I agree, all the politicians suck. Don't any of you people realize this is exactly what both sides want. My sides got one bigger than yours. And while we are doing all this fighting over the past they slip little bills through and half of us, or more don't even know about them. No matter what side you are on saying the other side in the past did this or that is no defense, period. If you accidentally backed out of your driveway and ran over my child and killed him then I guess it would be OK for me to wait for your kid and run him over. Thats what you all are saying when you defend which idiot was/is the biggest one. If you don't start having real, civil, thoughtful conversations with each other, (without politicians) we are all going to wake up in a place that none of us may like a whole lot. Think about it!! Find out what your neighbors think. No, not them, the neighbors from that other party.

When I see a moderate post from you I'll consider taking any labels you try to give others some credence, thus far I haven't.

“The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year,” said the administration official, who is familiar with the budget mid-session review that is slated to be released next week.

“Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out.”

The White House budget office will also lower its deficit forecast for this fiscal year, which ends September 30, to $1.58 trillion from $1.84 trillion next week after removing $250 billion set aside for bank bailouts.

Oooh, how evil. Speaking of evil, Jazz does love to make fun of anyone who criticizes those corporate saints, the American health insurance companies. Somehow he never addresses what makes so many people resentful and mistrustful of them. Do I need to write out the list? I think everyone but Jazz knows the reasons quite well. As far as his citation of Elmendorf's testimony to Congress is concerned, not everyone sees things the same way Elmendorf's testimony seemed to go. Disagreements can be found here, at the OMB (Which is currently headed by a former head of the CBO.) and in this column in Roll Call. And then there is what Elmendorf himself wrote later in the Director's Blog. Here's a significant admission (emphasis mine):

CBO does not analyze national health expenditures (NHE) as closely as we analyze the federal budget (although we are working to enhance our capabilities in this area). Accordingly, we cannot provide precise quantitative estimates of the effect of health reform proposals on NHE even within the first 10 years. However, we will try to offer a qualitative indication of whether proposals would be more likely to raise or lower NHE during the next couple of decades. Expanding insurance coverage would raise NHE, because insured people generally receive more medical care than do uninsured people (see CBO’s Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, December 2008, pages 71-76). Yet, the increase in NHE would be much smaller than the increase in federal spending because some of that additional spending represents a shift in costs from other payers to the government (for example, new subsidies for people who would have purchased insurance anyway). At the same time, changes in Medicare or Medicaid that reduce federal spending and do not merely shift health costs to other payers would generally reduce NHE. For specific pieces of legislation, we will try our best to provide a very approximate sense of balance between these two opposing forces.

In sum, as health reform legislation is considered by the Congress, CBO will endeavor to offer a qualitative indication of whether certain legislation would be more likely to increase or decrease the federal budgetary commitment to health care, the federal budget deficit, and national health expenditures in the decade beyond the 10-year budget window. Whether these effects would persist in more-distant decades is not clear, and that uncertainty is an inherent feature of policy changes that could have substantial effects on such a large and growing share of the U.S. economy.

It seems that much as climate change deniers do, some on the right insist on using uncertain estimates of things to attempt to prove their points and completely ignore any changes or follow ups in the the interim that either disprove their claims or at least weaken them in other areas, like in health care.

http://animal-farm.us/change/constitution-proje…

Congress actually approved less spending than Reagan proposed. Reagan slashed taxes and sharply increased spending, mostly on the military. He operated under tooth fairy economics. Still, these conservatives will take no responsibility for any of the national debt. It was all somebody else's fault.

Bush left a $1.2 trillion deficit, a crashing economy teetering on the brink of depression and two wars in progress. NIce job. HIs tax cuts also wiped out the budget surpluses left to him by Clinton and helped create huge deficits. Nice job.

Now all the folks who voted for Bush twice are just horrified at deficit spending and the guy who trounced them, Obama, is to blame for all of it. Even as Wall Street, which is based on expectations of the future, soars by 50% and the economic news continues to improve they stand around screaming about how terrible everything is and how great the Republicans were. We've seen what happens when your guy wins. You should apologize and slink away in shame.

” Maybe so, but if you (non-specific “you”) are one of the people who set the house on fire, or if you supported and cheered on the people who set the fire, or if you knew the house was being set on fire and acted like it wasn't happening, or if you have spent zero time acknowledging that the fire burning down the house was set by somebody else, then you lack the credibility to say that the firefighters are doing their job wrong.”

Well said, and many Republican's such as myself were outraged at some of the Spending the GOP carried out when in power. We didn't want Republicans who acted like democrats. Those who claim to be fiscal conservatives who turned a blind eye deserve all the derrision they get, and are no better than that idiot Paul Krugman who was against deficits when the GOP was in power and now is in favor of them to achieve a liberal wish list from decades past in a time of economic hardship.

While I'm generally on the Conservative side of the line, I do not have a problem with the loan to Brazil. Two reasons.

1. Its an investment and may well show a good return

2. It provides more oil on the market and cuts into the power of middle eastern oil producers and othat of Hugo Chavez.

What I do find fault with is foot dragging and resostance to US off shore drilling, but that does not make the Brazil deal a bad one.

Maybe so, but if you (non-specific “you”) are one of the people who set the house on fire, or if you supported and cheered on the people who set the fire, or if you knew the house was being set on fire and acted like it wasn't happening, or if you have spent zero time acknowledging that the fire burning down the house was set by somebody else, then you lack the credibility to say that the firefighters are doing their job wrong.

Jusy sayin', you know?

By the way do those principles include trying to buy the senior votes with Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security.?

George W Bush and the thug Delay made sure that there was no real discernible difference between DemocRATS and Gopeeeers when it came to fiscal policy – that is not a badge of honor or a shield to be used against attacks from conservatives on Obama ballooining the deficit more in his first 6 months what Bush did in the last 6 years.

Obama is trying to give us: 1) a revived economy, 2) not destroying ourselves through environmental destruction over time, and 3) a health care system that doesn't pay more for less care than 30 other national systems.

Maybe you do not care about the environment, the economy, or health care, but many do.