LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 128
0 members and 128 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 01-07-2011, 09:42 AM   #4742
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Run them with Medicare's numbers adjusted for 9.5% unemployment (attendant reduction in Medicare taxes) through 2013, 8.0 from 2013 through 2016, and 7.0 from 2016 through 2020. Also, run them with the 3.8% increase in unearned income tax adjusted to assume 1/3 fewer individuals paying it. See where those numbers come out.
Do you know the CBO will run numbers like this at the request of a member? Why do the think the Republicans haven't asked for such a projection?

My own suspicion is that such a projection would show such an enormous deficit in general, disregarding the Affordable Care Act, that it would make a strong case against any tax cuts, and, indeed, would almost necessitate finding some revenue somewhere. The ACA would be a relatively modest worry compared to the imbalance that would produce in Social Security and in the general accounts.

Yes, at some point, if you project bad economic numbers, the revenue raising elements of the bill raise less money and the expenditure side of the bill costs more. But if you project a 15 year recession, I think you're projecting us being all around generally screwed, unless someone can gin up a world war or something.
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.