Obama's Fuzzy math - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 03-28-2009, 09:31 PM

Article by S Moore that shows the banana rep that obama's policies will deliver:

Quote:

But the news on the red ink front is much worse than the president or even the CBO's budget report suggests. If all of Obama's "transformational" policy objectives--from global warming taxes to universal health care to doubling the Department of Energy's budget--are enacted, the debt is likely
to increase from about 40 percent of GDP today to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2018. The ten-year debt is likely to be at least $6 trillion higher--or more than one-half trillion of higher deficits a year from now until forever--than the Obama budget projects.

....

Here are the unhappy totals: the debt is $6 trillion higher from 2010 to 2019 than Obama's forecast. In no single year over the next decade, even when counting the Social Security trust fund surpluses, does the budget deficit fall below $800 billion. The interest on the national debt rises to $850 billion a year by the middle of the next decade, which will be the largest single expenditure item in the budget--eight times more than we now spend on education and four times more than we spend on homeland security. Federal spending remains well over 25 percent of GDP and in some years creeps closer to 28 percent of GDP under the Obama budget, which ironically enough is entitled "A New Era of Responsibility."

......

Finally, there is the crown jewel of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid domestic agenda: universal health care.
This is at the top of the "to do" list of the Obama administration and is unlikely to get pulled back or postponed, as the president made clear in his press conference. Obama has not been specific about what plan he favors or about how much a national health care system will cost, but his budget allocates a $634 billion "placeholder" for that purpose. The consensus opinion, though, is that the lowest possible cost of universal health care is $1.2 trillion, with many estimating closer to $1.5 trillion. So team Obama is off by roughly $600 billion over ten years to cover all of America's uninsured. Obama says he will find ways to reduce health care costs at the same time, and I wish him well, but this is a promise that every president since Jimmy Carter has made and failed to keep.

Of course we can see from the Disastrous Universal Health Care that Romeny didn't block in MA that a program like this ALWAYS costs FAR MORE than the idiot politicans estimate.

This will be a disaster.

***BelichickFan*** · 03-28-2009, 09:36 PM

The saddest part is they're going to try to push the health care and cap and trade through with 50% (+Biden) before anyone knows what's happened. Not to mention their household energy monitoring devices which will allow the government to turn off your heat, A/C or anything else when they see fit. They're going to get all this done under the dark of night when no-one is looking. The upside is the Republicans will gain seats in 2010. The downside is once it's in it will be hard to undo this crap.

***DarrylS*** · 03-29-2009, 06:41 AM

It helps if you credit a source, which is a forum rule...

Guess this is written by Stephen Moore.. a Reagan, Bush and a Heritage Institute Fellow.. what do you want him to say??.. he has a definite bias..

He wrote a book entitled..

"Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger "

That diminishes his credibility..

elway7 · 03-29-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

It helps if you credit a source, which is a forum rule...

Guess this is written by Stephen Moore.. a Reagan, Bush and a Heritage Institute Fellow.. what do you want him to say??.. he has a definite bias..

He wrote a book entitled..

"Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger "

That diminishes his credibility..

You are an extemely well versed intelligent man, asset to this board and all forums.. .the world is a better place.

***BelichickFan*** · 03-29-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

It helps if you credit a source, which is a forum rule...

Guess this is written by Stephen Moore.. a Reagan, Bush and a Heritage Institute Fellow.. what do you want him to say??.. he has a definite bias..

He wrote a book entitled..

"Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger "

That diminishes his credibility..

Can you dispute the numbers ? Or can you just attempt to discredit the source ? Discrediting sources accounts for about half your posts here so I think I know the answer.

***patsfan13*** · 03-29-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

It helps if you credit a source, which is a forum rule...

Guess this is written by Stephen Moore.. a Reagan, Bush and a Heritage Institute Fellow.. what do you want him to say??.. he has a definite bias..

He wrote a book entitled..

"Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger "

That diminishes his credibility..

So What specifically do you dispute in terms of the growth projections and other assumptions do you feel are wrong. Or is it a matter that you don't like his conclusions?

Do you believe that much of the spending will be temporary? What social spending programs have dems EVER terminated, just a few examples?

Were expecting a 'pregressive' economist to dispute the socialist budget?

***DarrylS*** · 03-29-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Were expecting a 'pregressive' economist to dispute the socialist budget?

Not a pregressive economist, just a discerning reader.. balance is a good thing.

***patsfan13*** · 03-29-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Not a pregressive economist, just a discerning reader.. balance is a good thing.

What specifics are you disputing? Are contending he is wrong because of his POV?

His projections of growth are in line with most economist. IOW the obama team has created fantasy numbers to hide how bad the numbers are. Do you think we will grow 4% next year? If we don't should the dems be voted out of office? For 'lying'?

***BelichickFan*** · 03-29-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Not a pregressive economist, just a discerning reader.. balance is a good thing.

All you can discern is the author's name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

What specifics are you disputing? Are contending he is wrong because of his POV?

His projections of growth are in line with most economist. IOW the obama team has created fantasy numbers to hide how bad the numbers are. Do you think we will grow 4% next year? If we don't should the dems be voted out of office? For 'lying'?

Obama doesn't care. All he cares about is forcing his agenda though as quickly as possible before anyone notices. Because once it's law it's hard to get out.

***DarrylS*** · 03-29-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

All you can discern is the author's name.

Give a rats ass about a name, but he has an obvious agenda.. if you think he is credible so be it. If there was a source that came from Huffington Post all the righties would get their depends in a bunch....