Dems hold up UB benefits and one wants to filibuster UB benefits

*sigh*

If they assumed they would not continue to pretend that the "cost" was less than a trillion on one bill, they either lied directly about the cost to pass a bad bill, or they assumed that Obama was lying about tax rates.

Methinks they did neither as the revenue estimates reflect a continuation of tax rates.

Methinks that I can't even keep up with your spin anymore.

Again, for the hard of hearing: there is NO WAY that Obama could have put the extension into the stimulus & gotten it passed (something which you said would be "easy"). No way. Oh, and did I mention that if this bill passes, which it will, Obama has kept his promise?

I'm happy to keep this one going; you're embarassing yourself, badly.
 
*sigh*

If they assumed they would not continue to pretend that the "cost" was less than a trillion on one bill, they either lied directly about the cost to pass a bad bill, or they assumed that Obama was lying about tax rates.

Methinks they did neither as the revenue estimates reflect a continuation of tax rates.


Good god. I'm not sure how to explain this too you more clearly, but I'll try again.

The only way for the CBO to include the cost of the tax cut extension in its assessment of the cost of the stimulus bill is if the tax cuts extension was included in the stimulus bill. The tax cuts extension was not included in the stimulus bill so the cost of the tax cut extension was not included in the cost assessment of the stimulus bill.
 
So... bottom line what you are saying is...

The Bush Tax cuts DID benefit the middle and lower classes.

Thanks.
He's also saying that due to "cost" they pretended that those rates would increase, regardless of the political reality so they could pass legislation that they knew would cost far more. (Of course, if you look at the revenue estimates you see no great increase in the years after the tax cuts expire, this is largely because they assumed continuation of the rates. But I shouldn't look there and point out stuff like that.)
 
So... bottom line what you are saying is...

The Bush Tax cuts DID benefit the middle and lower classes.

Thanks.


No problem. I've always said that. The disagreement is whether the rich benefited more than the middle and lower classes. I point to total dollar amounts and you point to percentages and therein lies the dispute.
 
Good god. I'm not sure how to explain this too you more clearly, but I'll try again.

The only way for the CBO to include the cost of the tax cut extension in its assessment of the cost of the stimulus bill is if the tax cuts extension was included in the stimulus bill. The tax cuts extension was not included in the stimulus bill so the cost of the tax cut extension was not included in the cost assessment of the stimulus bill.
How can I put this more simply. Revenue assumptions included the current rates, and no more (you can see that in the portion that I stated earlier). Thus, because of that, those assumptions had that rate already built in. It would not have increased the "cost" of the bill even one iota to actually include the extensions.
 
How can I put this more simply. Revenue assumptions included the current rates, and no more (you can see that in the portion that I stated earlier). Thus, because of that, those assumptions had that rate already built in. It would not have increased the "cost" of the bill even one iota to actually include the extensions.

:palm:

Do you want to be perceived as hopeless? Is that something you're really striving for?
 
:palm:

Do you want to be perceived as hopeless? Is that something you're really striving for?
No. I simply point to the document and told you where I find the information. You give me your own opinion based on what you want to think of me without pointing out rate increase assumption in the cost estimate.

Put up or shut up. If you can show me the rate increase assumption in the CBO cost estimates I'll happily say, "Well, crap! I didn't see that." But until then, you are just blowing smoke up your own hole.
 
No. I simply point to the document and told you where I find the information. You give me your own opinion based on what you want to think of me without pointing out rate increase assumption in the cost estimate.

Put up or shut up. If you can show me the rate increase assumption in the CBO cost estimates I'll happily say, "Well, crap! I didn't see that." But until then, you are just blowing smoke up your own hole.

Didn't you agree before this whole spin cycle started that yes, in fact, the bill would have been over $1 trillion if they tried to put the extension into it?

Are you really saying now that it wouldn't have been? Are you really trying to say that if they put the extension into that bill, it would not have changed the cost - either real or perceived (but really, both) - significantly?

Really?
 
How can I put this more simply. Revenue assumptions included the current rates, and no more (you can see that in the portion that I stated earlier). Thus, because of that, those assumptions had that rate already built in. It would not have increased the "cost" of the bill even one iota to actually include the extensions.


Let me try to approach it another way since simple arithmetic is beyond your ken. What is the baseline when the CBO does a cost estimate for a particular bill, existing law or something else?

N.B. You may want to keep fresh in your mind the arguments from the right about the CBO cost estimates of the health care bill not including the Medicare reimbursement rate fix that everyone knew Congress would pass but had not.



Hey SF, can you talk to your buddy.
 
Didn't you agree before this whole spin cycle started that yes, in fact, the bill would have been over $1 trillion if they tried to put the extension into it?

Are you really saying now that it wouldn't have been? Are you really trying to say that if they put the extension into that bill, it would not have changed the cost - either real or perceived (but really, both) - significantly?

Really?
No, I pointed out that they either assumed the rate continued or they lied to promote a bad bill that they knew would far outstrip the cost they promoted.

Then I pointed out in the CBO document that you provided where I see an assumed continuation of rates. I then asked you to provide me the place in the document that shows such rates increase. At that point you started in on how it would "cost" so much more blah, blah and have provided nothing but your smoke you are blowing up your own hole.

So far all you have is sarcasm on your side while I have the document you provided. I think the evidence is a bit heavy on one side there.

If you are to show me where in the document it assumed a rate increase on the "middle class" I'll happily tell everybody in the thread that I was wrong. Until then you can be as sarcastic as you want to be, but it doesn't change where we are at in this discussion.
 
No, I pointed out that they either assumed the rate continued or they lied to promote a bad bill that they knew would far outstrip the cost they promoted.

Then I pointed out in the CBO document that you provided where I see an assumed continuation of rates. I then asked you to provide me the place in the document that shows such rates increase. At that point you started in on how it would "cost" so much more blah, blah and have provided nothing but your smoke you are blowing up your own hole.

You are seriously being obtuse on this, and I expect intentionally.

You contended that it would have been an "easy", no-cost option for Obama to include the extension into the stimulus bill. It wouldn't have been. Period.

He strikes his hands against the posts....
 
No, I pointed out that they either assumed the rate continued or they lied to promote a bad bill that they knew would far outstrip the cost they promoted.

Then I pointed out in the CBO document that you provided where I see an assumed continuation of rates. I then asked you to provide me the place in the document that shows such rates increase. At that point you started in on how it would "cost" so much more blah, blah and have provided nothing but your smoke you are blowing up your own hole.

So far all you have is sarcasm on your side while I have the document you provided. I think the evidence is a bit heavy on one side there.

If you are to show me where in the document it assumed a rate increase on the "middle class" I'll happily tell everybody in the thread that I was wrong. Until then you can be as sarcastic as you want to be, but it doesn't change where we are at in this discussion.


What's the baseline for CBO cost assessments, existing law or something else?
 
What are you talking about with these "ad homs" you keep referring to, and lies?

I am telling the 100% truth. An individual with any sense of shame whatsoever would be exceedingly embarassed about parsing some of the stuff you parse. And I'll tell ya what - that's why "debating" you is such a futile exercise. I don't fear it one iota; but it's tiring listening to you dodge & weave & run frantically from your own words. It leads nowhere.

So here's the issue: what influence did Manifest Destiny have on U.S. policy up to WWI? Ready....go!

go start the thread, but you have to leave your ad homs and lies out of it

pure debate...i don't think you can you do it
 
go start the thread, but you have to leave your ad homs and lies out of it

pure debate...i don't think you can you do it

Why don't you think I can do it? I've "debated" with you many times. As I said, it's one of the most futile exercises I can imagine. You'll just keep moving the goalposts; on one thread, you moved them all the way back around to the point I started with, which you had called me a moron for stating when the thread started (but repeated verbatim at the end of the thread, stating that I had never argued it).

Biggest waste of time I can think of.....
 
What's the baseline for CBO cost assessments, existing law or something else?
They use the numbers given them by Congress per their mandate (it's one of the reasons I've stated repeatedly that the CBO is a joke and a half, they HAVE to use the numbers given rather than logic such as current law). The baseline is whatever Congress says it is. Again, show me in the assumptions where they assume a rate increase. I've told you where I see the rate assumption remains static. Your turn.
 
Why don't you think I can do it? I've "debated" with you many times. As I said, it's one of the most futile exercises I can imagine. You'll just keep moving the goalposts; on one thread, you moved them all the way back around to the point I started with, which you had called me a moron for stating when the thread started (but repeated verbatim at the end of the thread, stating that I had never argued it).

Biggest waste of time I can think of.....

not at all...you're the one who always resorts to lies and as homs, you did just the other day in the thread about UB benefits, you started off with a question, we begin to debate, then i start asking you the hard questions and all of a sudden is - yurt is nothing but a gop apologist - which is funny because in that thread i bashed the gop

now, stop your petulant whining and start that thread, no more excuses...let's see your action and not your words
 
not at all...you're the one who always resorts to lies and as homs, you did just the other day in the thread about UB benefits, you started off with a question, we begin to debate, then i start asking you the hard questions and all of a sudden is - yurt is nothing but a gop apologist - which is funny because in that thread i bashed the gop

now, stop your petulant whining and start that thread, no more excuses...let's see your action and not your words

I said you're a GOP apologist because you ARE a GOP apologist. I can't be more clear than that.

I'm not whining, either. I'm just explaining why it's a waste of time to try to teach you anything.....
 
I said you're a GOP apologist because you ARE a GOP apologist. I can't be more clear than that.

I'm not whining, either. I'm just explaining why it's a waste of time to try to teach you anything.....

its really funny how dishonest you are, especially to call me that in a thread i'm bashing the gop and dixie is calling me a liberal...lol

now...why is it you won't go and start the thread and have a real debate? why are you stuck on your lies? i mean if you're going to wuss out, i'll go start the thread for you little buddy....i'll give you the first opening statement

i can't do anymore, i've let you pick the topic, i'm even going to start the thread and let you have first shot...
 
They use the numbers given them by Congress per their mandate. The baseline is whatever Congress says it is. Again, show me in the assumptions where they assume a rate increase. I've told you where I see the rate assumption remains static. Your turn.


You're a horse's ass:

Baseline Budget Projections. The purpose of CBO's budget projections is to give the Congress a baseline for measuring the effects of proposed changes in tax and spending laws. The projections start with the Congress's most recent budgetary decisions and show what would happen to the federal budget if no new policy decisions were made over the projection period. The budget committees use the projections to develop their annual budget resolutions and directives to other committees. CBO uses them to produce cost estimates for proposed legislation and in scorekeeping tabulations.

For revenues and entitlement programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, the baseline projections generally assume that current laws will continue without change. For discretionary spending, which is controlled by annual appropriation bills, CBO bases its projections on the most recent appropriations and the statutory limits on future appropriations. For fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 set limits on discretionary spending, extending the limits first put in place by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.


http://202.41.85.234:8000/InfoUSA/politics/legbranc/agencies/cbo.html#budgproj
 
Back
Top