US politics circa 2011

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well you start by getting the government the hell out of it.

So, about that nonsense: this week the House is expected to pass H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act — its actual name. But Republicans have a small problem: they claim to care about budget deficits, yet the Congressional Budget Office says that repealing last year’s health reform would increase the deficit. So what, other than dismissing the nonpartisan budget office’s verdict as “their opinion” — as Mr. Boehner has — can the G.O.P. do?
The answer is contained in an analysis — or maybe that should be “analysis” — released by the speaker’s office, which purports to show that health care reform actually increases the deficit. Why? That’s where the war on logic comes in.
First of all, says the analysis, the true cost of reform includes the cost of the “doc fix.” What’s that?
Well, in 1997 Congress enacted a formula to determine Medicare payments to physicians. The formula was, however, flawed; it would lead to payments so low that doctors would stop accepting Medicare patients. Instead of changing the formula, however, Congress has consistently enacted one-year fixes. And Republicans claim that the estimated cost of future fixes, $208 billion over the next 10 years, should be considered a cost of health care reform.
But the same spending would still be necessary if we were to undo reform. So the G.O.P. argument here is exactly like claiming that my mortgage payments, which I’ll have to make no matter what we do tonight, are a cost of going out for dinner.
There’s more like that: the G.O.P. also claims that $115 billion of other health care spending should be charged to health reform, even though the budget office has tried to explain that most of this spending would have taken place even without reform.
To be sure, the Republican analysis doesn’t rely entirely on spurious attributions of cost — it also relies on using three-card monte tricks to make money disappear. Health reform, says the budget office, will increase Social Security revenues and reduce Medicare costs. But the G.O.P. analysis says that these sums don’t count, because some people have said that these savings would also extend the life of these programs’ trust funds, so counting these savings as deficit reduction would be “double-counting,” because — well, actually it doesn’t make any sense, but it sounds impressive.

[Rudyard K]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41188877...new_york_times

You do know how to use a link don't you WTF?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41188877...new_york_times

You do know how to use a link don't you WTF?

Why....you guys just bitch and moan about them.



You got anything to say about the phoney numbers both sides use, or do you now want a link to show that too?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Lets say we did. How would you restructure our entire healthcare system to do that (remember the argument about messing with 1/6 of the economy - or whatever the number was) with the caveat that we had to have universal - or darn close to it - coverage.

We already have universial coverage....something that Repubs fail to understand.

Down here in Texas they are starting to find that out, the insurance companies are not like the proposed budget cuts to Medicade...they think it will force more people to the ER and thus drive up private health care cost because the Hospitials have to recoup thier costs somehow.


The chickens are coming home to roost here in Texas....we are thinking about cutting education , school districts with Republican leanings are crying bloody murder. Same shit all over the country...cut deficits but none of want the cuts to effect them. A comptroller that ran the numbers 6 years ago warned us that the numbers did not add up. Carol Keeton sumpn or other. I'm to lazy to look it up right now but there is going to be a bloody fight before our legislation session is over.

But hey ask RK, he seems to know all about it

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

So, about that nonsense: this week the House is expected to pass H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act — its actual name. But Republicans have a small problem: they claim to care about budget deficits, yet the Congressional Budget Office says that repealing last year’s health reform would increase the deficit. So what, other than dismissing the nonpartisan budget office’s verdict as “their opinion” — as Mr. Boehner has — can the G.O.P. do?
The answer is contained in an analysis — or maybe that should be “analysis” — released by the speaker’s office, which purports to show that health care reform actually increases the deficit. Why? That’s where the war on logic comes in.
First of all, says the analysis, the true cost of reform includes the cost of the “doc fix.” What’s that?
Well, in 1997 Congress enacted a formula to determine Medicare payments to physicians. The formula was, however, flawed; it would lead to payments so low that doctors would stop accepting Medicare patients. Instead of changing the formula, however, Congress has consistently enacted one-year fixes. And Republicans claim that the estimated cost of future fixes, $208 billion over the next 10 years, should be considered a cost of health care reform.
But the same spending would still be necessary if we were to undo reform. So the G.O.P. argument here is exactly like claiming that my mortgage payments, which I’ll have to make no matter what we do tonight, are a cost of going out for dinner.
There’s more like that: the G.O.P. also claims that $115 billion of other health care spending should be charged to health reform, even though the budget office has tried to explain that most of this spending would have taken place even without reform.
To be sure, the Republican analysis doesn’t rely entirely on spurious attributions of cost — it also relies on using three-card monte tricks to make money disappear. Health reform, says the budget office, will increase Social Security revenues and reduce Medicare costs. But the G.O.P. analysis says that these sums don’t count, because some people have said that these savings would also extend the life of these programs’ trust funds, so counting these savings as deficit reduction would be “double-counting,” because — well, actually it doesn’t make any sense, but it sounds impressive.

