• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

That's $395 billion. Sorry, $534 billion. Actually, $720 billion. Unless it's...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
1.2 trillion.

Context: Bush passes a bill that will include a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. 13 conservative Republican reps say they won't vote for it if it's over $400 billion over the next 10 years. The CBO's estimate has it at $395 billion.

The bill passes, narrowly, after a ton of badgering by GOP leadership. Democrats say that the bill is designed to give the maximum possible profits to drug companies.

Two months after the bill passes, it's revealed that the cost will be $119 billion more. Guy at the CBO had done this estimate while the bill was still being debated, but says that he was threatened with being fired if he revealed it.

Now, budget figures have just come out with another revision of the total cost. Scott McLellan says it will be $720 billion over that period for the federal government, though the cumulative cost will be $1.2 trillion.

As far as I can tell from a first, quick reading of the article, the $300 million difference in those last figures is what the states will have to pay, or participants in the program, or a combination.

From reading another article, it seems like the cost of the previous estimate was kept down by including two years where the program wasn't in place, so it only accounted for eight years of spending (it's standard for 10-year periods to be used to estimate the cost of programs - if you see a headline "Program X to cost $50 billion," odds are it means over 10 years).

I really don't know what to say. This is just so... not good news.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
There were worst-case estimates floating around at the time that were that high. And they were scoffed at. Well, whatever. Since he set foot in office, Bush has set a course to destroy the welfare state. That he can say with a straight face that he's increasing homeland and defense spending while cutting 150 federal programs is just embarassing. There's an easy way to a balanced budget, and there's the way he's chosen. He'd rather nickel and dime the deficit away by cutting budget items that help a lot more than the 3M or so military zonbies that are getting all this money. It's a good time to be in defense. It's a bad time to be anything else. This prescription drug thing was simply part of a two-pronged attack on FICA. There's the attempt to privatize Medicare, and the attempt to privatize Social Security. What I don't get is if FICA accounts for over 1/3 of income, then how the hell will the government replace that revenue stream? Reaganomics? Looks like we've got one worse, Bushanomics. 2 + 2 = -500 billion. PEACE.
 
Yeah it's pretty bad. But whatthefuckever. I come to expect the worst from this administration, and the worst is what I get. No surprises.
 

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
So should I just have my income directly deposited towards the government now and make things simpler...
 

bud

Member
Mandark said:
1.2 trillion.

Context: Bush passes a bill that will include a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. 13 conservative Republican reps say they won't vote for it if it's over $400 billion over the next 10 years. The CBO's estimate has it at $395 billion.

The bill passes, narrowly, after a ton of badgering by GOP leadership. Democrats say that the bill is designed to give the maximum possible profits to drug companies.

Two months after the bill passes, it's revealed that the cost will be $119 billion more. Guy at the CBO had done this estimate while the bill was still being debated, but says that he was threatened with being fired if he revealed it.

Now, budget figures have just come out with another revision of the total cost. Scott McLellan says it will be $720 billion over that period for the federal government, though the cumulative cost will be $1.2 trillion.

As far as I can tell from a first, quick reading of the article, the $300 million difference in those last figures is what the states will have to pay, or participants in the program, or a combination.

From reading another article, it seems like the cost of the previous estimate was kept down by including two years where the program wasn't in place, so it only accounted for eight years of spending (it's standard for 10-year periods to be used to estimate the cost of programs - if you see a headline "Program X to cost $50 billion," odds are it means over 10 years).

I really don't know what to say. This is just so... not good news.

Go Bush! :lol
 

Macam

Banned
Oh, it gets better. From the early part of the budget debate thus far:

Democrats deplored the $2.57 trillion spending plan, listing the popular programs it would reduce, including Medicaid, veterans' health care, environmental enforcement, law enforcement and scientific research. They also pointed to what it left out, particularly the costs of the war in Iraq and of a potential major shift in the way Social Security operates.

...

"You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if you're concerned about the deficit, you either have to raise taxes or cut spending," said Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida. "What's very interesting for me to hear is the same people that complain about a high deficit then complain about not enough spending by this budget."

The current path of the administration is proving to be far more ineffective than the first at this rate. There seems to be little weight behind reducing the deficit in half by 2009 as Bush has stated, Bush has already revoked his SOTU implications of toppling tyranny and freedom, and the planned Social Security reforms don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of passing the House or the Senate by current estimates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom