But don’t worry, people. They have all the numbers perfect for ObamaCare…
The US budget deficit will be $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration.
CBO Deficit Estimate
The CBO announced today that the US longterm deficit picture is even worse than originally predicted.
The AP reported:
A new congressional report released Friday says the United States’ long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama’s grim budget submission last month.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama’s budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That’s $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration.
The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration’s. That’s because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House.
The CBO predicted that the federal deficit would hit $1.5 trillion in 2010 under President Barack Obama’s proposals. This tops last year’s record deficit and is more than three times the deficit during George W. Bush’s last year in office.
Gateway Pundit
Another lesson in F***ING OBVIOUS for the Obama Administration.
This only comes as news to people who haven’t worked in the private sector, of course — which means the entirety of the Obama administration and most of the Democratic leadership in Congress. It takes a CBO analysis for them to understand that increasing costs on businesses means increasing costs on their customers — or forcing them out of business altogether. This time, the CBO explains the impact of raising fees on financial institutions to the clueless:
President Obama’s proposed fee on the country’s biggest banks receiving taxpayer bailout money would ultimately result in costs to the firms’ customers, employees, and investors, a non-partisan Congressional watchdog said today. …
But the Congressional Budget Office today warned that “the ultimate cost of a tax or fee is not necessarily borne by the entity that writes the check to the government.”
“The cost of the proposed fee would ultimately be borne to varying degrees by an institution’s customers, employees, and investors,” the CBO said today in a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley.
“Customers would probably absorb some of the cost in the form of higher borrowing rates and other charges, although competition from financial institutions not subject to the fee would limit the extent to which the cost could be passed to borrowers. Employees might bear some of the cost by accepting some reduction in their compensation, including income from bonuses, if they did not have better employment opportunities available to them. Investors could bear some of the cost in the form of lower prices of their stock if the fee reduced the institution’s future profits.”
The availability of credit – already a problem for some consumers and businesses – could also be limited by the proposed fee, the CBO said.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » CBO study says banks won’t bear the cost of new fees
On what basis is this “really good”, Harry? Its up from last month. Are you thinking more is better?
Only 36,000 jobs lost, which is UP from last month. What a super awesome day! Who wants evil private sector jobs anyway, right Harry? The rhetoric of the Democrat’s has moved from incomprehensible to absolutely unbelievable. Talk about shock and awe; can he really be this much of a dunce? Such woefully clueless rhetoric shows that not only have they never owned a business or ran a business, but few have even worked for a living. They are like a bunch of little boys playing “business Daddy” dress-up.
People need to WORK, not to chatter endlessly about good intentions and meaning well and feel good-y nonsense. Hey, instead of kedoodling around and spouting incompetent nonsense, why don’t you, I don’t know, govern? Perhaps stop wasting time on ridiculous schemes that no one wants and that will debilitate our country and its economy further? Stop bailing out crappy businesses. Stop regulating the good ones out of business. Stop taxing them out of employing people. As I said, I know it’s hard since many of you haven’t worked a day in the private sector in your lives, but it’s time to not just put on big boy pants, but to also act like big boys. People, real people, are hurting.
Dear Harry Reid: Is Your Ivory Tower Padded? | Lori Ziganto’s Diary
HotAir has a great post up (link at bottom), go check it out.
I love how there are two sets of standards, one for the global warming bunch and one for the critics.
I have to give credit to Judith Curry in the section from the HotAir article. She really seems, based on the statements she made, to get it. If these “scientists” had been open and transparent from day one, they would have had no problems. The issue is that they don’t want people to see that their “proof” is all smoke, mirrors, and grant money.
One researcher says that the plotting does nothing to build credibility for the science, which these very people undermined with their doomsday predictions in the first place:
“Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.,” said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.”
She said scientists should downplay their catastrophic predictions, which she said are premature, and instead shore up and defend their research. She said scientists and institutions that have been pushing for policy changes “need to push the disconnect button for now,” because it will be difficult to take action until public confidence in the science is restored.
“Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research,” she said.
“Appeal to their own authority” is a fairly elegant way of pointing out the hubris in AGW advocates who declared the science “settled” and began to brand everyone who questioned it as “deniers.” Stephen Dinan reports that Stanford researcher Stephen Schneider accused Senator James Inhofe of “McCarthyesque” attacks for urging a criminal investigation into potential fraud in the AGW movement. Schneider must have missed the calls from AGW advocates to have any weatherman who expressed doubt about global warming to be decertified as meteorologists, or questioning the patriotism of Americans who dare to question the sputtering consensus.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » E-mails from National Academy of Sciences plot attacks on AGW skeptics
Well, isn’t this comforting. I am glad to hear that this is only a stepping stone to the single payer system and all his other Socialist ideas.
This guy NEEDS to be stopped. I wish the 2010 elections were today. Sigh.
Don’t look surprised. The left has been remarkably candid about this over the past year or two. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again they’ve warned people that the dream is bigger than universal coverage or even the public option.
Memo from The One to progressives: Keep the dream alive.
Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he’d continue to push to make it stronger. But in a matter of weeks, he stressed, he could sign into law legislation that would lead to 31 million new people being insured, including the woman who wrote him…
“He just said that the public option, something that he has supported along the way, is not something that we can pass. And he emphasized the fact that the decision now is between doing as much as we can do and doing nothing. That’s it. He thought the whole foundation thing — that this is definitely something we could be proud of, something we could build off [of],” said Schakowsky.
Woolsey told Obama that she’d be introducing legislation to create a public option and Obama said he encouraged the effort, according to Schakowsky.
Here’s an especially fun passage. Remember, Obama was self-described proponent of single-payer as recently as 2003 before deciding that it’s simply too impractical to pass. For now.
None of the members, including Kucinich, indicated that they would vote any differently this time around. “I think [Kucinich] left the meeting leaving the impression with the president that he’s a no-go,” said Schakowsky.
But, said one attendee, Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders’s measure was similar but doesn’t kick in for several years. “He definitely wrote it down,” said one member of Kucinich, suggesting that he’d look into it.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obama comforts House liberals: Don’t worry, this bill is just the beginning of what we’ll do with health care
