djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2012 18:41:42 GMT -5
the budget year doesn't end in January. dj, let that fish go and save yourself! I am begging you! LOL! i am just sick and tired of people blaming Obama for stuff that took place the instant he got into office. you want to blame him for 2010? be my guest.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2012 18:52:36 GMT -5
And one more thing.... In addition to maintaining the spending increases, Obama (and Congress) have continued to "stimulate" the economy via tax cut extensions that go well beyond the Bush tax cuts (i.e. Social Security tax cuts). These cuts may not be spending increases, but they still directly increase the federal debt, and also have put the entire SS program in jeopardy. We're now faced with people who will get less out of SS than they contributed. I was not particularly in favor of those tax cuts, but at least they could be somewhat justified in an attempt to stimulate spending. There are to my mind only two times when deficit spending is justified. War and recession. If the public cannot do enough to recover and grow the economy, I do believe that it can be a proper function of government to step in and help get things started, as long as it is done in a responsible manner. The Bush tax cuts, on the other hand, should never have been enacted. The stated justification for those cuts was that projected surpluses were going to be too large, so it was right to give the people back their money. Absolutely the wrong thing to do. If the surpluses in fact materialized, the correct thing would have been to pay down the national debt. If I recall correctly, the deficits we were running each year were less than the interest we were paying on the debt. We could possibly have had a way out from under the mountain that will end up burying us. Deficit spending during times of expansion and growth is both moronic and unconscionable.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2012 18:54:23 GMT -5
joss-to be fair, weekends on P&M can be and are normally slow. Most activity on P&M is Monday through Friday during local business hours. Some people that post here only get custody of their offspring on weekends and alternate holidays. ;D When do they get custody of their brains?
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Aug 18, 2012 19:11:22 GMT -5
Fox News and Rush have custody of their brains ?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Aug 18, 2012 19:14:17 GMT -5
dj, let that fish go and save yourself! I am begging you! LOL! i am just sick and tired of people blaming Obama for stuff that took place the instant he got into office. you want to blame him for 2010? be my guest. I completely agree. Some fish are worth an attempt at educating, that one isn't.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Aug 18, 2012 19:15:00 GMT -5
"When do they get custody of their brains? [image]"
LOL!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2012 19:54:46 GMT -5
i am just sick and tired of people blaming Obama for stuff that took place the instant he got into office. you want to blame him for 2010? be my guest. I completely agree. Some fish are worth an attempt at educating, that one isn't. i'd like to argue, but i have a gig.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Aug 18, 2012 20:04:36 GMT -5
"'d like to argue, but i have a gig. " You play?
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Aug 18, 2012 21:04:24 GMT -5
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Aug 18, 2012 21:04:53 GMT -5
Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 10/01/2001 --------------- 5,806,151,389,190.21 Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 10/01/2009 --------------- 11,920,519,164,319.42 Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 08/18/2012 --------------- 15,957,959,655,187.23 www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=npObama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. 6 TRILLION in 8 years is Unpatriotic...4 TRILLION in 34 months is better? Signed on February 17, 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment ActThis goes on Bush's tab? www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 18, 2012 21:16:19 GMT -5
Just got to this thread..very interesting and not only because I am a supporter of the POTUS but in reading the comments of the article posted..the authors answer back to one of the naysayers of the article was in my mind just a beautiful exmple of actual facts to answer one who just wasn't happy with what the article was suggesting..see below.. =========================================
"I’m not blaming anything on Bush. I’m afraid you can’t change the reality that every president comes into office with a first year budget that was passed the year preceding. That is not an opinion- this is a very simple reality. The Obama stimulus was built into the numbers used to arrive at the Obama increases in the budget (please look at the cites on the graph I provided based on CBO numbers.) I suspect that you, like many others, chose to forget that the initial bailouts to save the banks was proposed by President Bush and passed by Congress (remember Henry Paulson- Bush’s Sec. of the treasury) I appreciate that you don’t like Obamacare, entitlement programs and the bailouts of the auto industry (although you really do yourself in by calling it a ‘theft’ as serious conservatives do not characterize the bail outs in this manner) – but that does not change the federal budget numbers. They are what they are. And what about the 2008-2009 Congress? Again, I get that you don’t like that Congress but how exactly is that relevant to this article beyond the fact that the 2008 Congress did pass the Bush 2009 budget?
All due respect, maybe you should take look at your research and re-write your comment as you are kind of embarrassing yourself. And if you are going to be wildly off on the facts, you might just be a bit nicer in your criticism as I could have been far more harsh in my response given how completely off you are."
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 18, 2012 22:10:25 GMT -5
"Deficit spending during times of expansion and growth is both moronic and unconscionable. "
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Deficit spending should not necessarily be determined by growth or recession but when determined necessary for a very specific purpose and to achieve a very specific result. Examples could include an emergency, a serious security threat or to help develop some particular technology, infrastructure or advancement that will result in an advantage to a countries long term success or sustainability. We on the other hand have been doing it for many decades as a normal course of business to the extent that the cost to maintain or service or debt will now limit our ability to provide many basic services, assist in the development of new technology, medical advancement and we have mortgaged (or given away) our own children's economic future to live the high life today. Now that's what I consider moronic and unconscionable. That means today Obama has the gold medal of moronics!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2012 22:48:01 GMT -5
That means today Obama has the gold medal of moronics! That's pretty simplistic considering our recent history, isn't it? Reagan for all practical purposes started it, Bush continued it, GWB exploded it, and now we are where we are.... I recall doing the research a couple years ago back on MSN. Since I think WWII, with only one exception (one of Reagan's terms) the national debt grew more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. Job growth was also higher under Democratic administrations. Now, I am certainly not going to suggest with all of the factors involved that it is a perfect cause-and-effect relationship, but it is interesting that the economy is generally better under the Democrats.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Aug 19, 2012 6:50:14 GMT -5
i see. so it doesn't matter what the president says or does, it is all congresses' fault. is that about it? Okay are we talking spending or hyperbole DJ?so, if Obama declared war on Iran tomorrow, the cost of that would be congresses fault? Dictator or President? Congress would have to authorize true war just like they did for Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress would also have to authorize spending for the war budget. The President would hold as much responsibility for declaring war as Congress would for authorizing and paying for the expenditure. We can jump all around if that is what you would like I was under the impression we were placing blame (which is such a fun game) for who controls spending in our federal government if he announced a presidential initiative to pave every major highway tomorrow, that would be their fault too? Again he can declare and demand all he wants, it is up to congress to either fund or not fund his plan, again are we talking about spending or control?from where i sit, the president has more than nothing to do with how budgets are constructed, government, maintained, and balanced. but not from yours? As I stated, the president can outline what it is he wants it is up to congress if things get paid for or not, just look at his last 2 budgets how many yes votes did they receive and how much of it was implemented? Now exactly how much power does he have to implement, construct, balance the budget DJ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:04:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2012 7:27:00 GMT -5
Under Obama admin as well, private sector jobs have grown much better than under Bush. Besides having no real net positive job growth, if you took out public sector job growth under Bush, you'd have a significant loss of jobs overall... whereas, while growth might not be as fast as we'd like today, at least there is positive private sector job growth... enough to absorb the public sector retraction and still have net positive growth...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 19, 2012 7:28:50 GMT -5
That means today Obama has the gold medal of moronics! That's pretty simplistic considering our recent history, isn't it? Reagan for all practical purposes started it, Bush continued it, GWB exploded it, and now we are where we are.... I recall doing the research a couple years ago back on MSN. Since I think WWII, with only one exception (one of Reagan's terms) the national debt grew more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. Job growth was also higher under Democratic administrations. Now, I am certainly not going to suggest with all of the factors involved that it is a perfect cause-and-effect relationship, but it is interesting that the economy is generally better under the Democrats. When I was in college, there was a Government course I was taking and the Prof was discussing political parties etc..came home for Christmas break and was talking to my Dad..he owned and operated a small business..a General store... he had never finished High School..depression had to find work for family , then the war ..off with Patton's third..home , became a manager with chain of these type retail stores then purchased one of his own.. Asked him what makes him vote as he did...he was a Democrat. His answer.. not that educated as he said but for him it was simple..His best years were when the Democrats were in power and worst when Republicans were there..thus usually voted that way. Went back to School after the break and in one of the first classes in a discussion I mentioned that and the Prof was quiet for a minute as if thinking and then smiled and said "your old man..pretty smart fellow isn't he." I remember that and it's been over 50 years and yep..Dad was a pretty smart guy.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 19, 2012 21:03:16 GMT -5
This is a Democrat and Republican problem. Often times when one party had the Whitehouse the other party had at least partial control over the congress. This has been going on for decades and would be almost impossible to blame one part more then the other since many actions of a previous administration or congress have long lasting effects on future years. Clinton for instance had some of the best economic years but IMO him and his congress made decisions that had some of the most detrimental effects on us today. When it really comes down to it we the voter are the ones who have been suckered into believing their nonsense and allowing these politicians to drive our country over a cliff. So we can keep playing partisan politics and just "let er go" or we can demand better of our elected officials.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 20, 2012 12:55:58 GMT -5
If we decide to agree that FY'09 and FY'01 were 'transition' years, then if we want somewhat of an apples to apples comparison I think it makes sense to look at the final full year of Clinton ('00) versus '03 for Bush and the final full year for Bush ('08) versus the most recent completed year for Obama.
