Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

White House, Congress projects record deficits

Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
business, politics, us, obama, white-house, economy
Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>President Barack Obama announces in Oak Bluffs, Mass., Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009, that he is keeping Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke for a second term . (AP Photo/Steven Senne)</p>

President Barack Obama announces in Oak Bluffs, Mass., Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009, that he is keeping Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke for a second term . (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The federal government faces exploding deficits and mounting debt over the next decade, White House and congressional budget officials projected Tuesday in competing but similar economic forecasts.

Both the White House Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the budget deficit this year would swell to nearly $1.6 trillion, a record, and far above the then-record 2008 budget deficit of $455 billion.

But while figures released by the White House foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, $2 trillion more than the administration estimated in May, congressional budget analysts put the 10-year figure at a lower $7.14 trillion.

One reason for the difference: The CBO projection is based on an assumption that all the tax cuts put into place in the administration of former President George W. Bush will expire on schedule by 2011 as dictated by current law. President Barack Obama's budget baseline, however, hews to his proposal to keep the tax cuts in place for families earning less than $250,000 a year.

Beyond the 10-year forecast, the nation will face further challenges posed by rising health care costs and the aging of the population, the CBO said. "The budget remains on an unsustainable path" over the long-term and will require some combination of lower spending and higher tax revenues, it said.

Both forecasts see unemployment rising to 10 percent before falling and both suggest growth will return to the economy later this year but that recovery will be slow after the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s

"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.

She predicted unemployment could reach 10 percent this year and begin a slow decline next year. Still, she said, the average unemployment will be 9.3 in 2009 and 9.8 percent in 2010. The CBO had similar figures.

Both see the national debt — the accumulation of annual budget deficits — as nearly doubling over the next decade. The total national debt, made up of amounts the government owes to the public, including foreign governments, as well as money it has borrowed from itself, stood Tuesday at a staggering $11.7 trillion.

Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said if Congress doesn't reduce deficits, interest rates will likely rise, hurting the economy. But if Congress acts too soon, the economic recovery — once it arrives — could be thwarted, he said.

"We face perils in acting and perils in not acting," Elmendorf told reporters.

One solution, Elmendorf said, is for Congress to pass measures today that would reduce the deficit in the future, after the economy recovers. That could reassure bondholders that Congress is serious about cutting the deficit, without stifling the recovery, he said.

Obama himself may have drowned out the rising deficit news with the announcement Tuesday that he intends to nominate Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Bernanke news, and a report that consumers are regaining some confidence, may have neutralized any disturbance in the financial markets caused by the high deficit projections. Stocks were up in late morning trading.

The deeper red ink and the gloomy unemployment forecast present Obama with an enormous challenge. The new numbers come as he prods Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system — one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that cover the cost.

What's more, the high unemployment could last well into the congressional election campaign next year, turning the contests into a referendum on Obama's economic policies.

Republicans pounced.

"The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."

The revised White House estimates project that the economy will contract by 2.8 percent this year, more than twice what the White House predicted earlier this year. Romer projected that the economy would expand in 2010, but by 2 percent instead of the 3.2 percent growth the White House predicted in May. By 2011, Romer estimated, the economy would be humming at 3.6 percent growth.

Both Romer and budget director Peter Orszag said this year's contraction would have been far worse without money from the $787 billion economic stimulus package that Obama pushed through Congress as one of his first major acts as president.

At the same time, the continuing stresses on the economy have, in effect, increased the size of the stimulus package because the government will have to spend more in unemployment insurance and food stamps, Orszag said. He said the cost of the stimulus package — which spends most of its money in fiscal year 2010 — will grow by tens of billions of dollars above the original $787 billion.

For now, while the country tries to come out of a recession, neither spending cuts nor broad tax increases would be prudent deficit-fighting measures. But Obama is likely to face those choices once the economy shows signs of a steady recovery, and it could test his vow to only raise taxes on the wealthy.

Still, 10-year budget projections can be "wildly inaccurate," said Stan Collender, a partner at Qorvis Communications and a former congressional budget official. Collender notes that there will be five congressional elections over the next 10 years and any number of foreign and domestic challenges that will make actual deficit figures very different from the estimates.

__

Associated Press writers Christopher S. Rugaber, Tom Raum and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jim Kuhnhenn's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (284)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
Average_Guy

YES WE CAN!

HOPE AND CHANGE!

Everybody mindlessly chant!

  • 26 votes
#1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:43 AM EDT
gregjarvis

WELL BUSH!....

waiting for those ppl to start...

  • 6 votes
#1.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
NYPeach

Damn...our country is going to hell and we will be their for quite some time too.

  • 13 votes
#1.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
space guy

Looks like hope and a little change is all we will have left.

  • 17 votes
#1.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
Raymond Max

Chew on this. The future economic forecast can be wildly inaccurate. No truer words have ever been said. The what if's? of future budget projections are no more accurate than future stock forecast based on past performance.

Should we be aware of unbridled federal spending? certainly, but don't loose any sleep over it. It will change again tomorrow.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:37 PM EDT
netprophet

Don't worry! Those Bush tax cuts to the rich are gonna trickle down any day now! Because it's the rich who are creating all those jobs every month. Damn, they're just creatin' and creatin' those jobs with their money just a tricklin' and a tricklin'...

Mitch McConnell is a joke. Does he remember where he was from 2000 to 2008??

  • 5 votes
#1.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:49 PM EDT
I am American

It was the guy before me, I just want to spend spend spend, let the next guy fix it! Mr. Obama

  • 8 votes
#1.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:53 PM EDT
Ferrari5k

Go Obama Go! We're not done ruining the Nation yet! Hurry pass every Socialist program you can by September while you've still got Arianna Huffington and Jeff Illman of GE fame on your side!

Bush Deficiet 460 Bil for 2008 -

Obama, Hero of The Stalin Socialist - Can You say TRILLION POINT SEVEN for 2009. Is That Not Triple?

And things are soooo much better now, who needs Jobs? We got new Cars!

Quick make Rowe vs Wade Constitutional - You don't want kids in this Nations future, that would be TORTURE!

  • 10 votes
#1.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:08 PM EDT
G. Bud

you guys are good at chanting that's about it.. we just had EIGHT frick'in years of the most stagnation, citizen repression and fleasing of citizens our country has ever seen....WE need to be a progressive united nation again..... The deficit and American debt is terrible..taking loan after loan sometimes is the only way to regroup and stabilize...I've done just that myself many times with very good results which saved my ass..... better option than?...LIE , Cheat, screw everyone you owe money,and Steal everything you can then just declare bankruptcy..as per the corporate business plan.. OUR current government is picking option 2....

  • 3 votes
#1.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:47 PM EDT
pancha

Hope and change? I have lost HOPE and my easy going retired days have CHANGED to worrisome days on how I'm going to pay my bills. The worst scenerio would be if Obama resigns because of the pressure, and then we're looking at the next two %#@* people to lead the country. Biden, then Pelosi. God help us!!!!!

  • 6 votes
#1.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:50 PM EDT
Will_4_Freedom

Again, not everyone who disagrees with Obama is a Bush supporter. I voiced my opposition to him as well.

There are some of us that don't like either far right or far left, but rather a Constitutional government, chartered with the task of protecting our liberties.

Bush didn't do it. Obama is not doing it (see Patriot Act II) and Congress/Senate is not doing it.

I can't vote these guys out alone, people. A little help here?

  • 7 votes
#1.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:09 PM EDT
1standlastword

Hmmmmmm....wonder what the budget deficit would be like if we didn't invade a sovereign nation.

What if King George had used that Donald Dumbsfeld idea of a really small but potent force of well trained Marines in Afganistan instead of Iraq to smoke Bin Laden's ass when we had him in our sights....FINISHED IT and got our boys and girls home if that would have impacted in a positive way what is now an out of countrol spending on underwriting warlords, corrupt governments, and crooked contractors.

Wonder if that sandal wearing ragheaded madman calculated he could provoke us to overinvest in converting the Muslims in his country to Christians if he hit us like he did at the right time (during Bush) in the right place (the symbols of our power the financial and military centers).

They say the best way to hurt a man is through his wallet...hmmmmmm!!

  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
krishna-167929

The deeper red ink and the gloomy unemployment forecast present Obama with an enormous challenge. The new numbers come as he prods Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system — one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that cover the cost.

There's no need for another $1trillion to add to the deficit-- all the government has to do is raise our taxes by $1trillion, and its covered.

No problem!

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:34 PM EDT
George-369262

Obama is our own Salvatore Allende.

  • 3 votes
#1.13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:34 PM EDT
Field MarshallDeleted
Field MarshallDeleted
WatchTheOtherHand

There's no need for another $1trillion to add to the deficit-- all the government has to do is raise our taxes by $1trillion, and its covered.

No problem!

See... there is a problem. Our government has already reached the invisible tax 'ceiling'. It is simply not possible to raise long term revenue(actual money) through higher taxation. Higher taxation dramatically lowers the overall economy which reduces the amount of money that flows into the treasury.

There is simply no way to tax ourselves out of the situation we are in, either. Anyone who doesn't understand this simply 'pricing point' has never made it in a retail industry. Imagine if Wal-Mart would simply say, 'Hey, we could make a lot more money if we just charged an extra 40% on every item we sell." Sure, they would make more money PER item, but as people stop going to Wal-Mart to get cheap stuff and go elsewhere they would actually make less money in the long run. Our government faces the same problem with taxation. Raising taxes doesn't always mean more money. We are already reached the optimum balance between taxes and revenue. Our Congress just doesn't seem to understand that.

  • 1 vote
#1.16 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
Reply
Smokie-788412

I don't think we can afford the Obama Administration!!

  • 26 votes
#2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:49 AM EDT
lisaed

I don't think we can afford the Obama Administration!!

Smokie---NO WE CAN'T!!!! (Everyone let's chant that instead.....)

  • 23 votes
#2.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:58 AM EDT
Dorko1

NO WE CAN'T!!!!

  • 19 votes
#2.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:01 AM EDT
usfreestar

But, but....I though Obama said he would decrease the deficit by 50% at the end of his first term! (and now it seems that's the only one he's getting)

Has he been LYING to us?

So let me get this straight: on top of the already major deficit he wants to introduce a trillion dollar expense called national health care?

Can We the People please have this fraud arrested and have him jailed for spending tax payer money for political biased purposes, putting our nation in unspeakable debt?

  • 23 votes
#2.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
"TKS the Engineer"

What this actually proves is that we can't afford not enacting health care reform. With premium rising 10% each year and health care becoming a larger and larger chunk of the annual deficit, we have to act now.

Whether is a public plan, a single payer system or a health care system modeled after the german/french Bismarck system, something has to be done.

The Bismarck system in germany actually has 200 private insurance companies competing for your health insurance. people can shop around for their insurance. Acutally, sort of a lot like McCain's proposal. The only problem that McCain failed to mention was that the one thing that set's our system apart from all other industrialized nations is that our health insurance market is "FOR PROFIT"... that is the big issue...

The german companies, for example, are all non-profit... they may sell auto, life, and homeowners in a for-profit manner but health insurance is totally different and seen as a "foot in the door" for consumers looking for other types of insurance...

No health insurance companies make the kind of ridiculous profits that american companies make and until that is changes, costs will continue to spiral out of control, insurance will only be available to those who can afford the huge premiums and the costs for the government to administer medicare/medicaid will continue to rise.

It's interesting to note that Switzerland tried to adopt an american for-profit model years ago to generate revenue - Insurance companies ended up dropping 5 percent of the propulation (only 5%) and everyone freaked - a voter referendum put a stop to it shortly thereafter.

Whatever happens - take the profit out of health Insurance!!!

  • 10 votes
#2.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:19 AM EDT
Obamasized

What?

  • 4 votes
#2.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
usfreestar

What?

  • 10 votes
#2.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
gregjarvis

TKS? are you TK 421?!?!

    #2.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
    Darkdonnie

    Whatever happens - take the profit out of health Insurance!!!

    You get government run "0bama care" Like England's NHS who is the third largest employer in the WORLD!

    0bama care = The compassion of the IRS with the efficiency of the post office!

    • 19 votes
    #2.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:45 AM EDT
    lisaed

    putting our nation in unspeakable debt?

    usfreestar 2.3---and now with his wagging the dog away from his failing domestic policies via his let's look back after all war with CIA/Bush-Cheney---he is also placing our nation at unspeakable risk of future attack. Way to go, obama!

    • 13 votes
    #2.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
    "TKS the Engineer"

    What's not to understand about my post?

    Here is a summary of what I'm talking about:

    The Bismarck System:

    Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the 19th century. Despite its European heritage, this system of providing health care would look fairly familiar to Americans. It uses an insurance system -- the insurers are called "sickness funds" -- usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.

    Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don't make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model -- Germany has about 240 different funds -- tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.

    The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.

    Here's the link where more info on the major types of health care systems in the world:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

    Maybe people just don't know what to say when some logic replaces all the rhetoric. American health care doesn't have to be run directly by the government to be effective. Apparently, it just can't be profit-driven

    • 4 votes
    #2.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
    Philip-c

    No health insurance companies make the kind of ridiculous profits that american companies make...

    Industry average 3-4% profit margin. How ridiculous! Not saying that some change isn't warranted. However this article is about unsustainable deficits.

    • 3 votes
    #2.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:05 PM EDT
    "TKS the Engineer"

    But they're still for profit and that push is what drives health care costs higher... the for-profit model also offers no incentive to control costs or cover additional people who may not otherwise be able to afford it.

    • 1 vote
    #2.12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
    Kori

    TKS:

    The german companies, for example, are all non-profit... they may sell auto, life, and homeowners in a for-profit manner but health insurance is totally different ..

    I agree that healthcare insurance should not be for-profit because it always creates a conflict of interest between insurance company profits and doing what's in the patient's best interest. There is already millions of dollars in waste and fraud with Medicare and Medicaid. THAT must first be fixed before trying to create a truly workable national healthcare plan. On the surface, the German plan looks interesting.

    • 2 votes
    #2.13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:52 PM EDT
    I am American

    2.3 usfreestar,

    he meant increase the deficit.

    and yes he has been lying since the moment he opened his mouth to run for politics

    • 7 votes
    #2.14 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
    "TKS the Engineer"Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

    I am American - You are a Retard

    • 1 vote
    #2.15 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:12 PM EDT
    Kori

    TKS: who???

    • 1 vote
    #2.16 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
    Darkdonnie

    Phillip-c

    Industry average 3-4% profit margin. How ridiculous! Not saying that some change isn't warranted. However this article is about unsustainable deficits.

    Do you have a link to that number, as that would be interesting item to use against 0bama care?

    TKS,

    I am American - You are a .........

    Marked as inflammatory and of no value! You need to see this though LINK

    • 4 votes
    #2.17 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:23 PM EDT
    Ferrari5k

    I guess food and housing should be non profit too, as they're more important. Heh! there are Nations like that, let's all move!

    • 4 votes
    #2.18 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:14 PM EDT
    1standlastword

    Smokie:

    I don't think we can afford the Obama Administration!!

    If we had Obama eight-years-ago then we would be able to afford a measly $1 trillion over ten years to keep Americans healthy!

    • 1 vote
    #2.19 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:13 PM EDT
    tyler

    I am American - You are a Retard

    Efficient in its complete uselessness. "TKS the Engineer", you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor repeatedly. Do better.

    • 4 votes
    #2.20 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:01 PM EDT
    Reply
    krabbe33Deleted
    Dorko1

    CBO said in its midsummer budget update,"putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course will require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected."

    "WE THE PEOPLE" have been saying this all along, they are just NOW getting it? What IDIOTS we have in Washington, SPEND,SPEND,SPEND, then say oops we spent too much? Of course "higher revenues" are nothing but TAX INCREASES.

    • 13 votes
    #4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:56 AM EDT
    ComSen

    And when the Republicans voted against it, they were criticized for not having ideas to fix things. Like going massively into debt was a rational idea to fix things.

    • 12 votes
    #4.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:08 AM EDT
    OBAMA-FAN

    Like going massively into debt was a rational idea to fix things.

    That's like standing in the middle of Chicago saying you are going to America! WE WERE ALREADY MASSIVELY IN DEBT!!! Did no one see this part???

    Both projects see the overall national debt, which now stands at $11.7 trillion

    What are you people smoking??

    • 5 votes
    #4.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:20 AM EDT
    TopJedi

    Did no one see this part???

    Tell that to Obama, he missed his projection he gave to the American people by $2 Trillion... (In just 6 months) Now he wants to give us double all the US debt "he inherited" in just 10 years.

    What are you smoking Obama-Fan?

    • 15 votes
    #4.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:25 AM EDT
    OBAMA-FAN

    Tell that to Obama, he missed his projection he gave to the American people by $2 Trillion

    No, i'm going to tell it to you and the rest of the intellectually challenged people in this thread who seem to think that this country didn't owe anyone a dime before Jan. 09'.

    (In just 6 months)

    What are you directing this toward, because in the context of your comment it makes absolutely no sense!

    • 4 votes
    #4.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:37 AM EDT
    Darkdonnie

    who seem to think that this country didn't owe anyone a dime before Jan. 09'.

    Who said that or even intimated it? You may want to see this LINK

    • 9 votes
    #4.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
    TopJedi

    It makes no sense if you don't understand what Obama has done in 6 months.

    All the United States Presidents who allowed debt on our nation, including Bush, caused $11.5 Trillion Debt.

    Obama's spending plans since he took office were projected to cost us $7.1 Trillion in deficits. He was mistaken, by understating the deficits Obama is causing for an additional $2 Trillion.

    Obama has put us on a trajectory to nearly double all the cumulative DEBT in the history of the United States in just 10 years under his spending initiatives.

    • 13 votes
    #4.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:51 AM EDT
    Pete520

    I guess he's just trying to follow in the footsteps of those who came before him...

    Bush II - Debt went from $5.6 trillion to $10 trillion (80% increase)

    Clinton - Debt went from $4 trillion to $5.6 trillion (40% increase - 8 Years)

    Bush I - Debt went from $2.6 trillion to $4 trillion (about a 50% increase - 4 Years)

    Reagan - Debt went from $907 billion to $2.6 trillion (Almost Tripled - 8 Years)

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

    All numbers were for fiscal year end (September 30) for the year preceding the inauguration (i.e. Reagan's $907 billion was from September 1980, and his $2.6 trillion was from September 1988).

    So I guess, looking at these numbers, the projections cited above for Obama's deficits/debt are closer to Reagan's more than any other President's in the last thirty years. Isn't he the hero of the right?

    It should also be noted that everyone is jumping on the Obama White House's conservative projections (they're erring on the side of caution so nobody will accuse them of lying) rather than the CBO's projections, which actually keep them more in line with where the numbers were in May.

    • 3 votes
    #4.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
    TopJedi

    Thanks Pete, really puts some sick numbers in perspective.

    Obama is proposing losses on par with 20 years of Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton combined.

    • 9 votes
    #4.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
    Lampell

    It should also be noted that everyone is jumping on the Obama White House's conservative projections (they're erring on the side of caution so nobody will accuse them of lying) rather than the CBO's projections, which actually keep them more in line with where the numbers were in

    I am sure you read the article and that is not why the CBO has a different estimate. The CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will expire for all taxpayers, including the middle class who did receive cuts, contrary to popular misconceptions. The Obama projections calculate that the tax cuts for the rich will expire but that the middle class cuts will stay in place.

    • 3 votes
    #4.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:54 PM EDT
    Pete520

    I did read the article. I should have been more clear...Obama ran on the promise that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200K and families making less than $250K. If he changed that statement to make his budget projections "look better" (i.e. more in line with the CBO), he would be called a liar, communist, nazi, socialist, et al.

    That said, however, I don't know whether we have another viable option other than letting all of the tax cuts expire...and I don't know whether it can be avoided. I know that it will impact the middle class (including myself), but quite frankly, I don't think there are any other options.

    I'm hearing a lot of generalities regarding freezing government spending, but I'm not hearing a lot of specifics. One thing I do know for certain is that the tax cuts did not reduce the country's debt in the 80s, and they didn't work at all in this decade; so I think it's time to put that myth to bed and let them expire.

    • 1 vote
    #4.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
    Lampell

    If he changed that statement to make his budget projections "look better" (i.e. more in line with the CBO), he would be called a liar, communist, nazi, socialist, et al.

    Fair enough, long as we are on the same page. Tax increases will be needed to fund the HR3200 since tax on the wealthy will not be enough. The govt, in my opinion, is being dishonest by saying that cost savings from Medicare will pay the rest of the bill. If there are any savings from Medicare they should be used for Medicare, since god help them it certainly needs saving. The only way to replace the Medicare part, i.e. not using the savings will be a tax on the middle class. That in of itself is not the end of the world if your premiums come down at the same time, a net zero as it were. Of course selling that to the public after you said you wouldnt raise taxes will be tough, but the right thing to do.

