# "The Rapidly Shrinking Federal Deficit" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454 "2013-04-12T00:05:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/81 "2013-04-15T23:25:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Again, this is nonsense. Revenues are a “cost”. > > You keep pretending that Sean Hannity was talking about the deficit, when he was talking about taxes, aka revenues. > > And on the basis of this distortion, _you’re_ calling _him_ a liar. Weird. Sean Hannity constantly tells his audience that the ACA is going to cost the Federal Government ‘trillions of dollars’ when it is not. It is paid for through taxes and cost cutting. All new taxes come from those who can afford it and from corporations that make lots of money off the health care industry. That is a lie unless the Hannity’s of this world can provide some kind of impartial experts to conclude that Obama Care is going to be off the CBO’s assessment by ‘trillions’ … It would not be a lie to say it was off by millions. But Trillions. Come on. There is nothing honest about it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/82 "2013-04-15T23:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, this is nonsense. Revenues are a “cost”. Revenues are not a cost to the Federal Treasury. CBO determines if a law is balanced on expenditures vs Revenues. CBO still says the ACA spends less that it takes in over ten years. It is even better after 20. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/83 "2013-04-16T00:34:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Sean Hannity constantly tells his audience that the ACA is going to cost the Federal Government ‘trillions of dollars’ when it is not. It is paid for through taxes and cost cutting. All new taxes come from those who can afford it and from corporations that make lots of money off the health care industry. > > That is a lie unless the Hannity’s of this world can provide some kind of impartial experts to conclude that Obama Care is going to be off the CBO’s assessment by ‘trillions’ … It would not be a lie to say it was off by millions. But Trillions. Come on. There is nothing honest about it. I don’t know what SH “constantly tells his audience”, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about what you said in this thread, post #5. And there, you quoted SH saying that “… ObamaCare will cost the Taxpayer …”. Again, that’s the taxpayer. Not the Federal Government. You’re trying to change the assertion in order to fit your argument. I do agree with you about being honest, however. It’s a very good idea. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/84 "2013-04-16T01:04:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know what SH “constantly tells his audience”, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about what you said in this thread, post #5. And there, you quoted SH saying that “… ObamaCare will cost the Taxpayer …”. > > Again, that’s the taxpayer. Not the Federal Government. You’re trying to change the assertion in order to fit your argument. > > I do agree with you about being honest, however. It’s a very good idea. So is this being honest? > [@](#): > > - ObamaCare will add $6.2 trillion to our deficits over the long-term, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. > > Revisiting ObamaCare March 12, 2013 > > [Sean Hannity](http://www.hannity.com/article/revisiting-obamacare/16889) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/85 "2013-04-16T01:49:05Z")
> [@](#): > > - ObamaCare was sold to the American public as costing $900 billion over ten years. That cost has now sky-rockted to $2.6 trillion over ten years, according to the Senate Budget Committee based on CBO estimates. > > Revisiting ObamaCare March 12, 2013 > > [Sean Hannity](http://www.hannity.com/article/revis...bamacare/16889) What Changed from January 2013? > [@](#): > > By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ANDREW TAYLOR > > Associated Press January 28, 2013 > > WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul will shrink rather than increase the nation’s huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama’s contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans. > [http://theadvocate.com/news/business/3432877-123/budget-office-health-law-to](http://theadvocate.com/news/business/3432877-123/budget-office-health-law-to) ---
**Author:** ![LaughingMoon93](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecb155/32.png) [@LaughingMoon93](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LaughingMoon93)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/86 "2013-04-16T06:49:01Z")
I believe the invention of the credit card is what caused inflation to begin with. because now there is a higher demand to print the money, as people get into debts and whatever happens to the card holder --who’s paying that debt? we all are. through higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher taxes. We need to go back to the days before there were credit cards. lower everything back down again, lower the prices and wages and you also lower the demands to print the money. Who’s idea was it to invent the credit card? why should we all have to suffer for a risk those bankers took? Not once did they stop to think what would happen if the cardholder becomes deceased, etc… instead of admitting they were wrong and fix it, they want to make everyone suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/87 "2013-04-16T11:36:53Z")
