Atlanta Weather

| Traffic

Search
Kyle Wingfield

On deficits and health care

3:42 pm September 11, 2009, by Kyle Wingfield

Here, courtesy of Calafia Beach Pundit, are two important graphs to keep in mind during the health-care debate, with all the attendant talk about federal budget deficits.

As the graphs illustrate so well, the current decline in revenues and rise in expenditures — leading to such a yawning budget deficit — are far more dramatic than at any other point in time shown. And as CBP notes, things are going to continue to worsen:

Revenues look like they might bottoming later this year, with the 3-mo. annual spending rate falling at an 11% rate today versus a 28% rate just a few months ago. But spending is growing at almost a 20% annual clip over the past 3 and 6 months, and we have yet to see the bulk of the $787 billion [stimulus] spending package get spent.

If revenues are still falling at a rate of 11 percent, and expenditures rising at a 20 percent clip, that budget gap is only going to get wider.

And ObamaCare, with a price tag of $900 billion at a bare minimum, and quite possibly much more, would come on top of the stimulus package…which comes on top of the deficits already shown.

Also, check out the John Stossel column that CBP links to. This is the polar opposite of ObamaCare and has no chance of passing anytime soon, if ever. But it does illustrate well that there are far more options than Obama’s plan or the status quo.

  • Print

5 comments Add your comment

jconservative

September 11th, 2009
4:27 pm

Re the medicare trust fund – the Reagan administration pushed through a measure that allowed Treasury to “loan” the trust fund money to the general fund. There is a trust fund, but it is in the form of IOUs from Treasury. When medicare starts to redeem the IOUs the government will probably raise taxes for the money to pay off the IOUs.

So the people were taxed for the money & will be taxed again for the money to pay off their tax money loaned to the government.

Is this a great country or what.

David Axelfraud

September 11th, 2009
5:36 pm

It sure is quite over here. Maybe Kyle should write some crazy lying headline like Bookman likes to write.

I have one: Move On.org members are nazis and they eat cow dung.

That should attract every one of Bookmans cult.

@@

September 11th, 2009
6:57 pm

Nice Sept. 11th tribute downstairs, Kyle. Between you, jay and Jim, you’re the only one who remembered. I must say…jay’s neglect was no surprise. Jim’s was.

Anyhoo, I’d first like to apologize to David Axelfraud. I would have thought that some of your stalkers had already mentioned your banning. We all know how they/she likes to make the rounds pointing it out. She and the many like her. She wears it (under many names) as though it signifies her greatest accomplishment. It probably is when I think about it — AJC Blog Goddess, Whoopeeeeee.

Thppbbbbt.

Kyle, you haven’t been around all that long. A word of advice…don’t believe the liberals when they call for you to promote civility. Civility has nothing to do with what they’re seeking. They’re all about incivility…they’re masters at the game. Don’t be fooled.

Let’s take Chris Salzmann as an instance…read through her posts…she’s targeting one individual with each post. She’s stalking.

Now, go back to your Michael Steele thread. Notice David Axelfraud’s exchanges with all the other posters. What you’re seeing is reasoned debate. He’s very capable of it when offered. What he refuses to tolerate, and I don’t blame him, is direct attacks without the opportunity to respond in kind. He’ll do his dead-level best to adhere to your rules but a blogger can only be expected to take so much abuse. He’s taken more than his share over the years. He’s also given as good as he got.

I was there when jay banned him. His attacks were no more vicious than those launched against him. jay made a decision. It was the wrong decision in my opinion. Free speech is free speech. It’s either supported or it’s not. I support it fully and without bias.

People can ignore that which they choose to. If their personal agenda (stalking) is hidden, they won’t be able to though. It’s they who have the problem, not David Axelfraud.

I like what Jim Wooten said some time back after suffering personal attacks against him daily. They would then complain when a conservative hit back in his defense. The liberals would then call for civility. Jim came on and said (paraphrasing) “When I present my columns, I’ve had my say. I now offer the opportunity for you to have yours.”

Now about your column. I am no economist but from what I’ve been reading this economy ain’t lookin’ good. Smoke and mirrors. The liberals, however, have placed all their HOPES in a slick talking community organizer who the MSM supported and shores up to this day. A Democrat whose party IS about taxing us with and for their mistakes. The worst is yet to come.

It’s cruel when people aren’t told the truth.

David Axelfraud

September 11th, 2009
10:25 pm

@@, thanks for explaining that to Mr. Wingfield. Jay rarely ever calls out libs and when someone hits a little close to home he bans the blogger. I was personally attacked on just about every single Bookman blog by other bloggers yet Jay would call me out. Chris Salzmann is a hypocrite by trying to claim that she is innocent. I do get nasty at times but its to make a point to the “tolerant” libs. Anyway, thanks.

@@

September 11th, 2009
10:53 pm

Any time, comrade. The few (what was it…two?) liberals that he banned have been invited back. I guess yours got lost in the mail, huh?

Enjoy your weekend, Commie.