Obama sets new record: 2009 Deficit at 1.42 Trillion
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Well, I don't think we have "mental diarrhea" sub-forum
S
Steven Soderburgin
hahahaha who put the "gut the middleclass" tag because fucking lol
I thought I put it in the politics forum. Since we have a politics subforum, there's no need to put everything into one thread. If I mistakenly put it in the general forum, it appears some kind mod took care of it for me.
But you can always report the thread if you like, threads can be merged.
-Adam
It does seem to be heading in that direction.
However, interestingly enough, the CBO rates the current version of the healthcare plan as "budget-neutral".
However, interestingly enough, the CBO rates the current version of the healthcare plan as "budget-neutral".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704078.html
"by imposing a series of fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers and other sectors of the health industry"
"In addition, the package would raise $200 billion more by levying a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance policies"
The above mean that we all get to cover the cost - whether it's through taxes or higher office fees because the office has new gov't fees, taxes, etc to manage.
But very interestingly the following will also help pay for it:
"cost would be ... offset by reducing spending on Medicare and other federal health programs by about $400 billion"
But then later it states:
"require states to maintain coverage levels for children currently on Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, rather than pushing them into exchanges, where the government would have to pay more to keep them insured. "
So not only are they forcing states to keep uninsured children on medicaid, but they are proposing significant cuts to medicaid.
Are they serious?
At any rate, the CBO may recognize that it's "federal budget neutral" but it's far, far, far from "Citizen Budget Neutral."
-Adam
D
Dusty668
Nope, its Hope Economy, we will get the money by raping pixies, and selling unicorn rides.
R
RealBigNuke
I don't think I've ever heard a better political strategy. Ever.
A
Alucard
Ditto
wait..
wait
WAIT.
Your complaint is that the 2009 deficit is totally the suckage?
And you blame Obama?
Really?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html
You should probably be aware that the 2009 US budget was put into place and signed by George Bush, and has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. Obama's first budget goes into effect next year.
Just, you know, FYI.
wait
WAIT.
Your complaint is that the 2009 deficit is totally the suckage?
And you blame Obama?
Really?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html
You should probably be aware that the 2009 US budget was put into place and signed by George Bush, and has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. Obama's first budget goes into effect next year.
Just, you know, FYI.
Hm.... well, I'm sure it will be 2 trillion when he does it.
Or something. Just kidding. I got nothing.
The 2009 budget that congress implemented was not much more than any previous year.
The ACTUAL budget, due to congress spending more money than in the ORIGINAL budget is several times more than the original budget.
Just, you know, FYI.
Keep in mind that shortly after inauguration, Obama spelled out his plan to balloon the deficit to trillions of dollars. He then promised to "Cut the defecit in half over his term" but what he meant was he was going to quadruple the deficit, and then cut it in half. So he's still planning, by the end of his presidency, to have expenses greater than income that is TWICE what George Bush had.
It may well be necessary. But it's certainly not due to prior administrations, unless, of course, you blame the recession on prior administrations.
-Adam
The 2009 budget that congress implemented was not much more than any previous year.
The ACTUAL budget, due to congress spending more money than in the ORIGINAL budget is several times more than the original budget.
Just, you know, FYI.
Keep in mind that shortly after inauguration, Obama spelled out his plan to balloon the deficit to trillions of dollars. He then promised to "Cut the defecit in half over his term" but what he meant was he was going to quadruple the deficit, and then cut it in half. So he's still planning, by the end of his presidency, to have expenses greater than income that is TWICE what George Bush had.
It may well be necessary. But it's certainly not due to prior administrations, unless, of course, you blame the recession on prior administrations.
-Adam[/QUOTE]
How much of that is, you know, wars that are actually included in the budget and not anticipated as emergency funds on a three month basis? Just curious.
- Status