    • 2 votes
    #4.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:45 PM EDT
    Apples

    That in of itself is not the end of the world if your premiums come down at the same time, a net zero as it were. Of course selling that to the public after you said you wouldnt raise taxes will be tough, but the right thing to do.

    It's only a net zero if you pay your premiums. If you don't have premiums, or contribute very little, then any tax increase is cutting into your bottom line.

      #4.12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
      fireryone

      How many insured do not have premiums, deductables and co-pays?

        #4.13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:42 PM EDT
        Apples

        How many insured do not have premiums, deductables and co-pays?

        If your employer pays the majority/all of your premiums- very little is spent on that and depending on your insurance you may very well pay less in deductables and/or copays than you would in taxes.

        For example, In my former job, I paid $30/month in premiums for my PPO insurance with 0 deductable in network and only $25/35 copays. Even my Rxs are never more than $50. Given then I'm pretty healthy, I spent less than $1000/year on healthcare but made 6-figures. My current insurance has a deductable, but the maximum out of pocket is $2500/year and I make more now than then; So yah, any tax on healthcare is going to affect my bottom line and I doubt I'm the only one.

          #4.14 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:56 PM EDT
          Lampell

          It's only a net zero if you pay your premiums. If you don't have premiums, or contribute very little, then any tax increase is cutting into your bottom line.

          This may be true, but arent you going to feel better at the end of the day that you helped all those without coverage obtain good public option coverage. Shouldnt everyone chip in, especially those most vocal that we should help our fellow man?:)

          I asked that question on my street, most are wealthy, all think that health care coverage should be extended to all, cept when it comes to their taxes. I guess they are conservatives with their money, liberal with mine:)

          • 2 votes
          #4.15 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:05 AM EDT
          Apples

          This may be true, but arent you going to feel better at the end of the day that you helped all those without coverage obtain good public option coverage. Shouldnt everyone chip in, especially those most vocal that we should help our fellow man?:)

          No, I'd rather people who currently don't have health insurance not be barred from obtaining it, but I have no intention of paying for it for them. I already pay for health care for the poor-- medicaid.

            #4.16 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:27 AM EDT
            G. Bud

            I already pay for health care for the poor-- medicaid

            Since you are already a paying member, wouldn't you like to join? I'd pay dearly to be admitted...put some healthy paying members in that pool would go a long way in solving a lot of problems....

              #4.17 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:55 AM EDT
              Lampell

              Since you are already a paying member, wouldn't you like to join? I'd pay dearly to be admitted...put some healthy paying members in that pool would go a long way in solving a lot of problems....

              I really dont think you would want Medicaid, my sister was on it before she was eligible for Medicare. Many doctors refuse to take it, and the service is awful. I personally paid for her private coverage to get her off Medicaid. And while we are on the subject of Medicaid I should mention that since the states pay about half of it, they are dropping people like flies where I reside, Calfifornia. Medicaid will be expanded under the reform thereby taxing the capacity of the states even more than now. Some are wondering how they will come up with the extra funds in this current economic environment. Tenn had public option, expanded Medicaid and within 3 years had to cut back benefits. Not a simple solution. Unless we raise taxes reform will not be properly funded, but what else is new.

                #4.18 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:43 PM EDT
                Apples

                Since you are already a paying member, wouldn't you like to join? I'd pay dearly to be admitted...put some healthy paying members in that pool would go a long way in solving a lot of problems....

                Actually no I wouldnt. My health care insurance is much nicer than Medicaid.

                  #4.19 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:48 PM EDT
                  Man of Knowledge

                  Lampell,

                  Medicaid may actually be cut back under the proposed legislation, as anyone with income will be required to purchase an insurance plan. The "Public Option" plan has a sliding scale of premiums based on income. I'm not sure if it goes down to zero income or not. Kind of a moot point since the proposed legislation will certainly change a lot through the legislative process.

                    #4.20 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:50 PM EDT
                    Lampell

                    Actually Medicaid may actually be cut back as anyone with income will be required to purchase an insurance plan. I don't know if the "Public Option goes down to zero income or not. I think that may be up to the Insurance Commissioner.

                    According to HR3200 Medicaid will be expanded to those people who are 133pct of federal poverty level. There are some suggestions that the Federal govt will subsidize the states for a few years to help out with that. The Energy committee amended the bill in their version so payments to states will be lower the first few years than the original proposal. Even the governor of Wash expressed concern and that state has been in the forefront of reform as is the governor,.

                      #4.21 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:55 PM EDT
                      Man of Knowledge

                      Lampell

                      What is the currrent standard?

                        #4.22 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:06 PM EDT
                        G. Bud

                        Actually no I wouldn't. My health care insurance is much nicer than Medicaid.

                        You must be healthy, wait to you become ill... you'll end up here...the current system fails and spits you out ... just like if your a poor driver in your auto coverage.. I know many people who have said the same thing you did.. They are bankrupt today...saying wtf happened......don't take my statement out of context and spin it . read my whole comment.

                          #4.23 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
                          Apples

                          You must be healthy, wait to you become ill... you'll end up here...the current system fails and spits you out ...

                          My mother was ill and her insurance paid out hundreds of thousands in claims without issue. Since she obtained her insurance through her employer, she was never cancelled and her rates never increased. Despite the overall bills, paid by the insurance company, her yearly expenses toward healthcare still didn't qualify for a tax deduction.

                          I agree there needs to be reform, and I'd like to see pre-existing condition exclusions eradicated. Everyone should be able to obtain health coverage at a reasonable rate, but they should PAY for it themselves, or find an employer who provides coverage. I shouldn't have my taxes increased for a service I already have-- and like.

                            #4.24 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:05 PM EDT
                            Lampell

                            What is the currrent standard?

                            In order for a state to get the 53pct that the Federal govt contributes, 100pct. States do not have to participate in Medicaid if they dont want to. Several million people are currently eligible for Medicaid and for some reason havent signed up for it. Who knows why. As you know California has a slight budget problem, and has cut back on Medicaid, even though they lose the matching funds. Unlike the U.S. the states cant print money, though CA tried by issuing IOUs. Which leads me to the joke I made up during the IOU fiasco, bank robber goes into bank, and is told to come back as all they have is IOUs:)

                            Tenn expanded Medicaid way above the Fed guidelines, funding it themselves, they quickly ran out of funds and had to scale it back.

                              #4.25 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:21 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              Andromeda-510639

                              The world according to the White House; that black hole that continues to suck in every bit of power possible; power that for the sake of checks and balances once existed across other areas and branches of government. Rival economic outlooks or simply existing in a parallel universe?

                              • 10 votes
                              Reply#5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:02 AM EDT
                              Bighorn

                              Interest on the national debt per day will soon be more than our defense spending in one year. We have become a "Subprime" country.

                              • 6 votes
                              Reply#6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:03 AM EDT
                              SC Smitty

                              White House, Congress projects record deficits

                              Don't act surprised, Dems. We told you so.

                              • 12 votes
                              Reply#7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:10 AM EDT
                              I am the Crusader

                              There is only one way to fix this unfortunately.

                              1) Stop spending

                              2) No public option for health care, if that is passed good lord it will be 20 Trillion.

                              3) Increase tax revenues by hiking up the upper, middle and lower class. I hate to say the last, but we should put all our focus into paying this craptasitic bill down.

                              I see in the news that some states are having to shut down local goverment due to lack of funds, I wonder when the day will come that Federal offices will be closed for lengths of time to save money.

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:11 AM EDT
                              TopJedi

                              I think you are actually suggesting 3 ways to fix this mess, but let me add another.

                              FREEZE salaries/boondoggles/and benefits to Congress. They are running a GM style bankrupt government with no accountability and all the hope of obtaining Gulfstream corporate jets sooner rather than later.

                              • 13 votes
                              #8.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:17 AM EDT
                              Dorko1

                              FREEZE salaries/boondoggles/and benefits to Congress.

                              How about they only get payed $1.00 a day until they pay off the debt, no perks or benefits till then. Without raising taxes either.

                              • 6 votes
                              #8.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:45 AM EDT
                              Will_4_Freedom

                              What makes you think the Government is interested in saving money? It's just numbers to them. 2 Trillion, 9 Trillion, A Gazillion. So?

                              • 1 vote
                              #8.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
                              TopJedi

                              Only "We the People" can make government stop spending money it doesnt have.

                              • 7 votes
                              #8.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
                              Lampell

                              FREEZE salaries/boondoggles/and benefits to Congress. They are running a GM style bankrupt government with no accountability and all the hope of obtaining Gulfstream corporate jets sooner rather than later

                              Funny you should mention salary freezes. The second thing that FDR did when he took office was to cut all Federal employee wages by 15 pct. The first thing? Declare a bank holiday.

                              • 6 votes
                              #8.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:56 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              Maik

                              So who will bail us out when our country goes bankrupt?

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:11 AM EDT
                              NHFishercat

                              So who will bail us out when our country goes bankrupt?

                              When? We are already broke, and to date China is bailing us out.

                              • 6 votes
                              #9.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
                              Ludwigc

                              I sincerely hope that this nation’s creditors cut us off.

                              Spending is like a drug that the government is addicted to. As long as they have access to money, they will consume it.

                              • 3 votes
                              #9.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:22 AM EDT
                              Dorko1

                              So who will bail us out when our country goes bankrupt?

                              Nobody.

                                #9.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:47 AM EDT
                                Andromeda-510639

                                So who will bail us out when our country goes bankrupt?

                                We'll all be taking that "slow boat to China"; as we leave all of our creditors "weeping on the far away shore"; on that "slow boat to China out on the briny with the moon big and shiny".

                                • 2 votes
                                #9.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:52 AM EDT
                                Darkdonnie

                                So who will bail us out when our country goes bankrupt?

                                As a side note, Germany was over whelmed with debt from WW1 and that funny little guy came into power somewhat because of it!

                                But I am in no way making an analogy between then and now! Am I?

                                  #9.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:32 PM EDT
                                  Wildcard-781265

                                  we are already BANKRUPT!!!!!!!!

                                    #9.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:58 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                    Have any of you stop to think that maybe the debt in 10 years will not be a total result of this administrations spending? Have any of you stopped to think about the interest we pay on current debt that was owed to countries long before Obama took office? We paid China $450 billion last year in INTEREST alone! In 10 years (assuming the interest does not rise) that would be $4.5 Trillion! Isn't that almost HALF of what they are saying Obama will add? Lets also not forget that for the FIRST time since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have begn a President will actually add the cost to the Federal Budget!!

