How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Superfreak]

I'm comparing what he inherited to what he left. Now, granted, the fact that his predecessor was a really shitty president who left the nation in a terrible state did mean a lot of statistics, including deficits, were left in a place where it would have been hard for things not to get better. But you could say the same about, say, the elder Bush inheriting a record deficit from his shitty predecessor, Reagan. And yet deficits went higher still during Bush's presidency. So, it's not really foreordained that things would get so much better under Obama.

LMAO. Reagan had to clean up Carters mess. He presided over the beginning of one of the greatest economic boom periods in our history. From 1984 until 2000, the economy boomed. In large part due to Reagan's policies. You seem to forget the shitty condition Clinton left Bush in and the fact that Clinton repealing Glass Steagall had a large hand in creating the financial crisis. Obama was a complete failure fiscally. Period. There was no need to continue running up government spending the way he did.

[Oneuli]

I know. So it's supposition, extrapolation, and manipulation to infer a causative effect.

It's an extrapolation, yes. But it's not a manipulation. It's an honest attempt to draw the most reasonable inferences from the available data. That's how decent people approach policy questions. We almost never have airtight evidence the way you would with a physics theory. Instead, we have suggestive data and we are FORCED to decide policy in that context. The only question is whether we'll decide on policies that make sense in light of the best available data, or whether we'll instead just blindly assume the data is misleading us, and go with whatever our gut is saying.

For example, consider the impact of the upper-class tax cut Trump and the Republicans pushed through. I assumed deficits would rise afterward. I thought so because of the track record of deficits tending to rise after such cuts, and tending to fall after upper-class tax hikes. That wasn't something I could predict with scientific certainty. But I was pretty confident. And it turns out I was right. Meanwhile, the wingnuts assumed that all of history was a conspiracy of data to mislead them, and THIS time the upper-class tax cuts wouldn't be followed by soaring deficits. Real world events tend to leave such people looking silly.

[Oneuli]

Anyone, ANYONE still defending Obamacare has gone stark raving mad.

your argument on any other subject has been rendered clueless

I'd really just stop

Your inability to even attempt a substantive rebuttal is noted. You look pretty silly.

[Oneuli]

Again, read the link I provided. Fucking parents over and making them continue paying for their adult children was not a plus.

Allowing parents to CHOOSE to cover their adult children was definitely a plus. But that wasn't the point of bringing up that provision. The point, instead, was merely to show how laughably uninformed you were about the topic. The simple fact is, Obamacare started rolling out immediately, and different provisions were phased in at different points, many of which were long before October 2013. You were ignorant. Now you know better. You're welcome.

You are using the incorrect starting point. The correct starting point is when the the exchanges opened. That is when the full effect of the law could be seen.

Some things were phased in even after that. If you want to use October 2013 is the starting point, fine, but obviously the point where you measure the impact of something isn't when it's "fully phased in," but rather when it starts to have an impact.

Here, a medical analogy to point out the foolishness of your method. Let's say you have a fever and you pop a couple Tylenol. And lets say that the Tylenol won't be fully digested and into your bloodstream for an hour -- prior to that, it's still breaking down and only part of it will be in circulation. So, when do you use as your baseline for measuring the impact of Tylenol on fever reduction?

If you're a sane person, you'd use the last temperature reading before you took the Tylenol. Measuring from there, you'd see the temperature come down gradually. But imagine you were an imbecile.... or rather, forget that I told you to imagine that, and just tell us how you'd do it. Presumably, based on your "logic" about Obamacare, you'd measure from when the "full effect of the drug could be seen." So, your baseline temperature would be taken an hour after the Tylenol was taken and you'd measure from there.

[Oneuli]

The deficit did not fall as a result of spending less.

Spending growth was below normal. If you can keep spending growth below normal while revenues grow at something closer to a normal pace, deficits will fall. That was the formula for deficit reduction under both Obama and Clinton.

[Legion]

It's an extrapolation, yet. But it's not a manipulation. It's an honest attempt to draw the most reasonable inferences from the available data.

So you say. I don't believe you.

[Oneuli]

LOL again, the drop in deficit was not due to Obamacare, it happened in SPITE of Obamacare.

The CBO predicted Obamacare would put downward pressure on the deficit.... even as the wingnuts were shrieking that it would raise it. Then the deficit fell at an incredible pace. Now the wingnuts are still shrieking, but have had to alter their shriek to be a freeform assertion that the deficit fell despite Obamacare, not because of it. Understandably, nobody really takes them seriously any more.

[Oneuli]

LMAO. Reagan had to clean up Carters mess. He presided over the beginning of one of the greatest economic boom periods in our history. From 1984 until 2000, the economy boomed.

Incorrect. Reagan inherited a growing economy. Then it went into recession -- eventually winding up with unemployment rates even higher than the worst of the Great Recession. Then there was a recovery fueled by unprecedented peacetime deficit spending and massive interest rate cuts. But that boom didn't go on until 2000. It came crashing down shortly after Reagan left office.

