SP warn of downgrade if no deficit reduction

[TaylorTRoom]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

There are three options. Entitlement cuts, defense cuts, and tax increases.

Maybe this graph might help:

 

[Burnt Orange Bevo]

Senator Schumer, a liberal Democrat, signs off on no taxes on wealthy. What... now pigs fly?!? Strange times we live in.

Link

 

[YoLaDu]

that chart goes straight to my question on another thread where i wondered how "Obama increase the debt" by 5 trillion in 2 1/2 years, when policies related to him add up to only 1.44 trillion.

is that a strange question to ask?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I want to see those numbers that went into that chart - which btw includes "projections". So what I would assume is happening that the chart is using alleged cuts that will hit around '17 to balance out what he's already spent.

 

[Rex Kramer]

That chart is highly simplistic and provides virtually no detail. I consider it largely worthless.

 

[TexasGolf]

Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
As of Jul 22, 2011: $14,342,873,980,043
In 2.5 yrs Increased: $3,715,996,931,130
George Bush (8yrs): $4,899,100,310,609
The Link

 

[pasotex]

fify

That [poster name] is highly simplistic and provides virtually no detail. I consider him largely worthless.

 

[pasotex]

I found the chart at the Washington Post btw. It also had this little blurb with it:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

Paso great point. I laugh at those looking at his spending from day 1 like he reported for work and grabbed a credit card or something.

People just Dom't understand the snowballing effect the bush tax cuts are still having on our national debt. Nothing you or I say will ever change their minds.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

No question Bush had a good deal to do with much of the issue. But to say that we should just throw our hands up and accept it when Obama pushes the accelerator because "he didn't put those programs in place" is absurd.

From 2009
(Note: links to specific claims are included, they just don't show up in the quoted text.)

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TaylorTRoom]

Holy crap, pasotex! Did Healthcare Reform really cost $150 billion? Crap! It was supposed to be frontloaded the first 5 years on revenue and backloaded in years 6 - 10 on costs, so as to score as revenue-neutral the first 10 years. If it's already costing $150 billion now, how much will it cost in a few years? Without even counting the cost to employers and consumers to come...

 

[pasotex]

It says healthcare reform and entitlement changes. The time frame is 8 years (including five in the future).

If you get that upset about $152 billion, you gotta love Iraq, huh?

 

[TaylorTRoom]

I think Iraq will end up costing less than Obamacare in the long run. Unless we do the right thing and repeal it.

 

[pasotex]

Intuition usually is better than the CBO ...

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Uninformed, it's also worth noting that when he changed his mind and decided that they WEREN'T just tax breaks for the wealthy, he even went on to claim that leaving the cuts in place for all BUT the wealthiest was imperative to the health of the economy.

As always, Obama must make his decisions appear to be a matter of averting national tragedy. In doing so, however, he does beg the question as to why he thinks the economy is now in shape to handle those cuts, whereas he himself said it wasn't last year.