Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist_McDrowner]

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Funny you should say that

[RedKing]

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Funny you should say that

And it was a shitty rhetorical device when he used it too. I don't think it's fair to say Bush was "unpatriotic" by breaking the bank to give rich people a tax break. Short-sighted, irresponsible, and unfortunate (much like GWB himself). But not unpatriotic.

[Urist_McDrowner]

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Funny you should say that

And it was a shitty rhetorical device when he used it too. I don't think it's fair to say Bush was "unpatriotic" by breaking the bank to give rich people a tax break. Short-sighted, irresponsible, and unfortunate (much like GWB himself). But not unpatriotic.

I just think it's interesting that you're going to vote for a guy who calls himself irresponsible and unpatriotic. By his own metric, he's more irresponsible and unpatriotic.

[mainiac]

Sorry, what I meant to say was "Something that the CBO said would be effective.", so that rules out the vast majority of Democrat policies. Not the Path to Prosperity, however.

Did you miss the memo when the CBO said the ACA, the signature democratic proposal, reduced the deficit?  Did you miss the memo when the CBO said that this was without even counting most of the payment reforms as deficit reducing?

When democrats balance the budget they actually suggest raising revenues and cutting spending.  The ACA ended payments to banks for handling student loans, reduced physician payments in medicare, stopped paying some hospitals for some procedures and raised taxes on high income individuals.  None of this was speculative.  And they did not assume one dime of deficit reduction from their manage care reforms and the like even though everyone expects these sort of initiatives to save money.

The CBO never said the Path to Prosperity would improve the deficit.  The CBO said that decades later we'd have a balanced budget if you use Ryan's revenue assumptions.  The CBO didn't evaluate how much money his tax proposals would raise, he asked for a budget assuming revenue targets were hit.  You seem to link the CBO website so read the first paragraph of the first page here:
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

Notice how this isn't talking about any budget proposals (except repealing the ACA subsidies).  It's just talking about targets.  Yes his targets are a balanced budget (eventually).  But he hasn't actually proposed a budget that would hit those targets.  The CBO goes on to repeat several times how this is not a cost estimate for legislation, it's an estimate of his targets.

But even given that Ryan is just painting optimistic assumptions without details you need to look at table 1 and realize that over the next decade he actually proposes increasing the deficit compared to current law.  He just assumes that a decade from now some congress will do the heavy lifting to cut spending for him.  A lot changes in a decade, that's why the CBO likes to focus on the 10 year time frame.

So democrats make their signature proposal a set of spending cuts and tax increases and get it into law and you say they are irresponsible.  Republicans run on a platform of tax cuts now funded by someone else doing the hard work more then a decade down the line.  And you say the CBO judges it as working.  But the CBO said no such thing.

I just think it's interesting that you're going to vote for a guy who calls himself irresponsible and unpatriotic. By his own metric, he's more irresponsible and unpatriotic.

No he is not.  Obama didn't pass the tax cuts or crash the economy.  Those are the reasons we have the deficit.  Without them, no deficit.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Obama said adding 4 trillion to the debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible. If you'd actually read the CBO, the Bush tax cuts expiring on the top would give the federal government 20 billion, and around 200 billion if they expired for everyone. But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?

http://cbo.gov/publication/43076

Anyway, the ACA, as the CBO notes when it isn't forced to use Obama's numbers and Obama's math, actually costs more, to the tune of 1.76 trillion, and it points out premiums rise. Watch the Paul Ryan-Geithner exchange. Obama's budget plan is a failure. The government's position deteriorates according to his own numbers rapidly after 10 years.

[RedKing]

Did you actually read what you linked?

First off, they're saying that "Hey, it's not projected to cost as much as we thought previously", and second, there's an actual data table that shows the government expenditures on ACA pretty much steady from 1017-1022 (less than 10% increase over that span). Annual net outlays would be in the range of $150-160 billion. Which is nothing to sneeze at by a long shot, but is still roughly 1/5 the Pentagon's budget.


EDIT: And going back to your last post, you're arguing apples and walruses.
1. ACA would not add $4 trillion to the debt. The CBO report you linked to projects an 11-year net outlay of $1.252 trillion. That's an outlay. It only becomes debt if Congress refuses to find a way to help pay for it (which at this point, seems to be pretty much a given for most Federal programs).

2. By your own admission, Obama could have pushed to let the Bush tax cuts expire for *everyone* and raised $200 billion in revenue. But he didn't, and in fact allowed the cuts to stand *for everyone*, including the top earners, rather than see taxes go up for the lower and middle classes. Then you follow up with

But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?

  If that's their objective, they're really, really bad at it.

3. You cite this larger figure of $1.76 trillion (again, over 11 years) on the ACA but provide no source or link. And seem to insinuate that math itself is partisan.

4. You close with a comment about Obama's budget plan being a failure. The ACA is one piece of the budget, and taxation is one piece of the revenues. You just kinda tossed four diffferent things into the blender and threw the result against the wall to see what'll stick.

Honestly, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling.



As far as balancing the budget, I'm all for it. I'm curious how you feel about the Republicans agreeing to the supercommittee/'automatic penalty' scheme several months ago, and now trying like all hell to wriggle out of it? As you may remember, it was agreed that the budget would be handed over to a 12-member committee from both chambers and both parties, to hammer out a budget with sufficient cuts in all areas that would be acceptable to both parties. It failed utterly.

The agreed-upon "failsafe" position was a pretty draconian, but fair across-the-board reduction in everything. To the tune of $1.2 trillion. Of course, because DoD is such a large portion of the budgetary pie, it's getting a proportionately large bite of the reduction. And now the Republicans are screaming bloody murder and saying "Ok, we agreed to automatic cuts including defense, but we didn't actually MEAN IT!!"

It's sad. It's like an alcoholic who lets you lock up his hooch in a safe and throw away the key, then proceeds to gets the DTs and is trying to smash the lock. And now is claiming it's "un-American" not to let him renege on his deal and get stinkin' drunk.

Honestly, I think any real budgetary hawk should welcome the automatic cuts. It's about the only way to actually get Congress to enact serious budgetary reform, and it allows them political cover by saying their hands were tied.

[Reelya]

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA
because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause
significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added
tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT
have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over
the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA
has not been updated.

That's from the cbo report you linked.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

I don't know why you'd look at net costs only and ignore saving and revenue which the cbo claims "will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period". All from the same report you linked.

[GreatJustice]

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA
because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause
significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added
tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT
have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over
the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA
has not been updated.

That's from the cbo report you linked.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

I don't know why you'd look at net costs only and ignore saving and revenue which the cbo claims "will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period". All from the same report you linked.

Okay, a couple of things here:

-Obamacare saves the federal government a fair bit of money in the short term, but almost all of the savings is simply transferred to state governments in the form of administrative costs, etc

-In practical terms, the ACA has a pile of unintended consequences. For example, because businesses over 50 employees have to pay medical coverage either directly or indirectly, its likely many businesses will lay off workers in a rush to avoid that, leading to a pile of 49 employee businesses. Also, because preexisting conditions have to be covered, and if you make under a certain income you don't have to pay for not having insurance, its a no brainer that you won't buy insurance until you need it, and then you squeeze it for every penny when you have the chance.

-The CBO has a terrible track record of predicting costs, ESPECIALLY in the healthcare sector. In 1965, the Ways and Means Committee estimated the total costs of Medicare Part A to cost $9 billion per year by 1990, when it actually cost $67 billion by that time. Estimations of many other healthcare related costs were also way off base, even recently.

[RedKing]

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BUY VIAGRA CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

-In practical terms, the ACA has a pile of unintended consequences. For example, because businesses over 50 employees have to pay medical coverage either directly or indirectly, its likely many businesses will lay off workers in a rush to avoid that, leading to a pile of 49 employee businesses.

I'm skeptical that there's a slew of 50-60 employee businesses out there that are going to cause mass unemployment this way. Beyond ~55 employees, you're significantly impacting your ability to operate if you cut your staff that much (a 10%+ reduction for a staff of 55 to 49). If a company is able to reduce its force and continue operations, then more power to them -- the ACA is the Invisible Hand, making the company leaner and more efficient.

If it's not able to continue full operations, then either it rehires staff, or it falters and loses out to competition. Again, Invisible Hand at work.

-The CBO has a terrible track record of predicting costs, ESPECIALLY in the healthcare sector. In 1965, the Ways and Means Committee estimated the total costs of Medicare Part A to cost $9 billion per year by 1990, when it actually cost $67 billion by that time. Estimations of many other healthcare related costs were also way off base, even recently.

And I'm sure the skyrocketing cost of medical care in general had nothing to do with that. 
CBO shouldn't be thumped for not predicting in 1965 that a 2-day hospital stay would cost a few thousand dollars in 1990, as opposed to a few hundred in 1965.


@Nadaka:
Joe the Plumber is the only person I know of that makes Sarah Palin look like Stephen Hawking.
As for the other one....well, there's your NRA poster girl. Responsible gun owner, that one.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-plumber-unfiltered-build-damn-fence-start-shooting-160930403--abc-news-politics.html

"Joe the plumber" (Samuel Wurzelbacher) who isn't joe, or a plumber, and "is running for congress" and feels like we should build a fence across the border and shoot us some mexicans.

