You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from Mav88:
do you know what the word additional means?
Additoinal for FY 2009 OUTLAYS, that is actual spending increase.
Quote from Mav88:
I'm trying to be polite, but since you insist on being such a dense troll I have to call you out. Your understanding is so egregiously bad that you should be ordered to just shut up, in fact your statement that appropriations take time after signing the bill is so bad that you ought to be embarrased, but I'm sure you will keep on a truckin.
The time lag between appropriation and obligation is about 3 weeks for all the levels of accounts to get their shit together. I know that well since I have been part of that process. I bet I have more experience than the author. The only issue is are the performers ready to get the work done by Oct. 1 or is it even scheduled by then.
IT DOES NOT MATTER when the money is actually obligated (set aside for a purpose) and expended (the check has been cashed)- if it was part of the FY2009 appropriations it will always be part of the 2009 budget . It happens all the time, in fact the law says that gov't agencies have up to about 3 years after the signing the bill to spend the money. This is because the rest of the world obviously does not operate on a government calendar. There is nothing in the article that contradicts what I am saying, it is only you who does not understand. [/B]
I have showed you again and again along with the Mises article that the appropriations made in 2009 were not all part of the Fy 09 spending. You know perfectly what I meant when I said that it takes time between appropriations and the actual spending. Even Nutting in his analysis included this increased spending if you actually notice.
To repeat - just because the bill was SIGNED DURING FY 09, doesn't mean that the spending is part of the FY 09 SPENDING.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
I dont think he knows the difference between Omnibus spending bill, stimulus and TARP, thats the only conclusion i can come to at this point that would piece together his fatuous nonsense....
Do explain the projected budget deficit of 1.2 trillion by the CBO in January and the actual budget deficit of 1.4 trillion which was 200 billion higher. If there was extra spending of 400 billion with omnibus and 140 billion with the stimulus, why wasn't the deficit higher.
Surely you cant be this fucking stupid? YOUR OWN FUCKING ARTICLE SAYS THAT FROM 2012-2021 (9 YEARS) OBAMACARE WILL ADD A TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT.
Quote from epiktetos:
Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
Surely you cant be this fucking stupid? YOUR OWN FUCKING ARTICLE SAYS THAT FROM 2012-2012 (9 YEARS) OBAMACARE WILL ADD A TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT.
No it doesn't you moron, it talks about the costs and how it would add to the deficit AND then talks about the OFFSETS that shows that it will DECREASE deficits. You are ONLY looking at COSTS without the OFFSETS to make your bullshit claim.
You saw the word deficits and stopped reading. This is the part that you skipped
But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:
Also, just to point out the very very obvious, the CBO report is ONLY about the insurance provisions of ACA and not the entirety of the law.
CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.
Quote from epiktetos:
No it doesn't you moron, it talks about the costs and how it would add to the deficit AND then talks about the OFFSETS that shows that it will DECREASE deficits. You are ONLY looking at COSTS without the OFFSETS to make your bullshit claim.
You saw the word deficits and stopped reading. This is the part that you skipped
But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:
Also, just to point out the very very obvious, the CBO report is ONLY about the insurance provisions of ACA and not the entirety of the law.
You are honestly dumber than fucking dirt, read your own goddamn article, and pay attention, and read it closely, if you are too stupid to interpret what this article actually says, you need to go back to kindergarten.
I amn done with you, no more beating my head against a wall with someone who is illiterate. Congratulations, you are only the second person on this site who is so reprehensible that you warrant the use of the ignore feature.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
You are honestly dumber than fucking dirt, read your own goddamn article, and pay attention, and read it closely, if you are too stupid to interpret what this article actually says, you need to go back to kindergarten.
I amn done with you, no more beating my head against a wall with someone who is illiterate. Congratulations, you are only the second person on this site who is so reprehensible that you warrant the use of the ignore feature.
Really? Did you even the TITLE of the CBO article?
What does it say?
"CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act"
It's ONLY talking about certain provisions of the ACA and not the entire ACT. It is also showing that the those provisions will have LOWER COSTS than estimated earlier.
It is NOT talking about Obamacare in it's entirety.
Read this again and again till it sinks in.
CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.
This must be really embarassing for you which is why you are running away from your laugable claim! You said you worked with this kind of stuff and yet here you are reading the entire CBO report incorrectly.
I have showed you again and again along with the Mises article that the appropriations made in 2009 were not all part of the Fy 09 spending. .
You didn't show that you dumbass, and the bill in question, the 2009 Omnibus bill was all partt of FY2009. What you can't seem to get into you little stupid noodle is the fact that money from FY2009 can be expended during FY2010 and it is still part of the FY2009 budget.
You know perfectly what I meant when I said that it takes time between appropriations and the actual spending. Even Nutting in his analysis included this increased spending if you actually notice
I know perfectly well you are full of misconception when it comes to comprehension, I have shown it.
To repeat - just because the bill was SIGNED DURING FY 09, doesn't mean that the spending is part of the FY 09 SPENDING.
for the omnibus bill- yes it does you fucking dumbass
Quote from Mav88:
You didn't show that you dumbass, and the bill in question, the 2009 Omnibus bill was all partt of FY2009. What you can't seem to get into you little stupid noodle is the fact that money from FY2009 can be expended during FY2010 and it is still part of the FY2009 budget.
I know perfectly well you are full of misconception when it comes to comprehension, I have shown it.
for the omnibus bill- yes it does you fucking dumbass
So now you are 'expending' what I said and not reply to what I actually said!
So I ask again, do explain the projected budget deficit of 1.2 trillion by the CBO in January 2009 and the actual budget deficit of 1.4 trillion which was 200 billion higher. If there was extra spending of 400 billion with omnibus and 140 billion with the stimulus, why wasn't the deficit higher.
So now you are 'expending' what I said and not reply to what I actually said!
I did reply you stupid jackass, you just can't grasp it.
I'm starting to think that you are just some twat who only wants to argue to irritate, it's the only way to explain such willfull stupidity.
I'm done with that, I think Max has had his fill as well