Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    Why is it that after the bill passes, the MSM finally talk about the actual costs associated with the bill? Never heard a thing about it from most news organizations (I think Fox was the one exception) prior to the passage.

    [ame=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/36059256#36059256]NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast- msnbc.com[/ame]

  2. #2
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    I felt from day one that it was all a shell game and a scam and I believe a majority of americans also believed it would add to our defict and not reduce it. We do have some that will go against all common sense and see only what they choose to believe.

  3. #3
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    Of course! The CBO is only allowed to score what the party in power tells them to score. So the Obama administration summoned all their finest economists with their fancy PhDs to create implausible assumptions that if "by chance" happened would lower the deficit.

    Of course, however, liberals in the mainstream media could care less about the facts and just kept up the "THIS BILL LOWERS THE DEFICIT! THE CBO SAID SO!" nonsense. Now they are free to speak the truth.

    Sorry liberals, your socialist utopia is going to be spoiled come November. And as sure as hell is hot, Obama is going to be one-term president and this bill will be repealed.

  4. #4
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    05-13-11 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,075
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    Quote Originally Posted by K-1 View Post
    Of course! The CBO is only allowed to score what the party in power tells them to score. So the Obama administration summoned all their finest economists with their fancy PhDs to create implausible assumptions that if "by chance" happened would lower the deficit.

    Of course, however, liberals in the mainstream media could care less about the facts and just kept up the "THIS BILL LOWERS THE DEFICIT! THE CBO SAID SO!" nonsense. Now they are free to speak the truth.

    Sorry liberals, your socialist utopia is going to be spoiled come November. And as sure as hell is hot, Obama is going to be one-term president and this bill will be repealed.
    I would strongly advise against any GOP candidate electioneering on the premise that once elected they will vote for repeal of said Bill.

    My reasoning is that their are some things in the Bill that America does agree with.

  5. #5
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    55% of Americans want the bill repealed, including 2/3rds of Independents. Republicans aren't going to just "repeal" they're going to "repeal and replace". Running on a platform of "repeal" will include a very specific list of quite popular items that they are going to implement in order to bring down the cost of both health care and health insurance.

  6. #6
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    Quote Originally Posted by K-1 View Post

    Sorry liberals, your socialist utopia is going to be spoiled come November. And as sure as hell is hot, Obama is going to be one-term president and this bill will be repealed.
    Problem is the GOP has to come up with someone who can beat him, and Palin isn't it...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Problem is the GOP has to come up with someone who can beat him, and Palin isn't it...
    Such a candidate will need to be an effective speaker who is capable of conveying complex ideas in an understandable and powerful fashion. In terms of message, they'll need to dig into the details of matters such as the health legislation, present its genuine flaws, and avoid the temptation to resort to extreme rhetoric.

    In the process leading up to the legislation's adoption, rhetoric focused on extremes. For example, on the eve of the vote, predictions were made that stocks would crash. That argument was rooted in nothing but fear and had little basis in fact. Health care expenditures still amount to less than 20% of GDP. The changes accounted in the new law amount to just a fraction of overall health expenditures, and the overall cost curve (a problem of a long-term nature) was not materially and immediately altered. Hence, the idea that stocks would crash was never realistic. Not surprisingly, predictions of doom did not materialize. The stock market did not crash. Of course, the failed prediction will undermine credibility.

    A detailed and compelling case could have been made in many areas e.g., with respect to using increased capital gains taxes to help finance the expanded coverage. A 3.8% increase in the capital gains tax is, by itself, not excessive. Nonetheless, it is important in the marginal sense, and it could have a long-term detrimental impact on innovation and improvement in the U.S. economy on which American competitiveness depends. Such a tax hike would be focused on the people who account for a disproportionate share of private investment and it would come at a time when important U.S. competitive advantages are eroding. Factors such as declining U.S. educational attainment relative to the rest of the world, comparative tax code/investment advantages that are emerging in various developing countries, increasing emphasis on R&D in rising economies in key sectors e.g., China's companies spent far more on alternative energy research last year than U.S. firms did, an aging population, long-term fiscal imbalances that could raise long-term interest rates in the U.S. (making the cost of capital more expensive), etc., suggest that even a marginal rise in the capital gains tax could be problematic. At the same time, capital gains tax revenue is particularly volatile. If financing is to be reliable, a more stable revenue source is required.

    That big picture perspective complete with various linkages requires rigorous analysis, snythesis, and effective communication. Shallow soundbites cannot begin to suffice. The debate, especially near the end, was disproportionately comprised of shallow soundbites and exaggerated warnings of doom.

    Needless to say, there are some Republicans who can convey sophisticated messages and get to the core of the issues involved. Congressman Paul Ryan is one example. He had one op-ed on the issue in Friday's edition of The New York Times. Needless to say, the loud, fear-swept discourse drowned out the voices that could have made a substantive difference in bringing significant issues to the forefront.

    The immediate post-health debate period appears to be little different. Already, many Republicans are slamming the law for raising tax burdens on companies such as AT&T. Yet, on closer inspection, what had happened was that the companies had been exploiting a loophole in which they were treating government subsidies (a non-taxable income stream) as their own expense and deducting those amounts for tax purposes. In effect, they were double-dipping. The loophole was closed in the health law. The more sophisticated argument from the Republican perspective should have that such loopholes distort economic activity and that they should be closed in exchange for keeping tax rates low. Fewer loopholes and lower tax rates was, in fact, one of the powerful messages President Reagan conveyed in winning support for his tax cuts back in the early 1980s. It's also an argument that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has made with respect to his flat rate tax concept.

    An argument that seeks to preserve loopholes is not a winning one. individuals and businesses who do not partake of such loopholes find them unfair. Those who understand the difference between income and expenses find the exploitation unethical, particularly at a time when memories of the pre-economic crisis practices in the financial sector still draw substantial public criticism.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,360

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    Quote Originally Posted by jujuman13 View Post
    I would strongly advise against any GOP candidate electioneering on the premise that once elected they will vote for repeal of said Bill.

    My reasoning is that their are some things in the Bill that America does agree with.
    The counter arguement is that you do not turn over the health care system for a few fixes in insurance. Yoy can do that indendent of this terrible by most peoples standards bill.

    That being said the chances of getting 67 votes to override a veto is totally unrealistic.

  9. #9
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: CBO projections based on unrealistic assumptions

    opportunity in politics is a vacuum, it will create a candidate

    we can run a community organizer from schenectady

    all she'll have to do is point to pieface and say, "change"

    "repeal and replace"

    the good stuff in the bill---pre existers (not forgetting to include children, this time---LOL!), portability, oversight of premium hikes...

    and more---torts, defensive med, malpractice reform, buying across state lines...

    pieface coulda passed all of the above with near unanimous support instead of going for it all, while paying for naught, with only 80% of HIS OWN CAUCUS behind him

    yes, we'll repeal and replace pieface first

    then his bill

    with approaching unanimous support

    even nbc is offended by "creative accounting, unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks..."

    especially when such gimmickry is on the order of EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS

    there are few anymore who DON'T decry "adding a new wing to our health care house which is already structurally unsound, mortgaged for more than its worth and headed for foreclosure..."

    in other words, what obama's done for our HOUSING MARKET he's just extended to HEALTH CARE

    politics is physics, opportunity is a vacuum, the critical concerns of the american people create a candidate

    as stated so simply and naturally above

    by nbc

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •