3/5/2010 2:36:59 PM

And boom goes the dynamite

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/index.htm?hpt=T2

3/5/2010 7:50:45 PM

^

Quote :

"The CBO cited two big contributors to the jump in debt. One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. The other is the proposal to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Together those proposals would cost $3 trillion between 2011 and 2020. "

let’s raise taxes then, right?

3/5/2010 7:52:30 PM

not to mention these predictions are notoriously difficult to make. especially during a deep recession.

3/5/2010 7:55:33 PM

oh, but predictions about the cost of a 3000-page healthcare bill are perfectly accurate, right? I mean, they got SS, Medicare, and Medicaid right after all, right? funny how the CBO's numbers are only "questionable" when they go against Obama...

[Edited on March 5, 2010 at 11:58 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2010 11:58:07 PM

moron, I think that is a certainty at this point. The problem is why are we adding even more spending?

The whole notion here is we dont have enough money to pay for the things we want, so lets do some more... then, we will just start taking peoples money if needed.

A fair summary? And does that seem ok with you?

Moron, he is going to let the tax cuts expire on the wealthy americans. You know the same ones that those tax cuts ONLY helped, or so Ive been hearing for the last 7 yrs. So why would that matter? Are you suggesting that those tax cuts affected more than the "wealthiest americans"?

[Edited on March 6, 2010 at 7:58 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2010 7:46:53 AM

Way to be fiscally responsible. Let's keep spending and spending with no way to pay for it. Way to vote for pay as you go and then complain when someone tries to enforce it.

3/6/2010 10:40:05 AM

Quote :

"One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. "

Yes it is funny how the same evil "tax cuts for the rich" turned into "tax cuts for the majority of Americans"

3/6/2010 10:42:24 AM

90% of GDP in 2020!

I have no doubt that American voters will just continue to entitle themselves to someone else's money, that is, until someone else's money runs out.

3/6/2010 10:45:15 AM

Quote :

"Yes it is funny how the same evil "tax cuts for the rich" turned into "tax cuts for the majority of Americans" "

THIS

3/6/2010 11:03:04 AM

You're misreading that.

He's going to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts... for the majority of Americans

Not extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans

3/6/2010 11:21:20 AM

Quote :

"moron, I think that is a certainty at this point. The problem is why are we adding even more spending?"

That’s been a certainty since Reagan decided ignoring the debt was a good idea, and Bush(es) carried on this idea.

Obama looks to be more of a Reagan type now, but he still has plenty of time to become a Clinton type, regarding the debt.

Quote :

"The whole notion here is we dont have enough money to pay for the things we want, so lets do some more... then, we will just start taking peoples money if needed. A fair summary? And does that seem ok with you?"

Not really, because you’re implying that this is a new practice, but with the understanding that this has been happening since the early 80s, that’s a fair summary.

Quote :

"Moron, he is going to let the tax cuts expire on the wealthy americans. You know the same ones that those tax cuts ONLY helped, or so Ive been hearing for the last 7 yrs. So why would that matter? Are you suggesting that those tax cuts affected more than the "wealthiest americans"? "

I think you’re mis-reading things too.

And the “tax cuts for the wealthy” was a way of saying that the tax burden was shifted to the middle class, not that the middle class didn’t have tax cuts, they just got less tax cuts as a proportion of tax revenues per income (ie, a shifting of the burden).

Obama has so far caved into all of the demands of the republicans, and you’re still trying to tar and feather him as some far-left communist. It really makes no sense.

The left and progressives have more reasons to be pissed at O’bama than the right does, at this point.

3/6/2010 11:33:44 AM

Obama appoints union boss and accused lobbyist Andrew Stern to his deficit commission. Business groups are likening it to putting an arsonist on a fire-safety board. Of course, Stern steered more than $60 million to the Obama campaign as head of the SEIU, and he's a regular visitor to the white house.

If there is one consistent gripe I have about Obama, it's that he's just as pro-union as Bush was pro-business.

3/6/2010 1:44:27 PM

by business you are referring specifically to the military contracting and oil businesses, right?

3/6/2010 1:52:42 PM

Military-industrial complex, Energy companies, Wall Street, etc.

From tax cuts to deregulation to Cheney's Energy bill to the Iraq War to appointing pro-business judges and finally to TARP and the other bailouts, there is no doubt that the Bush Admin did everything it could for big business on his watch.

Obama is going in the opposite direction, giving control of GM to the unions, demonizing wall street and insurance companies, cutting special healthcare deals for union workers, raising taxes on businesses and business owners, proposing executive pay and financial regulations, appointing union bosses to high-level positions and angling towards "card-check" laws.

[Edited on March 6, 2010 at 2:08 PM. Reason : 2]

3/6/2010 2:04:23 PM

Quote :

" If there is one consistent gripe I have about Obama, it's that he's just as pro-union as Bush was pro-business."

tell that to card-check legislation

3/6/2010 2:41:13 PM

Quote :

"let’s raise taxes then, right?"

No, let's start an unfunded program every month. When our credit is shot, we can whine about the markets and beg france for a bailout.

3/6/2010 3:05:46 PM

Quote :

"demonizing wall street and insurance companies"

Rofl, oooo, he so demonized those Wall Streeters. Why, he has been so out to get them that we've seen a whopping zero arrests resulting from this blow up.

I put more stock in what he does than what he says, and he hasn't done shit regarding Wall Street.

3/6/2010 5:27:28 PM

^Yeah he talks big about Wall Streeters but hasn't done jack shit about it.

3/6/2010 5:31:43 PM

Yeah he should go out and arrest people who haven't done anything illegal. Can I borrow a pitchfork and torch next time for next time I go to new york?

The only way he could arrest people is if we had the laws and bureaucracy so many people say screws up our free markets.

3/6/2010 5:41:16 PM

Don't be an idiot. He isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him. There are plenty of perp walks to be had if we actually looked. Selling investments while having material information you don't disclose to your clients is unlawful. Yet, not a single GS director or exec has been arraigned.

3/6/2010 6:03:09 PM

Sure. It's a conspiracy. Do you realize the kind of accusation you are making with absolutely no evidence to back it up?

[Edited on March 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2010 6:53:13 PM

^Lol do you realize the favors he is handing down to Wall Street? For example the Fed loaning money to GS at 0 percent interest. They are then turning around and buying US Treasuries with that money pulling in ~2 percent or so. So basically the US is paying 2 percent on a loan for money they already had.

3/7/2010 12:05:26 AM

Quote :

"Do you realize the kind of accusation you are making with absolutely no evidence to back it up?"

Are you high? It's no conspiracy. It's fraud being engaged in out in the open right in front of our eyes. It's just, GS and the other banks call it "hedges" so it seems kosher. And they call the buyers of their CDOs sophisticated investors who should know what they are doing.

And no arrests or anything. It's so pervasive that even when they do it right in front of us, we aren't outraged and no one goes to jail.

3/7/2010 9:15:48 AM

Arrests should not be up to him.

However, he can stop giving money to wallstreet at any time. Still waiting for that miracle.

3/7/2010 10:41:11 AM

Quote :

"And no arrests or anything. It's so pervasive that even when they do it right in front of us, we aren't outraged and no one goes to jail."

..and just so you know, they used Patriot Act laws as justification for listening to his phone calls

3/7/2010 1:55:33 PM

dumbass. Spitzer hasn't been arrested

3/7/2010 2:03:38 PM

His point was the powers that be pretty much snooped on the guy to find something to hang him on because he was rooting around in the dreck of Wall Street looking for the fraud. It worked.

3/7/2010 2:32:29 PM

"Do As Obama Says On Health, Not Necessarily As He Does"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/do_as_obama_says_on_health_not.html

3/8/2010 5:31:10 PM

wow. "The CBO said this will reduce the deficit by $1T over the next decade?" resorting to just straight up LYING now? come on, Barry...
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/08/obama-overstates-health-care-savings-by-868-billion/

3/8/2010 8:05:22 PM

ha

it still looks like it saves 100 billion dollars though.

3/8/2010 8:25:51 PM

and if you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It does so by shifting 250billion from one bill to another. And then it does it by paying for 6 and taxing for 10. Guess what, if you did 10 for 10, it'd be 400billion in the hole. and, of course, all of this assumes that the CBO is not off by an order of magnitude, like it was with SS, medicare, medicaid...

3/8/2010 8:28:25 PM

Do you have proof of those statements?

I don’t recall you bashing the CBO when they had prior projections of big losses for certain variants of the bills.