I don’t think that theory holds up in the face of looking at what has been affected by inflation recently (i.e. past 10 years): housing, food, medical care. The one thing whose price has risen lately that would be affected by the availability of cash through credit cards is gasoline. The other three that I mentioned are either not typically paid for by credit cards, or are necessities that people will buy regardless, or both. Whereas things that people do buy with credit cards, like restaurant meals, clothes, automobiles, services, have gone up slightly, but not as much as the other stuff I have mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/88 "2013-04-16T14:54:46Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I don’t think that theory holds up in the face of looking at what has been affected by inflation recently (i.e. past 10 years): housing, food, medical care. The one thing whose price has risen lately that would be affected by the availability of cash through credit cards is gasoline. The other three that I mentioned are either not typically paid for by credit cards, or are necessities that people will buy regardless, or both. Whereas things that people do buy with credit cards, like restaurant meals, clothes, automobiles, services, have gone up slightly, but not as much as the other stuff I have mentioned. As a corollary, things like credit cards and maybe even checks, allowed us as a people to extend our earnings in such a way that a lot of us are living beyond our means. Without the credit card or ‘credit’ in general none of this would be possible. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/89 "2013-04-16T17:03:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s true that a lot of it was mandatory spending, but **a lot of the eligibility requirements for mandatory spending were changed, thus the huge increase** , besides the recession. The disability rolls continue to go up,\*\* food stamp eligibility was increased\*\*, unemployment went to 99 weeks and I believe remains there for now. With the exception of unemployment, which is bipartisan, the eligibility changes were the result of Democratic changes to the law. Do you have a cite for the bolded part above? I’ve heard these claims before, but I’ve never seen an actual cite that Obama changed eligibility requirements for entitlements. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/90 "2013-04-16T17:52:56Z")
[http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm](http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm) By August 2008, participation had reached an all-time (non-disaster) high of 29 million people per month. The participation increases occurred at a time when eligibility for food stamp benefits expanded as a result of the 2002 Farm Bill. Moreover, there was a consistent focus on outreach and improved access to FSP benefits. Some of the most recent increase in participation may be caused by the current economic slowdown and the recent rise in unemployment rates. During this time, payment accuracy continued to improve and the program set a new payment error rate record for fiscal year 2007 of 5.64. The 2008 farm bill (H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) was enacted May 22, 2008 through an override of the President’s veto. The new law increased the commitment to Federal food assistance programs by more than $10 billion over the next 10 years. In efforts to fight stigma, the law changed the name of the Federal program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP as of Oct. 1, 2008, and changed the name of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. States maintained flexibility to name the program on their own but were encouraged to change the name to SNAP or another alternate name. In fact, more than ten States had already changed the names of their programs by this time. Significantly, the 2008 Farm Bill also institutionalized priorities that FNS had focused on for many years including strengthening integrity; simplifying administration; maintaining State flexibility; improving health through nutrition education; and improving access. Benefits were augmented for most households on Oct. 1, 2008, due to the increase in the minimum benefit and standard deduction and elimination of the cap on the deduction for child care expenses. The new law also expanded eligibility by indexing the asset limits to inflation and excluding combat pay, and most retirement and education accounts as countable resources. The law modernized the program by acknowledging EBT as the standard issuance vehicle and de-obligating coupons one year from enactment. The Farm Bill also provided $20 million in mandatory funding for a project to test point-of-purchase incentives for healthful foods and authorized appropriations for other similar projects. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/91 "2013-04-16T17:54:20Z")
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/eveningnews/ondemand/main4918168.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/eveningnews/ondemand/main4918168.shtml) The government’s stimulus package is giving a much smaller bonus to people on the bottom end of the economic ladder - the more than 32 million Americans who rely on food stamps. That’s one out of 10 Americans, an all-time record high. But that may change this month when every American on food stamps (or “nutrition assistance” as it’s now known) will find 13 percent more money on their state-issued debit cards. It’s stimulus money. And while it will certainly help the Fosters, its really aimed at thieir grocer, who stands to make an extra $25,000 a week, enabling him to hire up to five more part-time workers. Here’s how much extra you get depending on family size: [http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/recovery/recovery-snap.htm](http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/recovery/recovery-snap.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/92 "2013-04-16T17:54:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > [snip] See post 66. I asked you a question. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/93 "2013-04-16T18:19:41Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > The economic argument that I hear against tax increases is that they will deter investments; people will be less inclined to risk their money if taxes will reduce their potential gains. And yet internet companies in the '90s attracted huge investments, spurring the economic growth of that period. So yes, Clinton enjoyed a thriving economy during his term, but it was exactly the sort of boom that critics of tax increases say can’t happen. I don’t think that anyone says that economic prosperity is absolutely impossible when taxes are higher. But there is no denying that taxes cause some transactions not to occur when they otherwise would be beneficial. IOW, the internet boom occurred in spite of higher tax rates, or at least had no affect on it, but certainly didn’t happen because of them. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Taxes, by themselves, do not lead to a better economy. But spending on education, roads, a justice system, etc. absolutely lead to a better economy. When we start constraining investment in these things because of a sizable mismatch between revenues and expenditures, it is probably a much better thing in the long term to increase taxes to have a decently-educated workforce, the infrastructure to move good around, and so on. You mention basic things. Since the founding of the republic (or shortly thereafter for education) we’ve had public education, roads, and police. Nobody is talking about cutting taxes so low that the infrastructure crumbles. Taxes are a necessary evil in that regard because police, roads, and (well, police and roads) are not efficient in a market based system. Not everything is because of the tragedy of the commons and what not and the inability to exclude non-payers. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/94 "2013-04-16T18:37:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > [http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm](http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm) > [@adaher](#): > > [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/eveningnews/ondemand/main4918168.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/eveningnews/ondemand/main4918168.shtml) > Here’s how much extra you get depending on family size: > > [http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/recovery/recovery-snap.htm](http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/recovery/recovery-snap.htm) Thanks for the cites, although they do not answer the claim that Obama has expanded eligibility for entitlements. Everything in the first article happened before he was president, and the second article talks about increased payouts to those already eligible. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/95 "2013-04-16T19:04:24Z")
Well, he was in the Senate and it was passed over Bush’s veto. And the stimulus also increased food stamp benefits, which increases the mandatory budget. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/96 "2013-04-16T20:33:24Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t think that anyone says that economic prosperity is absolutely impossible when taxes are higher. But there is no denying that taxes cause some transactions not to occur when they otherwise would be beneficial. IOW, the internet boom occurred in spite of higher tax rates, or at least had no affect on it, but certainly didn’t happen because of them. I haven’t claimed that the boom happened as a result of the tax increase. And there is also no denying that we had a thriving economy shortly after an increase in income tax rates, so it’s clearly possible. And there aren’t all the many tax increases we can study to see what the results should be. There’s not much evidence to convince me that the '90s were a fluke. But my main point was that two arguments I hear regarding the Clinton era, that tax increases hurt the economy and that his budgetary performance looks better than it should because he was lucky enough to be in office during the internet boom, are somewhat at odds. I can’t swear that I’ve heard any one person make both those claims; they may just be cases of throwing ideas around to see what sticks. But if anyone wants to convince me of one of these ideas, they’re going to need a good explanation for the other. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/97 "2013-04-17T12:46:28Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > But my main point was that two arguments I hear regarding the Clinton era, that tax increases hurt the economy and that his budgetary performance looks better than it should because he was lucky enough to be in office during the internet boom, are somewhat at odds. Republicans defer to “luck” if a Democratic President’ fiscal methods occur during a boom. But there is no fair objectivity coming from Republicans in dealing with the first black president’s term in office who has to operate under a tremendous loss of revenue due to millions of Americans left out of work by the Bush recession. Although the economy has been steadily growing under Obama, it is not seen as robust soon enough. There is no ‘luck induced boom’ to launch a 5% GDP outside of Fed policy, so Obama is critized for not being lucky I guess. Which gets back to the topic of this thread. Why do Republicans get away with lying about Obama’s economic record and what can be done about it. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/98 "2013-04-17T18:02:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So is this being honest? I don’t know. I would have to see his source. I imagine it depends on how far out he is looking. No difference to me anyway. I am not wedded to defending Sean Hannity’s every utterance. I was just observing that your claim in this specific instance was bogus. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > All new taxes come from those who can afford it and from corporations that make lots of money off the health care industry. This is seriously misleading at best. All the taxes on corporations are going to be passed along to the people who purchase their services, who will see this in the form of higher insurance premiums. (Similarly, cuts in reimbursement to Medicare/Medicaid providers comes out of the fees paid by private payers for these services.) And the tax on durable medical equipment will be paid for by the common people as well. These taxes were done very sneakily, but will be paid just the same. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/99 "2013-04-18T00:04:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know. I would have to see his source. I imagine it depends on how far out he is looking. > > No difference to me anyway. I am not wedded to defending Sean Hannity’s every utterance. I was just observing that your claim in this specific instance was bogus. How do you know what I wrote is bogus and Hannity’s is true if you have not checked Hannity’s source. So you don’t know that mine is bogus. You are just guessing. Why do you call my point bogus if you don’t know the facts? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454/100 "2013-04-18T02:10:05Z")
This is a new response to previous claims/comments by puddleglum that I have not had a chance to reply: > [@](#): > > (A) “When it was first passed ObamaCare was advertised as contained 1.4 trillion in deficit savings.” -puddleglum #012 04-12-2013 11:39 AM 102a1139. ObamaCare was initially advertised as having around $124 billion in deficit reduction over ten years. Not much has changed in all successive CBO scoring. -Ntfldbw107p {{ So far, there has been little change in CBO’s projections of the effects of the Affordable Care Act since the original score of the final legislation. It was originally scored as reducing the deficit by $124 billion from 2010-2019 (excluding the student loan provisions) and was scored last year as doing so by $119 billion from 2012-2019. Over a comparable period of 2012-2019, the net cost of coverage provisions has gone down by $6 billion from the original score to the most recent score. [Fiscal Fact Checker (Revisited): CBO's Record on Scoring the Affordable Care Act-2012-06-06](http://crfb.org/blogs/fiscal-fact-checker-revisited-cbos-record-scoring-affordable-care-act) }} The original CBO ten year costs from March 2010 of final legislation was under $940 billion. that had a deficit reduction of $124 billion. Therefore, your “$1.4 trillion in deficit savings” is quite innaccurate. Where did you get that figure. It is at least $300 billion off, if you meant it to be the net balance between costs and savings/Revenues. -Ntfldbw107p > [@](#): > > (B) “It quickly became clear that the 700 billion CLASS was going to save was unworkable.” -puddleglum #012 04-12-2013 11:39 AM 102a1139. I have no idea what $700 billion in savings you are talking about. There has been no change in projected savings of that magnitude from original estimates. -Ntfldbw107p > [@](#): > > (C) “Next the taxes the new rules on 1099s was supposed to raise were overturned.” -puddleglum #012 04-12-2013 11:39 AM 102a1139. Cite what you are talking about here. -Ntfldbw107p > [@](#): > > (D) “Now ObamaCare is supposed to be just revenue neutral.” -puddleglum #012 04-12-2013 11:39 AM 102a1139. See (A) and (B). If you claim the ACA was scored with $1.4 trillion savings in (A) and then you claim in (B) that $700 billion of that savings was wiped out, and if the ACA was initially scored with roughly $940 billlion in costs, then it is mathematically impossible for you to claim that ‘now’ ObamaCare is “just revenue neutral.” Why should we believe any of what you wrote if your simple math does not add up? -Ntfldbw107p > [@](#): > > (E) “There has been a change in the projections that have added a trillion dollars to the cost of ObamaCare since it was passed and it has not even been implemented yet.” -puddleglum #012 04-12-2013 11:39 AM 102a1139. But in (D) you claim that the ACA is ‘now’ revenue neutral. How can that be? You have said $700 billion in savings was lost, and now you claim that $1 trillion in cost has been added. Your numbers are as wild as Sean Hannity’s and other right wing radio talkers. -Ntfldbw107p > [@](#): > > (F) “Given the history of government healthcare projections I expect more cost increases as implementation grows imminent.” -puddleglum #012 04-12-2013 11:39 AM 102a1139. Again, what you have claimed has “Now” happened does not add up. Why should we consider that your projections into the future have any credibility at all? -Ntfldbw107p [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit/655454.md?page=6)