More accurate government projections

March 5th, 2010

Next time some government scheme costs more than we were told it would cost, viagra canada advice I think the people who made the projection (and/or endorsed it) should have to pay the difference.

Entry Filed under: Observations

9 Comments Add your own

  • 1. BobG  |  March 6th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    It has always been understood as a given that anything the government does will always cost more than we are told.

  • 2. Debunked  |  March 6th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Then Bush owes the government a couple trillion dollars.

    After all, wasn’t the Iraq War projected at $50-$60 billion and we’re somewhere between $1 and $2 trillion at the moment?

    Let’s not forget for the past thirty years, Republicans are the ones who have driven up the deficit (with respect to GDP). Reagan increased the national debt by over 300% (over four times the original amount) in his Presidency alone. It’s taken Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama to increase it another 300% combined!

  • 3. Elliot  |  March 8th, 2010 at 11:25 am

    I’m good with Bush ponying up. On a related note, does anyone know where FDR’s descendants live? ;)

  • 4. Debunked  |  March 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    If we’re counting FDR, do we get to count the surplus Social Security has had every year since it was created?

  • 5. Elliot  |  March 8th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Only if you can show me the lockbox it was stored away in.

  • 6. Debunked  |  March 8th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    The fact that the surplus is raided to pay for other things doesn’t preclude the fact that that program still has a trillion dollar, or more, surplus.

  • 7. Elliot  |  March 8th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Come on, Debunked, we both know that money was going into the general fund. It wasn’t being saved up for the coming rainy day.

  • 8. Debunked  |  March 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    The point was, you suggested that FDR has contributed a huge amount toward the current deficit.

    My rebuttal was that we didn’t have an unwieldy and unmanageable deficit until Reagan. And, further, that some of the programs FDR put in place actually still have a massive surplus (i.e. Social Security) which you would need to account for when you look at “how much his descendants owe.” The fact that new laws and programs raid that surplus for their gain should not be seen as a failure of FDR’s program.

    You can’t just look at the red. You have to subtract it from the green – and the Social Security program gives him quite a high green bar to subtract from.

  • 9. Elliot  |  March 8th, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Oh, you misunderstood me. When I referenced FDR I was talking about the upcoming entitlements crash not the current deficit.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments