Or trying to. Let's go to this New York Time piece titled "Democrats Cheer Budget Forecast on Health Care Bill":
As House Democrats geared up for a possible vote on Sunday to pass health care legislation, the Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis allowing them to point to significant cost savings in the decades ahead.
The House Democratic leader, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said that the nonpartisan budget office had determined that the package of legislation, which would cost about $940 billion over ten years, would produce "the largest deficit reduction of any bill we have adopted in Congress since 1993," when it passed tax increases sought by President Clinton.
In the first ten years, the health legislation would reduce deficits by $138 billion,and the effect on deficits over the following decade would be much greater -- Democrats said $1.2 trillion -- although such long term forecasts are more speculative. The savings would come largely from reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, with new fees and tax increases also contributing.
The full text of the legislation, which would put the final touches on a delicate compromise between the House and the Senate, was to be issued later on Thursday, House Democrats said.
The bill passed by the Senate in December would have reduced deficits by somewhat less -- $118 billion -- according to the budget office, whose estimates are considered authoritative. House leaders, who are seeking first to adopt that Senate bill as written and then to fine tune it with a second bill that could be approved by the Senate with a simple majority vote, had spent the past week or two crunching the numbers with the budget office in order to make the best possible fiscal case to their nervous caucus.
The cost of the legislation has been a major concern for many centrist Democrats, a crucial bloc for leaders who are trying to muster the majority to pass the bill.
"We are absolutely giddy over the great news," said the House's number three Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, who as the party whip is the keeper of its vote tallies.
But what are they giddy about? This?
House Democrats are trumpeting a new Congressional Budget Office report saying that the "reconciled" Senate version of the Obama healthcare bill will save $120-$130 billion in the first ten years, and more after that.
The Washington Post and Politico are blaring headlines about these claimed savings.
However, House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI) issued the following statement:
"The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press - and spinning for partisan gain - numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm. Rep. James Clyburn stated he was "giddy" about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority - in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost."
It's continued smoke and mirrors folks. It's what they're about.
Here's what the CBO did release:
Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.
The deceit continues. Don't be sucked in.
Crossposted(*).



Comments (69)
You don't understand Rick. ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 12:43 PM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
You don't understand Rick. If you can 'deem' a bill passed, you can 'deem' good CBO numbers.
1. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 12:43 PM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 12:43
2. Posted by Don L | March 18, 2010 12:49 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
These numbers are immpeccably accurate because they've been run through the IPPC global warming computers. who could argue with those?
Actually, we all know what they hope to do with savings on those older folks -the ad rtells us that people 50 and over own 80% of the nation's private wealth.
2. Posted by Don L | March 18, 2010 12:49 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 12:49
3. Posted by 914 | March 18, 2010 1:00 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Barry can bribe and fudge all he wants but him and his fellow commie's are soon going down in flames.
3. Posted by 914 | March 18, 2010 1:00 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:00
4. Posted by Hank | March 18, 2010 1:01 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Re: "House Democrats are trumpeting a new Congressional Budget Office report saying that the "reconciled" Senate version of the Obama healthcare bill will save $120-$130 billion in the first ten years, and more after that."
You know, before Obama came along, those use to be pretty large numbers.
Now they seem almost trivial.
4. Posted by Hank | March 18, 2010 1:01 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:01
5. Posted by DaveD | March 18, 2010 1:17 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
If there is any American who does not realize that any grand social program developed by our government is at its very core designed with bankruptcy as its ultimate outcome then he/she must be dead or in a coma.
5. Posted by DaveD | March 18, 2010 1:17 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:17
6. Posted by infidel
| March 18, 2010 1:18 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
I think, given the statements by Pelosi and Obambi in the last 2 days, a laugh track is the only thing missing behind their claims of fiscal prudence and democratic ideals.
How come I had to take a urine test for my minimum wage job (after losing my real trade job of 25 years) and senile & addled cretins like Pelosi and Reid and a former crack head current POTUS doesn't have to when the fate of our freedom is in the balance?
6. Posted by infidel
| March 18, 2010 1:18 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:18
7. Posted by _Mike_ | March 18, 2010 1:19 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Note:
Pay for 10 years, but only get 6 year of service... that's how they can claim 'deficit reduction'.
Since when was 6 for the price of 10 a good deal ?
7. Posted by _Mike_ | March 18, 2010 1:19 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:19
8. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 18, 2010 1:21 PM | Score: -6 (16 votes cast)
Quote of the Day:
"Now a lot of us love America and we don't want to see this transformation into something that is unrecognizable this European style of health care in this case we're talking about but no so many of us who love America and believe in what our founding fathers providentially had crafted for us via our documents including our Constitution we don't agree with this fundamental transformation of America that Obama promised us."
~Sarah Palin
8. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 18, 2010 1:21 PM |
Score: -6 (16 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:21
9. Posted by epador | March 18, 2010 1:27 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Adrian, that "transcript" is more coherent than most of your rantings, LOL
9. Posted by epador | March 18, 2010 1:27 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:27
10. Posted by Justrand | March 18, 2010 1:30 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
This is not the CBO report you seek...you don't need to see a CBO report...this Bill is deemed passed...you love Queen Pelosi
10. Posted by Justrand | March 18, 2010 1:30 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:30
11. Posted by Drago | March 18, 2010 1:31 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Hmmm, interesting.
On a day where we may be only days or hours away from the massive dem majority in the house "deeming" a bill passed which will result eventually in the federal govt controlling 1/6th more of the economy (in addition to the 2 car companies and all the heavily controlled financial institutions), when the dems have a near-filibuster proof number of members in the senate, and the Presidency, Adriane decides to provide a "quote" (without link, why?) attributed to a non-office holding ex-gov from Alaska whom every lib and democrat claims is completely irrelevant.
Why?
Well, we know why. They want to talk about anything except what the massive dem majorities in government are trying to do.
Sort of like Lenin murduring millions while pointing fingers at those darn kulaks and counter-revolutionaries.
The left.
Their tactics have never changed.
Because they can't change.
11. Posted by Drago | March 18, 2010 1:31 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:31
12. Posted by Jeff | March 18, 2010 1:41 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
The outright deceit being peddled in this health care legislation is stunning.
We are supposed to take at face value that cutting 500 billion from Medicare and spending it on other programs will strengthen Medicare.
We are being asked to take at face value that future insurance premiums are lower because the goverment will give you a kickback. A kickback that the government extracted from you in the form of new taxes in the first place.
We are expected to take at face value a program that taxes us for 10 years but only pays out benefits for 6 years as "deficit reducing".
Democrats really do think we are ignorant.
12. Posted by Jeff | March 18, 2010 1:41 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:41
13. Posted by 914 | March 18, 2010 1:42 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Liars and the lies they tell. Hussein out lying his dumbass off again touting fictitios demoncrat shellgame numbers.
Wow! 900 billion falsified savings over 10 years? Hell! He's already indebted the Country to the tune of -22 trillion his first stinking year as ACORNS chief swindulator. That and add or shall I say subtract the 12 million jobs he has already stolen away and he is most certainly, wait for it......
Worst President EVAH!!!!!
13. Posted by 914 | March 18, 2010 1:42 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:42
14. Posted by Bob | March 18, 2010 1:44 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The farther out any so-called "deficit reduction" is, the less likely that it will come to pass. As I understand it, MassCare is already at 4 times its originally projected cost. I think we'll be lucky if ObamaCare costs only 4 times what he and his minions say it will.
14. Posted by Bob | March 18, 2010 1:44 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:44
15. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 1:49 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
"The Congressional Budget Office is non-partisan. It is that office that created this cost estimate, not the Dems or the administration."
Stevie, you are a fucking imbecile. Glad you don't do my house hold budgeting. Figure it out genius. Tax NOW for the 1st four years, then SPEND for six years. Then say that ACCURATELY reflects the TRUE cost over 10 years.
You want the REAL numbers? Look at the first four years of cost projection by the CBO: around $17 billion. Cost for the following SIX years: over $640 BILLION!
Think about that you stupid fucking shit! WHY so little the first 4 years, why SO MUCH the next 6 years? Because you dumb ass, Nancy and Company gamed the system. If you want the TRUE COST for a full 10 years of implementation it will be in the area of $1.8 TRILLION. But idiots like you won't realize that until 2024. Too late then to realize you've been had.
Just like your marvelous "Social Security".
15. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 1:49 PM |
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:49
16. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 1:54 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Hey Stevie, want to see your future under ObamaCare? This just in:
"Medicaid customers in the state of Washington will no longer be able to get prescriptions filled at Walgreens."
Or is your Obamassiah going to pass a law mandating that businesses go bankrupt waiting for the government to pay their bills?
16. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 1:54 PM |
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:54
17. Posted by Gayle Miller | March 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Figures lie and liars figure! And that's just simple truth, folks!
17. Posted by Gayle Miller | March 18, 2010 1:55 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:55
18. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | March 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
So they have gone from jobs saved or created to money saved or created. One can only wonder what follows that, the Earth saved or created?
18. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | March 18, 2010 1:55 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:55
19. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
$12 trillion in debt. $1.6 trillion deficit forecast for this year, and trillion-dollar deficits forecast for the next decade.
We get about $2 trillion a year in revenue from the IRS.
And now there's indications the credit rating of the US may be potentially downgraded, which will make borrowing money more difficult, at higher interest rates. Business is in a decline.
We can't grow the economy to get more revenue unless there's energy. 'Green' power's not going to cut it, we can't build nukes, and we can't drill.
But somehow passing health care's going help make the US economy solvent? If someone could explain how collecting more taxes so the government can pay money out (with associated wastage in the process) to insurances companies will make the whole system more efficient or turn us from a debtor nation to an economically healthy country, please tell me how. Because I'm really, really not seeing it.
19. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 1:56 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:56
20. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 1:59 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
HEY STEVIE! More good news:
"Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores."
Stevie, your gonna LOVE ObamaCare. Maybe you can get your prescriptions filled IN CANADA. IF you can find a doctor to write one.
20. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 1:59 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 13:59
21. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 2:04 PM | Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
That's it Stevie. Change gears. LOOK OVER THERE!
The Congressional Budget Office says that Spendulus will harm the economy, not help it."
And as I recall Stevie, you were ALL FOR "The Stimulus", because it was going to keep unemployment below 8%. It had 'shovel ready jobs'.
Let's face it Stevie, you're a Kool Aid drinker. Why don't you hop back over to DK. Who knows, maybe your Obamassiah will drop by and you can kiss his ass.
21. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 2:04 PM |
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:04
22. Posted by Drago | March 18, 2010 2:13 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
li'l stevie: "Why not? Obama is in favor of nuclear power."
A safe position to take, since he knows dems in congress will never allow more nuke plants to be built.
Quick question for Steve Green: Does the CBO estimate of "savings" over the first 10 years include taxes for 10 years but spending for only 6?
yes or no?
This is an easy one.
I'm popping the popcorn as I await your amusing and silly "non-answer".
22. Posted by Drago | March 18, 2010 2:13 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:13
23. Posted by epador | March 18, 2010 2:17 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Wow, throwing out diversions and straw men like we're in a carnival side show. Or Obama at a Fox News interview. Well, Sideshow Bob AKA SG, no one here is buying it.
23. Posted by epador | March 18, 2010 2:17 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:17
24. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 2:31 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Drago, Stevie never answers questions. That's not covered in the DNC talking points.
Just ask Barry. He was all talking points last night. And was getting pissed off when pressed for details. President Empty Suit has ALWAYS been light on details.
24. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 2:31 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:31
25. Posted by _Mike_ | March 18, 2010 2:43 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
The CBO estimates what Congress provides them.
Congress asked the CBO to estimate the cost of billing for 10 years but only providing service for 6 years. (along with other scams used to make the scam
It's like saying Enron was honest and upfront because their calculators worked.
25. Posted by _Mike_ | March 18, 2010 2:43 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:43
26. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 2:50 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"Why not? Obama is in favor of nuclear power."
That's what he says. But really - how many projects have been approved and STARTED?
By the time all the regulatory hurdles are lifted, and all the environmentalist objectors are finished with their years in court, how many years and billions of dollars do you think will have been spent before the first shovelful of dirt is turned and construction started?
I'm estimating about a billion per, and five years. And then we can expect regulatory 'changes' as construction nears finishing, requiring extensive/expensive rework and billions more added onto the costs of each plant.
With luck, Southern Company will have a license they applied for two years back approved by the end of next year. That's 4 years - IF there's no further delays.
And it'll take probably 5 years (likely more) after THAT to build the hardware. So, a rabidly optimistic estimate is 10 years, from licensing start to online power out.Of course, China could do it faster, but their government actually WANTS to build the things.
26. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 2:50 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:50
27. Posted by Drago | March 18, 2010 2:50 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
stupid li'l stevie!
Stevie, please explain how "loan guarantees" result in permits being issued, environmental impact statements being completed, environmental group-inspired lawsuits being resolved in a timely or cost effective way.
I'll keep popping popcorn while you avoid answering.
BTW stevie, did you not "understand" the 10-years of taxes, only 6-years of benefits basis for the CBO estimate of the dems health care takeover bill?
27. Posted by Drago | March 18, 2010 2:50 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:50
28. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 2:53 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Can't just trust the headlines, Stevie. I got my data from the same article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html
As Drago points out (and as was pointed out in the article) regulatory requirements can effectively cancel any project.
28. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 2:53 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:53
29. Posted by Michael | March 18, 2010 2:56 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
little stevie is a fascist in training.
29. Posted by Michael | March 18, 2010 2:56 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:56
30. Posted by Eric | March 18, 2010 2:57 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Steve, I don't believe anyone here is calling the CBO a liar except you.
The CBO is required to score the cost of a bill exactly as the bill is written over a 10 year span.
Here's the thing, the Democrats wrote the bill so that the bulk of the services don't start for 6 years. This great Healthcare plan that the Democrats have sold as a crisis that needs to be fixed right now, won't actually START to take effect for 6 years.
Why? So that it can make the inital 10 year cost look smaller because there is only 6 years of actual services over the first ten years.
The CBO scoring has the cost at $940 Billion over the first 10 years. Over the long run it is NOT a cost reduction. By 2019 the cost is $216 Billion/year. Take that number and multiply it by the next ten years, and the cost is $2.16 TRILLION. That doesn't account for any growth. The cost over each subsequent decade will be more than TWICE the cost of the first decade.
The Democrats are lying to the American people about the way this works. This is exactly the same kind of accounting that ENRON used.
30. Posted by Eric | March 18, 2010 2:57 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:57
31. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 2:57 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Well, yeah, I'm frightened at the prospect of the destruction of our health care industry. Everyone should be.
31. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 2:57 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:57
32. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 2:58 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Steve Green wrote:
Which is a funny statement coming from the dolt who believes the House of Representatives uses a filibuster.
32. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 2:58 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:58
33. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 2:59 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
By the way, anyone ever see the movie "The Abyss"? (Great film, loads of fun...)
That was filmed in underwater sets at a partially-completed nuclear power plant that had been abandoned because of "An uncertain economy, stringent federal regulations on nuclear plants and a decrease in electrical use"
33. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 2:59 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 14:59
34. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 3:03 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Stevie -
How many nuclear power regulatory requirements did CLINTON relax? And how many plants did HE build?
Zero. And zero.
And I think Bush had a LOT more going on in his Presidency than Clinton did. So what was Clinton's excuse?
34. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 3:03 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 15:03
35. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 3:06 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
"Yes, progress takes time - but the construction of new nuclear power plants is moving forward."
No, it's not. The LICENSING is. Construction is something entirely different.
35. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 3:06 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 15:06
36. Posted by Hank | March 18, 2010 3:47 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
I'm trying to understand the dem logic of all this. I know, oxymoron.
As Jlawson stated: "$12 trillion in debt. $1.6 trillion deficit forecast for this year, and trillion-dollar deficits forecast for the next decade."
And the dems brag about a bill that [might] save $120-$130 billion in the first ten years. A bill which would cost about $940 billion over ten years.
No wonder this country is going bankrupt.
As Obama himself has stated: "We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money."
36. Posted by Hank | March 18, 2010 3:47 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 15:47
37. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 4:02 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
The larger point is that this bill doesn't "save" anything. All the CBO does is push buttons on the calculators. The bill will be funded by taking money away from Medicare, and raising fees and taxes. Nothing is "saved."
37. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 4:02 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 16:02
38. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 4:24 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Yeah Stevie, don't analyze, just 'cut and paste'.
Here some more good news for you.
"The number of newly laid-off workers requesting jobless benefits fell slightly last week for the third straight time. But initial claims remain above levels that would signal net job gains."
Just remember Stevie, the same folks telling you their program is gonna "save money" are the same one's who predicted their wonderful "Stimulus" would keep unemployment BELOW 8%.
You remember "Stimulus" don't you Stevie? As I recall, you were all for it. Want to trot out that list of "millions of jobs saved"?
38. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 4:24 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 16:24
39. Posted by _Mike_ | March 18, 2010 4:26 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Steve Green! Act now and you get 6 years of Obamacare for the price of 10 years!
In D.C., that's called savings, baby!
Hurray! Act now! Scams like this won't last long! errr.. I mean.. Deals.. Deals like this..
39. Posted by _Mike_ | March 18, 2010 4:26 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 16:26
40. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 4:27 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Oh, and Stevie, I'm still waiting for a reply on the earlier post. WHY are costs only around $17 BILLION the 1st 4 years and over $640 BILLION the next 6? How's that work out Stevie? How'd they do the math? Didn't Enron tank trying to do the same thing?
40. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 4:27 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 16:27
41. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 4:31 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Take 5 folks, get a cup of coffee, smoke if ya got 'em. Stevie will be right back with his next 'cut and paste'.
Don't expect answers to your questions. Stevie, like Barry, is light on details, but GREAT on talking points.
41. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 4:31 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 16:31
42. Posted by bobdog | March 18, 2010 4:40 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I thought Stevie got squashed yesterday.
Here I was all hopey and stuff.
42. Posted by bobdog | March 18, 2010 4:40 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 16:40
43. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 5:00 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Hey Stevie, come back, I was wrong!
The cost of coverage for the last 6 years of the 10 year CBO report IS NOT $640 BILLION.
It's $923 BILLION! Sorry. That'll teach me to use ObamaMath.
43. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 5:00 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:00
44. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 5:00 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Steve Green has some pathetic, pitiful need to post his claim that he has stocks and that he's going on vacation. Steve Green, take some of those great big stock profits and buy a hooker next week. It'll do you a world of good.
Oh, and don't look at Obama's approval rating. Even a hooker can't do anything for that.
44. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 5:00 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:00
45. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 5:16 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Hey, Stevie - "It'll reduce the deficit by $120-$130 billion in the first ten years - and$1.2 trillion in the second decade."
That's $120 billion a year. Think we'll still be racking up trillion-dollar annual deficits by that time?
It used to be $100 billion was considered an incredible amount, and a deficit like that was unthinkable. Now, it's chump change for the government. It's insane.
I think we need to reassess the situation. If the folks in Washington can't (or don't want to) tell the difference between millions, billions, and trillions and keep thinking they can easily spend 75% more each year than the IRS can collect, it's time to get some folks in there who DO understand the difference, and won't toss money out like it's Monopoly confetti!
45. Posted by JLawson | March 18, 2010 5:16 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:16
46. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 5:25 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Stevie is over at Timmy Geithner's house right now. Their running the printing presses. Stevie says the government 'has plenty of money', especially now that Timmy's gotten that second press thanks to the "Stimulus".
46. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 5:25 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:25
47. Posted by retired military | March 18, 2010 5:37 PM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Steve Green
Some vacation homework.
a. Find one govt program that came in on or under budget. Just one.
b. Name one entitlement program which actually cost the same or less than the govt beaurocrat who suggested it said it would.
Just one.
1...2...3... 596...597
47. Posted by retired military | March 18, 2010 5:37 PM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:37
48. Posted by zaugg | March 18, 2010 5:37 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
StevoGreeno- Der Leader nixed offshore drilling and is lying about Nuclear power now. The gloves are coming off now that Der Leader has lied and lied and lied.
Liar in Chief. Jail won't be good enough for him come 2012.
48. Posted by zaugg | March 18, 2010 5:37 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:37
49. Posted by retired military | March 18, 2010 5:47 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Stevie boy
You may wnat to take a look at this
http://www.qando.net/?p=7542#comments
for a decent article on the budget numbers from the CBO.
Key statements in here (that rational (not liberal) people pay attention to are things like -
Note also the chart in the CBO report how the "net cost" is accomplished:
Taxes and penalties. Penalties on individuals and employers. Taxes on "Cadillac" plans. Question - what happens when those all dry up as revenue streams? The scoring assumes a constant stream. I think we all know better than that. Of course the answer is they must find new revenue streams, i.e. new taxes (or "penalties" as they're sure to deem them). Additionally full into the spending curve of the plan, we're looking at around 200 billion a year. Over 10 years that 2 trillion dollars
Again, remember - the CBO's scoring assumes absolutely no changes in the bill, revenue streams or projected spending over those 10 years. That's absolute nonsense on a saltine cracker and we all know that.
There is no way those revenue streams remain constant, there's no way the spending on health care - if this is enacted - won't be increased as the bill is built upon and despite the CBO's guess for the following 10 years in which it says it will continue to "save" money, there's very little to support that premise.
Also from the CBO report
"The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO's 10-year budget estimates.
"
Doesnt sound like the CBO believes its own calculations.
49. Posted by retired military | March 18, 2010 5:47 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:47
50. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 5:55 PM | Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
Rick - "deficits over the following decade would be much greater -- Democrats said $1.2 trillion -- although such long term forecasts are more speculative."
Not only are the demturds full of shit, but liars as well, the CBO is only allowed (by law) to score the first ten years of any bill.
They're not speculators, they'er liars.
50. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 5:55 PM |
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 17:55
51. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 6:03 PM | Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
s green..... "small chunk of my 2010 stock market profits"
Better check your portfolio for companies with employees of 100 or more.
Those companies will be slammed with a fee/tax/penalty of 65,000$ if they don't have health insurance.
Bet their profits, assuming they stay in business, and your stocks take a large downward hit.
51. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 6:03 PM |
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:03
52. Posted by Oyster | March 18, 2010 6:04 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Steve is quoting Devin Barber, stand up comedian, proponent of a single payer healthcare system, and "Left of Right" commentator. Steve doesn't care what the CBO has written or the fact that they're just beginning to look at all the discretionary spending associated with the bill. Poor Steve. At some point late in his life he's going to need hip replacement surgery and he's going say, "Damn, this isn't what I was rooting for."
52. Posted by Oyster | March 18, 2010 6:04 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:04
53. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 6:09 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Speaking of 'the most open, most honest, most ethical Congress, evah!'
FROM PEW RESEARCH:
When asked for a single word that best describes their impression of Congress, "dysfunctional," "corrupt," "self-serving" and "inept" are volunteered most frequently. Of people offering a one-word description, 86% have something negative to say, while only 4% say something positive
53. Posted by GarandFan | March 18, 2010 6:09 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:09
54. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 6:16 PM | Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
Psssst s green... your dividends are getting slammed asshole:
Pssst better cancel your "vacation," your stock profits are getting slammed with a 23.8 percent tax an increase from the present 15%.54. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 6:16 PM |
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:16
55. Posted by Deke | March 18, 2010 6:20 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
History, it's a funny thing; It's there to teach us but unfort., the human race never seems to learn from it's lessons. Even recent events within the memories of a large portion of Americans are quickly forgotten, especially in our modern age.
Examples?
Social Security, the idea though good, is going to bankrupt our country and actuarilly speaking it's undeniable.
Medicare, have the costs not far exceeded the "projected" costs? Of course they have, that's why one of the few politicians I trust, one Ronald Reagan, in his Operation Coffee Cup, worked hard to defeat it, he knew there was no way to afford it without giving up our freedoms.
Medicaide, again costs have far exceeded what was promised and has become a system of graft, waste and corruption.
The lesson? Government can't provide for everyone without taking from others and without the complacent approval of those being taken from. Our founders invisioned a country where a person would succeed or fail based on their abilities and created a Constitution and included a Bill of Rights to protect individuals. Our headlong rush towards Facism is amazing and yet perplexing at the same time. Where we go after the final nail, Healthcare, is in the proverbial coffin, is one I guiltily look forward to seeing.
55. Posted by Deke | March 18, 2010 6:20 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:20
56. Posted by exceller | March 18, 2010 6:45 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
All rational adults understand that the numbers are a joke. It's complete smoke and mirrors. However even if by some miracle these reductions actually occur, they are so small as to be like taking one teaspoon out of the ocean.
$138 billion over 10 years is roughly $1 billion a month. We're currently running a monthly deficit of over $100 billion per month, and we're supposed to be relieved that this bill will reduce it about 1% per month?
This whole deal is a national disgrace for many reasons.
56. Posted by exceller | March 18, 2010 6:45 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:45
57. Posted by Rich | March 18, 2010 6:51 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I know he is the only lib troll left,but damn.....this is not The Steve Green Blog:Featuring the Wizbang Writers. Seriously. Look at most the replies of this thread and they all start off with Stevie....no wonder he loves to be here and be the first to reply.
57. Posted by Rich | March 18, 2010 6:51 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:51
58. Posted by retired military | March 18, 2010 6:53 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
BTW Stevie
Did your dem talking points mention that out of that $130 billion savings that is supposed to come out of this $90 billion is due to the student loan program being attached to this.
Yeah didnt think it was in your DU talking point sheet.
58. Posted by retired military | March 18, 2010 6:53 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 18:53
59. Posted by Stan | March 18, 2010 7:08 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
I don't have to worry about my Congress Critter. She has been against this farce from day one. Being that she is the only Rep we have here in Wyoming and a solid Republican to boot, I know where she stands.
59. Posted by Stan | March 18, 2010 7:08 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 19:08
60. Posted by Falze | March 18, 2010 7:56 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Name one entitlement program which actually cost the same or less than the govt beaurocrat who suggested it said it would.
I think Medicare D might fit the bill, actually. Not that it makes it a good idea.
Anyway, you can take this whole thread and crumple it up into a ball - the democrats have just added a ton more handouts and spending to the bill that no one has seen to buy more votes, so whatever it was 'scored' at before, that's gone out the window
60. Posted by Falze | March 18, 2010 7:56 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 19:56
61. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 8:37 PM | Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
SEN. TOM COBURN (R), OKLAHOMA: "I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House."
"If you voted no and [now] you vote yes, and you lose your election [in November], and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held."
"Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House."
61. Posted by Marc | March 18, 2010 8:37 PM |
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 20:37
62. Posted by Jay Tea | March 18, 2010 8:55 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
It'd be better if you put punctuation into it, Adrian, and most oral statements don't lend themselves to transcriptions, but I understand that rules of punctuation might be a bit out of your grasp.
J.
62. Posted by Jay Tea | March 18, 2010 8:55 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 20:55
63. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 9:08 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The Dems are gonna try every trick in the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLemdORSx_E
63. Posted by iwogisdead | March 18, 2010 9:08 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 21:08
64. Posted by Sir Toby Belch | March 18, 2010 10:46 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Look.....it's gonna happen. House will have the
votes. Explain to me, though, how Dems scream that thousands die every week/month/year and
the bill kicks in 3-4 YEARS!!!!! Ask a Dem
about this. Should be a question to EVERY Dem
on cable TV.
64. Posted by Sir Toby Belch | March 18, 2010 10:46 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2010 22:46
65. Posted by 914 | March 19, 2010 2:02 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
They're pulling the wool over thier lies
65. Posted by 914 | March 19, 2010 2:02 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 19, 2010 02:02
66. Posted by Jim Addison | March 19, 2010 2:37 AM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
It's even worse than commenters have already noted. Not only does the CBO figure count only 6 years of benefits against ten years of tax collection for them, they also - by law - must count the Medicare "cuts" included in the bill, $500 billion that everyone knows will NEVER be enacted.
And they ridiculed Reagan's budgets for their "rosy scenario" of projected future growth which turned out to be an underestimate!
These numbers are bogus, but don't blame the CBO. They are required by law to use the crap Congress submits to them, so don't be surprised when they deliver a crap sandwich for lunch!
66. Posted by Jim Addison | March 19, 2010 2:37 AM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 19, 2010 02:37
67. Posted by JLawson | March 19, 2010 8:48 AM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
"And the dems brag about a bill that [might] save $120-$130 billion in the first ten years. A bill which would cost about $940 billion over ten years."
And for February alone, the deficit was $220 billion. For one month. That pretty well wiped out the savings, and more. If that trend continues, we're looking at well over $2 trillion in deficit spending this year.
Yet somehow we're supposed to believe it's all affordable.
Tell me, when are those gold-shitting rainbow-patterned unicorns supposed to be delivered again?
67. Posted by JLawson | March 19, 2010 8:48 AM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 19, 2010 08:48
68. Posted by JLawson | March 19, 2010 8:55 AM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Sorry about the double there....
68. Posted by JLawson | March 19, 2010 8:55 AM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 19, 2010 08:55
69. Posted by 914 | March 19, 2010 2:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Yet somehow we're supposed to believe it's all affordable.
Tell me, when are those gold-shitting rainbow-patterned unicorns supposed to be delivered again?"
As soon as Barry pulls his head outta his ass and starts pushing..
69. Posted by 914 | March 19, 2010 2:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 19, 2010 14:46