$1.75 trillion federal budget deficit

[DanS]

He's right. For the last 30 years politicians have been fiddling with the way we calculate things like unemployment and inflation in order to lower them and make the politicians look better.

This is a well known and respected site which calculates such figures using the traditional methods from the 1970's and 1960's instead of the gerrymandered system the politicians have fiddled with: http://www.shadowstats.com/

That site is amazing. Charge $175 per year for a conspiracy theory.

[Theben]

But you're right about it being overpriced.

[Arrian]

I assume you're talking about the U-6 rate, Che?

According to this: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

It was 13.9% as of January.

-Arrian

[Naked Gents Rut]

Not since Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt has a president moved to expand the role of government so much on so many fronts -- and with such a demanding sense of urgency.

The scope of President Obama's ambition was laid bare in the budget blueprint issued Thursday.

The budget would account for 24.1% of next year's estimated gross domestic product, one of the highest percentages since World War II, and would raise taxes, redistribute income, spend more on social programs than on defense, and implement policies that touch almost every aspect of Americans' lives -- their banks, healthcare, schools, even the air they breathe.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-budget-assess27-2009feb27,0,5874116.story

[Lorizael]

The budget would ... implement policies that touch almost every aspect of Americans' lives -- their banks, healthcare, schools, even the air they breathe.

Oh no! This will be such a vast and dramatic change from the virtually unregulated, laissez faire-esque society we live in now!

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took another view. "The era of big government is back..."

Err, it was gone?

[-Jrabbit]

I have several sources that can supply conspiracy theories absolutely free.

[Jon Miller]

As far as I can tell, it is just that democrats have finally discovered that the name of the game is government growth and are following the republicans in doing so (but doing it with social programs..).

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

The Medicare prescription drug plan wasn't a social program?

What you're really saying is that Obama is doubling down on the failed budgetary policies of Bush. I miss Clinton more and more each day...

[Ramo]

Medicare Part D was a corporate welfare program.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It didn't provide ANY social benefit then? Let's not get silly.

[Theben]

I have several sources that can supply conspiracy theories absolutely free.

You mean posters on this site?

[Ramo]

It didn't provide ANY social benefit then? Let's not get silly.

I didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that it was a corporate welfare program. It subsidizes private competitors to Medicare (Medicare Advantage), and forces the government to refuse bargaining with drug companies over prices (something that no other large institution does). There's an important distinction here that tends to get lost when people try to group it together with programs that the Dems would propose.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It does give corporate welfare, but it also does cover some costs for drugs. When they compare it to 'programs that the Dems would propose', they are refering to massive social programs, not the specifics. And, then again, the Dems don't mind a little corporate welfare either .

[Ramo]

But the specifics are pretty important. It's corporate welfare on a scale that would be pretty hard to match. My point is that painting the Dem agenda as more of Medicare Part D is total nonsense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The objection to it is more (usually, domestic) spending, which is part of the Dem agenda.