                                    • 5 votes
                                    #10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
                                    TopJedi

                                    "Please disperse... there is nothing to see here... we always had a debt... Please disperse"

                                    • 5 votes
                                    #10.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:35 AM EDT
                                    Maik

                                    ...and what has President Obama done to curb this, oh blind worshipper? The answer: NOTHING!

                                    • 5 votes
                                    #10.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
                                    Dorko1

                                    ...and what has President Obama done to curb this, oh blind worshipper? The answer: NOTHING!

                                    Agreed, but look at the total debt again, he and congress have doubled it since Jan.

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #10.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:51 AM EDT
                                    Bummer of Oregon

                                    Maik, at least the money is going towards helping America instead of fueling a war.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #10.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                    maik

                                    "Blind Worshipper"? O.K. you are one of those! In any event. Having a president that is investing in the future of America may be somewhat alien to you after the last 8yrs, but it can and is happening!

                                    Dorko,

                                    Agreed, but look at the total debt again, he and congress have doubled it since Jan.

                                    Where do you people get these lies???? The debt is currently $11.7 Trillion. it was over $10 trillion when he took office!

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #10.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:18 PM EDT
                                    Maik

                                    Oh they are doing a bang-up job "helping" Americans...10+% unemployment, inflation, etc...

                                    Don't sit there and try to rationalize it to me. The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #10.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:25 PM EDT
                                    Lampell

                                    Lets also not forget that for the FIRST time since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have begn a President will actually add the cost to the Federal Budget!!

                                    Actually not, Obama signed a 106 billion supplementary item to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, something he said he wouldnt do, but only did it "reluctantly" sorta like the 8000 earmarks he reluctantly signed for.

                                    • 4 votes
                                    #10.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:59 PM EDT
                                    Man of Knowledge

                                    Lampell,

                                    Let's be practical. The Omibus Appropriations Bill funds the government. What do you expect him to do? Shut down the governement to wade through 8000 earmarks everyone of which is a battle to cut?

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #10.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:03 PM EDT
                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                    Maik,

                                    Oh they are doing a bang-up job "helping" Americans...10+% unemployment, inflation, etc...

                                    Ever hear of something called "Long Term"? Investments in Education will not be seen right away, although i wish to god it would judging by some of the comments on this thread! The benefits of Investments in Health Care will not be see right away, but it will decrease the governments contribution to the health care industry! No more subsidizing insurance companies! Reallocating funds already in the system to pay 2/3 of the proposed health care plan so it doesn't add to the deficit! Investments in alternative fuels and energy sources will decrease the amount of money we send to foreign countries! LONG TERM!!! You want something quick, try some microwave popcorn!

                                    Lampell,

                                    Actually not, Obama signed a 106 billion supplementary item to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, something he said he wouldnt do, but only did it "reluctantly" sorta like the 8000 earmarks he reluctantly signed for.

                                    That money was in order to fund the troops for the next 10 months! Would you rather we leave them there with no resources? As far as the earmarks. The amount of those earmarks totaled less than 1% of the total bill. Sometimes in order to benefit the masses you have to appease the few! Name one bill that has come out of congress where 100% of the funds were used specifically for the main purpose of the bill! Did you just move to this country?

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #10.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
                                    Wildcard-781265

                                    10 years is one thing, 6 months is another, Obama did more in 6 months to bring us down that the otheres did in 10 years, thats the point!

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #10.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
                                    Paddy Clarke

                                    What do you expect him to do? Shut down the governement to wade through 8000 earmarks everyone of which is a battle to cut?

                                    Heard that, Lampell ? LOL !! Note that this happened with Democrats pretty much controlling all 3 executive branches of these US.

                                    • 4 votes
                                    #10.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
                                    Man of Knowledge

                                    Heard that, Lampell ? LOL !! Note that this happened with Democrats pretty much controlling all 3 executive branches of these US.

                                    You think Democrats are the only ones that put earmarks in the Omnibus Appropriations act?

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #10.12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:09 PM EDT
                                    Paddy Clarke

                                    No, but we have all agreed that Republicans are crooks, yeah ? What happened to the guy who said he will go line by line .... and all that. Agreed that he went part way with the promise though ..... at least the stimulus had minimum earmarks.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #10.13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:19 PM EDT
                                    Sentenced24yearsofObamaDeleted
                                    Lampell

                                    Name one bill that has come out of congress where 100% of the funds were used specifically for the main purpose of the bill! Did you just move to this country?

                                    I am not the one who ran for office saying I would get rid of earmarks, he did, so I dont have to name a bill. We have spoken before, so you would be quite aware I didnt just move to this country, so you could have left that part out of your post, thanks

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #10.15 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:10 AM EDT
                                    Man of Knowledge

                                    PC,

                                    I was responding to your comment blaming Democrats for the earmarks. It takes time to change the course of a nation. Earmarks are the pork that feeds the campaign propaganda machines. It is what wins elections. That isn't going to change quickly or easily no matter who is trying to do it.

                                      #10.16 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:16 AM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      ingenjon

                                      Good thing they're saying we've hit rock bottom, we've turned the corner, and the real estate market has turned around, otherwise I might confuse them with the last administration for saying The economy is fundamentally sound, or mission accomplished. At least we know both sides are capable of thinking they can BS their way out of a jam.

                                      • 2 votes
                                      Reply#11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
                                      TopJedi

                                      The BS get deeper and the best that Democrats can say is "we are just as hypocritical." Great.

                                      • 8 votes
                                      #11.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:19 AM EDT
                                      ingenjon

                                      Isn't that all that both parties ever do? They've both had all the power, and they both rammed us deeper in the hole while feeding us all BS.

                                        #11.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
                                        TopJedi

                                        Well step up and don't excuse the hypocrisy anymore -- or we're just the same as them.

                                        • 6 votes
                                        #11.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
                                        ingenjon

                                        What would you suggest one do, go to a tea party? Oh yeah, that was hijacked by Republicans who thought they werent part of the problem.

                                        Everyone but the blind and deaf knows that the Republicans and Democrats alike, share equal blame for the sad state of our country. Instead of doing anything proactively, they only react when its too late. The borders were a problem, nothing got done. Health-care costs were skyrocketing, nothing got done. Schools have been crumbling, nothing again. Medicare, social security, Credit, oil, energy...nothing, nothing, nothing. Ever since Nixon, most of the time our elected representatives collected our tax dollars for their bloated salaries was spent getting one up on the other party, and getting political contributions for re election campaigns.

                                        I'd say it's time people start voting for different party or something, but everywhere I go I see the majority of the American public just voting for the same names over and over again. Hell, even when that person dies off, people just keep voting for that name when they see it, ensuring jobs to all the heirs of the thrones out there. Just ask Missouri with the name Carnahan all over it, and our Country with Bushes and Clintons, and Kennedy's all over the place. Unfortunately the only organised parties out there are the Libertarians, but they are just completely out of touch with reality. The green party, same thing. Perot had a chance to get something going, but that ball got dropped too. The tea parties started for all the right reasons, but even that is being taken over by the Republicans who act as if they aren't part of the problem, while the Dems peg you as an un-American republican if you participate.

                                        I really want to be more optomistic, but I dont think the government will pull their heads out of their butts until they completely break. That way the sheeple will just have a new set of names telling them what to do. Once they learn to pronounce those new names.

                                        • 6 votes
                                        #11.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:32 AM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        supergerbil007

                                        Hello Democrat administration. Hello Republican "pouncers." Come in, Mayday, Mayday!! What you wonderful people need to do is get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan before you do anything else. These two deadend wars are responsible for a large part of our current ECONOMIC RUIN. Can you see that? Do you care? And yet, your plan is to pee more money away in Afghanistan. Unbelievable!! With all of the money that has been spent funding these two wars since 2001 and 2003, think what we could have done. You political con artists are dragging this nation down to the depths of hell. What in earth has happened to your brains?

                                        • 5 votes
                                        Reply#12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
                                        TopJedi

                                        Unbelievable!! With all of the money that has been spent funding these two wars since 2001 and 2003, think what we could have done.

                                        Wake up! Obama's newly revised budget could cover those two wars and Katrina just in the MARGIN of ERROR from May, nevermind the actual $9 Trillion he proposes to spend.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        #12.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:33 AM EDT
                                        jmonarchy

                                        Topjedi, you may be versed in light sabres and gallactical travel but you have no clue about world and government finance. You are repeating statements you hear on the playground.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:46 AM EDT
                                        TopJedi

                                        I'm pretty good with lightsabres, but I also have an MBA in finance, a degree in Economics and no personal debt. As for knowing the world, well I was born in Iran and lived and visited more than 40 countries. What's your playground?

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #12.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
                                        lisaed

                                        TopJedi---as Hannity says let not your heart be troubled---according to polls WE THE PEOPLE do not like the way obama is handling the deficit.....and now you can expect those numbers to continue to plunge.....

                                        • 7 votes
                                        #12.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
                                        jmonarchy

                                        Sounds like BS to me. BS in Business Admin. Now an MBA that was earning his weight in wheat would probably be of the oppinion that not having debt is a bad thing. Not full blown out of proportion debt to income ratio but at least a mortgage and some debt to write off and to have some semblance of a FICO score. This is why I throw the black BS flag on your post here Jedi. I've never been to Iran, nor do Icare to go to the mid east AT ALL. I have traversed Europe, SE Asia, Northern Africa and the eastern portion of S. America. My playground is big construction here in the southeast. Government sector since the private sector went to hell in a handbag when Bush was in office. Obama plans on cutting redundant agencies and lopping off big portions of the government. Since you are so worldly and an MBA, surely you know that the Bush deficit projections and budgets never included his war time spending. This is one big reason Obama's budget looks so horrible. He included the war spending in both his budget and his forecasts for deficits. Bush just avoided that all together. Remember his begging for emergency war appropriations bills every six months. Put that MBA to use with some research rather than re-propoganda. Lisaed, FOX News will never publish a poll that is not skewed against Obama and the democrats. Citing them as a source is as funny as the right citing youtube as their news source.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
                                        TopJedi

                                        Now an MBA that was earning his weight in wheat would probably be of the oppinion that not having debt is a bad thing.

                                        Your weak attempts at personal insults aside, this comment shows how little you understand about making money and how willing you are to give your paycheck to someone in exchange for a pretty design your Capital One card.

                                        Maybe you could learn something from my days consistently bashing debt under Bush: Parts 1, 2, 3 - What's in Your Wallet?

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #12.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:21 PM EDT
                                        JayB

                                        And #12.5....All polls mean absolutely NOTHING! And get off the blame Bush crap....BO is making his own bed! Honestly, I get more concerned about our freedoms being slowly but surely diminished! All the UNelected czars (Russian=Tsars). Obama has an apparent agenda for having SO many (one of which is a declared Communist). Do WE the ppl who PAY them, know what they actually DO??

