Hang on, I mention the fact that WSJ is hopelessly biased, and you respond with a link to an even more biased source?
Ok, let's back up and try to engage your brain for a second. So you have a set of 10 year projections there. Those are predictions about the future. With me so far?
Now think about what they were on January 15, 2009 as opposed to January 25, 2009.
Do you think that the act of Obama taking office changed the future and mandated a ton of future government spending? Or do you think these might be fundamentals that we were going to have to deal with regardless?
For bonus points: How much of those future deficits would you guess have to do with the increasing cost of healthcare?
And I'll leave out entirely what they might look like if we hadn't just endured 8 years of studied fingers-in-the-ears idiocy from the Bush administration. Remember that surplus in 2000?
Heritage and WSJ are concerned about deficits. Who did they support in 2000 again?
You asked for a second source, you have it: the CBO and the White House. The fact that heritage put CBO numbers onto a graph does not make them invalid.
I asked for a second source regarding the financial reform bill. I'm well aware of the approximate projected size of our federal deficit, thanks.
The fact that Heritage supported Reagan, opposed Clinton, supported Bush and now claim to be concerned about deficits says a lot about the Heritage Foundation.
EDIT: Awesome, downvoted for clarifying a willful misinterpretation of my original comment. Ladies and gentlemen, your conservative movement -- it's not about facts, it's about which side you're on.
You were given several other sources for that as well, all of which were posted here. You also criticized another source simply for being conservative, which is what I was responding to.
Regardless, please clarify your point. Do you believe the WSJ is lying about the contents of the bill? If not, then what is the relevance of pointing out their opinion on other political matters?
I believe they're extremely prone to exaggerate any bad parts, and there was room for a lot of weaseling in their descriptions. Especially considering that the bill isn't finished yet.
I'm still waiting to see the death panels. Since they'd never lie, of course.
I didn't criticize Heritage for being conservative. I criticized Heritage for being Republican, regardless of principle or policy.
EDIT: To clarify, it's entirely possible that the provisions in the bill still being written are just as bad as the WSJ says. It's also possible that they're significantly less bad. Regardless of which they are, the WSJ would have written this exact article. Does that make my complaint regarding their worth more clear?
