Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's finally taking baby steps on trying to get the economy moving( out of desperation) and they're cheeering him like he's been running a marathon. Then they'll complain about Bush when Obama's maintained every one of Bush's policies since day one. Or they'll credit him for things he wasn't invloved in or blame others for what he didn't do.
Obama should be incredibly easy to beat and was also incredibly easy to beat last time. Shame on the republican party for being such a mess.
You mean like Obama taking credit for bailing out the auto industry even though Bush did it?
As I said, show me that the CBO only uses manipulated data handed to them from the executive branch. This is where you butted in and became antagonistic...once again. The CBO uses a variety of data from different sources, not just data handed to them from the Oval Offic.
Plus, provide a less partisan link than the Heritage Foundation.
As I said, show me that the CBO only uses manipulated data handed to them from the executive branch. This is where you butted in and became antagonistic...once again. The CBO uses a variety of data from different sources, not just data handed to them from the Oval Offic.
Plus, provide a less partisan link than the Heritage Foundation.
Pick your own source, its very well known that the Democrats removed the Doc fix cost from the healthcare bill in order to have the results more favorable. I'm not going to sit here and have a pissing contest for something so commonly known.
use google, bing, or any other search engine you feel like using, or if thats too difficult, hit that little search button up top because there are threads on the subject.
Pick your own source, its very well known that the Democrats removed the Doc fix cost from the healthcare bill in order to have the results more favorable. I'm not going to sit here and have a pissing contest for something so commonly known.
use google, bing, or any other search engine you feel like using, or if thats too difficult, hit that little search button up top because there are threads on the subject.
Yawn...you initiated the pissing contest, and then proclaim that you don't want to be apart of it. You certainly are an amusing little fella.
Plus, I noticed that you completely avoided the main argument at hand in favor of your red herring. You failed to prove that the CBO only relies on data handed to them by the White House.
Here:
In the December 19, 2009, cost estimate for PPACA, CBO and JCT estimated that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting PPACA would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010–2019 period.1 Thus, the act’s effects on the rest of the budget—other than the cash flows of the HI trust fund—would amount to a net increase in federal deficits of $226 billion over the same period. Those two aspects of the legislation would have differing effects on debt held by the public: The changes to HI revenues and costs, by themselves, would reduce that debt, while changes in other revenues and costs would increase it.
For the decade beyond 2019, CBO expects that enacting PPACA would reduce federal budget deficits relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-HI_Fund.pdf
Yawn...you begin the pissing contest, and then proclaim that you don't want to be apart of it. You certainly are an amusing little fella.
I didnt start the pissing contest, I stated a commonly known FACT, known to just about everyone in the entire world, and you come along and tell everyone in the world that they are wrong. I find find you amusing, I find your lack of knowledge sad
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Plus, I noticed that you completely avoided the main argument at hand in favor of your red herring. You failed to prove that the CBO only relies on data handed to them by the White House.
Once again you are lying about my claims because I never claimed that. We said the CBO will answer ONLY WHATS ASKED,
Why didnt the CBO add the doc fix into their calculations fo Obamacare? Why arent you asweing?
And to think that the Republitard dirtbags running for president all want to increase defense spending while cutting taxes for the rich...which will lead to even more sky-high deficits and more economic destruction that started under Dumbya Boosh, the Village Idiot from Texas manchild president.
Of course, the only person who won't do this is Ron Paul, but that goes without saying. It also goes without saying he has zero chance at the GOP nomination.
This is an opinion piece but the facts are......well, facts. You get the idea.
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money?
According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money.
All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion.
That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap?
Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners.
Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry.
The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite.
They’re going to have to go after the non-rich..........
Obama and his minions have worked this to perfection .. Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Didn't work in 2010, won't work in 2012.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
