[Big Mac]

One of President Obama's explicit promises concerning health care reform is that it will be deficit neutral - meaning that the legislation will not increase the deficit. But we know the following facts about both the House and Senate bills:

1) They begin collecting taxes for the programs when enacted, but they don't start paying out benefits until 2014. As a result of collecting taxes for more years than they pay out benefits, the programs appear to be deficit neutral in the short run - from 2010-2020. But a projection from 2014-2024, a full decade of the programs paying out benefits, shows that the programs will be decidedly deficit worsening - one Republican Senator claims the true cost of the legislation will be an additional $2 trillion per decade.

2) Both bills leave out the so-called "Doctor Fix" of $200+ billion in additional health care costs over the next ten years. If the Doctor Fix were factored in, both bills are shown to break the pledge of being deficit neutral.

Now does anyone care to try to argue for these bills being truly deficit neutral? One liberal commentator on FNC said that these objections amount to quibbling, but I don't see how such sizable, substantive objections can be labeled as minor. Now I've heard Obama say that longer term projections don't take into account the budgetary savings that health reform will provide, but I find that claim to be just as dubious as Obama's claim that the Stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%. I'd like to see a reasonable defense of the Dem position on this issue.

[BadKosh]

This is no different from all the other Tax-n-Spend-Spend-Spend bills the liberals have lied to us about. The problem with these entitlements is they never go away. The corruption and lack of accounting of the recent 0bama bail-outs suggest that these health care bills are just as poorly conceived.

[SpaceMonkey]

I don't know what kind of debate you think there could be on 'NN about this. Either you believe one set of projections that says there will be significant cost savings, or you don't.

[Big Mac]

Where are those projections, SpaceMonkey? I've heard Obama make such claims, but I've never seen official, non-partisan (or even partisan) projections. Please enlighten me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Where are those projections, SpaceMonkey? I've heard Obama make such claims, but I've never seen official, non-partisan (or even partisan) projections. Please enlighten me.

http://thehill.com/images/stories/wh...3962rangel.pdf

"According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010– 2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

[Chongo]

Those figures a skewed by the fact that the taxing portion goes into effect almost immediately, while the actual insurance part does not start until 2012. There are four or more years of tax collections before anything has to be paid out.

Obamacare has nothing top do with health care reform. It is solely about securing power for another generation or longer. I can see the ads now: "Candidate X and the Republicans want to take your health care away!" We hear this every cycle with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The ironic thing is that both the House and Senate bill reduce Medicare/Medicaid benefits as part of the funding mechanism.

[Chuckit]

But some of the functionality of Medicare/Medicaid is incorporated into the new program, isn't it? So they're not really reducing funding for those programs so much as moving them around.

[Big Mac]

Well, they're foisting huge new unfunded Medicaid mandates on to the states, for one. I don't know of anything that they're moving around in terms of Medicare - they claim to be cutting $500 B from it, which I don't believe will ever happen.

[BadKosh]

Are we counting the bribe to the Senator in LA?

[Shaddim]

My state's governor and legislature have already stated that they will not, under any circumstances, be a part of Obamacare. I'm just glad I don't have to directly deal with that mess.

[Big Mac]

Even if your state's citizens have to pay their taxes to fund it? Are they really going to turn down any opportunity to get something back for their money?

[ort888]

Yeah, just like all those states that refused to take stimulus money... we all saw how that turned out.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Those figures a skewed by the fact that the taxing portion goes into effect almost immediately, while the actual insurance part does not start until 2012. There are four or more years of tax collections before anything has to be paid out.

This is rarely if ever mentioned in any of the mainstream media's so-called "objective" analysis.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now I've heard Obama say that longer term projections don't take into account the budgetary savings that health reform will provide, but I find that claim to be just as dubious as Obama's claim that the Stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%.

Please don't rewrite history; the administration's claim was below 8%.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Those figures a skewed by the fact that the taxing portion goes into effect almost immediately, while the actual insurance part does not start until 2012. There are four or more years of tax collections before anything has to be paid out.

If you are referring to the report I linked to, it assesses the budgetary impact through 2029.

[olePigeon]

Federal Health Care won't ever be budget neutral because there are no safeguards to keep their fat, greedy hands from borrowing money from it.

It's going to fall into the same sinkhole as social security. Unless the money is allowed to mature and gain interest, it won't work. Like social security, it works in principle, but in reality, those politicians and their lobbyists won't be able to keep their hands out of the SS and FHC cookie jars.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Even if your state's citizens have to pay their taxes to fund it? Are they really going to turn down any opportunity to get something back for their money?

We won't be paying, even if they threaten to cut federal programs and grants. Like I said, we won't be part of it.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: what would that chart or graph that would convince you have to look like?

[Big Mac]

SpaceMonkey made the best attempt, besson, but the CBO points out its estimates could be very much off - and 9 times out of 10 they have been off - way off, in making excessively rosy projections.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

SpaceMonkey made the best attempt, besson, but the CBO points out its estimates could be very much off - and 9 times out of 10 they have been off - way off, in making excessively rosy projections.

Which leads back to my question about why begin the thread in the first place. No one who is being honest will tell you anything about the state of the budget deficit in 2019, 2029, or further without cautioning that they could be way, way off. If you're not inclined to believe that the CBO could be right, then there is really no way to "convince" you.

[besson3c]

I predict that the CBO will be within 3 cents of being accurate.

[hyteckit]

Under Pres. Bush

Prescription Drug Bill - $600 billion unpaid for
Iraq War - $1 trillion unpaid for

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Under Pres. Bush

Prescription Drug Bill - $600 billion unpaid for
Iraq War - $1 trillion unpaid for

See, this is what I don't get. Everybody now is saying that they didn't approve of Bush spending this kind of money either, but where were all of the conservatives freaking out like they are now? Where were the tea party protesters and all of this hoopla back then? Where was all of the talk about becoming a socialist nation and all of that during the Bush bailouts?

Why do conservatives only freak out when a Democrat is president?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do conservatives only freak out when a Democrat is president?

They don't.

E.g. I never said that Bush was a great fiscal conservative.

The Republicans screwed around with the economy very badly and got many things very wrong (incl. first bailouts and the first stimulus).

The tragedy is that Obama's change just takes the same sh!t to a even bigger level.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Under Pres. Bush

Prescription Drug Bill - $600 billion unpaid for
Iraq War - $1 trillion unpaid for

So now the Democrats are trying to get even, with similiar f**king idiocy and retarded economic programs ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Please don't rewrite history; the administration's claim was below 8%.

I don't think "rewriting history" was Big Mac's intention.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So now the Democrats are trying to get even, with similiar f**king idiocy and retarded economic programs ?

-t

By following f*cking idiocy and retarded economic programs like cutting taxes to fund a $1 trillion war?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

They don't.

E.g. I never said that Bush was a great fiscal conservative.

The Republicans screwed around with the economy very badly and got many things very wrong (incl. first bailouts and the first stimulus).

The tragedy is that Obama's change just takes the same sh!t to a even bigger level.

-t

Turtle, where were your Bush bashing threads? I remember those days well, and I do remember that you were not a vocal Bush opponent, none of you staunch conservatives were.

You cannot tell me honestly that the constant barrage of Obama doing stuff all wrong, everything ranging from the silly to the sensible, has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Democrat.

[hyteckit]

What idiot President and what idiot congress funds 2 wars by cutting taxes?

Fund wars by cutting taxes? WTF?

Seems like creating a bigger deficit.

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More - washingtonpost.com

[hyteckit]

Just a article I ran into 2 days ago.

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle, where were your Bush bashing threads?

So, not bashing equals consent ?

And further: since you were in every single one of the Bush bashing threads, how can you be FOR what Obama is doing now, given that it's just taking Bush's low standard to a even greater low ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So, not bashing equals consent ?

And further: since you were in every single one of the Bush bashing threads, how can you be FOR what Obama is doing now, given that it's just taking Bush's low standard to a even greater low ?

-t

Turning the tables on me, I see?

No bashing does not equal consent, but let's get real, can you honestly say that the proportion, quantity, and frequency of your complaining has nothing to do with the fact that we have a Democratic administration now?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No bashing does not equal consent, but let's get real, can you honestly say that the proportion, quantity, and frequency of your complaining has nothing to do with the fact that we have a Democratic administration now?

Oh, yes, I agree, I more vocal now than ever.

Because the sh!t's getting more catastrophic than ever.

If we really had change, I had no reason to be here.

-t

[besson3c]

You did not answer my question. Nothing has changed, but you are more vocal now why? It has nothing to do with this administration being a Democratic administration?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You did not answer my question. Nothing has changed, but you are more vocal now why?

Nothing has changed ?

Uhm, DUDE

• nationalizing GM and Chrysler
• nationalizing the mortgage industry (Fannie, Freddie)
• nationalizing big banks
• record budget deficits
• monetizing debt
• proposal to nationalize health care system
• crap and tade

That's nothing ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Nothing has changed ?

Uhm, DUDE

• nationalizing GM and Chrysler
• nationalizing the mortgage industry (Fannie, Freddie)
• nationalizing big banks
• record budget deficits
• monetizing debt
• proposal to nationalize health care system
• crap and tade

That's nothing ?

-t

So nothing has changed since Pres. Bush.

Corporate Bailouts Through History - BusinessWeek

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So nothing has changed since Pres. Bush.

Seriously, hyteckit, it's past your bedtime.

Nobody expects a grade school kid to understand the orders of magnitude between the past bailouts and the current bailouts.

Maybe tomorrow, your mom can explain what all these big numbers mean, and you can add up all the bailouts in history before and incl. Bush, and then bailouts thereafter, and ponder what I meant in my second sentence.

-t

[besson3c]

According to you our economic policies have not changed since Bush. Where was your outrage when Bush bailed out the banks?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Where did he say that?

Why the hell can't anyone ever answer a simple question, or just admit "I don't know." rather than desperately trying for a clever (but really ultra-lame) "gotcha!" comeback?

Did anyone ask about the policies of the previous admin? No. Is Bush still president and making policies? No.

Convince Big Mac that Obamacare will be deficit neutral, or admit "I don't know if it will be" or STFU about it. How about that?

[besson3c]

Convince me that it is worth my time to bother trying.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Seriously, hyteckit, it's past your bedtime.

Nobody expects a grade school kid to understand the orders of magnitude between the past bailouts and the current bailouts.

Maybe tomorrow, your mom can explain what all these big numbers mean, and you can add up all the bailouts in history before and incl. Bush, and then bailouts thereafter, and ponder what I meant in my second sentence.

-t

Add the following to the $3 trillion sunk cost for Iraq War and the $1 trillion Medicare Part D plan over 10 years.

Bush's Bailouts: $1.8 TRILLION and Counting | Democrats.com

A $1.8 Trillion Bailout: Where the Money's Going

The U.S. Treasury Department is working through the weekend with Congress to craft a plan to spend as much as $700 billion to absorb bad mortgages and other assets from bank or other institution balance sheets to keep the financial system from collapsing.
The move comes close on the heels of an $85 billion Federal Reserve rescue of American International Group and the Treasury's takeover of housing finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Treasury plan, which follows a new federal guarantee for money market fund holdings, would push Washington's potential bailout tab to $1.8 trillion.
Following are details of actions, proposals and amounts:
—Up to $700 billion to buy assets from struggling institutions. The plan is aimed at sopping up residential and commercial mortgages from financial institutions but gives Treasury broad latitude.
—Up to $50 billion from the Great Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund to guarantee principal in money market mutual funds to provide the same confidence that consumers have in federally insured bank deposits.
—The Fed committed to make unspecified discount window loans to financial institutions to finance the purchase of assets from money market funds to aid redemptions.
—At least $10 billion in Treasury direct purchases of mortgage-backed securities in September. In doubling the program on Friday, the Treasury said it may purchase even more in the months ahead.
—Up to $144 billion in additional MBS purchases by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.The Treasury announced they would increase purchases up to the newly expanded investment portfolio limits of $850 billion each. On July 30, the Fannie portfolio stood at $758.1 billion with Freddie's at $798.2 billion.
—$85 billion loan for AIG, which would give the Federal government a 79.9 percent stake and avoid a bankruptcy filing for the embattled insurer. AIG management will be dismissed.
—At least $87 billion in repayments to JPMorgan Chasefor providing financing to underpin trades with units of bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers. Paulson said over the weekend he was adamant that public funds not be used to rescue the firm.
—$200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury will inject up to $100 billion into each institution by purchasing preferred stock to shore up their capital as needed. The deal puts the two housing finance firms under government control.
—$300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration to refinance failing mortgage into new, reduced-principal loans with a federal guarantee, passed as part of a broad housing rescue bill.
—$4 billion in grants to local communities to help them buy and repair homes abandoned due to mortgage foreclosures.
—$29 billion in financing for JPMorgan Chase's government-brokered buyout of Bear Stearns in March. The Fed agreed to take $30 billion in questionable Bear assets as collateral, making JPMorgan liable for the first $1 billion in losses, while agreeing to shoulder any further losses.
—At least $200 billion of currently outstanding loans to banks issued through the Fed's Term Auction Facility, which was recently expanded to allow for longer loans of 84 days alongside the previous 28-day credits.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bush's Bailouts: $1.8 TRILLION and Counting | Democrats.com

I can't believe the Democrats post this with a straight face.

