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.
Sheesh! These are projections, not predictions. They depend heavily on small differences in the baseline and on variations in the early time-period data. The projections included in the President's budget outline sent to Congress in February were done in December. The CBO numbers that the WSJ seems to refer to were done at the end of March. The administration's recent full budget projections would have been done in April. And people are surprised that the differences between the respective budget numbers and the March CBO numbers got smaller??? How dumb ARE people really...
Sheesh! These are projections, not predictions. They depend heavily on small differences in the baseline and on variations in the early time-period data. The projections included in the President's budget outline sent to Congress in February were done in December. The CBO numbers that the WSJ seems to refer to were done at the end of March. The administration's recent full budget projections would have been done in April. And people are surprised that the differences between the respective budget numbers and the March CBO numbers got smaller??? How dumb ARE people really...
It does not interest you why the numbers almost always turn out worse then predicted?
It does not interest you why the numbers almost always turn out worse then predicted?
There's always a purty well written five page document written by some nameless bureaucrat that explains it away...plus talking heads to remind YOU how dumb you are for even asking such a question.
It does not interest you why the numbers almost always turn out worse then predicted?
Not predicted, projected. And no, given economic developments between December and April, it would not be a surprise at all to see anybody's projections worsen. As an example of the flip-side of the coin, public debt when Bill Clinton left office was $3 trillion less than had been projected when he was inaugurated. That's what better than average performance can do for you...
Sheesh! These are projections, not predictions. They depend heavily on small differences in the baseline and on variations in the early time-period data. The projections included in the President's budget outline sent to Congress in February were done in December. The CBO numbers that the WSJ seems to refer to were done at the end of March. The administration's recent full budget projections would have been done in April. And people are surprised that the differences between the respective budget numbers and the March CBO numbers got smaller??? How dumb ARE people really...
There's always a purty well written five page document written by some nameless bureaucrat that explains it away...plus talking heads to remind YOU how dumb you are for even asking such a question.
Well, look at the levels of understanding that many of these right-wing windbags presume to be enough to warrant them mouthing off. Guess they've never heard that when you don't know what you are talking about, sometimes it's best just to sit back and listen...
Was there a point? Those are the last CBO numbers from the previous administration. What they document is the depth of the deficits that the new administration had handed to it by the old one.
ring around the rosie
pocket full of posies
ashes ashes all fall down
get ready
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.