:lol: which side of the aisle does the Good Reverend sit on again?
Depends on which side of the aisle you want, we do have to charge for seating...current sale price is $1.75 trillion.
Interesting, still Obama is spending this amount. And we ARE still in afghanistan for the forseable future, and Obama is still touting "18 months" as if 18 months starts tommorrow...
You are absolutely correct to point out that we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. My point is that we should start seeing a decrease in the overall cost with regards to Iraq. My assumption is that as more responsibility is shifted to the Iraqi government, this will decrease our operating costs.
One thing to keep in mind is that after the September Afghanistan elections we are suppose to have a strategy review which will give us a better understanding of how long we should expect to be in Afghanistan.
hmm 1 trillion minus $68billion is? :lol:
Would you throw $68b out of your bed for eating cookies? Ok, I agree that $68 is a paltry sum at the moment. But I wanted to stress the point that the initial TARP funds are not necessairly a lost cause, meaning we did not just throw $700b into a fire. It would be nice to find a source that could give insight into what the best projections of how much and when TARP funds will be returned.
What's a "shovel ready job" and what happens when they finish the task? how much of a trillion do you subtract here?
The general definition for shovel ready is mostly applied to projects such as road construction and repair, usually because the states should have already done the assessments and planing, and is therefore ready for bids. Most of funds have a 90 day limit from when they are approved to when work must start. The Recovery Act itself is planned in phases to be carried out throughout this year and next. So once one project is finished, another can readily be started.
Ahh here it is.... So let me get this straight, Obama nationalizing health care will SAVE the government money?
Are you serious? :lol:
Completely serious. You need to look carefully at the graph, and specifically the costs we pay out to Medicare and Medicaid. First off, Medicare is a national health care plan, create for one simple reason. Private insurers do not want to cover people over 65. The first politician that seriously suggest ending Medicare will NEVER ....ever be elected for anything above head of the PTA. Medicare and Medicaid are a fact of life, don't ever think for a second that these programs will go away. Now getting back to that chart, when you see the costs of these two programs, this is roughly $600b a year. Part of the argument going forward in regards to health care reform is not just providing coverage to the uninsured, and under-insured, but to reduce the overall costs of health care in the U.S. Lower those costs, you lower the costs of course to both Medicare and Medicaid.
This is from the OECD
OECD Health Data 2009 "How Does the United States Compare" (PDF)
Total health spending accounted for 16.0% of GDP in the United States in 2007, by far the highest share in the OECD. Following the United States were France, Switzerland and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.0%, 10.8% and 10.4% of their GDP to health. The OECD average was 8.9% in 2007.
The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 7,290 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), almost two-and-a-half times greater than the OECD average of 2,964 USD in 2007. Norway follows, with spending of 4,763 USD per capita, then Switzerland with spending of 4,417 USD per capita. Differences in health spending across countries may reflect differences in price, volume and quality of medical goods and services consumed.
When you can not remove Medicaire, and you have those costs, there is only one solution left. Reform and overhaul of the system. I know conservatives despise the public option, but I am also assured that many of these same will not be complaining to much when they face unemployment, lower insurance rates, lower medical costs, improvement from under-insurance, and assurance that benefits can not be denied after payment.
Something else I think is interesting to review:
The Budget and Economic Outlook:
Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017
Look at that chart and you see the costs for Medicare only grows....at an increasing rate. This is unsustainable, yet politically it is unattainable to end.
Right, when those tax cuts expire, which is a tantamount tax increase on those making less than 250k, a campaign promise.
How much tax revenue do you really think this will create? I mean choking a starving economy with oppressive taxes always works. :ssst:
Hmmm... a two parter huh. Ok, first the Bush tax cuts. These that are to expire in 2011 will only affect those making over $250k. How much exactly this will raise in revenue I can not say. Sadly it seems the only thing anyone cares about is the specific rate, not the revenue loss or gain. The best I can find is incomplete:
ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1836 [1]
There is no specificity in regards to income above $250k
As for "oppressive taxes", I always have to roll my eyes here, because in comparison we in the U.S. are spoiled with a low tax rate.
Think your taxes are bad?
Country Single Married
United States 29.1% 11.9%
Now compare with....
France 50.1% 41.7%
United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1%
Netherlands 38.6% 29.1%
Hey look at Mexico's, you know that country everyone is sneaking
into...
Mexico 18.2% 18.2%
Compared with Mexico, you almost have to love your oppressive tax rates. I mean we all are trying to sneak over the border now aren't we? Sarcasm aside, I think you can see that lowering tax rates is not an automatic to increase in quality of life.
So taking out all of what you posted, what would the deficit be?
I really wish I could give a precise answer. But part of my message is it must be understood that this fiscal year is obviously an abnormality considering the extreme condition the economy was and is in. We are after all talking about a President that has only been in office for 6 months, so it is a little ridiculous to not factor in the previous administrations past 8 years of fiscal policies and the effect they had.
No it was not unanimous. not by a long shot. And given the stimulous, is an abitious health care plan really prudent?
Sorry, I should have been specific. When writing this I was in my mind referencing an article I can not find at the moment. I will look for it later, but in summary it gave a conclusion that alluded to a near unanimous opinion on economists polled that
a sizable stimulus was required. For now I have this archived reference:
Conservative economists back stimulus plan
The $825 billion stimulus proposal that Democrats unveiled last week may encounter stiff opposition from conservatives on Capitol Hill. But it isn’t meeting significant resistance from conservative economists.
While economists might quibble with specifics, the vast majority agree that some kind of massive government spending plan is necessary.
Let me ask you. Do you think Obama will balance the budget ever?
You know I absolutely can not say, I know I paint a rosy picture of if this or that would work out peachy keen then it is a possibility of course. I am strongly of the opinion that we do need more fiscal restraint, especially in paying down the debt/lowering the annual interest rate. Currently we are close to $400b a year in interest payments alone. Think for a moment what $400b would buy. Sorry this is one hell of a long response, but I think the subject matter deserves proper discussion and debate.