And, btw,counting in the $700B is misleading. The money was authorized in the last days of Bush, but spent by the Obama administration.

But, like I said, Bush set a very low standard, and Obama's plans are striving to undercut it.
Just look at the healthcare bill alone. $1.2T takes the cake. Add in Crap and Tade and the expanded budget deficits, and Bush suddenly looks paltry in comparison.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle, where were your Bush bashing threads? I remember those days well, and I do remember that you were not a vocal Bush opponent, none of you staunch conservatives were.

I know I can show you threads from the Bush era where I'm bitching about the ballooning national debt. Yes, we're more vociferous critics of Obama, but to be fair to us, Obama's deficits are dramatically larger than the record Bush deficits that preceded him. And while Bush was far from perfect, Obama's performance is worse in a variety of areas.

[hyteckit]

I think the above forgot the $15 billion to US Airlines in 2001.

2001 - nationalizing US Airlines

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can't believe the Democrats post this with a straight face.

And, btw,counting in the $700B is misleading. The money was authorized in the last days of Bush, but spent by the Obama administration.

But, like I said, Bush set a very low standard, and Obama's plans are striving to undercut it.
Just look at the healthcare bill alone. $1.2T takes the cake. Add in Crap and Tade and the expanded budget deficits, and Bush suddenly looks paltry in comparison.

-t

Iraq War is a $3 trillion sunk cost.

TARP bill gets repaid back with interest. It was an investment.

Union Bankshares repays $59 million TARP loan - BusinessWeek

As of late October, the Treasury Department had spent more than $454 billion through TARP programs, with 47 recipients having paid back nearly $73 billion. The program is set to expire Dec. 31.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I know I can show you threads from the Bush era where I'm bitching about the ballooning national debt. Yes, we're more vociferous critics of Obama, but to be fair to us, Obama's deficits are dramatically larger than the record Bush deficits that preceded him. And while Bush was far from perfect, Obama's performance is worse in a variety of areas.

I wouldn't mind seeing those threads actually...

[besson3c]

Another argument one could make pertains to how Bush didn't attempt to overhaul health care, and in doing so he allowed a debt to balloon.

I don't really care for the "your president was worse than mine" arguments, but I do find it bizarre how many Republicans are using such dire language to describe the country only now when many of them kept perfectly quiet under Bush.

Look, I understand the arguments about how things have gotten worse, I'm just waiting for somebody to acknowledge that the rhetoric is just a *wee* bit overblown and shaped by the fact that a Democrat is president now. Anybody?

[hyteckit]

Nationalization of corporations? Scary move to socialism, communism, and marxism?

1980 - Nationalization of Chrysler (Carter)
1984 - Nationalization of Continental Illinois Bank and Trust (Reagan)
1986 - Nationalization of Savings and Loans (Reagan)
2001 - Nationalization of US Airlines (Bush)

Reagan - record budget deficits
Bush 1 - record budget deficits
Clinton - record surplus?
Bush 2 - record budget deficits

Ronald Reagan is a socialist and marxist. Only a socialist would nationalization banks.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wouldn't mind seeing those threads actually...

Here are two Bush-era debt panic threads of mine:
Federal Comptroller Says Entitlements Threaten to Destroy America (2007)

Treasury Department Drains Civil Service Pension Fund to Avoid $8.2T Nat. Debt Limit (2006)

As for Bush not attempting to overhaul health care, his attempt was at reforming Social Security, and the Democrats shot it down with scare tactics. Amazingly, Bob Beckel was Mark Levin this evening advocating means testing, which his Democratic party utterly denounced when Republicans talked about it during the brief Social Security reform debate of 2005.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yeah, and let's not forget:

From NY Times - September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Democrats pretending they know **** about or even give a rip about fiscal responsibility. Puh-lease. STFU already.

And I see no one has been able to actually address Obamacare being deficit neutral. Not that I really thought anyone could.