You seem to forget the shitty condition Clinton left Bush in

Clinton left Bush with the longest economic growth cycle in American history, sub-4% unemployment rates, record high real incomes, near-record-low poverty rates, no significant foreign military commitments, vast troves of goodwill among allied nations, etc. Even when the economy eventually slipped into recession, during Bush's first term, it was an unusually short and shallow recession, because the fundamentals were strong. It was basically just an engineered recession from Greenspan raising rates to try to get Bush into office... and even then, it may have been avoidable if not for the 9/11 attacks. The economic horror that eventually hit us in Bush's second term can't be attributed to Clinton. Bush had years to deal with under-regulation of exotic securities and the mortgage market, and he chose to ignore the problems because his catechism didn't permit him to understand that under-regulation was even a thing.

Obama was a complete failure fiscally

What other president in history ever lowered deficits that fast?

[Superfreak]

no one forced them to idiot


jeese you are lame anymore

LMAO... you truly are an idiot.

[Superfreak]

I get the impression super insured his kids under ACA and berated them for it

I don't have kids moron. But a lot of people got stuck with their kids bills thanks to Obama, because the millennials didn't feel like paying for themselves.

[Oneuli]

So you say. I don't believe you.

Of course not. The data runs afoul of your political prejudices, so the data cannot be believed. But, as I said, if the data ran the other way, you'd embrace it.

[cawacko]

Incorrect. Reagan inherited a growing economy. Then it went into recession -- eventually winding up with unemployment rates even higher than the worst of the Great Recession. Then there was a recovery fueled by unprecedented peacetime deficit spending and massive interest rate cuts. But that boom didn't go on until 2000. It came crashing down shortly after Reagan left office.



Clinton left Bush with the longest economic growth cycle in American history, sub-4% unemployment rates, record high real incomes, near-record-low poverty rates, no significant foreign military commitments, vast troves of goodwill among allied nations, etc. Even when the economy eventually slipped into recession, during Bush's first term, it was an unusually short and shallow recession, because the fundamentals were strong. It was basically just an engineered recession from Greenspan raising rates to try to get Bush into office. The horror that eventually hit us in Bush's second term can't be attributed to Clinton. Bush had years to deal with under-regulation of exotic securities and the mortgage market, and he chose to ignore the problems because his catechism didn't permit him to understand that under-regulation was even a thing.



What other president in history ever lowered deficits that fast?

The dot com bubble and the Y2K scare was based on strong economic fundamentals and would have survived if not for Greenspan?

That is economic spin extraordinaire.

[Superfreak]

Allowing parents to CHOOSE to cover their adult children was definitely a plus. But that wasn't the point of bringing up that provision. The point, instead, was merely to show how laughably uninformed you were about the topic. The simple fact is, Obamacare started rolling out immediately, and different provisions were phased in at different points, many of which were long before October 2013. You were ignorant. Now you know better. You're welcome.



Some things were phased in even after that. If you want to use October 2013 is the starting point, fine, but obviously the point where you measure the impact of something isn't when it's "fully phased in," but rather when it starts to have an impact.

Here, a medical analogy to point out the foolishness of your method. Let's say you have a fever and you pop a couple Tylenol. And lets say that the Tylenol won't be fully digested and into your bloodstream for an hour -- prior to that, it's still breaking down and only part of it will be in circulation. So, when do you use as your baseline for measuring the impact of Tylenol on fever reduction?

If you're a sane person, you'd use the last temperature reading before you took the Tylenol. Measuring from there, you'd see the temperature come down gradually. But imagine you were an imbecile.... or rather, forget that I told you to imagine that, and just tell us how you'd do it. Presumably, based on your "logic" about Obamacare, you'd measure from when the "full effect of the drug could be seen." So, your baseline temperature would be taken an hour after the Tylenol was taken and you'd measure from there.

Again, the fact that a few provisions started early doesn't alter when the exchanges actually started up. I know you are desperate to cherry pick your start point due to the lower growth rates in 2010-2013. But the fact remains, as shown in the link I provided (that you continue to ignore and run from), that the growth in expenses went up dramatically after the ACA went into full effect in late 2013.

But do continue pretending you know what you are talking about.

Your tylenol analogy is moronic.

[Superfreak]

The CBO predicted Obamacare would put downward pressure on the deficit.... even as the wingnuts were shrieking that it would raise it. Then the deficit fell at an incredible pace. Now the wingnuts are still shrieking, but have had to alter their shriek to be a freeform assertion that the deficit fell despite Obamacare, not because of it. Understandably, nobody really takes them seriously any more.

The CBO made a lot of predictions about Obamacare that were flat out wrong.

[evince]

I don't have kids moron. But a lot of people got stuck with their kids bills thanks to Obama, because the millennials didn't feel like paying for themselves.

nope

Not one human was forced to buy medical insurance for their adult child idiot