and other countries narrowing for other expenses, such as class-action lawsuits, making products in the USA is now about 22% higher than the average of nine of its largest trading partners, down from 32% in 2006.
How about, stop spending what you don't have? God forbid we slow the firehose of outgoing dollars for various programs we don't want or need. But if you say that, then it's, "Oh so you don't want traffic lights? What's wrong with you?" As if that's where the money is going. I've had it with the bullshit political rhetoric, and people just repeating what they heard on Fox News or Jon Stewart.
Stop spending my f'ing FEDERAL tax dollars on crap I don't want, in places I don't live in. That includes other countries AND other states.
What are these trillions of dollars being spent on "crap I don't want, in places I don't live in"? Seriously, the federal budget is X trillions of dollars. What are the programs that you want to knock out to reduce the deficit.
I ask because, frankly, your argument (or shall I say rhetoric) sounds exactly like the talk radio argument a la:
bullshit political rhetoric, and people just repeating what they heard on Fox News or Jon Stewart.
Without specifics, what you just said is just rhetoric.
CostOfWar.com: BOTH wars cost $1.1 trillion
According to the CBO, the cost of Obamacare alone: $2 trillion
First of all -- where are you getting that $2 trillion figure? Sounds like a talk radio number, honestly. Your argument is really very uncredible if you don't link to a reputable source. You're at your computer right now -- you don't have to do this stuff from memory.
Although you raise an intriguing point, I strongly doubt that S&P is willing to do this as a favor to Washington while the US Treasury is calling BS on their math:
S&P officials notified the Treasury Department early Friday afternoon it was planning to downgrade the U.S. government’s debt from the AAA rating it has held for decades, a government official said, and it presented its report to the White House. S&P has previously warned such a downgrade might come if Washington didn’t move to comprehensively tackle its long-term fiscal woes.
After two hours of analysis, Treasury officials discovered that S&P officials had miscalculated future deficit projections by close to $2 trillion. It immediately notified the company of the mistakes.
Obama has raised the national debt by over three trillion dollars. He added more debt in the first 19 months of his presidency than all presidents from Washington through Reagan combined. If Obama supporters are really going to try to pin everything on Republicans, they're going to be in for a big disappointment in next year's election.
First of all, I don't know where you're getting "three trillion dollars" from. Would be awesome if you could, y'know, provide the source for this data.
Second of all, the President didn't increase the debt single-handedly. You cannot point out any amount of programs that he himself pushed for that led to a deficit of $3 trillion since his first budget (the 2010 budget, since the 2009 budget was Bush's).
Thirdly, the deficit would have been greatly reduced if not for the continued impact of the 2001/2003 tax cuts for the wealthy instituted by President Bush and his congress. Obama is opposed to this and claimed to try to get rid of these (although he didn't, really, in my opinion try that hard. He sold out, in my opinion). Anyway, this would have reduced the deficit.
The bottom line -- you can't blame Obama for an addition to the debt of three trillion dollars. Did he preside over a three trillion dollar increase in the debt? Yes....well, maybe -- I'd still like to see the math on this. But George Bush presided over the worst terrorist attack the United States has suffered. Does that mean that he caused it? No -- any number of things led to the attacks; he was just the guy in the seat for when it happened. Obama is the guy in the seat during the period the debt increased.
One other note -- the President doesn't get to choose what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. You know that there are programs that he wants gone, spending that he wants gone that the republicans insist on funding.
Reply to un-do accidental moderation. Apologies.