3/8/2010 8:30:51 PM

it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. but, let me do the math.

price tag is ~900b. For six years. To get 10 years, you divide by 6, multiply by 10. That's 1.5T. Since it allegedly "saves 180b" over 10 years, we can assume that it takes in ~1.1T. 1.5T-1.1T = 400b. Wow, that was fucking HARD


btw, do you deny that the CBO was off by orders of magnitude for SS, medicare, and medicaid?

3/8/2010 8:33:22 PM

umm… none of those numbers match up to the numbers anywhere else.

it might not take a genius to figure out, but you don’t seem to have it nailed down either.

3/8/2010 8:36:05 PM

well, how about you get me the numbers for the current bill, and I can do some back of the napkin math for you. It's all, ultimately, about the same.

ok, 848b, according to http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/18/news/economy/Senate_health_care_bill_cost.cnnw/index.htm

848/6*10 = 1.4T
848 + 183 = 1.033T

1.4T - 1.033T ~ 400b. Wow, it works AGAIN. damn


btw, you never responded:

Quote :

"btw, do you deny that the CBO was off by orders of magnitude for SS, medicare, and medicaid?"

3/8/2010 8:38:08 PM

wow, you sure got quiet

3/8/2010 8:49:49 PM

yeah, and 400B doesn’t match up to anything, anywhere else, except from you.

It doesn’t make sense to presume the yearly costs are the same, when you figure startup costs, and changes in yearly outlays.

Here is the CBO’s breakdown:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2009b/healthPolicy.pdf

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 9:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2010 9:08:24 PM

the 400b is a calculated number. that's why it's not anywhere else. duh. And, of course the dems aren't gonna be honest and calculate apples to apples. Otherwise they would HAVE to admit that this thing will bankrupt the nation

Quote :

"It doesn’t make sense to presume the yearly costs are the same, when you figure startup costs, and changes in yearly outlays."

it doesn't make sense to presume they aren't, not without some kind of proof.

btw, you never responded:

Quote :

"btw, do you deny that the CBO was off by orders of magnitude for SS, medicare, and medicaid?"

3/8/2010 9:13:54 PM

Quote :

"it doesn't make sense to presume they aren't, not without some kind of proof. "

It makes perfect sense to presume they aren’t, because why would be? No public service ever would have fixed yearly cost, especially something like healthcare.

And i don’t really care about the CBO’s estimates of SS/medicare/whatever. I’m not familiar with any of there projections on those numbers, but neither am I interested in bashing or supporting the CBO.

I just think it’s interesting that you are simultaneously holding their numbers as gospel, while bashing them, while also presuming the cost base on your on baseless and foolish presumptions. It does fit with your MO though of replacing reality with your own delusions.

3/8/2010 9:19:38 PM

nowhere am I taking their numbers as gospel. However, one can use them to show that even with those bullshit numbers, the system is already insolvent.

but, tell me. how much of the 848b is startup costs? I'll be more than happy to do the math

3/9/2010 6:56:01 AM

Im starting to get the feeling he really might only be a one termer.

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/03/08/obamas-8-6-trillion-in-deficits-only-a-low-ball-estimate/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

3/9/2010 12:15:14 PM

but, but ... every problem is that "previous administration's" fault

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 12:29:29 PM

^^I would tend to agree. If the republicans had any half decent candidate, they would beat Obama easily. However, I don't foresee any half decent candidate at this time.

3/9/2010 1:48:25 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro eric's bitch 32284 Posts user info edit post dumbass. Spitzer hasn't been arrested 3/7/2010 2:03:38 "

whoosh

3/9/2010 1:49:38 PM

considering that you initially referenced "there were no arrests," it is a logical leap to assume you were talking about such a thing. so no, NOT a whoosh

3/9/2010 9:30:03 PM

3/10/2010 11:47:44 AM

Quote :

"Im starting to get the feeling he really might only be a one termer. http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/03/08/obamas-8-6-trillion-in-deficits-only-a-low-ball-estimate/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield "

15% more is an "order of magnitude?"

interesting...

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 7:42:54 PM

supplanter wont like this. (Im joking, since you seem to like the graph when it starts going up a bit)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

3/11/2010 3:03:00 PM

IBTobamabashingforpickingthencaatournament

3/17/2010 12:21:24 PM