Also mentioned is Lori Klein (Az State Sen R) who pointed a gun at a reporters chest to show him the laser while mentioning the gun doesn't have a safety last year. She is getting reelected.

Seriously.

Fuck.

[Lord Shonus]

But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?

Unless you count >$2,000,000/year as "middle class," of course not. That's the only group where tax raises are even proposed. My taxes, along with everyone else's I know, went UP when Bush's tax cuts went into effect, because the only group that Republican politicians support are the ultra-rich. They just brainwash gullible fools into thinking that they support "the working man".

[Jervill]

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-plumber-unfiltered-build-damn-fence-start-shooting-160930403--abc-news-politics.html

"Joe the plumber" (Samuel Wurzelbacher) who isn't joe, or a plumber, and "is running for congress" and feels like we should build a fence across the border and shoot us some mexicans.

Also mentioned is Lori Klein (Az State Sen R) who pointed a gun at a reporters chest to show him the laser while mentioning the gun doesn't have a safety last year. She is getting reelected.

Seriously.

Fuck.

Don't worry about Wurzelbacher, he won't win.  He's running in a Democratic vote sink that runs along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland.  The new OH-09.

[mainiac]

-Obamacare saves the federal government a fair bit of money in the short term, but almost all of the savings is simply transferred to state governments in the form of administrative costs, etc

No it doesn't, not even remotely.  The only "administrative cost" is the cost of setting up the exchanges and that's more then offset by the increased federal funding of medicaid.  Offset like 100 times over.

What utter silliness.  You see democrats doing something so you assume without evidence that it has huge off book administrative costs.  I mean how else to you fund the hordes of government bureaucrats sucking the blood out of the nation, eh?

[Lord Shonus]

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-plumber-unfiltered-build-damn-fence-start-shooting-160930403--abc-news-politics.html

"Joe the plumber" (Samuel Wurzelbacher) who isn't joe, or a plumber, and "is running for congress" and feels like we should build a fence across the border and shoot us some mexicans.

Also mentioned is Lori Klein (Az State Sen R) who pointed a gun at a reporters chest to show him the laser while mentioning the gun doesn't have a safety last year. She is getting reelected.

Seriously.

Fuck.

Don't worry about Wurzelbacher, he won't win.  He's running in a Democratic vote sink that runs along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland.  The new OH-09.

Besides which, much of Toledo dislikes him personally. He's an asshole.

[GreatJustice]

I'm skeptical that there's a slew of 50-60 employee businesses out there that are going to cause mass unemployment this way. Beyond ~55 employees, you're significantly impacting your ability to operate if you cut your staff that much (a 10%+ reduction for a staff of 55 to 49). If a company is able to reduce its force and continue operations, then more power to them -- the ACA is the Invisible Hand, making the company leaner and more efficient.

If it's not able to continue full operations, then either it rehires staff, or it falters and loses out to competition. Again, Invisible Hand at work.

The Invisible Hand incentivizing businesses that are good at working their 49 workers like dogs to compensate for layoffs or avoiding paying the benefits, maybe. Certainly not improving the conditions of the workers, the output of the business, or the state of the economy.

And I'm sure the skyrocketing cost of medical care in general had nothing to do with that. 
CBO shouldn't be thumped for not predicting in 1965 that a 2-day hospital stay would cost a few thousand dollars in 1990, as opposed to a few hundred in 1965.

But that's exactly the point; it ignores that the PROGRAM ITSELF could result in increased costs overall. Using CBO estimates to "prove" that the ACA reduces costs is flawed for that very reason.

Healthcare costs in the US weren't even remotely significant before Medicare, were exceptionally low before WW2 (when insurance mandates began to come into play), and were effectively affordable to the poorest American in 1910 without leaving a burden, back when there was no AMA and voluntary associations for paying for healthcare were forcibly disbanded. Mind, quality was also quite a bit lower due to advances in technology, but if the CBO can't account for any of that whatsoever, then it clearly isn't a reliable source.

-Obamacare saves the federal government a fair bit of money in the short term, but almost all of the savings is simply transferred to state governments in the form of administrative costs, etc

No it doesn't, not even remotely.  The only "administrative cost" is the cost of setting up the exchanges and that's more then offset by the increased federal funding of medicaid.  Offset like 100 times over.

What utter silliness.  You see democrats doing something so you assume without evidence that it has huge off book administrative costs.  I mean how else to you fund the hordes of government bureaucrats sucking the blood out of the nation, eh?

So federal funding to stop a problem with the states is going to reduce the deficit... how, exactly?