Some republicans feel that defaulting won't be that bad

Started Oct 8, 2013 | Discussions
CFynn
Senior MemberPosts: 5,223Gear list
Like?
Re: Well of course
In reply to Chato, Oct 8, 2013

Chato wrote:

But stupid me, actually believes their budget predictions. Now if we could just raise taxes on the top One percent another five points, we shall start paying down the debt within a few more years.

Even without raising their taxes just close off all the loopholes and tax shelters they use.

Same with all the tax shelters and schemes google, apple, amazon, starbucks, ge, goldman, hedge funds etc use.

Little point in raising taxes until all the holes are plugged first

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rb59020
Contributing MemberPosts: 668Gear list
Like?
Re: Well of course
In reply to Chato, Oct 8, 2013

PolitiFact

"The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)"

I don't believe these numbers either, but probably not for the same reason no doubt. I think they are way to low. How many Federal entitlement programs actually cost less than advertised?

In 2010 when the law was shoved down are throats the est. was $928 billion .

 rb59020's gear list:rb59020's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D5200 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rb59020
Contributing MemberPosts: 668Gear list
Like?
Re: Well of course
In reply to CFynn, Oct 8, 2013

And you think if you give congress an extra 5% of anything they would use it to pay down the debt or blow it on more social programs to buy votes? (Jeopardy music plays in background)

 rb59020's gear list:rb59020's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D5200 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vadimraskin
Senior MemberPosts: 3,585Gear list
Like?
Re: Well of course
In reply to rb59020, Oct 8, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

PolitiFact

"The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)"

I don't believe these numbers either, but probably not for the same reason no doubt. I think they are way to low. How many Federal entitlement programs actually cost less than advertised?

In 2010 when the law was shoved down are throats the est. was $928 billion .

From the same article:

"That said, there are still problems with Chambliss’ methodology. While Medicare and Obamacare are both health insurance programs, the cost of medical care has skyrocketed since the mid 1960s. So counting the 10-year costs for any medical program starting in 2014 will inevitably produce a much higher cost than the first 10 years of a medical program that started in 1966. This biases the comparison.

Also, Chambliss’ comparison doesn’t factor in population growth. The universe of possible Social Security beneficiaries in 1940 -- those 65 or older -- was just 12 million. By comparison, by 2022, CBO expects 22 million people to obtain insurance on the Obamacare exchanges and an additional 17 million people to obtain insurance through the law’s expansion of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Combined, that’s a universe of beneficiaries three times larger than those who might have qualified for Social Security in 1940.

So Chambliss’ comparison is not apples to apples.

Our ruling

Chambliss said that with Obamacare, "we're fixing to get hit with the biggest entitlement program the American taxpayers have ever seen."

Measured by the most obvious standard -- whether there’s ever been a bigger entitlement program -- Obamacare is hardly the biggest. Over the next 10 years, Obamacare ranks no higher than fourth, trailing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If you use a less obvious standard -- restricting it to the initial projected costs for the first 10 years of any entitlement program -- Obamacare does rank as the biggest as a percentage of GDP, though that’s shaped by differences in population growth and medical inflation that make comparisons questionable. We rate his statement Mostly False."

it always pays to cite the ENTIRE article, not just the convenient part that suits your point

 vadimraskin's gear list:vadimraskin's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rb59020
Contributing MemberPosts: 668Gear list
Like?
Re: Well of course
In reply to vadimraskin, Oct 8, 2013

Genius, I wasn't quoting Saxby Chambliss or any of his quoted numbers in that story. I'm using the CBO's own projections on how much "Romneycare" is going to add to the debt. Get a clue.

 rb59020's gear list:rb59020's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D5200 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mas cervezas
Contributing MemberPosts: 641
Like?
Re: Well of course
In reply to rb59020, Oct 8, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

PolitiFact

"The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)"

I don't believe these numbers either, but probably not for the same reason no doubt. I think they are way to low. How many Federal entitlement programs actually cost less than advertised?

In 2010 when the law was shoved down are throats the est. was $928 billion .

I notice you only mention the gross cost. Here is the CBO on the net difference if the ACA was repealed: (from the link to the CBO in the Politifact article, which by the way said Saxby Chamblis was full of it)

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 45,467Gear list
Like?
Precisely - Another myth
In reply to rb59020, Oct 9, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

And you think if you give congress an extra 5% of anything they would use it to pay down the debt or blow it on more social programs to buy votes? (Jeopardy music plays in background)

The above completely explains the Clinton Surplus, and the projected elimination of the debt by 2012

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,921Gear list
Like?
Re: Reality check
In reply to DT200, Oct 9, 2013

DT200 wrote:

Back in the 1990s the liberals behind Bill Clinton balanced the budget. The Conservatives decided that was bad thing and gave massive tax cuts to the wealthy creating a deficit. They then started 2 wars and destroyed the economy.

When Obama took office the bills came due for the wars, for GW's TARP, and for the ruined economy (his first year the Deficit had sky rocketed). Thankfully Obama has turned this around and reduced the deficit each year since 2009 and keeps trying to fix the economy. The Tea Party is now doing everything they can to destroy it again.

You are right.  Not one likes to pay more taxes but that's the only way out because we have already spent the money.  If you think it's bad now you should see when the conservative extremists ruined the US credit and we have to pay much higher interests for money we owe.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 45,467Gear list
Like?
Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to rb59020, Oct 9, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

PolitiFact

"The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)"

I don't believe these numbers either, but probably not for the same reason no doubt. I think they are way to low. How many Federal entitlement programs actually cost less than advertised?

In 2010 when the law was shoved down are throats the est. was $928 billion .

Your link refers to how much Romney Care Costs, not how much it loses. The program is self funding and the relevant question is not how much it costs, but does it increase the deficit. It's like saying that Social Security adds to the deficit because it's going to cost 11 trillion dollars for the same period.

In fact Romney care reduced the deficit.

FACTS: In May, 2013 the Congressional Budget Office wrote House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis, stating, that it and the Joint Committee on Taxation “most recently estimated the budgetary impact of repealing the [Affordable Care Act] in July 2012. In a letter to Speaker Boehner (sent on July 24, 2012), CBO described the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives earlier in July. In that letter, CBO indicated that the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions that repeal of the ACA would entail. On balance, CBO and JCT estimated, repealing the ACA would affect direct spending and revenues in ways resulting in a net increase in budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period.”

The ACA law as written requires a lot of money to be shelled out over the next 10 years - $1.4 trillion. But it also raises tax revenue and the hope is that it will help cut health care costs.
As a result, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law as a whole would reduce deficits.
Fact checking

This is a deliberate mistating of the facts on your part by selectively editing your own link. I think you should be ashamed of yourself...

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rb59020
Contributing MemberPosts: 668Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to Chato, Oct 9, 2013

Where did I "edit" my own link exactly?

"But it also raises tax revenue and the hope is that it will help cut health care costs."

That's a whole lotta "hope" there Dave. You are welcome to believe it. If you are that naïve, you should be ashamed.

 rb59020's gear list:rb59020's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D5200 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 45,467Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to rb59020, Oct 9, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

Where did I "edit" my own link exactly?

"But it also raises tax revenue and the hope is that it will help cut health care costs."

That's a whole lotta "hope" there Dave. You are welcome to believe it. If you are that naïve, you should be ashamed.

You editied out all aspect of your link which pointed out that the cost is is a meaningless number. The only relevant number is the difference between cost and revenue. As your own link points out Social Security costs 11 Trillion dollars. And you SAID that the CBO has changed their predictions (Completely false) and you used that link to "back up" your claim.

You WERE responding to my statement about the CBO were you not?

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rb59020
Contributing MemberPosts: 668Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to Chato, Oct 9, 2013
 rb59020's gear list:rb59020's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D5200 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vadimraskin
Senior MemberPosts: 3,585Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to rb59020, Oct 9, 2013
 vadimraskin's gear list:vadimraskin's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 45,467Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to rb59020, Oct 9, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

I didn't know that Social Security was the subject. The only paragraph in the entire story that I care about is this:

This calculation has sparked some dissent. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)

I repeat:

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period.

I can link it again if you want.

Unlike you I read the entire link. The cost of Romney Care will be 1.8 Trillion. Just as the cost of Social Security will be 11 trillion.

And?

What that number represents is the total amount of money that will be spent on Romney Care, NOT what the government will LOSE on Romney Care. In fact the CBO states that the government will lose 100 Billion Dollars Without Romney Care.

Now I'm not going to repost the link I provided to the CBO's conclusions. You wish to ignore them and repeat over and over and over the same BS?

Knock yourself out...

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rb59020
Contributing MemberPosts: 668Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to vadimraskin, Oct 9, 2013

Your right, the "net" is ONLY 1.4 trillion, a far cry from what Obama said in 2010 as he lied his azz off and the left sucked it all down. Too funny.

Here's another link to the sad details, and as I said earlier, like an NFL team building a new stadium or you wonderful Federal Government that you love and trust so much building a new highway. Obamacare will go way over budget.

One other thing, as you can see in the chart below. The CBO allows for 185 billion dollars just from companies and individuals who would rather pay fines than be involved in this farce.

The bitter truth.

 rb59020's gear list:rb59020's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D5200 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 45,467Gear list
Like?
Re: Romney Care REDUCES the deficit
In reply to rb59020, Oct 9, 2013

rb59020 wrote:

Your right, the "net" is ONLY 1.4 trillion, a far cry from what Obama said in 2010 as he lied his azz off and the left sucked it all down. Too funny.

Here's another link to the sad details, and as I said earlier, like an NFL team building a new stadium or you wonderful Federal Government that you love and trust so much building a new highway. Obamacare will go way over budget.

One other thing, as you can see in the chart below. The CBO allows for 185 billion dollars just from companies and individuals who would rather pay fines than be involved in this farce.

The bitter truth.

According to your chart the net effect over ten years will be to increase the deficit by 40 billion dollars. However, the CBO estimates that WITHOUT Romney Care, the deficit will rise by 140 billion dollars. And the reason for this is quite simple. All of those people too poor for medicaid, will use the emergency room, the most expencsive care there is, but will NEVER be able to pay the debt off. The Feds pick up the cost.

Now that cost is totally eliminated.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads