jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (79 posts)

2.2 Trillion in Waiting? Really?

  1. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 6 years ago

    I cannot wait to hear the responses on this one. A day after Obama was threatening how he will not pay the armed services, not pay Social Security, not fund Medicare, and more. "we do not have the money to pay these things We need to rasie taxes"
    I agree with him on eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and corperations. So lets not use that in this debate.
    Here is where I get ticked off. Gene Sperling, director of the National Econimc Council, who has been involved in the negotiations headed by Biden, revealed today when asked what can Congress do about jobs? He revealed that Congress has "2.2 Trillion dollars sitting in the sideline for Congress to spend" ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Ok blood pressure has come down. Obama has once more shown he has no reguard for American people. Threatens to not pay medicare, Social Securtiy when he has 2.2trillion in hand but wants to spend it. He truly does not get it.

    To make matters worse, Tim Giether is leaving. He has had it, but behind the scenes he is being pressured to stay to not look like another economic policy cabinet member leaving. Obama cannot take another hit for someone leaving.

    Perhaps if he would realize his programs have failed, and be open to new ideas instead of blowing them all off.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps if you source your statements we can get them in context. The significant statement from Spelling today that I found.....

      “Why would any elected, serious public official who is concerned about our job growth and our confidence play a game of chicken on the default of the United States government?”

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-2 … overy.html

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I suspect someone is twisting and distorting the truth. No full quote in context being available, I would guess this was the $ being discussed.

        "From the Washington Post:

        Corporate America is hoarding a massive pile of cash. It just doesn’t want to spend it hiring anyone. Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession.
        And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers. Yet all the good news from big business hasn’t translated into much promise for jobless Americans, leading many to wonder: If corporations are sitting on so much money, why aren’t they hiring more workers?

        The answer to that question has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of “uncertainty,” which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said. The White House countered that companies are wary of hiring not because... they’re still waiting for consumer demand to return."

        The quote is from July 15 2010, which accounts for the Wall Street nest egg growing to 2.2 trillion. Source :

        http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 … sidelines/

        The point to ponder (if I am correct) is who is behind the deception behind the OP?

        1. lovemychris profile image62
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "The point to ponder (if I am correct) is who is behind the deception behind the OP?"

          Koch-S*cker ring a bell?

          Who's that idiot?? Starve the gvt? How many years he been floating that turd?

          He just got a BIG toilet bowl for it with this Republibagger Congress.

          Cult of Greed and Perversity. and yes--I DO mean sexual.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You can count on the cash position of businesses to continue its growth.  The misconception, fed by liberals, is that the Federal government is about to default.  Revenue will continue to be collected and the interest on the National Debt will be paid.  What ever is left after that will need to be prioritized and paid accordingly.  That is what worries Barry.  The sop to his allies and dependents will end, must end.

          There will be no default on debt but there will be, must be, default on political "patronage."

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "That would be a financial disaster, not only for our country but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on Election Day said, 'we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs.' And you can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt."

            John Boehner

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              The National Debt is not in danger of being defaulted on .  The Federal government will continue to receive revenue and will pay its debt obligation first.

              It is not the National Debt that is endangered by not raising the Debt ceiling it is Barry's spending priorities that are endangered.

              Read a little more widely you will discover more.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Doug,

        First I want to appologize for not being more clear on the source. Normaly I am always citing my source, I know you know that from reading my hubs abd threads. The source here was a CNN interview with Eliot Spitzer. Theywere discussing Obamas speech yesterday when Spitzer challenged him to say what can be done by congress to put people back to work as Obama said in his speech. It was then Sperling told of the 2.2 trillion dollars the Congress has access to. More spending, typical.

        Now despite my error, you instanly start with the accusations. "twisting, deception" All you had to do was ask me the sourse and like now, I would have given it with my appologies. And even so, while I agree the private e=sector is sitting on cash and rightfully so, Congress does not have accesss to that money. I specifically said "the funds are sitting on the sidelines" fro Congress to use. So that should have indicated the private money was not what I was talking about. When I write something it is always based on facts not blogs like the one you cited. Its always someones slanted opinion. We get enough of that here, would you not agree?

      3. TMMason profile image69
        TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes why would they? When they have 2.2 trillion dollars to pay it with, Doug.

        Perhaps to manage a decline of our Economy, and still possess the tresure to pay out the military when he needs them, that would be the Commander and Chief, and our loving Socialist/Progressive Congress, and the Govt in whole.

        Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. Watch the tyrants, they lie and cheat. and take what they cannot get given to them, by force.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You only see what you want to see, Mccarthyite.

          The 2.2 trillion is not available to the federal government. It's a Wall Street nest egg. The OP is flawed at best, a mistake perhaps or a deliberate deception to mislead.  But it's not grounded in any fact.

          1. TMMason profile image69
            TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            He siezes everything else... why not that.

            You should be all for that.

            Let wall street pay our debt, they can use the political donations I am sure are included in there, and those profits they made and greedily cling to, and do not to pay us back from.

            I thought you would love that Idea, Doug? I thought we could actually get along on this one.

            Damn man... there ain't no pleasing you Leant Leftists! /:

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              What has Obama 'seized'?

              I will give you my opinion on the Wall Street nest egg. In my job, there is a 'use-it-or-loose-it' ceiling on vacation that can be accrued. Vacation time on the books for more than 50 days is lost.

              So it should be for big business. If they are making money, they should be  expanding, creating jobs. Business, not government must be the source of the recovery and a lack of capital is not the problem.  Companies that don't expand (measured in jobs) will have to pay a windfall tax on retained earnings.

              1. TMMason profile image69
                TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                See I may not like it, but it is theirs.

                Just like the BP money was PB's, and they did not have to give it up by law, thus the extortion by Obama. And I might add it was Clinton who signed that Law.

                But hey who was looking and who would have cared?

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  It's nice to see you side with BP and against the people they damaged.

                  It's just as revealing who Obama sided with.

                  For the record, republicans walked from budget negotiations when democrats proposed an end to subsidies for oil companies.

                  You are known by the company you keep.

                  1. TMMason profile image69
                    TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I side with the FACT that NO Co., or Individual, should be strong-armed useing the might of the US Govt., out of their money or property, without due process, Doug.

                    That is a key tenet of our country... or was... used to be... till we went Marxist on the world and the people.

    2. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      One more fox out of the henhouse. Nice to see him gone from treasury, more to go yet. smile

      Somehow I don't think Obama will mind losing Gietner. He was part of the problem. smile

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Gietner was not a problem, only for Obama for Gietner does not agree with a lot of Obama policies

      2. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Earnest, Gietner, did not just walk in. I believe he was Veted by Obama!

    3. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, AV, for posting (in another thread) this link and some of the interview with Mr. Sperling. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … sa.01.html
      According to your comment there, his actual words were, “I'LL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES, WHICH IS ONE, WE HAVE $2 TRILLION SITTING ON THE SIDELINE IN OUR ECONOMY RIGHT NOW. If we could give those companies, those investors the confidence that America can work past its divisions and get its house in order, I have no question that will increase more confidence in people making long-term investments, which means more construction, more job creation here in the United States.”

      It seems to me Mr. Sperling did not say “that Congress has ‘2.2 Trillion dollars sitting in the sideline for Congress to spend.’ “  It would appear that he was referring to cash reserves being hoarded by corporations (“in our economy”) and not to funds available to congress to pay for Medicare and/or Social Security obligations.  I suspect your blood pressure and stress levels were unnecessarily elevated by your misinterpretation of Mr Sperling’s remarks and that your conclusions in the OP are in error. 
      Also, I extend my thanks to Doug Hughes for his persistence in the pursuit of the original interview.

  2. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Perhaps if he would realize his programs have failed, and be open to new ideas instead of blowing them all off."

    Which would these be?
    Those that have been implemented: Stimulus, GM Loan, tax cut for low incomes, race to the Top...are wonderful.
    His ideas are good.
    We NEED to let them have a chance!

    Green energy, rich paying fair share, fica tax holiday.....are also good. Will never happen now though.

    Anything Obama has wanted to do has been watered down, and much just thrown out.

    Perhaps if the babies who had THEIR way for 8 years would sit down and shut up, we would be much better off.
    As their policies OBVIOUSLY failed.

    Obama's have not had a chance to blossom yet. And those that HAVE---are positive for America.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      LMC,

      I have only one thing to ask, How long do you waqnt to give him a chance? depite everything he has done, the economic indicators are against him.
      Show me just one actual goverment report, no a blog or someones opinion, that just one of Obamas plans have worked.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hi AV. Thanks a lot for another very interesting OP.
        I apologize to both you and LMC for jumping in here.  I know you directed your question to her. Here is a “government report, not a blog or someone’s opinion,” from the Congressional Budget Office that projects “Obamacare” will reduce the national deficit by $210 Billion.

        See “CBO’s Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010” at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc121 … lation.pdf

        On March 30, 2011, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the CBO, testified before the House Subcommittee on Health. He said “On net, CBO and JCT’s latest comprehensive estimate is that the effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period.” He went on to say that the net effect of repealing Obamacare, as suggested by the GOP, would add $210 Billion to the national deficit. “In February 2011, CBO and JCT estimated that repealing PPACA and the health related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would produce a net increase in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenues.”

        Again, I’m sorry to interject. I just think it is shame that politicians are often blamed for being ineffective yet this CBO report was not hard to find.
        Thanks again, AV.  Have a great day.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Quill,
          Thanks and always feel free to interject. I enjoy reading your responses. I have read that and several other CBO reports and they conflict with each other. The reason is the reports they were asked to issue were all based on certain criteria. When Obama asked for these reports he told the CBO to include certain things and specifically told them what to exclude from the reports. Many CBO officials have stated publically that the results of these studies are accurate results of what was asked of them following the guidelines set.  of guidelines set for them to follow. If the bill was so good, why not include everything in the CBO estimate? Because it would have shown huge deficit increases in the budget
          A similar move used by President Clinton to try and show he had reduced the national debt. But in reality when you include the costs of Social Security and Medicare, both costs were excluded from Clintons finance reports, it clearly showed a deficit.  The CBO issued a revised report after disclosing they were told to exclude those costs from the report. The new report clearly shows the deficit.
          The point is even though the reports the CBO are accurate, they are only as good as the numbers, the criteria, and the guidelines they are asked to follow. A former CBO head disagrees with the report. Here are a couple of CBO reports stating deficits. I have also left some facts I found
          The Combined Budgetary Impact of Enacting the Reconciliation Proposal,
          H.R. 3590, and H.R. 3961
          You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation
          proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill
          (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009
          (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add
          $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.
          http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc113 … hr4872.pdf
          Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade-February, 2011
          CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue
          effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget
          deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1).1 By
          comparison, last March CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and
          the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal
          deficits by $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period.2 The difference
          between the two estimates for the 10-year projection periods is primarily
          attributable to the different time periods they cover. Over the eight years
          that are common to the two analyses (2012-2019), enactment of PPACA
          and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act was projected
          last March to reduce federal deficits by $132 billion, whereas the repeal of
          that legislation is projected now to increase deficits by $119 billion.
          http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-co … 1-0218.pdf
          Obamacare is riddled with tax increases, has anyone added those up? The Heritage Foundation did. All told Obamacare contains 18 separate tax increases that will cost taxpayers $503 billion between 2010 and 2019. COST TAXPAYERS!! PPACA[2] contains 18 separate tax increases that will cost taxpayers $503 billion between 2010 and 2019.[3] Three major tax hikes make up nearly half of the new revenue raised by PPACA:
          http://www.heritage.org/research/report … he-economy

          CBO must ignore the many budget gimmicks written into legislation. The health law does not include the “doc fix” to prevent an automatic cut to physicians’ reimbursement rates under Medicare. Congress recently passed a one-year fix and will continue to prevent the cuts in the future, but this will still not solve the ongoing problem. Nevertheless, pretending it will not happen won’t reduce the deficit.
          http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/06/tak … -deficits/

          Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director who served during the George W. Bush administration, stated that the bill would increase the deficit by $562 billion.[75]
          Republican House leadership and the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee estimate the law would increase the deficit by more than $700 billion in its first 10 years.[76][77]
          David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General now working for The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, has stated that the CBO estimates are not likely to be accurate
          After the bill was signed, AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon, and John Deere issued financial reports showing large current charges against earnings, up to US$1 billion in the case of AT&T, attributing the additional expenses to tax changes in the new health care law.
          However, CBO was required to exclude from its initial estimates the effects of concurrent "doc fix" legislation (see above) that would increase Medicare payments by more than $200 billion from 2010-2019. The "doc fix" legislation—separate from Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—was enacted to permanently fill a gap in Medicare reimbursement that had been filled on an annual basis since 1997. Therefore, the "doc fix" legislation had little to no effect on the estimate budget deficit.
          Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. But the CBO was required  to exclude those costs  from the estimate budget deficit.
          Surgeon Atul Gawande has noted that bill contains a variety of pilot programs that may have a significant impact on cost and quality over the long-run, although these have not been factored into CBO cost estimates
          That analysis forecasted that by 2016: for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13%
          The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report in April 2010 saying that the PPACA would increase the number of Americans with health insurance coverage but would also increase projected spending by approximately 1% over 10 years. The report also cautioned that the increases could be larger, because the Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back UPDATE…. We now know that this report is very innacurate due to the fact of the many Unions and businesses that have opted out of this program. In addition, it is estimated that 45% of all businesses will drop healthcare for their employees and pay the fine as the fine is cheaper than health insurance. This will dramaticaly reduce the number of Americans having health insurance.  The CMMS was very wrong.

          Thanks Quill,   Have a Great Day smile

          1. Quilligrapher profile image88
            Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Hello AV and Happy Forth of  July!
            I appreciate your reply and comments. Your lengthy response was far more than I expected given I was only trying to answer a simple request aimed at LMC.


            You said "Show me just one actual government report, not a blog or someone's opinion, that just one of Obamas plans have worked." And I did. I'm sorry it is not one you agree with.

            Not only did you disagree with the CBO report I suggested but you also directed me to CBO letter to congress as a rebuttal. If you had read my document http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc121 … lation.pdf dated March 2011, I think you should have noticed it superseded your rebuttal document http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc113 … hr4872.pdf which was published a year earlier in March 2010.


            Please check your source. The White House can not instruct the CBO "to include certain things" nor can the President "specifically [tell] them what to exclude."
            .
            I quote from the CBO website. "CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with …Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget." The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate appoint the CBO director jointly, after considering recommendations from the two budget committees.  The activities of the CBO are controlled by statute and are beyond any official influence by the president. 

            "By law, CBO is required to produce a cost estimate and mandate statement for every bill reported by a Congressional committee. Each cost estimate of pending legislation assesses (1) the potential impact on spending subject to appropriation (also known as discretionary spending), (2) any impact on mandatory spending (also known as direct spending), and (3) any impact on federal revenues (incorporating estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation <http://www.house.gov/jct/> for legislation that would change the federal tax code). "

            The CBO is one of the few bi-partisan institutions in the Government where we can find accurate, unbiased data about government activities. Are CBO conclusion spun by various political interests?  You bet they are, but after, not before, they are published.   


            The "doc fix" is among most flagrant examples of government sponsored "smoke and mirrors" ever devised to confuse the American public. The "doc fix" is a law passed by congress but never, I repeat, never implemented.  Since it is on the books, CBO is obligated to weigh its possible implication on spending but every one in Congress knows it really has absolutely NO effect on spending and deficits because it has never been put into effect. I tell anyone who mentions the "doc fix" to come back when, and if, it is implemented and then we'll discuss its effects on spending. To introduce the "doc fix" into any serious discussion is to intentionally attempt to cloud and distract from the real issues.

            This statement is an unintentional mistake. The truth is the CBO can NOT "ignore the many budget gimmicks written into legislation." Clever politicians of all stripes often include language in a bill that they know will skew the CBO budget projections to their benefit. Bush did it in the "Bush Tax Cut' bill so the CBO analysis would indicate conformance with existing budget restrictions when the law actually didn't.  In addition, the CBO is obligated to ignore all revenues and costs not directly attributable to the specific bill under consideration.

            As you know, AV, I always welcome corrections to any misstatements I've made. I also welcome your original conclusions derived from your own research. But I respectfully request that I be spared from having to read cut and paste talking points from the opposition party.  I have no desire, AV, to convince you or anyone that the current President is better or worse that any other in the past or in the future.  The American people hired him to do a job for four years with the possible option to extend it to eight. I believe he is doing what he truly believes is best for the country and for his constituency and neither I, nor he for that matter, ever expect he will achieve a 100% approval rating. I predict that the American people will decide one day to hire his replacement.  He will be gone but the vitriol, half-truths, and outright distortions littering this forum will continue.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Q - You are a good writer with reverence for the truth.

              My outrage if I can edit your last sentence,   is for the deliberate distortions and outright lies.

              Facts are the only guideposts we have in making decisions, and deliberately tearing them down or putting up false ones to misdirect the novice is obscene.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image88
                Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Thank you, Doug. Compliments from you are always welcomed.

            2. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Quill,
              First Have a happy and safe 4th of July holiday. May everyone really feel in their hearts the true meaning of that day. I think a lot of politians need to remember.
              I want to apologize up front for this may be a long one. I am opposed to Obamacare. I can say why but it would take way to long. I have read all1200 pages of the act, it’s a disaster. But not all parts are bad. I have an idea for health care and have sent the idea to members on both sides of the aisle. I have had several responses. It has met with open minds and I am hopefull that it can be a foundation of a better health care system for all. Please read it and let me know what you think of it.
              http://hubpages.com/hub/New-Idea-for-Health-Care
              I am sorry for posting so many factual statements that you called “read cut and paste talking points from the opposition party” I have no party, I as I have stated in many other threads, I am an independent. I read and form my own opinions. Sometimes they support the Dems, sometimes they support the Repubs, sometimes they are both so wrong, I cannot support either of them.
              I do agree with you as to the purpose of the CBO and its objectives. I have no doubt they are as impartial as they can be. I guess my statement could have been phrased better. The CBO issues reports on bills and so forth based on the material and guidelines given to them That is why there are several conflicting reports by the CBO, One states deficit will go up, one says it goes down. While Obama did not say to their face exclude these items, he just did not include them for consideration by the CBO. There are a number of reports saying so including Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf.
              You stated:
              “You said "Show me just one actual government report, not a blog or someone's opinion, that just one of Obamas plans have worked." And I did. I'm sorry it is not one you agree with.”
              The biggest reason I said that is because he has not had one plan work yet. Obamacare cannot be considered at this time for it has not implemented itself. All reports including the CBO report at this point is just an estimate. Success is something that has already happened.
              I try my best to be accurate and forthcoming with sources. I do not twist the meaning of statements of fact, I just post the source. I also use credible sources, not blogs or any ones opinion collum.  Despite that, many just ignore it, change the subject, or respond in a uncivil way. I always read what is used as sources when they are provided. I have learned from some of them.
              Here is an excerpt from a CBO report issued after the date of your link.
              “Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade-February, 2011
              CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue
              effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget
              deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1).”
              I was troubled by this report you cited. Not that I did not believe it was a CBO report for it was. But the more I thought about it, the more I kept telling myself something was not right  in those 33 pages of the report, while they did claim a deficit reduction, all I could think of was all the claims of increased spending by the government and the much higher private rates due to a tax added to insurance policies. If there is so much increase in federal spending, how does that give us a reduction in the deficit?.So I went back and reread it and there it was. The tax increases they were using to justify a reduction.  Tax increases O-man has been not successfully had congress approve(Repubs vote no to tax increases) Plus the biggest assumption is that there will be changes in Medicare. Something that too has eluded congress at this time. So all these figures of revenue are false, but the CBO was told to include them for projection purposes. Here is the part of the report stating those facts:
              The net decrease in deficits from enacting all of those provisions except those affecting
              education had three major components (see Table 1 on page 2):

              B PPACA and the Reconciliation Act contained a set of provisions designed to
              expand health insurance coverage that was estimated to increase federal deficits.
              The costs of those coverage expansions—which include the cost of the subsidies to
              be provided through the exchanges, higher outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s
              Health Insurance Program, and tax credits for certain small employers—WILL BE
              PARTIALLY OFFSET BY REVENUES FROM THE EXCISE TAX ON INSURANCE PLANS
              and net savings from other coverage-related effects. For the 2010–2019 period,
              those provisions yielded estimated gross costs of $938 billion and estimated net
              costs (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $788 billion.

              B The legislation also included a number of other provisions that were estimated to
              reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare) by $492 billion over the 2010–
              2019 period.

              B Apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage, the legislation will
              INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUES IN VARIOUS WAYS, MOSTLY BY INCREASING THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE PAYROLL TAX ON ALL EMPLOYEES AND IMPOSING FEES ON CERTAIN MANUFACTURERS AND INSURERS. The
              additional revenues were estimated to equal $420 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
              All told, those provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act were estimated to
              increase direct spending by $401 billion and to increase revenues by $525 billion over the 2010–2019 period, yielding the net estimated savings of $124 billion over those 10 years (as noted above).

              Perhaps more importantly, the additional $115 million reported on May 11, 2010 is still not a complete list of the previously-undisclosed additional spending. The update includes a new Table 2 that lists 52 programs for which cost estimates still have not been made. The CBO explains this list of items as follows:

              “Table 2 presents a list of new activities for which PPACA includes only a broad authorization for the appropriation of “such sums as may be necessary.” For those activities, the lack of guidance in the legislation about how new activities should be conducted means that, in many cases, CBO does not have a sufficient basis for estimating what the “necessary” amounts might be over the 2010-2020 period. … CBO does not have a comprehensive estimate of all of the potential discretionary costs associated with PPACA.”
              The above is an incredible explanation. The CBO’s explanation is comparable to a company raising investment money by issuing projections that show a proposed business venture will be wildly successful. After moneys are raised from investors, the company then announces that there will not really be profits, but massive losses instead. The difference between the initially-projected profits and the real losses occurs because a large number of expenses were left out of the projections used to entice the investors. The additional expenses were not estimated because the amounts were difficult to estimate. The company’s management will make decisions regarding these missing expenses later. Although all such subsequently-determined expenses are “discretionary”, the “discretionary” costs are required and will cause the previously-reported profits to disappear. No one listening to such a tale would claim that such misreporting to investors is OK. Similarly, all those listening to the CBO’s explanation should be outraged.

              Sorry Quill I quess I was on my soap box a little too long there. As always I look forward to your thoughtful responses.

              And for Doug, Seems to me I apologized to you for not being clearer about my source. But you looked to change the subject from congress to the private sector. In addition you start with
              I suspect someone is twisting and distorting the truth.
              The point to ponder (if I am correct) is who is behind the deception behind the OP?
              My outrage if I can edit your last sentence, is for the deliberate distortions and outright lies.
              Despite my apology, I did not hear you say what I wrote was true. Instead you say what was posted above. Well that’s your opinion if you think I lied. After the short time I have been here I realize 2 things, there are those that will just spew hate and lies, never acknowledge the facts presented to them, and the others are those who say they are against “My outrage if I can edit your last sentence, is for the deliberate distortions and outright lies.” But in the next sentence or post do that very thing.  So after these several taxing threads of dealing with complete idiots, I no longer care what those losers think. I will continue to have civil debates with people like Quill though we may not agree on everything he to can be calm and civil.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                This is what you wrote in your OP.

                "He revealed that Congress has "2.2 Trillion dollars sitting in the sideline for Congress to spend" ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                ...Obama has once more shown he has no reguard for American people. Threatens to not pay medicare, Social Securtiy when he has 2.2trillion in hand but wants to spend it. He truly does not get it."

                You NEVER corrected the Original Post. After I caught you for the lie or mistake.. (I can't judge intent..) you admitted halfheartedly that the mention of 2.2 Trillion was not government money, but Wall Street retained earnings that is not being invested to create jobs.

                But I do know you for what you failed to do. You left the OP up in all it's flaming glory.. Completely wrong, deceptive and inflammatory.. and you let the thread continue on the basis of your mistake, deception or lie.

                Whichever it was originally, after no attempt to undo the statement, your true colors are clear to me.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Doug,

                  There was nothing to correct for you did not catch me in a lie NOR DID I SAY------
                  "you admitted halfheartedly that the mention of 2.2 Trillion was not government money, but Wall Street retained earnings that is not being invested to create jobs."

