T Nation

CBO New Numbers: 9.8 Trillion over 10 yrs

Remember, the bill is deficit neutral, and is cost effective. These numbers are from the CBO, not Fox or any partisan group. Read it and weep…

Why would Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lie to us man. You must be a racist.

Sarcasim Alert

“CBO […] reduced overall estimated deficits by $57 billion between the 2011-2020 period from earlier estimates.”

??

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
“CBO […] reduced overall estimated deficits by $57 billion between the 2011-2020 period from earlier estimates.”

??[/quote]

Well I guess Obama heard that it was dropped so he is going to make sure that money is spent as quickly as possible. 14 billion brought out today to help people pay their mortgage.

This news is just 1 week too late, just 1 fucking week.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This news is just 1 week too late, just 1 fucking week. [/quote]

I dont think it would have made a difference. Obama would have hamstrung or bought off another politician in their place. I guess all politicians have a price. Some just accepted favors from Nancy.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This news is just 1 week too late, just 1 fucking week. [/quote]

I dont think it would have made a difference. Obama would have hamstrung or bought off another politician in their place. I guess all politicians have a price. Some just accepted favors from Nancy.[/quote]

No it wouldn’t. They rammed this through against the will of the people as it is, a little thing like money isn’t going to stop them…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This news is just 1 week too late, just 1 fucking week. [/quote]

I dont think it would have made a difference. Obama would have hamstrung or bought off another politician in their place. I guess all politicians have a price. Some just accepted favors from Nancy.[/quote]

No it wouldn’t. They rammed this through against the will of the people as it is, a little thing like money isn’t going to stop them…[/quote]
Exactly. Also, I was just remarking to my wife that it is absolutely nauseating to me that these assholes passed this thing, and they STILL don’t know what’s in it! Its fucking unconscionable. Honestly, I would love to hit every one of those fuckers in the face with a 2X4. I would just love it.

[i]The analysis also found that revenues would be $1.4 trillion, or 4 percent, below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, [b]mainly because of the president’s proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 scheduled to expire at the end of the year.[b] Other proposals in the budget, including changes to the healthcare system would increase net revenues.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]The analysis also found that revenues would be $1.4 trillion, or 4 percent, below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, [b]mainly because of the president’s proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 scheduled to expire at the end of the year.[b] Other proposals in the budget, including changes to the healthcare system would increase net revenues. [/quote]

This

It will be much higher then that.

The CBO is well known for massively underestimating entitlement programs.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This news is just 1 week too late, just 1 fucking week. [/quote]

Almost like it was planned huh?

The CBO also mentioned that this year (2010) will be the first year where Social Security will be paying out MORE than what it takes in. Now, everyone knew this was going to happen, but the CBO predicted it would happen in 2016.

Makes you wonder how bad their prediction for health care will really be.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The analysis also found that revenues would be $1.4 trillion, or 4 percent, below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, [b]mainly because of the president’s proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 scheduled to expire at the end of the year.[b] Other proposals in the budget, including changes to the healthcare system would increase net revenues. [/b][/quote]
[/b]
Oh, come on! You are usually better than that!

The CBO estimates are limited by law to consider only standing law and regulation and not political realities.

So, the CBO estimates left out the real costs that will come. For example,
–just to fix the MediCare “sustainable growth” formula, by which doctors are supposed to decrease their take by 21%, will cost $238 billion per year…this was left out. That is an annual $238 billion credit which will not exist.
–the “Cadillac plan” tax, which was so politically damaging that it was left out of the law now, is presumed to be passed in 2018. If it could not pass in 2010, who but a starry-eyed liberal would believe it will be passed in 2018 and bring in the revenues projected by the CBO?
–Did the CBO include the $500 billion additional reduction in MediCare payments? Yes. Does anyone think the system will continue working if this cut in funding is continued through 2018, by which time 78 million additional entitled seniors will be enrolled in MediCare? No.

In the National HQ of the Democratic National Party, they are laughing their asses off, because the rubes believe their propaganda.

DrSkeptix forgot the / in the terminating quote tag =]

This was the largest and most audaciously flagrant mass of budgetary bullshit ever perpetrated upon this country, bar none. With the other big programs of decades past it could at least be argued that the proponents believed they would remain manageable. That’s bad enough, but these people know full well that this is an economic holocaust in the making.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The analysis also found that revenues would be $1.4 trillion, or 4 percent, below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, [b]mainly because of the president’s proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 scheduled to expire at the end of the year.[b] Other proposals in the budget, including changes to the healthcare system would increase net revenues. [/b][/quote]
[/b]
Oh, come on! You are usually better than that!

The CBO estimates are limited by law to consider only standing law and regulation and not political realities.

So, the CBO estimates left out the real costs that will come. For example,
–just to fix the MediCare “sustainable growth” formula, by which doctors are supposed to decrease their take by 21%, will cost $238 billion per year…this was left out. That is an annual $238 billion credit which will not exist.
–the “Cadillac plan” tax, which was so politically damaging that it was left out of the law now, is presumed to be passed in 2018. If it could not pass in 2010, who but a starry-eyed liberal would believe it will be passed in 2018 and bring in the revenues projected by the CBO?
–Did the CBO include the $500 billion additional reduction in MediCare payments? Yes. Does anyone think the system will continue working if this cut in funding is continued through 2018, by which time 78 million additional entitled seniors will be enrolled in MediCare? No.

In the National HQ of the Democratic National Party, they are laughing their asses off, because the rubes believe their propaganda.[/quote]

???

I’m “better than” underlining and bolding part of the link that the OP (and others!) had obviously misread or misunderstood? Did you expect me to add a cocky comment as well, perhaps?

By the way, good job at being the first person on this thread to make a point that wasn’t made up. When you are done being butt-sore, perhaps you should post such information on a thread that isn’t based upon misreadings/miscomprehension and we could begin to talk about what needs to happen from this point forward (as, I believe, I’ve suggested earlier). I actually enjoy reading your posts when you’re not playing the role of pissed off old dude who spews republican talking points. We have plenty of that here.

Also, for fun, if you want to continue talking about how republicans were kept out of the political process “in April,” you could check out the comments coming out of Grassley’s office. From “they locked us out” to taking credit for provisions in the bill in, what?, 2 days flat.

Sorry “your side” (apparently) lost. Time to think about how the congress needs to change/(expand!)/modify/whatever this bill to deal with additional issues/problems. No one is going to “repeal” pre-existing conditions, so we might as well talk about how this bill can continue to change for the better. …or you can continue to play pissed-off old dude and scream “repeal!” Either way works I suppose.

The CBO also mentioned that this year (2010) will be the first year where Social Security will be paying out MORE than what it takes in. Now, everyone knew this was going to happen, but the CBO predicted it would happen in 2016.

Still wanna avoid this subject?

Companies like ATT, Verizon, Caterpillar, 3M and others who are losing millions of dollars PER QUARTER, could have used that money for jobs and expansion, something your precious government has failed to provide, even with their worthless bill they passed.

You say “our” side lost? WE ALL LOST! Do you lefties really think your tin foil hats are going to exempt you from this fiasco?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The analysis also found that revenues would be $1.4 trillion, or 4 percent, below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, [b]mainly because of the president’s proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 scheduled to expire at the end of the year.[b] Other proposals in the budget, including changes to the healthcare system would increase net revenues. [/b][/quote]
[/b]
Oh, come on! You are usually better than that!

The CBO estimates are limited by law to consider only standing law and regulation and not political realities.

So, the CBO estimates left out the real costs that will come. For example,
–just to fix the MediCare “sustainable growth” formula, by which doctors are supposed to decrease their take by 21%, will cost $238 billion per year…this was left out. That is an annual $238 billion credit which will not exist.
–the “Cadillac plan” tax, which was so politically damaging that it was left out of the law now, is presumed to be passed in 2018. If it could not pass in 2010, who but a starry-eyed liberal would believe it will be passed in 2018 and bring in the revenues projected by the CBO?
–Did the CBO include the $500 billion additional reduction in MediCare payments? Yes. Does anyone think the system will continue working if this cut in funding is continued through 2018, by which time 78 million additional entitled seniors will be enrolled in MediCare? No.

In the National HQ of the Democratic National Party, they are laughing their asses off, because the rubes believe their propaganda.[/quote]

???

I’m “better than” underlining and bolding part of the link that the OP (and others!) had obviously misread or misunderstood? Did you expect me to add a cocky comment as well, perhaps?

By the way, good job at being the first person on this thread to make a point that wasn’t made up. When you are done being butt-sore, perhaps you should post such information on a thread that isn’t based upon misreadings/miscomprehension and we could begin to talk about what needs to happen from this point forward (as, I believe, I’ve suggested earlier). I actually enjoy reading your posts when you’re not playing the role of pissed off old dude who spews republican talking points. We have plenty of that here.

Also, for fun, if you want to continue talking about how republicans were kept out of the political process “in April,” you could check out the comments coming out of Grassley’s office. From “they locked us out” to taking credit for provisions in the bill in, what?, 2 days flat.

Sorry “your side” (apparently) lost. Time to think about how the congress needs to change/(expand!)/modify/whatever this bill to deal with additional issues/problems. No one is going to “repeal” pre-existing conditions, so we might as well talk about how this bill can continue to change for the better. …or you can continue to play pissed-off old dude and scream “repeal!” Either way works I suppose.

[/quote]

So, i guess this is your way of saying, “Gosh! I was wrong and totally ignorant of the facts!”

Apology accepted.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

DrSkeptix forgot the / in the terminating quote tag =]

This was the largest and most audaciously flagrant mass of budgetary bullshit ever perpetrated upon this country, bar none. With the other big programs of decades past it could at least be argued that the proponents believed they would remain manageable. That’s bad enough, but these people know full well that this is an economic holocaust in the making.[/quote]

Doc amd Tirib, yep.

Either pass the monstrosity and have the audacity to pay for it, or don’t pass it.

Instead we have a (term-limited) President and (old) Speaker who won’t be around to make the actual hard choices that will be necessary to adequately fund this “reform”. That awful job - some Congress and President in the future - will be faced with the inevitable choice of decreasing the entitlement spending or actually closing the revenue loophole (e.g., enacting the Cadillac tax). Just not the vanguard of the “movement”, who get to slip away and boast about the sugar high helping humanity with the passage of this short-sighted bill while their children have to do all the hard work.

We can’t avoid the hard trade-offs of the real world, and someone in the future is going to have do the unpopular work of fixing the utopianism of the Obama/Pelosi bill (while at the same time trying to find a way to make Social Security solvent through benefit cuts and raising the age of eligibility).

Just don’t tell the “progressives”, who only pay lip service to the principle of “sustainability”.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Companies like ATT, Verizon, Caterpillar, 3M and others who are losing millions of dollars PER QUARTER, could have used that money for jobs and expansion, something your precious government has failed to provide, even with their worthless bill they passed.
[/quote]

I just want to make sure you’re aware that the list of companies you just provided are complaining about now having to pay taxes on their [i]FEDERAL SUBSIDIES[/i] for retiree prescriptions. For consistency’s sake, one would think you’d be on board for that.

If they want to pass their cost of doing business on to their employees, that’s their call.