Search results

History is better in text form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

So your problem is that Obama wasn't touting a claim that wasn't scored by the CBO at all. Why the hell would he talk about projections that were never scored. Also, how hard was it to know what the costs would have been from 2014 onwards if you look at the CBO projections released in 2010...

I am not saying anything, CBO is saying that. The omnibus bill that was signed in March 2009 led to 31 billion increase in immediate spending i.e. FY 2009. Rest was for FY 2010, the omnibus bill wasn't just a FY 2009 appropriations bill, it was simply signed during FY 2009 since there is a lag...

This is false, only 31 billion of outlays were part of FY 2009, rest went into FY 2010 which didn't show any big increase in spending from a 2008 baseline. To repeat - most of that spending was PART of FY 2010!

Actually that's how the CBO works, they do 10 year estimates and if you look at the CBO numbers - they were for 11 years and the yearly increase in costs is in line with inflation. Also, Bush and his OMB director Mitch Daniels did mislead on the Iraq war costs, hell they didn't estimated it...

Not true, some provisions kick in which only costs fraction of the money. Exactly. In 2014, most provisions start kicking in which is where the costs start showing up. Shifting the budget window away from years where only handful of provisions were active explains the difference in CBO...

Your chart backs up exactly what Obama said! Let's do some basic math based on your table. From 2010 to 2020, the cost is indeed 900 trillion or so. Just add up the cost numbers from Fy 2010 to FY 2020 Now change that window and use FY 2011 to FY 2022 (11 year as your table says and NOT...

Says the guy who never ONCE addressed the issue of deficit caused by Obamacare, you keep talking costs which you are completely wrong about too. And what? He is talking about the budget window between 2010 to 2020 of which 4 years included only partial costs since the law goes fully into...

The actual cost is lower because a lot less people signed up for it, the initial cost was projected to be much higher when the program passed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

Because Republicans passed the bill based on the initial assumption, they didn't care that nearly a trillion dollar would be added to the debt because of it. Two problems with your argument. First, you posted COSTS while ignoring OFFSETS that would pay for the increased costs. Second...

That's why I said the original cost (at the time of passing which legislators relied on then and still passed it) were much higher including debt servicing costs. "Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion"...

First, you never ONCE backed up the claim that Obamacare adds to the deficit, you quoted an article that talked about COSTS and had nothing to do with deficits. Second, I have repeatedly acknowledged that stimulus was Obama's one big spending bill. Now you want to compare Medicare Part D with...

So you are going back to stimulus again which is exactly my point. You have to compare every Bush spending item with the stimulus to show that Obama is a big spender. Infact comparing the temporary stimulus (over 40% of which was tax cuts that couldn't be attributed as spending in the first...

First two I agree. But you cannot honestly compare Medicare Part D with Obamacare, Medicare Part D was COMPLETELY unpaid for, it's original cost was 900 billion dollar that directly added to the deficit. Obamacare is paid for whatever the costs may be, even if you don't agree that it reduces...

This is obviously false if you look at the outlays recorded by the CBO, the outlays were 150 billion in 2009 and were already part of the federal deficit. Look up page 24 here - http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf

That's why I said COMPARED to Bush and Reagan he is a fiscal conservative, by himself Obama is not a fiscal Conservative. Also, as I have asked you earlier, I can list some really big spending items under Bush, what big spending items has Obama signed that are increasing the debt and deficit...

Not 200, it's 150 billion. And the reason '150 billion' didn't make a dent in the spending levels (as I have said again and again) is because mandatory spending in others areas increased significantly because of the recession. If it wasn't for the recession, that 150 billion decrease would have...

How are tax cuts attributed as spending in the first place? It was certainly not me who was making that point, you simply assumed it out of nowhere. Also, if you want to look at policies that's causing the debt to explode, here is a good start. Simply color coding Congress control without...

First, I wasn't talking about the 'gap' in outlays, the gap of 150 billion dollars between two fiscal years wasn't significant enough to lower the spending levels since mandatory spending in other areas increased. (the details are there in the CBO PDF I posted) Second, I was talking about...

Were you not paying attention in 2010? He didn't really make a choice there, 42 Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster ALL legislation (yes ALL, not just those relating to Bush tax cuts) until an extension was passed. Here is a review of what happened...