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #12.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:58 PM EDT
                                        jmonarchy

                                        I'd hate to walk through life so scared and paranoid. No Crapitol One in this wallet. An AMEX that is used for Business only and paid at the end of each cycle and a personal card that is used in the same manner.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.8 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:12 AM EDT
                                        TopJedi

                                        jmonarchy, you can live in your bubble and smile. Here is an article on the vine by Mandelman you might want to view when you decide to leave your little happy place.

                                        http://mandelman.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/26/3192866-237-t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n-

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #12.9 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:42 AM EDT
                                        jmonarchy

                                        MANDELMAN, Strategist, humorist, fireman, father and friend.

                                        Perhaps we could add propogandist. Is this the real news to you Obi Wan? It's a farking oppinion piece and that should convince anyone to change their philosophies and run out naked into the dirt and cast dust upon their body because they have been led astray by their own oppinions? Fear is what breeds terrorist. I know it is hate that you may point to but the terrorists are recruited because the leaders feed them the fear. "The US is coming to kill all Islamists. The Government has a plan to round up all the weapons. Obama is the 30th cousin to Adolph Hitler."

                                        You live in that turtle sheel hiding and cultivating fear and paranoia, but rest assured that the majority of mature, sana humans do not buy into your philosophies.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #12.10 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:00 AM EDT
                                        TopJedi

                                        run out naked into the dirt and cast dust upon their body because they have been led astray

                                        Very funny and very clear you didn't go to the link provided to CBS Marketwatch or my link to Bloomberg.com with facts around which the article and comments were written.

                                        I am not asking you to run naked, become a terrorist, or accuse others of living in turtle shells... just leading you to some facts that may penetrate your cranium with positive results.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #12.11 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:25 AM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        Obamasized

                                        The sad news is that this thing has gone so far now that debts and deficits no longer matter and the matter of a couple trillion dollars does not register on the radar for these butt wipes.

                                        The only thing that matters is that they are that close (holding index finger and thumb an inch apart) to getting control of every aspect of your life. They will worry about inflation, deficits, and depressions after they have you.

                                        • 9 votes
                                        Reply#13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:17 AM EDT
                                        OBAMA-FAN

                                        The only thing that matters is that they are that close (holding index finger and thumb an inch apart) to getting control of every aspect of your life.

                                        More nonsense! Do you think people believe this?

                                        • 6 votes
                                        #13.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:26 AM EDT
                                        "TKS the Engineer"

                                        The government already controls:

                                        • Education
                                        • Electricity
                                        • Highways
                                        • Drinking Water
                                        • Environmental Protection
                                        • Defense
                                        • Police

                                        And more... I guess all that should be left to private companies.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #13.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:42 AM EDT
                                        Obamasized

                                        Believe what you want. What is non-sense is that you believe anything coming from your golden boy or congress. Upright, upstanding, honest, forthright, unbiased, not so much.

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #13.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
                                        Obamasized

                                        TK, apart from the environment and national defense, the states control the rest of that. If its all the same, lets keep the feds out of as much as possible. that was the original inent. It has worked for over 200 years.

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #13.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:48 AM EDT
                                        "TKS the Engineer"

                                        The states administer and fund the rest - they are regulated by the federal government and are required to provide all of them. They also receive federal money for their compliance. The states have their own enviornmental depts too.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #13.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:55 AM EDT
                                        OBAMA-FAN

                                        TK,

                                        Highways

                                        Not sure if you know about this...thought this was mindblowingly interesting and shocking!

                                        Foreign companies buying U.S. roads, bridges

                                        Posted 7/15/2006 12:29 PM ET

                                        WASHINGTON (AP) — Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.

                                        On a single day in June, an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.

                                        Few people know that the tolls from the U.S. side of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, go to a subsidiary of an Australian company — which also owns a bridge in Alabama.

                                        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-highways_x.htm

                                        I know im totally off topic....LOL Sorry..

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #13.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:03 PM EDT
                                        Obamasized

                                        TK

                                        negative ghost rider.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #13.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
                                        gregjarvis

                                        TK, apart from the environment and national defense, the states control the rest of that. If its all the same, lets keep the feds out of as much as possible. that was the original inent. It has worked for over 200 years.

                                        exactly. so i keep my company provided insurance then pay more taxes for everyone else? sounds about right. and dont tell me my taxes arent going up, thats absolutely asinine.

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #13.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
                                        Kori

                                        How else would a govmt run health insurance be paid for if not by increasing citizen's taxes? Even if something else were increased, it would all eventually fall back onto the laps of the citizen and/or consumer.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #13.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:00 PM EDT
                                        JayB

                                        The left has a hard time defending BO! (They cannot control themselves from bringing up the name: Bush! Close the dam checkbook Obama & steer us away from your Socialistic/Facist agenda, and there will be an almost guaranteed less-dislike & a little more possible trust for you!

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #13.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:17 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        Frank Wells

                                        Whatever figures the Administration throws out should be doubled at minimum to give a much more accurate estimate. In the case of the current Administation, we need to triple and quadruple those figures to get close to the real estimates.

                                        Do not let any more legislation pass until we have gotten this country fully out of the recession.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        Reply#14 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
                                        "TKS the Engineer"

                                        That is so ridiculous... let's have government not do their job because it costs money. I don't think anybody likes these deficits but rather than shut down and stop federal spending there needs to be a major an costly overhaul to how we do things in this country.

                                        And, BTW - not one of you right wingers said peep when GWB doubled our national debt - or when reagan did it before him... So, the whining from the right about fiscal responsibility is a little weak. In fact, it's really weak.

                                        You're all just afraid that it will work - that health care reform will be passed. That more people will actually get more affordable coverage and that things will really start changing for the better. Because if the Dems do it, you guys are out for a generation. It's happened in many other countries after sweeping and popular changes to health care have been enacted. That is what you're afraid of and why you're chanting Death panels and Socialism...

                                        And personally, I think republicans should be very afraid.

                                        • 6 votes
                                        #14.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
                                        Frank Wells

                                        Nothing would make us happier than affordable health care insurance for everyone TKS. Unfortunately we conservatives realize it cannot be achieved without a great deal of money. Our problem is where is that money coming from? It's either more borrowing or higher taxes. Either choice is horrible, especially in our current financial crisis.

                                        You don't need to remind us that the Bush Administration did a lousy job of spending. We know it, but can't do anything about it now. All we can do is make sure the next set of crooks in government don't do make the same mistake. Right now we have a hole we can get out of, any more digging though is going to make that hole so deep we may never be able to get out. Let's get ourselves out of the hole and get our fellow Americans back to work. Once we achieve that, we can and will gladly get down to the problem of fixing health care.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #14.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:25 PM EDT
                                        "TKS the Engineer"

                                        Fine Frank - then actually become part of a solution.

                                        And with regard to costs - I agree that the up-front costs will be high but I think they improve as a better system is put in place. And you can't tell me that the French or German systems are not as good. If those countries can afford it, so can we. If they can manage it, so can we... They're not perfect, but they're not even "socialized medicine" - they're regulated non-profit medicine.

                                        Rather than resign ourselves to the way things are - I'd rather see movement in the direction of change. and after it is said and done - I think it will be cost effective change that covers more people. this doesn't even take into account the savings that preventative care will realize - rather than having the emergency room as your first line of defense.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #14.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:39 PM EDT
                                        Frank Wells

                                        TKS, I am with you. I do believe we can put in place the best national health care system on the planet but now is not the time, and rushing into one without a lot of research and planning is a sure fire way to mess it up.

                                        We cannot afford to make a mistake with this project, the cost to fix it would be more than the cost to implement it.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #14.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
                                        Man of Knowledge

                                        Frank Wells

                                        It's a long way from finished. All we have so far is a single bill that cleared a single committee. No Senate bill, no floor debates. Things will change a lot when they get to the floor and people will be held accountable for their public positions. This is going to be on national television day and night and I'm not talking just C-Span.

                                          #14.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:53 PM EDT
                                          Pete520

                                          Frank Wells:

                                          I do believe we can put in place the best national health care system on the planet but now is not the time, and rushing into one without a lot of research and planning is a sure fire way to mess it up.

                                          We cannot afford to make a mistake with this project, the cost to fix it would be more than the cost to implement it.

                                          I have a friend at work who just lost his wife to cancer about six weeks ago (she was 29 years old and left him a single parent of a two-year-old son). She was in and out of hospitals for about four months (it was dianosed in March) and ran up a bill of over $350 thousand.

                                          Oh, by the way, we work for a huge corporation with what is considered to be one of the "best insurance plans in the city" (according to my doctor).

                                          Well, right now, this "best insurance plan" is covering less than $300 thousand of the $350 thousand...and they're questioning some of the other treatments she received at Mayo.

                                          By the way, my friend makes about $45 thousand...and in the last week, he tells me that he has been contacted by multiple collection agencies...so now he has that on his credit report (pretty soon the interest rates on his credit cards will start rising). Our insurance company claims to be "working with him," but he says they're little or no help. They tell him that they're calling the hospitals and doctors to "work things out," but they're not.

                                          So his wife is gone, he's a single parent, his credit's going into the crpper, he's getting harrassed by various collection agencies because his deceased wife's medical bills are "Over 30," his insurance company (MY insurance company) has selective memory, he makes $45 thousand, and right now he owes over $50 thousand...an increase of $15 thousand in the last two weeks.

                                          And that's with the "best insurance plan in the city."

                                          Although it won't benefit him directly (he knows he's pretty much scrwd right now), he would tell you point blank that waiting to implement health care is NOT an option.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #14.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:44 PM EDT
                                          "TKS the Engineer"

                                          Frank,

                                          I appreciate the thoughtful debate. And I agree we should be careful moving forward but i really think that not doing anything and not spending the money now, is the opposite of what we should be doing.

                                          If things get even a little right, 10 years down the road we'll actually see real savings and that could keep deficits under control, or get them under control quicker.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #14.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
                                          Frank Wells

                                          I am sorry to hear about your friend Pete. I am sure that he is just one of many Americans in similar circumstances and it is very unfortunate. Good hard working Americans don't deserve this kind of misfortune.

                                          There is no doubt we need to change the current system. What I must point out though is that we don't know whether the current health care proposals would really change things to the benefit of us all. Sure your friend wouldn't have gotten stuck with a large one-time bill, but is getting your paycheck taxed for hundreds of dollars more every month forever any less costly? Without details we don't know, can't estimate and cannot make the best decisions going forward. This is just a part of why we cannot rush into a situation that could prove disasterous for all but the richest Americans.

                                          If we are going to implement a successful health care overhaul, it needs to be done in a phased manner that is measured and adjusted as we go so we can ensure we have a backout plan if we make a mistake, and we can spread the cost of the project over a long period that won't dig us into so much debt we will be owned by our creditors.

                                          The Administration themselves have said if we passed the reform plan today, the effects of the plan will not even be felt until 2013. That is just another reason it makes no sense to rush into it. We need to concentrate on programs that assist Americans today. Your friend at least has a job and can perhaps take out a loan to buy himself some more time. $45K is less than a college education these days. There are many unemployed folk with large debts that have no jobs. Let's get America back to work so we at least have the tax revenues to consider health care reform.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
                                          Frank Wells

                                          And I agree we should be careful moving forward but i really think that not doing anything and not spending the money now, is the opposite of what we should be doing

                                          TKS, what money do you speak of? If we had even minor debt but a large chunk of cash sitting around in our coffers I would be the first one to demand we use it on something like health care reform. We don't, we already have enormous debt...

                                          http://usdebtclock.org/

                                          and would be borrowing unprecedented levels of money and driving ourselves so far into debt our tax revenues won't be enough to pay just the intrerest on those loans!.

                                          Look at the current per-citizen debt, at current levels it will take decades to pay off!!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:02 PM EDT
                                          JayB

                                          #14.1.....The vast majority of Americans do NOT want Socialized HC!! This is the type of 'bill' that can be easily manipulated to the favor of the Govt. (behind our backs) & sneak HC-pork into it....it would NOT work other than to raise the deficit!

                                          And BTW do not lump the ppl into one catagory, such as Republican! Yes, every American that isn't in favor of BO's "agenda" are the ones fighting for our continued freedom from big brother!!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:33 PM EDT
                                          Frank Wells

                                          JayB, there is no doubt the health care industry needs a little reform. However, there's no reason for the governemnt to control or fund it. Some simple law modifications will take care of Tort reform, competition across all 50 states, limits to big pharma drug profits and force insurers to offer affordable plans for any legal American that wants one. We must keep the government as far away as possible from public health care.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.11 - Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:41 AM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          "TKS the Engineer"

                                          Of course short term spending will increase deficits, but this fear over a totally inaccurate 10 year projection doesn't take into account the idea of spending now to save later... Something has to change in this system.

                                          What this actually proves is that we can't afford not enacting health care reform. With premium rising 10% each year and health care becoming a larger and larger chunk of the annual deficit, we have to act now.

                                          Whether is a public plan, a single payer system or a health care system modeled after the german/french Bismarck system, something has to be done.

                                          The Bismarck system in germany actually has 200 private insurance companies competing for your health insurance. people can shop around for their insurance. Acutally, sort of a lot like McCain's proposal. The only problem that McCain failed to mention was that the one thing that set's our system apart from all other industrialized nations is that our health insurance market is "FOR PROFIT"... that is the big issue...

                                          The german companies, for example, are all non-profit... they may sell auto, life, and homeowners in a for-profit manner but health insurance is totally different and seen as a "foot in the door" for consumers looking for other types of insurance...

                                          No health insurance companies make the kind of ridiculous profits that american companies make and until that is changes, costs will continue to spiral out of control, insurance will only be available to those who can afford the huge premiums and the costs for the government to administer medicare/medicaid will continue to rise.

                                          It's interesting to note that Switzerland tried to adopt an american for-profit model years ago to generate revenue - Insurance companies ended up dropping 5 percent of the propulation (only 5%) and everyone freaked - a voter referendum put a stop to it shortly thereafter.

                                          Whatever happens - take the profit out of health Insurance!!!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#15 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
                                          Obamasized

                                          How bout we just pass legislation proscribing health insurance. Those greedy bastards. That way we could level the playing field. We would save money since those premiums go up all the time. Doctors would no longer have to treat anyone without a credit check. I'm for that.

                                          If you can't afford it, take an aspirin, that's what BO says. Besides, if you're dying, your a drain on the system.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          #15.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:26 AM EDT
                                          Ludwigc

                                          Ya I can’t wait to have my health care in the hands of a government what spends money like a teenage girl with her daddy’s credit card.

                                          I rather have my healthcare in a company which knows how to run a business than a government that will be bankrupt.

                                          I don’t like greedy, irresponsible corporations either, but I like government programs even less.

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #15.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:26 AM EDT
                                          usfreestar

                                          I don’t like greedy, irresponsible corporations either, but I like government programs even less.

                                          You said it!

                                          • 8 votes
                                          #15.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
                                          "TKS the Engineer"

                                          I don't see how greedy companies are any better... they have almost zero accountability. At least the government can operate in deficits and if they're unpopular you can vote them out. These insurance companies are the same raw-holes who were mincing words about flood damage vs. hurrance damage and denying coverage to Katrina victims.

                                          The for profit model will continue to drive premiums faster than inflation (because that's where profit is...) and deny coverage to more and more people. Without checks, Capitalism and free markets generate incredibile wealth - but then they concentrate it at the top. This is not OK for something as essential as health care.

                                          We trust the government for all sorts things and they generally do a good job. I think that all this anti-government chest beating is a little ingenuine - government has problems and it has it's place.

                                          US health care, private or government-run, needs to be Non-Profit to start lowering costs and covering more people.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #15.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
                                          OBAMA-FAN

                                          Obamasized,

                                          How bout we just pass legislation proscribing health insurance.

                                          When did thinking become a antiquated notion? When did common sense become obsolete? Give me a break!!!

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #15.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:55 AM EDT
                                          Obamasized

                                          TK

                                          I don't see how greedy companies are any better... they have almost zero accountability.

                                          I'm not sure that our elected officials are feeling any more accountability these days either. When you have a guy, Daschle, that promotes punishing tax dodgers to the full extent and is a tax dodger himself? Sounds like they just don't give a crap, frankly.

                                          Congress to the people:

                                          Oh no, we won't be taking part in that plan. We have one in place already, wholly funded by the taxpayers, and for the rest of our days. What kind of idiot would give up a real choice. Ha. No but seriously, this is not a bad plan and you can keep your old plan if you like, as long as we approve. You can even keep your doctor, as long as we approve. But hey, other than that its top notch. Trust us.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #15.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
                                          Obamasized

                                          Since you guys took over I guess.

                                          If health insurance is a right simply because private industry has made it available, then we have long moved away from an understanding of rights v privileges. I would not even count that as a privilege. So, if we are to worry about the millions not insured, and the answer is to level the playing field, then lets do this. Cut it out altogether. I'd much rather have my own health savings plan.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #15.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
                                          "TKS the Engineer"

                                          Maybe they don't give a crap, but I don't think private companies have any more motivation to behave ethically and responsibly either.

                                          I guess trust in private companies or governement is a fundemental difference people have to work out.

                                          I think they both need to be scrutinized but for health care, like national defense or some other federal program that we all take for granted - The fact that the government is not for-profit can actually be essential to refocus the purpose of health coverage. Instead of maximizing profit, they could be maximizing people covered and drive costs down rather than up.

                                          I think a non-profit or government run health care system is essential to stop the stratospheric climb of health care cost in this country...

                                            #15.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:09 PM EDT
                                            Obamasized

                                            TK.

                                            When it boils down, you're left with people in either scenario. I agree that you can't wholly trust private parties. At least the private parties are presumably operating under the law. When the president can't fill cabinet positions for lack of tax cheats, to me that indicates that these people are not considering themselves under the law. Thus, the reason the framers tried to minimize the intrusive force the central govt would have. Evidence of their arrogance and willingness to throw you under the bus is found in the proposed law. they will not be part of it. Gee, sounds like a winner to me.

                                            I'm not prepared to turn over yet more control. Call me hysterical or not, control over health care is serious control. The necessary and proper clause is not a stand alone justification for writing law, but I can imagine several possibilities that may give congress the ability to regulate everything under the sun as necessary and proper to further the purpose of this legislation.

                                            Sorry for the sarcasm and emotion, but you agree at least to this. Thisis not something to be taken lightly.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #15.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:50 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            gamerk2

                                            Bush took over a relativly healthy economy in the midst of a minor recession, and over 8 years produced apporximatly $6 Trillion in debt. Obama took over with a much worse deficit in place, had to pay $1 Trillion up front to avert a potential collapse of the world financial system, and the debt over 10 years (2 years longer) is *only* around $7 trillion.

                                            Sounds like a win to me...

                                            Sources:

                                            http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

                                            09/30/2000
                                            5,674,178,209,886.86

                                            09/30/2008
                                            10,024,724,896,912.49

                                            Close to $11.5 Trillion after Bush left once and for all.

                                            I also must point out, Obama is including defense spending in his budget (Which Bush never did), so the deficit goes up several hundred billion from that alone.

                                            • 7 votes
                                            Reply#16 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
                                            "TKS the Engineer"

                                            Very good points...

                                            I think we all need to start actually doing the math rather than having knee-jerk reactions to numbers with lots of zeros behind them.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #16.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:39 AM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            Furthermore:

                                            ~$6 Trillion over 8 years = $750 Billion/yr

                                            ~$7.5 Trillion over 10 years = $750 Billion/yr

                                            So Obama is no worse with the debt then Bush was. And forgive me, I clearly remember hearing Republicans complaining about the debt under Bush, right?

                                            Now, its OK to crticize, even I admit this is unsustainable, but please, stop being hyopocritical when Obama is no worse then the guy who came before him.

                                            EDIT

                                            That last bit wasn't directed at you TKS; you're post didn't show until after I posted my update.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #16.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:40 AM EDT
                                            TopJedi

                                            If you want to "do the math" you have to understand the difference between DEBT and DEFICIT

                                            Assuming your numbers are correct and Bush gave us $11.5 Trillion DEBT

                                            Obama is projecting a $9 trillion DEFICIT (You get to add that to the DEBT number you are using)

                                            But while figures released by the Whit House foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, $2 trillion more than the administration estimated in May, congressional budget analysts put the figure at a lower $7.14 trillion.

                                            • 5 votes
                                            #16.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            The DEFICIT is the amount the budget misses per year. That amount gets added to the DEBT. The numbers I gave was for the total amount of national DEBT entering/exiting office (offset by a few months), and basic subtraction gives us the total DEFICIT that we were left with over that term.

                                            Example: Bush had a total DEFICIT of ~$6 Trillion, and left with a DEBT of ~$11.5 Trillion.

                                            Example: Clintion added to the DEBT each year he was in office, but left with the DEFICIT in positive territory.

                                            And for the time being, I'm sticking closer to the CBO numbers, as I have a gut feeling Repubs are going to hit hard of the budget the next few years, so less is more likely then more. These numbers are going to jump up/down quite a bit anyway. I mearly showed that the numbers between both presidents are basically the same, thats all.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #16.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:51 AM EDT
                                            "TKS the Engineer"

                                            Actually...

                                            Bush gave us 6 trillon over 8 years. Doubling the national debt. He never had deficits under control.

                                            Obama projections are anywhere from 7-9 trillion over 10 years added to the debt. How are they any different? Minor yearly deficit differences at best. Obama makes that 7 to 9 trillion out of the annual deficits... what am I actually missing? or are you just acknowledging that the nation debt will continue to rise? If I recall, only Clinton stopped that from happening by the end of his term in office.

                                            And, if anything works like healthcare reform, I bet you'll see that projection drop the next time it comes out.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #16.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:52 AM EDT
                                            TopJedi

                                            You guys want to do the math or don't you??

                                            Minor yearly deficit differences at best.

                                            Obama projected $7.1 Trillion and missed by $2 Trillion that's a 28% miss!! Oh well its only the margin of error of a few Gulf Wars and Katrina combined... just "minor yearly deficit differences at best."

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #16.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            But a key point: Bush never put defense spending in the Budget, so Bush's numbers for the budget (and by extension, the yearly deficit) always looked better then they really were. Hence why I typically go by debt numbers entering/exiting office as opposed to counting deficits.

                                            The debt is going to go up, no getting around that. Its been going up since Nixon for god's sake, but got out of control over Regan (who almost tripled it) and Clinton (who doubled it again, but left with a budget surplus). It doubed yet again under Bush, and will grow a projected ~75% under Obama.

                                            Fact is, Tax cuts and government spending is the best way to stimulate the economy and get re-elected. House terms are too short for congressmen to put themselves on the line, Senators are vunerable to being replaced, and the President largly doesn't want to blow his clout on an issue that has no chance of getting better short of starting a recession. Until this situation changes, I doubt the debt ever goes away.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #16.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            Obama projected $7.1 Trillion and missed by $2 Trillion that's a 28% miss!! Oh well its only the margin of error of a few Gulf Wars and Katrina combined... just "minor yearly deficit differences at best."

                                            No, the CBO is still projecting 7.1 Trillion. Back in may, both projected ~7 trillion, now the WH is projecting more. Until i see otherwise, I'll stick with a slightly elevated CBO number of 7.5 Trillion ($400 billion more then they predict)

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #16.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:07 PM EDT
                                            "TKS the Engineer"

                                            It's a projection of a number at the end of a ten year period it the future.

                                            The key word is future... The other key word is ten (as in years away).

                                            We have no clue what will really happen to that number and I'm sure it changes every quarter - it's not a 28% margin of error because it's a projection and has nothing to do with reality.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #16.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
                                            TopJedi

                                            But a key point: Bush never put defense spending in the Budget

                                            This I got to see... got a link?? And tell me how does that change the ending Debt amount we already agree on??

                                            it's a projection and has nothing to do with reality.

                                            I totally agree with you there. Don't hold your breath if you expect the Government to come in under budget.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #16.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            Calrification: Bush didn't put spending for the Iraqi war on the Budget. Sorry for that; no idea what I was on...

                                            The point remains, thats several hundred billion extra on the deficit, despite the fact the final numbers are the same.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #16.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
                                            "TKS the Engineer"

                                            TopJedi,

                                            It's an absolute fact. GWB would include costs for operation of the military in his yearly budgets to congress and then separately, force a supplemental defense spending bill down their throats. How can you vote "no" to supporting the troops after all. In this manner he hid the true cost of the war for the majority of his term.

                                            Obama's budget assumes that wars we know we're not getting out of are funded through the regular budget. The wars, $787 billion for TARP, i think his budget for 2009 is pretty good.

                                            And by the way, housing prices are rising again and it really looks like this country avoided another depression thanks to the intervention of the federal government (yes, even the Bush administration toward the end there too...).

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #16.12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:34 PM EDT
                                            Scott-317099

                                            And by the way, housing prices are rising again and it really looks like this country avoided another depression thanks to the intervention of the federal government (yes, even the Bush administration toward the end there too...).

                                            I would not be too sure about any recovery. Looking at mortgage resets coming due, there looks to be a huge wave of Alt-A and even prime foreclosures. Commercial real estate is hurting, bank lending is still curtailed, and commodity inflation as the result of electronically printing money is lurking. The FDIC still has about 500 banks on its "Gonna Fail" list. If gasoline demand in China and India resumes its upward path, I shudder to think about what we will be paying for gasoline. The best stimulus we have seen to date is the halving of gasoline prices from the fall of 2008 until the summer of 2009. If gasoline prices move back toward $4.00 per gallon, any recovery is doomed.

                                            I think we have not even begun to see the worst; this is looking to be a double-dip recession.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #16.13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
                                            Go Longhorns

                                            instead of blaming bush or obama, how about we agree that the deficit has to be fixed!!!!!!!!. yes bush spent way too much $$ and most republicans stayed home the last few elections in protest. but that doesn't mean obama gets to spend in deficit too. he PROMISED us that he would cut. so far he has cut $100million out of the budget. come on, give me a break. we can all point fingers at democrats vs. republicans but when interest rates go back to 15% to ge someone to buy our debt, there won't be any $$ for any programs. we have to make hard choices.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #16.14 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            jumpshotjarrod

                                            I think this Administration should have followed the lead of the last Administration and hid large budget items while simply not reporting on them. This seemed to quell Republican outcry about budget problems for most of the decade ;)

                                            • 2 votes
                                            Reply#17 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
                                            Man of Knowledge

                                            Well let's hear the solutions. Everyone has a grand time complaining but how about a solution?

                                            Who volunteers to raise taxes? or Maybe you want to cut them again and pray for a miracle.

                                            How about cutting spending. Where do we start.

                                            Lets cut the American Health and Recovery Act. We can't cut "Cash for Clunkers" we spent the money already. How many of you folks bought a car to contribute to the national debt. Lets cut the part dedicated to education. Several thousand teachers will lose their jobs. How about the part that extends unemployment benefits, or the part that makes COBRA more affordable so the 10 million people who lost their job won't also lose their health insurance.

                                            The military budget? That would cost thousands of jobs and put us at the mercy of the mean old terrorists.

                                            Cut Medicare? Oh wait, we are promising seniors not to cut their benefits. We don't want to ration health care or pull the plug on Granny.

                                            Cut Social Security? I wonder what seniors will have to say about that. We can privatize it since the stock market is such a reliable investment and investment brokers are so trustworthy.

                                            Cut Welfare? Yay, everyone can get on board with that one. Too bad it's only 8% of the budget. The interest on our debt is more than that.

                                            Come on folks who wants to bite the bullet and fix the problem. I guarantee you not a single congressman or senator has the balls to propose something. Maybe we could shout out solutions at a townhall meeting.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            Reply#18 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
                                            jumpshotjarrod

                                            Great post. The solution, unfortunately, is one that is expensive up front.

                                            At some point, either by choice or by necessity, this country will HAVE to start catering programs and budgets toward prevention and not crisis management. However, to put such systems in place requires restructuring and funding on the front end.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #18.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
                                            Man of Knowledge

                                            jarrod-548247

                                            My solution is to gradually begin to tie parts of the budget directly to taxes. If that segment of the budget goes up so do taxes to cover it. That will make it much harder to pass spending bills and gradually pull the budget into balance. We can start by tying taxes to the increased interest on our debt. That's like a loan program where you don't pay down the principle but you at least cover the interest.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #18.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:12 PM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            1: Social Security would be fixed if the upper limit of $106,000 for contributions was removed. Let CEO's make whatever they want, we'll just tax it. All the talk of cutting/limiting CEO pay is hilarious. May as well get some positive benifit out of it.

                                            2: Regan proved that republican thinking on the economy in general is wrong. Republicans believe in the Laffer Curve; a point where raising taxes actually produces less revenue through decreased economic activity. What they forget, is that lowering taxes beyond a certain point will also result in lost revenue. As the Regan cuts on the rich produced LOWER tax revenue from that bracket, the "optimal" tax rate is above 50% on the rich, which blows the Republican arguement of "Taxing the rich hurts everybody" out the window. When Clinton taxed the rich at the end of his term (and while Republicans predicted economic doom), the deficit shrank and eventually left with surplus. Bush gave another tax cut, and revenue dropped, again.

                                            So, tax the rich at 50% again, and start chooping wasteful spending, starting with the military (B1B, F22, V1-F, etc) and useless projects. Programs that repeat function would be next (turf wars ensure this will never happen), followed by creating new efficencies through technology.

                                            • 5 votes
                                            #18.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
                                            Dryver008

                                            All I have ever heard from this administration is spend, borrow, and raise taxes. Never once have I heard cut spending, streamlining departments, and eliminating fraud. Obama runs this country like a rich Beverly Hills celebrity. Spend like it's no tomorrow. Worry about paying for it later.

                                            By the way Man of Knowledge. Social programs account for 33% of our budget not 8%. If you could shave 1% of that off imagine the money you'd be saving. I'm sure there's plenty of waste and fat there that no liberal will be willing to talk about.

                                            • 5 votes
                                            #18.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
                                            "TKS the Engineer"

                                            I believe there will be tax increases in the future - and frankly, it's been too long since there's been a tax increase.

                                            It's the responsible thing to do and it's been put off because it's unfortunately political suicide - unlike living in fantasy land, which gets you two terms in office!

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #18.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:16 PM EDT
                                            "TKS the Engineer"

                                            Dryver,

                                            Welfare is 8% and your right, it's not the only social program... and at 33% of the budget, i would generally consider that money well spent. At least the purposes for which it is intended. Social Security, welfare, food stamps, health care, etc...

                                            What else should they be spending money on? The cost of premiums are approaching the cost of rent or martgage payments in this country - there is no tax cut of health savings account that will help you if you need to suddenly pay $100,000 to be hospitalized.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #18.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
                                            Will_4_Freedom

                                            "Clinton taxed the rich at the end of his term (and while Republicans predicted economic doom), the deficit shrank and eventually left with surplus. Bush gave another tax cut, and revenue dropped, again. "

                                            Clinton, along with others before him (Dems and Reps), took money from social security surplus and put it toward other things... reducing the deficit.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #18.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:26 PM EDT
                                            Man of Knowledge

                                            Dryver008

                                            What do you define as a social program? Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? Let's see the documentation. Here is mine.

