The economist that was the source of that $18 trillion number said it was horribly misleading. It effectively left off the part that it would otherwise cost $15 trillion anyway, and that’s before the savings. Net would probably be no additional net spending.
[quote=SK in CV]
The economist that was the source of that $18 trillion number said it was horribly misleading. It effectively left off the part that it would otherwise cost $15 trillion anyway, and that’s before the savings. Net would probably be no additional net spending.[/quote]
The problem with most government spending is the spending part is usually underestimated and the revenue part is over estimated. Even if it’s not, the popular thing to do later on is the cut the funding sources. Look at Obamacare. Two of the highest priorities that have a chance to be passed are cutting the medical device tax and cutting the Cadillac tax. So we are going to cut the 2 biggest funding sources for the law but keep the spending.