Total outlays: FY00 - $1,788,045 FY03 - $2,159,246 20.87% increase FY08 - $2,978,664 FY11 - $3,601,109 20.9% increase.
Pretty much two sides of the same coin if you ask me. I would have looked up Reagan, Clinton & the other Bush for a similar period but I couldn't find the archived reports for those years on the fms.treas.gov site.
Edited for a rounding error.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 20, 2012 13:03:05 GMT -5
Notice the highest spending increases on that chart happened under Democrat control of congress? I wonder if the so-called "fiscal conservatives" on the left (who conveniently disappeared after Obama was elected into office) have anything to say to that?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 20, 2012 13:09:54 GMT -5
That means today Obama has the gold medal of moronics! That's pretty simplistic considering our recent history, isn't it? Reagan for all practical purposes started it, Bush continued it, GWB exploded it, and now we are where we are.... I recall doing the research a couple years ago back on MSN. Since I think WWII, with only one exception (one of Reagan's terms) the national debt grew more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. Job growth was also higher under Democratic administrations. Now, I am certainly not going to suggest with all of the factors involved that it is a perfect cause-and-effect relationship, but it is interesting that the economy is generally better under the Democrats. You should also note that, historically, Republican presidents have had Democrat-controlled ocngresses, and vice versa. This wave of same-side control of all houses is fairly recent.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Aug 20, 2012 13:22:09 GMT -5
I wish we would get away from the DemVsRep, and focus on the fact that the federal government spends far too much money on things it really has no authority for. It didn't start with Obama and doesn't really look like it is going to stop no matter who is elected next.
agree . Thank you!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2012 13:28:02 GMT -5
"'d like to argue, but i have a gig. " You play? whoa yeah.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2012 13:30:11 GMT -5
Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 10/01/2001 --------------- 5,806,151,389,190.21 Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 10/01/2009 --------------- 11,920,519,164,319.42 Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 08/18/2012 --------------- 15,957,959,655,187.23 www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np6 TRILLION in 8 years is Unpatriotic...4 TRILLION in 34 months is better? wow. i am going to give you a kudo for honestly restating this case. you are the first person i have ever encountered that has done so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2012 13:35:25 GMT -5
i see. so it doesn't matter what the president says or does, it is all congresses' fault. is that about it? Okay are we talking spending or hyperbole DJ?you tell me, cme.so, if Obama declared war on Iran tomorrow, the cost of that would be congresses fault? Dictator or President? Congress would have to authorize true war just like they did for Iraq and Afghanistan
i think that an AUMF skirts the constitution, personally. but even having said that, the president still pulls the trigger. no trigger, no war.
, Congress would also have to authorize spending for the war budget. The President would hold as much responsibility for declaring war as Congress would for authorizing and paying for the expenditure. We can jump all around if that is what you would like I was under the impression we were placing blame (which is such a fun game) for who controls spending in our federal government if he announced a presidential initiative to pave every major highway tomorrow, that would be their fault too? Again he can declare and demand all he wants, it is up to congress to either fund or not fund his plan, again are we talking about spending or control?i am intentionally blurring that distinction for illustration purposes. . seriously, tho- without the initiative and direction, many of these things never happen. so do you really blame congress for following the lead? i guess you could, 100%- but without leadership, DO WE EVER GO THERE?from where i sit, the president has more than nothing to do with how budgets are constructed, government, maintained, and balanced. but not from yours? As I stated, the president can outline what it is he wants it is up to congress if things get paid for or not, just look at his last 2 budgets how many yes votes did they receive and how much of it was implemented? Now exactly how much power does he have to implement, construct, balance the budget DJ?i still think his influence is large. you don't. i am good with that. but if Gore were elected in 2000, i doubt we would have had the "Bush Tax Cuts", to use another example. you are free to believe as you wish, however.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 20, 2012 14:04:41 GMT -5
Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 10/01/2001 --------------- 5,806,151,389,190.21 Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 10/01/2009 --------------- 11,920,519,164,319.42 Date --------------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding 08/18/2012 --------------- 15,957,959,655,187.23 www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np6 TRILLION in 8 years is Unpatriotic...4 TRILLION in 34 months is better? wow. i am going to give you a kudo for honestly restating this case. you are the first person i have ever encountered that has done so. I don't think it's any more or less honest than the same discussion we had in March at the end of the attached thread. I still prefer to look at this from the date they took office. In the greater scheme of things though it really doesn't matter because no matter what we all agree to here, neither a D nor a R will ever change the direction we're headed. But I hope I'm still around when Bondzilla does. notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=21093&page=1
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 20, 2012 14:08:23 GMT -5
I wish we would get away from the DemVsRep, and focus on the fact that the federal government spends far too much money on things it really has no authority for. It didn't start with Obama and doesn't really look like it is going to stop no matter who is elected next. agree . Thank you! Not sure where your getting the spending where they are not authorized to spend by the Federal... but if your saying so by constitutional mandates your probably correct in a way.. However...I suggest most of these expenditures are because of felt necessity's at the time or just because it was wanted. Problems surfaced and they had to be faced and solved.. desires of certain services by others.., wanted by majority of the populace and agreed to by their elected representatives. National disasters..some catastrophic, costing hugh amounts never really thought of by the founding fathers..new areas of exploration..space, the Moon, Mars..Space station..not even contemplated by anyone of those esteemed gentlemen.. Wars...national in scope..decades of [possible wars with actual enemies..Cold War..then the little but still expensive wars that resulted from that event..Korea, Nam..and the tiny ones..Grenada, Panama, ] so expensive... National health areas..Mental, Cancer research, all the diseases..vaccinations.. In other words things most Americans want their government to do certain things...yes even in education, transportation, [Rail, Air, highways]harbors, National Parks, so much more... ..possible not you , but most of us ...we want it , we expect it and they better do it....and yep there is a cost to this too. PS:.. The social programs that the Federal are into too..don't forget those either..they are there because enough people wanted those too..again, possible not you, but enough of the others. Want to do away with them..get a candidate and run them for office who feel the same as you..and don't forget to win, have to do that too..to get a change..but till then, get use to it, most of these programs are there because enough people wanted them..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2012 14:42:27 GMT -5
wow. i am going to give you a kudo for honestly restating this case. you are the first person i have ever encountered that has done so. I don't think it's any more or less honest than the same discussion we had in March at the end of the attached thread. I still prefer to look at this from the date they took office. In the greater scheme of things though it really doesn't matter because no matter what we all agree to here, neither a D nor a R will ever change the direction we're headed. But I hope I'm still around when Bondzilla does. notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=21093&page=1i think fiscal years are way more honest. as another poster is fond of saying, the president has little say in the budget, but where he or she DOES have influence is in the direction of the budget. it is hard to hold a guy responsible for a year's worth of CEO work when he wasn't even at the helm for the first half of it. just trying to be fair.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 20, 2012 14:54:12 GMT -5
I don't think it's any more or less honest than the same discussion we had in March at the end of the attached thread. I still prefer to look at this from the date they took office. In the greater scheme of things though it really doesn't matter because no matter what we all agree to here, neither a D nor a R will ever change the direction we're headed. But I hope I'm still around when Bondzilla does. notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=21093&page=1i think fiscal years are way more honest. as another poster is fond of saying, the president has little say in the budget, but where he or she DOES have influence is in the direction of the budget. it is hard to hold a guy responsible for a year's worth of CEO work when he wasn't even at the helm for the first half of it. just trying to be fair. We'll just have to disagree on that for the reasons I stated back in March. What if the new CEO is in charge for >2/3 of the year? That make him any more responsible? Any comment on the % change in spending when comparing the prior president's last full year versus the newer president's 2nd full year's outlays?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:04:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 15:55:12 GMT -5
You should also note that, historically, Republican presidents have had Democrat-controlled ocngresses, and vice versa. This wave of same-side control of all houses is fairly recent. False - Look at this graphic... His answer.. not that educated as he said but for him it was simple..His best years were when the Democrats were in power and worst when Republicans were there..thus usually voted that way. Well, in the years that I have been out of college, under a Republican president I have had two jobs in 8 years and under a Democrat President I have had six jobs in 12 years and three of them were due to downsizing/layoffs and afterwards, those 'new' jobs I ended up taking pay cuts between positions due to the economy and job market. Take a look at this graphic. The debt has skyrocketed since Obama has taken office. It has grown 50% since 2008 from 10 to 15 billion dollars. Also, Bush has been out of office for over three years, and Obama has extended the tax cuts the past three years. So when will the Democrats call them the Obama tax cuts? My guess is never.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2012 17:36:13 GMT -5
i think fiscal years are way more honest. as another poster is fond of saying, the president has little say in the budget, but where he or she DOES have influence is in the direction of the budget. it is hard to hold a guy responsible for a year's worth of CEO work when he wasn't even at the helm for the first half of it. just trying to be fair. We'll just have to disagree on that for the reasons I stated back in March. What if the new CEO is in charge for >2/3 of the year? That make him any more responsible? sure. but i never said that Obama was totally unresponsible for the deficit in that fiscal year. if you are asking me what his share was, i would say it was about 50% Bush Era crap, about 30% economic downturn (hold who you wish responsible for that) and 20% Obama for 2009.Any comment on the % change in spending when comparing the prior president's last full year versus the newer president's 2nd full year's outlays? i would have one if i knew what those numbers were. i am guessing that total outlays on FY2008/9 were about 10% below/ those of 2009/10.
|
|