                                            http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/financial/reports/citizens_guide.pdf

                                            It actually says 9%.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #18.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:41 PM EDT
                                            gamerk2

                                            "Clinton taxed the rich at the end of his term (and while Republicans predicted economic doom), the deficit shrank and eventually left with surplus. Bush gave another tax cut, and revenue dropped, again. "

                                            Clinton, along with others before him (Dems and Reps), took money from social security surplus and put it toward other things... reducing the deficit.

                                            You're point being? That doesn't change the fact that tax revenue INCREASED when the rich were taxed more, which proves the laffer curve incorrect for current tax rates below 50%.

                                            I should have specified deficit/tax revenue better; Reducing taxes below 50% on the rich lead to a reduction of tax revenue, rasing it back up lead to a increase in tax revenue. According to Republicans own economic theory, the laffer curve thus dictates the optimal point of taxing the rich is somewhere above 50%, and all these tax cuts have done is create one time jumps in economic activity at the espense of mounting debt.

                                            Social Security is easy to fix: Just remove the upper limit on contributions, and anyone starting the year with more then $1 million in assets can not recieve SS funds. Problem solved. If the rich complain about having to fund it, so what? Thats the only way SS will ever be fixed, so stop playing political games and just do it.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #18.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:41 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            ingenjon

                                            All the Congressmen and Senators have been bought out, so they have to keep their mouths shut. Otherwise, someone will have to explain why so many retire from their jobs with so many multi millions more that when they got there.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            Reply#19 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:05 PM EDT
                                            Dryver008

                                            It's obvious what he's doing. He's setting his supporters up for no health care reform. Next step. He'll blame the last administration for the mess and then he'll go on vacation again. Typical from this administration.

                                            What bugs me the most about him is how smug and cocky he is in the face of his own failure. What Obama needs more than ever right now is a Republican controlled congress. They'll give a good humbling that he so desperately needs. Not to mention something may actually get done that's positive for this country. A liberal president is bad enough. When you have an even more liberal Speaker of the House and a rubber stamp head of the Senate you have a recipe for failure. 780 billion in stimulus money should have done SOMETHING. Instead we get more excuses. Hope and change. Sounds like the punchline to a very very bad joke at this point. All I can say to his supporters is "I told ya so."

                                            • 5 votes
                                            Reply#20 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
                                            jumpshotjarrod

                                            780 billion in stimulus money should have done SOMETHING

                                            It did exactly what it was suppose to do; sidestep a depression.

                                            What Obama needs more than ever right now is a Republican controlled congress. They'll give a good humbling that he so desperately needs. Not to mention something may actually get done that's positive for this country. A liberal president is bad enough.

                                            Dryver

                                            You seem to suffer from short term memory loss. We had the government party structure you are espousing for........and nothing positive got done for the country.

                                            Review the last 10 years......one Administration, by the end of their eight year run, was actually generating contingency funding to use for whatever purposes (presumably paying off the debt) and was creating millions of jobs a year. The other Administration's eight year run ended with one of the largest economic nightmares our nation has seen in the last 50 years and also can boast being one of the worst job creation Administrations ever (FYI- you might want to avoid the 'it was a democratic congress's fault' line - the facts simply don't support that :)).

                                            I'm all for balances of power but based on the performances of the most recent parties in power, I'll take my chances with this Administration ;) .........especially considering that his approach is very similar to the approach that was taken in the 1990's which allowed this nation be exponentially more prosperous than it was in the 2000's. Political affiliations aside, that last point simply can't be rationally argued against.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #20.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:19 PM EDT
                                            Dryver008

                                            I guess were all stuck "taking our chances with this administration" jarrod. Clinton was so successful in the nineties because he had a system of checks and balances in place. He had to sponsor responsible legislation because he knew he would have to answer to the Republicans. He also knew that what they had in mind would work and he would eventually get the lion's share of the credit.

                                            Rubber stamp congresses never work. They tend to bend to their special interests and neglect those that have differing ideology. This is why the dems lost control of congress in 93 and why the GOP lost control in 2006. True bi-partisanhip is how things get done in this country. History will tell you this. Obama and his fellow democrats choose this go it alone policy, excluding the Republicans from everything and you see where it has gotten them. 2012 is going to be a very sobering year for the Dems. I just hope you guys use it as a learning experience and know what to do differently next time.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #20.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:45 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            vol fan in chatt, tn

                                            Cancel the part of the stimulus that hasn't been spent yet - if the economy is doing so good then we don't need it, do we? That's half a trillion dollars back in the coffers.

                                            Stop spending - do not start ANY new entitlement programs!

                                            Cut and/or freeze all Federal salaries - including Congress

                                            Say bye bye to the 43 czars and their staff and their salaries that Obama thinks he needs - let government heads run their departments

                                            Just for starters...

                                            • 5 votes
                                            Reply#21 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
                                            jumpshotjarrod

                                            Cancel the part of the stimulus that hasn't been spent yet - if the economy is doing so good then we don't need it, do we? That's half a trillion dollars back in the coffers.

                                            Classic faulty logic. The economy is doing good BECAUSE we needed it. When you stop taking your seizure medication, it's not long before you have a seizure again :)

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #21.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
                                            vol fan in chatt, tn

                                            The whole stimulus was "FAULTY LOGIC"! The CBO said before they spent it we would be in the same place we are now, without it. And to think how much money we would have saved?? What part of our economy did those 9000 earmarks help?

                                            What a pathetic spending pork bill that was.

                                            The point is Jarrod, don't take medicine you don't need!

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #21.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:23 PM EDT
                                            jumpshotjarrod

                                            Sorry Vol Fan

                                            The 'do nothing' approach hasn't worked so well for the better part of this decade.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #21.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:45 PM EDT
                                            Go Longhorns

                                            you guys are both nuts. the economy has cycles. it's not a republican or democrat cycle. it's a cycle. the fed has more to do with the business cycle than any other entity in our gov't. they kept rates too low for too long and that caused the mortgage mess. they have flooded the economy with $$ which hopefully will jump start it and then they will have to figure out how to get the $$ out. don't you guys ever get tired of the same arguments over and over and over. clinton had a surplus, bush wrecked it.....blah blah blah.

                                              #21.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              Sue-1978

                                              I don't know what they expected. They've been spending like drunken sailors.

                                              This reminds me of an incredibly irrepsonsible person who's shocked when they open their credit card bill each month!

                                              • 5 votes
                                              Reply#22 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
                                              ingenjon

                                              It's kinda like hearing about the local schools that have to cut busing in order to save money from skyrocketing energy costs, while they install air conditioners at all the schools so they can start school earlier each year in order to get enough funding. The more they try to make things better, the more they screw it up.

                                              • 5 votes
                                              Reply#23 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:24 PM EDT
                                              Disppointed...

                                              Oh boy... We are in big trouble.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              Reply#24 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
                                              gamerk2

                                              Again, people are ignoring what the number mean, and just looking at the figure:

                                              Bush: ~$6 Trillion over 8 years = $750 Billion/yr

                                              Obama (according to CBO figures): ~$7.1 Trillion over 10 years = $710 Billion/yr

                                              So basically, the numbers tell me that in the middle of the worst economic disaster since 1929, where almost $2 trillion is paid up front, Obama will manage to reduce the deficit by ~$40 Billion annually over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan CBO.

                                              Coincidentally, $40 billion is approxamatly HALF the cost of the pubic option over the same timeframe.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              Reply#25 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:45 PM EDT
                                              TopJedi

                                              You are not getting the math gamerk2.

                                              Obama will manage to reduce the deficit by ~$40 Billion

                                              Obama himself now projects that he will outspend 20 years of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton COMBINED. Obama himself revised his spending upwards to $9 Trillion not $7 Trillion that you are using.

                                              By your math, using a number $2 Trillion lower than what Obama has projected, is a $40 Billion savings over the worst average DEFICIT years on record of all previous spending in our nation's history under Bush.

                                              That is not savings for America, that's fuzzy math. Even Obama doesn't accept your numbers when he projects a near doubling of our nation's DEBT in 10 years under his plan.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #25.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
                                              TopJedi

                                              Further gamerk2 the answer to the math is right here in the article:

                                              Both the White House Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the budget deficit this year would swell to nearly $1.6 trillion, a record, and far above the then-record 2008 budget deficit of $455 billion.

                                              Everyone agrees (Obama included) that the Actual (not average) budget deficit this year would swell to $1.6 trillion, a record, and far above the then-record 2008 budget deficit of $455 billion, NOT an average deficit saving of $40 billion that the Office of Gamerk2 came up with.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              #25.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:16 PM EDT
                                              Go Longhorns

                                              big deal someone still has to buy our debt. I assume you understand that we don't have the right to sell our debt; it's a privelage afforded us by other countries and investors. who gives a flying crap if the deficit is 7 or 9 trillion....do you have any concept of how much money that is and where are we going to borrow it. i don't give a flying flip about republican or democrat but we can not continue to spend like this. look at california, they are a mess. we need to quit kicking each other and quit playing the republican vs. democrat game and find ways to cut the spending.

                                              • 3 votes
                                              #25.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:45 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              d.b.-661337

                                              the people of the U.S. should sue the two partys(dem and gop) for the amount of the debt, they both made it let them pay it, every party member should pay his/her share. that how they do it to other companys, then we should file ani-trust, and outlaw them from office.

                                              • 3 votes
                                              Reply#26 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:47 PM EDT
                                              gamerk2

                                              Wow, thats REAL democratic of you...

                                              Fact is, the people can vote these guys out any time you want. But when push comes to shove and you have to choose between Tax Cuts and balancing the budget, you take the tax cuts every single time.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              #26.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:50 PM EDT
                                              "TKS the Engineer"

                                              That's just anger talking - Don't act like we all don't want to have our cake and eat it too. We ask for a lot and then no one wants to pay for it. We put our elected officials in a weird spot a lot of the time too... Add to that all the lobbying and it's not surprising that these people can't make decisions or get anything done.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #26.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                              Leave a Comment:
                                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                              FUN STUFF:
                                              • Leaderboard |
                                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                                              • Top of the Vine |
                                              • Newsvine Live |
                                              • Newsvine Archives |
                                              • The Greenhouse
                                              COMPANY STUFF:
                                              • Code of Honor |
                                              • Company Info |
                                              • Contact Us |
                                              • Jobs |
                                              • User Agreement |
                                              • Privacy Policy |
                                              • About our ads
                                              LEGAL STUFF:
                                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com