GOP wants to increase the deficit?

[Cancel8]

Yet in 2009, opponents of ObmbaCare cited the CBO as an authoritative source.

..."Congress' budget watchdog warned Thursday that Democrats' health care bills would not lower skyrocketing costs and would drive up government spending, undermining one of President Obama's chief arguments for the overhaul.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.

"Today's CBO testimony should be a wake-up call," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. "Instead of rushing through one expensive proposal after another, we should take the time we need to get things right - especially at a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing jobs every month..."

Now they decry the CBO.

 

[Bonestorm]

Only the CBO who must use whatever assumptions given to them by Congress and whatever current tax tables exist assuming they are perpetual could possibly come up with such an irrational conclusion. That so many believe it is a testimony to the absolute faith some hold in government.

If it really worked the way that you claim, then the Republicans could give the CBO whatever assumptions they want to show that the repeal will not increase the deficit. Yet, here we are.

Jackass.

 

[Cancel8]

If it really worked the way that you claim, then the Republicans could give the CBO whatever assumptions they want to show that the repeal will not increase the deficit. Yet, here we are.

Jackass.

And both parties quote the CBO when it suits their agenda, don't they?

 

[Good Luck]

CBO's estimates on the impact of HCR on the deficit were based on a critical assumption that people can be forced to purchase health insurance against their wills, bringin in premiums to offset several of the costs of the plan.

However, the insurance mandate has been (so far successfully) challenged on constitutional grounds. Without that provision, all estimates of the costs of HCR go out the window. Not to mention they have been adjusting their estimate of HCR impacts anyway, with the unsurprising result that their initial estimates were, shall we say, just a bit too rosy.

That aside, CBO, for all its purported bi-partisan nature - is still a government agency doing what government tells them to do. When they come out with an estimate, it is based on what Congress tells them. If (what the hell do I mean by "if"?) congress lies, then CBO cannot make any kind of accurate estimate. So far CBO's record does not impress when it comes to telling us what impact a bill will have on the national budget in comparison to what actually happens.

 

[Cancel8]

..."According to the CBO, a vibrant economy has indeed produced a gusher of revenue over the past two years that could help turn the nation's $248 billion deficit into a $170 billion surplus...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401174.html

 

[Bonestorm]

CBO's estimates on the impact of HCR on the deficit were based on a critical assumption that people can be forced to purchase health insurance against their wills, bringin in premiums to offset several of the costs of the plan.

The premiums are paid to private insurers, not to the government so the claim that premiums would offset costs of the plan is incorrect.

However, the insurance mandate has been (so far successfully) challenged on constitutional grounds. Without that provision, all estimates of the costs of HCR go out the window.

Not really. Without that provision the costs of insurance will increase, but the cost to the government will not increase by all that much. The penalty was not projected to raise significant revenues.

Not to mention they have been adjusting their estimate of HCR impacts anyway, with the unsurprising result that their initial estimates were, shall we say, just a bit too rosy.

Could you provide a link to what you are talking about?

That aside, CBO, for all its purported bi-partisan nature - is still a government agency doing what government tells them to do. When they come out with an estimate, it is based on what Congress tells them. If (what the hell do I mean by "if"?) congress lies, then CBO cannot make any kind of accurate estimate. So far CBO's record does not impress when it comes to telling us what impact a bill will have on the national budget in comparison to what actually happens.

Again, if this were true, the Republicans could just tell the CBO whatever they want to end up with a CBO projection that the repeal will not increase the deficit. But, here we are.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OK. So I kinda walked into that one.

D'oh.

Getting back to the subject matter of the thread, can you point to your source for the idea that the repeal bill will not increase the deficit. I'm interested in seeing it.

why, since you can't find a source to support your claim with any certainty...and thats the point, it is too speculative right now, my opinion is that is ridiculous to claim that repealing a mult-trillion dollar h/c system will increase the deficit

wild assumptions

 

[NOVA]

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

By Philip Klein on 1.7.11 @ 1:56PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob

 

[Cancel8]

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

By Philip Klein on 1.7.11 @ 1:56PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob

Don't you agree that anything the CBO says is invalid?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

By Philip Klein on 1.7.11 @ 1:56PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob

a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections

actually, it looks like they are reiterating their belief that it will increase the deficit by $230 billion dollars....if the revenue would $770 billion and the outlays only $540 billion, thats a loss of $230 billion