So you are channeling Paul Krugman these days?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/op...gman.html?_r=1
It is customary to include a link when you copy someone else. I thought you knew how to make links.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

So you are channeling Paul Krugman these days?

Well, what's wrong with that?

Paul Krugman is a towering paragon of credibility and objectivity. He taught us that the problem with Obama's $862 "stimulus package" is that it wasn't nearly large enough! We should have squandered at least $1.5 trillion in order to fill in more of the "output gap."

Remember, an economy can never recover from a severe recession without massive government spending initiatives. Doesn't history demonstrate that quite conclusively?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I don't accept the caveat.

Then we don't seem to have any solution we would agree on.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41188877/ns/business-the_new_york_times

You do know how to use a link don't you WTF?

Originally Posted by pjorourke

So you are channeling Paul Krugman these days?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1
It is customary to include a link when you copy someone else. I thought you knew how to make links.

I know how to make links....but I wish you poor babies could make up your minds. Do you want links or not.

How about arguing the crux of what he said...which is your analysis is only half the story.

Krugman exposes your partial facts and all ya'll can do is try and shoot the messenger.

Come on PJ argue the facts, not some GOP talking points.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Paul Krugman is a towering paragon of credibility and objectivity. He taught us that the problem with Obama's $862 "stimulus package" is that it wasn't nearly large enough! We should have squandered at least $1.5 trillion in order to fill in more of the "output gap."

?

How about you telling us how mush of that 'stimulus package' was in the form of TAX CUTS.

Krugman advocates govt. spending in down times. Is it more credible to start two wars and cut taxes?

[Texas Contrarian]

Krauthammer does a pretty good job of explaining the phoniness of the health care bill deficit reduction claims in today's WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Yes, WTF, a portion of the "stimulus package" (about 1/3) was tax cuts. But I thought you normally railed against tax cuts? Which is it? Are you for or against tax cuts? Or does it just depend on which side of the bed you woke up on that morning?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Krauthammer offers a pretty good explanation of the phoniness of the health care bill deficit reduction claims in today's WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Yes, WTF, a portion of the "stimulus package" (about 1/3) was tax cuts. But I thought you normally railed against tax cuts? Which is it? Are you for or against tax cuts? Or does it just depend on which side of the bed you woke up on that morning?

No but it is not a question of what I am for or against , it is a matter of reporting the truth.


If it was just a game of gotcha, I could ask you ""Are you for tax cuts or not?'' The stimulus package was in fact a tax cut.


Krauthamme and Krugman ought to get together and actually try and tell the truth, between the two of them both sides might just learn something.

btw....SS is not broke, it has 2.5 trillion in iou's. So if one honestly looks at the numbers Defense spending is the whte elephant in the room. What if there was a tax just for Defense and SS was borrowing from it, WTF do you think these Defense Hawks would be crying about. In actuality that is what this is about. Pro defense folks are wanting a Reagan like revamp of SS so we can continue to mask out huge deficit spending habit. It is what we have borrowed from the SS trust fund to pay for. Anybody for telling the truth and taking on that huge entitlement program?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

I know how to make links....but I wish you poor babies could make up your minds. Do you want links or not.

How about you have a thought of your very own.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

How about you have a thought of your very own.

PJ, that's not fair. He's got that "not enough blood for both" problem and he spends all his time whacking off. So, of course there is not going to be an original thought come from that brain.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

How about you have a thought of your very own.

I forgot that all your thoughts are orginial and not some regurgitated GOP talking points.


PJ, I am not so vain as to think that I can verbalize my thoughts better than professionals.

But I am an expert in bullshitiolgy which is not suprising considering how much is spread around this forum and needs sniffing out.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

But I am an expert in bullshitiolgy which is not suprising considering how much is spread around this forum and needs sniffing out.

Yep, your production capabilties are uncanny.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

PJ, that's not fair. He's got that "not enough blood for both" problem and he spends all his time whacking off. So, of course there is not going to be an original thought come from that brain.

My lil weiner don't need alot of blood, so I have plenty of blood for the big head, I'm just smart enough to know I'm dumb!

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Yep, your production capabilties are uncanny.

I can't keep up with all the manure you two produce