Actually that's how the CBO works, they do 10 year estimates and if you look at the CBO numbers - they were for 11 years and the yearly increase in costs is in line with inflation. Also, Bush and his OMB director Mitch Daniels did mislead on the Iraq war costs, hell they didn't estimated it on a 10 year window! "Conservative columnist Ross Douthat has stated that Daniels "carried water, as director of the Office of Management and Budget, for some of the Bush administrationâs more egregious budgets [and...] made dubious public arguments in support of his bossâs agenda."[23] Daniels was responsible for estimating the cost of the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The operation was estimated to last six months, and did not include a projection of the long-term cost of maintaining a military presence in the region after its immediate occupation.[24] In 2002, Assistant to the President on Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated the cost at between $100â$200 billion, much higher than Daniels' estimate. Daniels called Lindsey's estimate "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50â$60 billion.[25] President Bush ultimately requested $75 billion to finance the operation during the fiscal year, and according to a 2010 Congressional Research Service report, the first fiscal year of the war cost $51 billion.[26] The failure to provide long term cost estimates led opponents to claim that Daniels and the administration had suggested the entire war would cost less than $60 billion.[23][24] The CBO has estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq to U.S. taxpayers will be around $1.9 trillion if it was carried on until 2017." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels#Office_of_Management_and_Budget
This is false, only 31 billion of outlays were part of FY 2009, rest went into FY 2010 which didn't show any big increase in spending from a 2008 baseline. To repeat - most of that spending was PART of FY 2010!
I feel like Billy Bob from "Bad Santa" your arguments are getting so stupid i cant help but think you are fucking with me.... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/peJWxqEVXPY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I was talking about the cost bozo, the cost doesnt kick in till 2014, other than some minor inconsequential shit....There doesnt have to be a jump, the ACTUAL NET COST OF OBAMACARE IS 150 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. READ THE CHART BELOW FROM THE CBO. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE NET COST PER YEAR FROM 2015 ONWARD? Obama said it would cost 900 billion cause he is a fucking liar and he used 6 years of spending and played it off as 10 as per the CBO SCORING.... SO THE COST IS TWICE AS MUCH AS WHAT OBAMA SAID.... DO YOU GET IT?
Jesus H. Christ.... Its like going in fucking circles with you, I KNOW THE CBO DOES 10 YEAR ESTIMATES, that doesnt change the fact that it was completely disingenous for Obama to pittch the cost of Obamacare as 900 billion when he knew he was only accounting for 6 years of spending, since the costs wouldnt kick in for 4 years, and the CBO would score it over 10 years.... Look at the chart, look at the gross cost from 2012-2022 it is 1.7 trillion. Costs dont start till 2014, which means that it is really costing 1.7 trillion between 2014 and 2022 (8 years) Obama said it was going to be 900 billion for 10 years, cause he was scoring it starting in 2010, which meant that he got 4 years of scoring whereby it would cost 0. So if Obama said it would cost900 billion over 10 years, and it is costing 1.7 trillion over 8 years is the actual cost not twice as much as what Obama said it would be? Do you get it? Is there anyone who is reading this who doesnt understand this math? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6zkh01AXKqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Think about what you are saying... that a FY 2009 appropriations act is also accounted for in FY 2010 spending. The problem is you are conflating the supposed $31B over the 2008 basline for the 2009 Omnibus with something in 2010. The two have nothing to do with another. The other problem is that the original FY 2009 Bush request, which is first formulated in February 2008, was quite meaningless by February 2009 as the world had changed quite a bit by then. In fact a democratic congress held up the spending bills precisely for the reason that they wanted them jacked up. The more fundamental issue is the idea of calling Obama 'tight-fisted' simply because he keeps high deficits constant.
I am not saying anything, CBO is saying that. The omnibus bill that was signed in March 2009 led to 31 billion increase in immediate spending i.e. FY 2009. Rest was for FY 2010, the omnibus bill wasn't just a FY 2009 appropriations bill, it was simply signed during FY 2009 since there is a lag between signing a spending bill and the time it takes to appropriate the money. Nowhere did I say that the 31billion was over the 2008 baseline, what I said was that the FY 2010 spending was in line with FY 2008 spending showing that the omnibus bill wasn't some extra 400 billion spending in Fy 2009. One has got nothing to do with the other. Deficits are high because of the recession and the tax cuts (including the new ones) because of high unemployment. Take away the recession and the stimulus spending, you will be hard pressed to find any big spending items under Obama as I proved already.
So your problem is that Obama wasn't touting a claim that wasn't scored by the CBO at all. Why the hell would he talk about projections that were never scored. Also, how hard was it to know what the costs would have been from 2014 onwards if you look at the CBO projections released in 2010. If anything, they are showing now that the COSTS would be LOWER than released earlier.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5hfYJsQAhl0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Let me post this again since you completely ignored it the first time around So let's exclude the 2009 budget and look at the baseline from FY 2008 without all these temporary factors and see if Obama increased the spending or not. Data here - http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...3s1li111lcn_F0f Spending went from $2.01T in FY 2002 to $2.98T in FY 2008 for a total increase of 48.26% in 7 budgets, which yields an average annual increase of 6.78% ([2.98 / 2.01]^1/6) for the six budgets after his first. Now let's take GW's FY 2008 and extend it out into the future at his average rate. We get: FY 2009: $3.18T FY 2010: $3.40T FY 2011: $3.63T FY 2012: $3.87T Now let's see what actually happened. FY 2009: $3.52T (GW + Obama) FY 2010: $3.46T FY 2011: $3.60T FY 2012: $3.80T (projected) So, the federal government is spending less than it would have if no Great Recession had occurred and Obama has simply continued growing the government at a rate SLOWER than GW did proving that the article is indeed correct.