                  That was your quote. This is a typical twist, complete misstatement and lie from you as it is YOU THAT SHOWED HIS TRUE COLORS.  Here is a copy of what I Actually. wrote. I uppercased a few sentences so you might get it right this time. And after you read it, will you be man enough to admit you got it ALL wrong, it was you trying to deceive? As you can see from my writing I was man enough to apologize for not being clear about the source:

                  "First I want to apologize for not being more clear on the source. Normally I am always citing my source; I know you know that from reading my hubs and threads. The source here was a CNN interview with Eliot Spitzer. They were discussing Obamas speech yesterday when Spitzer challenged him to say what can be done by congress to put people back to work as Obama said in his speech. IT WAS THEN SPERLING TOLD OF THE 2.2 TRILLION DOLLARS THE CONGRESS HAS ACCESS TO. MORE SPENDING, TYPICAL.

                  Now despite my error, you instantly start with the accusations. "twisting, deception" All you had to do was ask me the source and like now, I would have given it with my apologies. And even so, while I agree the private sector is sitting on cash and rightfully so, Congress does not have access to that money. I specifically said "the funds are sitting on the sidelines" for Congress to use. SO THAT SHOULD HAVE INDICATED THE PRIVATE MONEY WAS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. When I write something it is always based on facts not blogs like the one you cited. It’s always someone’s slanted opinion. We get enough of that here, would you not agree?"

                  HMMMM Seems real clear to me don't you agree? well of course you will not Typical. We all have come to expect no less. So how ignorant do you feel about this rant:
                  “But I do know you for what you failed to do. You left the OP up in all it's flaming glory.. Completely wrong, deceptive and inflammatory.. and you let the thread continue on the basis of your mistake, deception or lie.

                  Whichever it was originally, after no attempt to undo the statement, your true colors are clear to me.”

                  Seems to me what is inflammatory is your untruthful rant. I left, really? I guess this must be my ghost responding. Sorry I do not sit on Hubpages 24/7 for you. Some of us have wonderful lives. I think we addressed who made the mistake here. Enough said

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I can't find any record. From last week (searching CNN) that Sperling was interviewed by Spitzer.

                    You give a direct quote, and no verifiable source. I gave you an out - that you misunderstood a reference to two trillion that Wall Street has.

                    Washington sure doesn't have it and I don't believe Sperling said it. You have an obligation to go beyond what you think you heard - because it's not factually true that trillions are currently available.

                    Put up a source. Your facts are wrong.

        2. lovemychris profile image62
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Long term, the plan will also reduce waste.But parts of it don't even come into effect until 2014....it is plan, not a quick fix!!

          There is NO quick fix to decades of entrenched special interests.....

          Doctors and hospitals included. Everyone is on the gravy train.

  3. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    And he is quite open to new ideas.....he had 2 Repub cabinet members, kept their Pentagon and military people, and BEGGED the R's to come to the table.
    The fact that they snubbed him off is their problem.

    Oh, but wait;;;;the mandate for all to have healthcare is a Republican idea! So there you go!

    I know , I know....they were for it before they were against it. wink

    Anything Obama likes----they don't.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      really? begged to come to the table? Health care? closed doors? remember? And yes we werebetter under ther 8 years of Bushco as you say than under the Obamaco period. And stop with the inheritated phony argument. Most scholars and economists have changed their tune saying that is no longer the case.

      1. lovemychris profile image62
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You might have been better off....not me.
        And I would dare say, not most....since we voted Obama in!!!

        You on the right need to back off. You had your shot. Stop hoarding gvt.
        WE matter too.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          LMC

          Everyone matters, just not to the politicians. I am far from better off but that is due to health reason. You forget I am an Indepedent, and I voted for Obama though I am ashamed to admit it. I have no stake in Dem or Repub. I try to honestly use facts to base my opinions. We all have them and we all get to express them Does not mean we have to agree. Thats the great part about Americas Freedoms. We all get a shot

  4. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    The ignorance of the people continues to play out. How f*&#ing ridiculous.

    When are people going to learn that the President of the United States is powerless, when Congress refuses to break the "status quo" that has plagued America since it's inception.

    The only thing people are doing is scattering their thoughts about distortion and misinformation, doled out by both sides and while they continue to do so, the "status quo" continues to break America.

    People should understand America IS broke. Printing money it cannot pay back, even if it wanted to.

    1. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Bulloney!
      There is massive money hoarded at the top, by gvt policy.
      Gvt policy can give it back.

      The "Status Qou" is that we have a problem!!!!

      Give it back, stop the welfare for the rich. We Are Solvent.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        LMC

        I do not think any one here thinks that the wealthy and the corperations should get to keep their tax breaks . So like the Jetcomment from Obama lets move on.
        We do have a spending problem. I recently sent my Healthcare proposal to several members of congress withthe hopes it will replace Obamacare. You can read my plan on my hub page. Its not a political based idea. Its soley based on getting healthcare to everyone, not funded by government, which means no tax increases as with Obamacare, THere is no reason to opt out so everyone is insured unlike Obamacare, there are not fines to companies for they are not involved, saving money, and the load on Medicare drops, and will be more solvent. In fact the deduction from you check that goes to Medicare will go down, putting more money in your pocket. Not to mention, the outlay from the budget to Medicare will drop significantly so cuts in service will not be required.

        So its not political, no reason for you to not read this hub. I promise you will like the idea. It may not be perfect but its a great start.

        1. lovemychris profile image62
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "I do not think any one here thinks that the wealthy and the corperations should get to keep their tax breaks ."

          The whole of the Republican House does.
          In fact, they have made that a make or break.
          Any tax talk is off the table.

          Obstruct/de-rail........destroy.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            What most people have been brainwashed by the left is that while its true the right does not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, they do not want to let Obama to taxe the middle class more than he already has. Thats why they say ALL tax hike are off the table. In reality, Repubs have indicated they would be willing to comprimise on wealthy cuts but not on the others.

            I know, you do not believe me and you will not read a link. But here are facrs as put out in a government report. Andm these do not include the ones he already has put on the middle class

            President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.
            On people.
            $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
            $179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
            $118 billion - capital gains tax hike
            Total: $636 billion/10 years
            $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
            $24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
            $5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
            $61 billion - repeal LIFO
            $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
            $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
            $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
            $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
            $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
            $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
            $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction
            $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
            $882 million - eliminate earned income tax credit
            Total: $353 billion/10 years

          2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I agree.  Everyone who is currently enjoying reduced tax obligations should continue enjoying them. Instead let the Federal Government cut its spending to the level it was at the last budget surplus.  Cut it back to those halcyon days, the days of wine and roses, the last time Americans lived in the workers paradise.

            Cut the budget back to the last Clinton budget.  Everything was so much better then.  Clinton was brilliant and the economy was perfect.  If only we could live in that great time again.  Maybe Barry will figure out that Clinton was so much better than he is and do what Clinton did - balance the budget, create a surplus, play golf and have a mistress. 

            That man was quite the multi-tasker.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              During Clintons first few years, the economy was not good, the Dems were in control, Repubs won midterms, made changes and Clinton agreed with then and hello a great economy. The difference today is a President who will not listen, and Senate Dems who are the same way

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Tongue in cheek.  Democrat tweak.  We are continually reminded by Democrats how perfect the world was during the Clinton years so let's take a good hard look at rolling the government back to those days.  It would be quite a bit smaller and cheaper satisfying conservatives and Clinton would get the credit, in theory, making Democrats happy.

      2. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Dream on LMC

      3. cindi h profile image60
        cindi hposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE THINKING WE CAN EVER PAY OFF OUR DEBT!!!!!


        http://www.rense.com/general75/amde.htm

        1. lovemychris profile image62
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It's a con game to begin with. The debt could be erased in a  second....as it doesn't exist! No such thing as a trillion dollars......you can't produce it, therefore, it isn't real.

          Let's set army's off against each other over an imaginary concept.

          I have a dollar...it's real. You cannot HAVE 1 trillion. You just cannot.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Casgil,

      Feel free to give your opinion in my hubs and threads all you want. I only request the the Cussing is left out. I do not leave it in anyones comments and I demand the same respect back. I really apreciate that. Besides if Hubpages sees it they will toss you out for violating the TOS.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hey AV, I censored myself. So, drop it. It's not like HP censored it.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Casgil,

          I politely ask to not do it again. "How f*&#ing ridiculous." is not censored. HP does not censor, they suspend and terminate. I was giving you fair warning before HP picks up on it. And no I will not drop it. There is already enough incivility in these threads that cussing is really not needed.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            roll What are you my mother?

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely right.  Government has no money that it doesn't tax away, inflate away or borrow.  All take money out of the private economy where it is used more efficiently than government would ever use it.

    4. IntimatEvolution profile image71
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well said Cags!!!

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I can't believe it's so hard for the US to figure out how to get out of this god-awful deficit problem.

    Here's what you do:

    CUT SPENDING MONEY, YOU FREAKING IDIOTS!!! THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS HAVE TO DO WHENEVER THEY HAVE BUDGET PROBLEMS!!!

    ... and there we go, the problem is solved.

    1. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Stop doling out money where it's not needed. As in tax cuts for Richistan.
      Then you don't HAVE to gut every program that makes America America.
      I LIKE the national parks and beaches.
      I WANT people to be able to eat and have a roof over their head. ALL people!
      I WANT healthcare for all.
      I WANT a good education system.
      Well maintained roads and bridges, ets.
      On and on and ON.

      Some people want to take from the country, and give it to the Russssshhhhh Limburgers of the word, so he can have 59 million instead of 57.

      Stupid!IMO, and as Obama said: Short-sighted.

      1. lovemychris profile image62
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "I Am A State Park Ambassador Because: It's devestating to see State Parks across the country diminishing and closing due to lack of funding. The only way to make people notice that this is a huge problem is to make the parks important to everyone. I want to help everyone to discover all the fun recreational opportunities that parks offer and the mental and physical benefits that come along with being active outdoors. I want others to enjoy the State Parks as much as I do and not only use these areas, but respect them as well. This is the perfect way to share everything I'm most passionate about!"

        http://www.americasstateparks.org/ambas … oberts.php

        ****
        What a d@m shame.
        Enjoy your extra 2 million Russsshhhhhhhh.
        We all know 57 mil is just not enough.
        Poor poor baby.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Heck Evan we actually agreed on something. Goes to show there may be help for Congress yet

  6. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Steve Sebelius:

    "For GOP , what's ideal gov't.? One too small to regulate business & industry, but large enough to hand out subsidies to business & industry?"

  7. thisisoli profile image73
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    If they just spend all that money then Inflation is going to be a real issue.

    Seriosu question, can someone link teh sources that confirm the Government is currently holding this money, and it is not jsut a budget allocation?

    If they have $2 trillion in budget, they may not be spending it because it wil increase debt levels.

  8. TMMason profile image69
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    We have had a "Free Market" in the last 30 years?...

    Wow?... I didn't realize that.

    I had thought that it was strangled with not only financial regulations, but the EPA and so many other agencies and regulations... that they were simply about dead by now.

    I mean how long can a man being strangled stand upon his own power?

    But my bad, bro... lol

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Business wants a 'free market' with

      no minimum wage
      no safety regulations
      no products safety regulations
      no wall street regulation
      no environmental regulations
      no pesticide regulations
      no food safety regulations
      no drug safety regulations

      They do want regulations to limit how much they can be liable for in civil liability suits.

  9. Paradise7 profile image83
    Paradise7posted 6 years ago

    I know there's milllions of jobless Americans; it just seems strange to me that we aren't poorer with all this joblessness.  I really don't see an elevated number of homeless people lining up at the soup kitchens, or anything like that.  People whine and complain about our economy and financial situation, without fully understanding it's more of a GLOBAL debt crisis, than simply an American problem.

    We are luckier than we know; we are suffering much less than people in other countries, particularly so-called third-world countries that American and international businesses have exploited in resources and labor pools for the past three decades.

    I don't see many starving Americans.  On the contrary:  we seem to have a national problem with overweight.

    It's easy to criticize Obama; the truth is, he stepped in where practically every other politico was afraid to tread.  And his emergency intervention measures prevented a resounding economic crash, worse that our Great Depression.

    Have some perspective, please!

  10. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    #4 Propaganda technique:

    "4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact."

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Those crazy "right wing" zealots at the Boston Herald and Boston University's History Department.

      http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_pol … id=1343353

      Or those wild eyed extremists at the Christian Science Monitor

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T … that-wrong

      or those Tea Party Parrots at the Los Angeles Times

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing … itish.html

      or that faithful stenographers of all things Palin at NPR

      http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636 … aul-revere

  11. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/ho … s-america/
    Nice article.

  12. Judi Burton profile image70
    Judi Burtonposted 6 years ago

    Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the republicans start this whole "were going broke" scenario? The TEA PARTY has been pushing the "balance the budget" mantra all year and have been holding the American people's programs such as Medicare, women's health and Social Security for ransom. Now they are using the debt ceiling, which has been described as a ticking time bomb as a chess piece. If it is not raised, like it has been 7 times by the bush administration, then we will all be at the community kitchen line.  So stop pointing fingers at ObAma and call your congressmen and tell him or her to stop playing with our prosperity and start cooperating. Otherwise we will no longer be number one because we cannot unite under adversity. Happy Independence Day.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Barry voted against raising the debt limit - sauce for the gander?  The soup line waits if we continue following in the footsteps of Greece.  The debt limit remaining the same as now only means the Federal government must live within the means provided it by revenue collection.  That process continues through out the year.  So the solution to Barry's dilemma is to put up the golf clubs and find a way to grow the economy thus creating more revenue to collect.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, no.THe Dems did as they used that excuse to blame the Bush tax cuts as the reason and they wanted to abolish them asd add taxes. The Repubs started using it as a rally cry for the mid-terms elections

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I asked days ago for you to source the 'quote' in the OP.

          Any statement that radical should have been picked up by some news organization.

          You have defended the OP fiercely, but the truth is in question. It appears you made it up.

          1. lovemychris profile image62
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "You have defended the OP fiercely, but the truth is in question. It appears you made it up."

  13. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    They don't want to unite, IMO.
    They want Obama to crash and burn, so we will come crawling back to their welfare for the rich policies that killed us.

    Oh please daddy---hurt me some more!!!

    4th of Malarkey.
    Right after the 3rd of Erase History.

    Salute to the military...that's about it.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      God Bless America!
      Happy Independence Day!
      Remember Bunker Hill!

  14. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    400 people are not broke. In fact, they have an iron ship full of imaginary money.

    They got it here, why don't they pay on it like the rest of us?

    Let's see.......35% of trillions.......times 400.......

    WOW!

    No need to throw gramma to the wolves!

  15. TMMason profile image69
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I keep hearing Van Jones and Left scream America is not broke... I wish someone would make up my mind. hmm

    1. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What's to make up....anything the left says-you disagree. Simple!

      Van Jones is right....as usual.

      Now let the wing-nut-bashing-brigade begin their oh-so-expected bashing:

      "Commie pinko marxist socialist anti-american piece of trash white-hating racist"....did I miss anything??

 
working