What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

Maybe Merc or UD would like to defend the reality of Obamacare they said would never happen.


CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs

byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer


President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

You're confused again. That figure is before budgetary receipts. It's gross, when you should be interested in net.

 

[RightField]

You're confused again. That figure is before budgetary receipts. It's gross, when you should be interested in net.

Also the report actually decreased its cost estimate.

Obviously, you know a lot about this. Please clarify for me. When there's a new tax slated to add to our existing taxes (what you call a budgetary receipt), we shouldn't count that and only count the amount of new expenses that aren't covered by planned tax increases as "expenses?"

What happened to the promise that Obamacare wasn't going to cost anything and in fact, would "bend the cost curve down" and save us all money? Are we $1.72 Trillion off that "baseline?"

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Better put down the joint and learn how to read.

I have the actual report open right here in my browser. You have information filtered through a right-wing blogger.

Just sayin'.

 

[mercury14]

Obviously, you know a lot about this. Please clarify for me. When there's a new tax slated to add to our existing taxes (what you call a budgetary receipt), we shouldn't count that and only count the amount of new expenses that aren't covered by planned tax increases as "expenses?"

Correct, the federal government should count revenue as revenue. It should not call revenue "spending".

What happened to the promise that Obamacare wasn't going to cost anything and in fact, would "bend the cost curve down" and save us all money? Are we $1.72 Trillion off that "baseline?"

Please get a high school diploma before you start handling numbers.

 

[busybody..]

CBO: Obamacare Will Force 4 Million To Lose Their Health Care Plans…




Via Fox Nation:


President Obama’s healthcare reform law coverage provisons will cost less but cover fewer people than first thought, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The revised estimate of the law’s coverage provisions shows about 2 million fewer people gaining coverage by 2016, reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 30 million instead of the 32 million projected a year ago. That would leave about 27 million people uninsured in 2016, two years after the law’s insurance exchanges go online.

Four million Americans can expect to lose their employer-provided healthcare by 2016, according to the revised figures, far more than the 1 million people estimated last year. And 1 million to 2 million fewer people will gain access to the law’s subsidized exchanges than first thought, while an extra 1 million are expected to qualify for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Provision (CHIP).

 

[busybody..]

Obviously, you know a lot about this. Please clarify for me. When there's a new tax slated to add to our existing taxes (what you call a budgetary receipt), we shouldn't count that and only count the amount of new expenses that aren't covered by planned tax increases as "expenses?"

What happened to the promise that Obamacare wasn't going to cost anything and in fact, would "bend the cost curve down" and save us all money? Are we $1.72 Trillion off that "baseline?"

you have got to be an IDIOT of the first order to actually engage him in this

YOU KNOW THAT?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

you have got to be an IDIOT of the first order to actually engage him in this

YOU KNOW THAT?

He usually says something stupid on his own.

The article should read "Obama's tax increase of neary a trillion dollars for Obamacare not enough, will cost hundreds of billions more than anticipated when you account correctly for the democrat gimmics used to pass this monstrosity. Grease up because the Dems are coming to get you for more money!"

It's because giving the Dems mo' money "is fair".

 

[unregistered]

 

[semen4her]

Obama has turned you guys into homos who seem to be hot for each other.

Just sayin...

 

[mercury14]

He usually says something stupid on his own.

The article should read "Obama's tax increase of neary a trillion dollars for Obamacare not enough, will cost hundreds of billions more than anticipated when you account correctly for the democrat gimmics used to pass this monstrosity. Grease up because the Dems are coming to get you for more money!"

It's because giving the Dems mo' money "is fair".

More ad hominem bullshit from you. It's become par for the course!

When you do your monthly household budget do you look at the fact that you spent $5000 and go "SHIT, I'M $5000 IN THE RED THIS MONTH!"? Or do you include your income in your budget? Because here you're doing the former.

 

[mercury14]

Merc, fails to remember the CBO can only work with the numbers that Pelosi provided them with in the beginning, it took a while for the truth to come out in real numbers, with a true estimate due next year.

Okay well you could just read the report and see that they're not only using their own numbers, they're changing them with each report. Or is Pelosi changing them behind the scenes like some kind of puppeteer?

Neither of you chuckleheads read the report. Go read it and I'll give you both do-overs on your ignorant posts.

 

[mercury14]

*elevator music as RF and Vette look at the report and see everything they just said was false*

 

[RightField]

More ad hominem bullshit from you. It's become par for the course!

When you do your monthly household budget do you look at the fact that you spent $5000 and go "SHIT, I'M $5000 IN THE RED THIS MONTH!"? Or do you include your income in your budget? Because here you're doing the former.

You're so funny. Another way to express your sentiment is "A tax increase isn't a tax increase if the Government can deceive you into thinking it's really just revenue enhancement"

 

[mercury14]

You're so funny. Another way to express your sentiment is "A tax increase isn't a tax increase if the Government can deceive you into thinking it's really just revenue enhancement"

Now you're just running from your own posts.

The "Revenue increase" euphemism is a Republican creation, bro.

 

[mercury14]

Obviously, you know a lot about this. Please clarify for me. When there's a new tax slated to add to our existing taxes (what you call a budgetary receipt), we shouldn't count that and only count the amount of new expenses that aren't covered by planned tax increases as "expenses?"

You keep saying stupid shit like this. According to RightField logic, government spending should be counted as spending twice. Once for the revenue raised to pay for it and then a second time when the actual spending occurs. That way you can say that a $100 billion dollar program is actually a $200 billion dollar program. Neat trick!

But an unfunded Bush program that relies entirely on borrowing and actually accumulates interest costs? Well that's somehow less expensive than something that's paid for.

You constantly lie and deceive. This is why you have zero credit in this discussion.

 

[mercury14]

Has anyone seen any of our right wing doom and gloom stock market reporters? They must be stuck in traffic or something.

Stocks record biggest gains of year; Dow up 218

NEW YORK (AP) — Bank stocks turbocharged a rally across the financial markets Tuesday, and all three major stock indexes posted their biggest gains of the year. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 218 points and closed at its highest level since the last day of 2007.

The Nasdaq composite closed above 3,000 for the first time since December 2000, when dot-com stocks were collapsing.

There was already plenty of good news driving the market higher Tuesday: Retail sales in February increased the most since September, and the Federal Reserve said it expected the unemployment rate to keep falling.

http://news.yahoo.com/stocks-record-biggest-gains-dow-218-202756621.html

 

[bra_man69]

Has anyone seen any of our right wing doom and gloom stock market reporters? They must be stuck in traffic or something.

Do you know why the stock market went up?

 

[RightField]

You keep saying stupid shit like this. According to RightField logic, government spending should be counted as spending twice. Once for the revenue raised to pay for it and then a second time when the actual spending occurs. That way you can say that a $100 billion dollar program is actually a $200 billion dollar program. Neat trick!

You constantly lie and deceive. This is why you have zero credit in this discussion.

I'm not the one saying that we don't have to include several hundred of new healthcare expenses in our consideration of Obamacare's value because it isn't an unanticipated expense. The fact is that it is a part of a huge growth in Government spending at a time when we already have a $16 Trillion debt and you're trying to obscure that fact because you like the legislation and don't want to see it repealed, in fact, it will likely be responsible for part of your hoped for future employment....and you say I lie and deceive? lol.

The hundreds of billions of "new" Obamacare expenses cited in the report that aren't already covered by the new taxes that start in the next couple years make the "value" of Obamacare even worse...horrible in fact.

You're taking positions based on your self interest. Maybe you should recuse yourself.

 

[mercury14]

Do you know why the stock market went up?

It's right there in the market report article.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

You're confused again. That figure is before budgetary receipts. It's gross, when you should be interested in net.

god you are stupid. You are so unskilled, you would bankrupt a Circle K

course you would confuse the convenient store for a circle jerk

 

[mercury14]

I'm not the one saying that we don't have to include several hundred of new healthcare expenses in our consideration of Obamacare's value because it isn't an unanticipated expense. The fact is that it is a part of a huge growth in Government spending at a time when we already have a $16 Trillion debt and you're trying to obscure that fact because you like the legislation and don't want to see it repealed, in fact, it will likely be responsible for part of your hoped for future employment....and you say I lie and deceive? lol.

The hundreds of billions of "new" expenses that aren't already covered by the new taxes that start in the next couple years make the "value" of Obamacare even worse...horrible in fact.

You're taking positions based on your self interest. Maybe you should recuse yourself.

So when you're caught in a blatant deception (double-counting government spending to cook your numbers WTF?), your "defense" is finger pointing and immediate subject changing?

So you aren't even going to try to defend yourself? You're just admitting you lied?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

So when you're caught in a blatant deception (double-counting government spending to cook your numbers WTF?), your "defense" is finger pointing and immediate subject changing?

So you aren't even going to try to defend yourself? You're just admitting you lied?

when have you ever had responsibilities? you think the balance sheet is something you pull off the Toilet Paper roll. You are a government fucktard

 

[mercury14]

For those watching at home, this is what Rightfield and Vette ran into in their very own CBO report when I asked that they read its deficit impact projection. They just never reported back and pretended like it didn't exist. Facts just don't fit their narrative.

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period ; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.

Rightfield and Vette were misled into thinking that gross and net deficit impacts are the same thing. Had either of them graduated high school they would not have made such a mistake.

Or they were just lying - you decide.