Hopey Changie!

Onceler said:
That's certainly debatable. First, healthcare is a big part of our long-term economic problem. Second, the admin firmly believed & presented #'s to suggest that the health bill would lower costs over time.

You can laugh that off, but there are differing sets of #'s that have been presented by both sides, and both amount to nothing more than speculation, anyway.
Click to expand...

1) The numbers presented and analyzed by the CBO were gimics. They show ten years of 'savings' with 6 years of 'costs'. AND as the CBO stated, the only way they are budget 'neutral' is if FUTURE Congress's cut spending. You may have faith in their willingness to cut spending, but I do not. I also know that damn near every prediction of future costs by the CBO and politicians in the past has been wrong. They continually present cases that show the public at the time of passing that 'hey it won't cost much'... and then the bill comes due.

2) that said, I agree health care is a primary issue that needs to be addressed. But the bills presented do NOTHING to reduce COSTS.
 
Damocles said:
No, I do not. I simply point out that that one sign isn't one you should be using to support your argument and I explained why that is.
Click to expand...

Fine. We agree, the economy is getting better but has a long way to go.


Thank you. That wasn't so hard now was it.
 
Superfreak said:
1) The numbers presented and analyzed by the CBO were gimics. They show ten years of 'savings' with 6 years of 'costs'. AND as the CBO stated, the only way they are budget 'neutral' is if FUTURE Congress's cut spending. You may have faith in their willingness to cut spending, but I do not. I also know that damn near every prediction of future costs by the CBO and politicians in the past has been wrong. They continually present cases that show the public at the time of passing that 'hey it won't cost much'... and then the bill comes due.
Click to expand...

Of course, you ignore the 20 year outlook provided by the CBO. Conveniently.
 
Damocles said:
Why do we assume that they will be perfectly accurate on this one "outlook" when they have yet to be accurate on any?
Click to expand...


This again? Enough already. I was simply responding to SF's assertion that the CBO only analyzed 10 years of spending ans 6 years of cost. His statement was not true, regardless of whether you put any stock int eh CBO analysis.

And frankly, you don't have to put any stock in the CBO analysis. The fact of the matter is that the CBO is the entity that Congress has agreed will be the neutral assessor of the budgetary impact of proposed legislation so when discussing costs of legislation that's what I and everyone else refers to.

Do you have legitimate contrary information?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Of course, you ignore the 20 year outlook provided by the CBO. Conveniently.
Click to expand...

Again... note the second part of what I stated, not just the first ten year projections....

IT RELIES ON FUTURE CONGRESS'S TO CUT SPENDING... THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT REMAINS NEUTRAL.... IT IS A FUCKING GIMIC.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/16/congress-phony-price-tags

In 2005, for example, CBO projected that Medicare would cost $1.5 trillion in 2050. Two years later, in 2007, the same CBO projected that this cost would reach $2.8 trillion in 2050. And in 2009, it projected that the cost would be $3 trillion instead. In other words, the program’s projected cost doubled in four years.

This upward revision of projected costs comes even in spite of CBO’s allowances for ‘excess cost growth.’ Furthermore, the actual expenditures exceed projections—in 2008, federal outlays for Medicare exceeded most recent projections by $63 billion; in 2009, federal outlays for Medicare exceeded projections by over $148 billion.
Click to expand...

The above is a prime example of why the CBO's 20 year projections are fucking meaningless.
 
NigelTufnel said:
This again? Enough already. I was simply responding to SF's assertion that the CBO only analyzed 10 years of spending ans 6 years of cost. His statement was not true, regardless of whether you put any stock int eh CBO analysis.

And frankly, you don't have to put any stock in the CBO analysis. The fact of the matter is that the CBO is the entity that Congress has agreed will be the neutral assessor of the budgetary impact of proposed legislation so when discussing costs of legislation that's what I and everyone else refers to.

Do you have legitimate contrary information?
Click to expand...
So what? Honestly, it doesn't make them any more accurate. Can you point to one time they were right or wrong to our benefit rather than detriment? Seriously, how much longer are we going to pretend they are the voice of God and perfect in every way? Why do you insist I shut off my brain because the CBO has spoken?
 
On the Economy we will just have to wait and see. I remember all of these same dire predictions when Bill Clinton was president.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... note the second part of what I stated, not just the first ten year projections....

IT RELIES ON FUTURE CONGRESS'S TO CUT SPENDING... THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT REMAINS NEUTRAL.... IT IS A FUCKING GIMIC.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/16/congress-phony-price-tags



The above is a prime example of why the CBO's 20 year projections are fucking meaningless.
Click to expand...


I'm calling bullshit. Show me where those numbers come from in that piece you link to.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not arguing this point again. In my view it is a sign of improvement, not a sign that we are out of the woods. You and Damo disagree, which is fine. But this is merely a difference of opinion on which we will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

It's a sign for hope. That's about it.

I find it ironic that Democrats point to this as a sign of improvement when it was expected to happen without the stimulus. The rise in unemployment was expected to slow without the stimulus. We got the stimulus and it actually increased for a little while before slowing at a higher rate than was expected without the stimulus. And that is a sign that the stimulus has lead to improvement?

Markets stabilize on their own once the drag of malinvestment has been cleared. That's why this outcome was expected with or without the stimulus.

There really is no sign that the stimulus has helped at all. It is certain to hurt with the long term problem this nation faces, i.e., unsustainable debt.
 
RStringfield said:
I find it ironic that Democrats point to this as a sign of improvement when it was expected to happen without the stimulus. The rise in unemployment was expected to slow without the stimulus. We got the stimulus and it actually increased for a little while before slowing at a higher rate than was expected without the stimulus. And that is a sign that the stimulus has lead to improvement?
Click to expand...


I find it ironic that you assert that something was "expected to happen without the stimulus" while just yesterday you took the position that projecting future economic activity is akin to reading the stars.

By the by, who made the projections you mention above?
 
NigelTufnel said:
I find it ironic that you assert that something was "expected to happen without the stimulus" while just yesterday you took the position that projecting future economic activity is akin to reading the stars.
Click to expand...

I was using some hyperbole, of course. But I would say we have a far better ability to predict the weather.

NigelTufnel said:
By the by, who made the projections you mention above?
Click to expand...

The source given in "The Stimulus Worked" article. Macroeconomic Advisers.
 
Jarod said:
But less people are loosing their jobs...

To me, no matter how you slice it, that is a good thing.
Click to expand...


but people are still losing jobs, we not gaining jobs, its not good. its not as bad, but in no way is it good.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, the economy isn't a single business. Your metaphor is set up to produce the result that you want.

I guess just don't understand why you won't just simply agree with the obvious: the economy is improving although it has a long way to go. I would suggest that it's more partisan claptrap from a typical Republican, but that could never be true of you.
Click to expand...


not yet, if obama has what look to be his way, the government will be the economy and will be a single business...haha..anyway

no its not a single business, it all sorts of sorts of em, most who are in survival mode with no light coming down the tunnel form this admin.
 
bob said:
but people are still losing jobs, we not gaining jobs, its not good. its not as bad, but in no way is it good.
Click to expand...

To me not as bad is good. And if things keep getting "not as bad" we will soon be in the posative catagory.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Hate to burst your bubble, but for lack of a better word, "powerfully" is a POWERFUL word.

And I AGREED with you that the jobs losses aren't a "powerfully" good change...HOWEVER job loswes down to 11,000 from 800,000 is GOOD change, no matter how bleak you want to paint the picture.

Y-O-U included it when Jarod never used it, and now you won't admit you put words in his mouth.
Click to expand...

You are such an Obama tool.
The reason the loses are down to only 11,000; is that companies can't afford to lay off many more, or they'll have to start closing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top