Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I read the footnote and I understand how you conclude what is stated in the footnote is true.

However, I have not seen a CBO report recently that actually shows the net impact of taxes, penalties, fees, transfers, premiums and other so called revenues. If you have a link to one please share.

There is a reason why the CBO is reporting the way they are reporting, I think it is because they see the "revenues" more suspect and that accounting tricks like transferring Medicare costs to Obamacare is not a proper manner in calculating deficit reduction. The numbers of people subject to penalty is a big unknown. The number of actual State Exchanges is an unknown. The actual costs to subsidize the exchanges is an unknown. Then we have things like taxes on medical devises, where the government will impose a tax, the devise makers will increase prices to cover the tax, and since the government will be a customer, the government will pay higher prices, etc.

CBO chose to make their analysis narrow. I see your point and I will be more specific when I refer to the insurance provision impact on the deficit.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM ---

Orwell's - 1984, forms of government speak is getting confusing. The US government can reduce the deficit to zero anytime it wants by either printing money or taxing privately held wealth. Or they can say in 10 years they will print money to pay-off the debt or increase taxes to do it. Either way, I do not see the government "saving" anything, increasing "revenues", or accomplishing anything worthy of note. However, the commitment in Obamacare is a real commitment to spend money, consume resources, or actually incur real "costs". Government is not a business and using business terminology is improper in my opinion. So, Obamacare is going to run a 10 year "profit" and if we don't do it this "profit" won't be available to reduce the debt??? CBO credibility is being strained.

 

The first CBO analysis (including the manager's amendments - basically a substitute final bill - but before the Supreme Court decision) includes revenue projections.

The reduction in federal deficits has since been revised down to just over $100 billion, extended through 2023.

That being said, I'm not interested in going around in your Orwellian circles on what constitutes "debt reduction" -- additional tax revenues, reduced Medicare payments to providers with no reduction in services to seniors (despite the misrepresentation by Republicans), and savings from Medicare/Medicaid fraud all reduce the federal cost of providing health care, thus contributing less to the federal debt.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2013 at 5:56 PM ---

The ACA also includes a provision for competitive bidding for these devices (and supplies) in Medicare already resulting in significant savings in limited test markets:

 

Where is the analysis? Where is the report? Even you can pick a random number out of the air, what is the value in it? Why segregate "savings" from the report? All questions you won't ask.

Is it truly your desire to go along with psychological manipulation?

Why did you have the desire to post this? Why is it important to you? Do you believe a tax on medical devises will result in a more competitive market and lower prices? Do you believe increasing costs actually lowers costs? Do you believe the actual designation of "competition" results in "competition"? Is your definition of brilliant government policy, simply the absence of ineffective government policy?

As usual all rhetorical questions - I know what the limitations are.

 

I agree that there are limitations to my willingness to keep providing data that demonstrates new revenues, new cost cutting measures and new savings.

I can please some of the people some of the time with my understanding of the law...I cant please ideologues with closed minds.

 

I got one:

The government can give me $1 billion and in 10 years I will repay the $1 billion plus $1.

Think about it - The cost (according to your math and probably the reason the CBO doesn't play along anymore) over 10 years will be zero and it will contribute to debt reduction!

Or, tell me how do you do this one?

What is the cost of a $5 billion air-force carrier? I say it is $5 billion (plus operating costs), you say???? What are the "savings"? Perhaps spending $5 billion will contribute to debt reduction

Or, how about this one?

government spends $1 billion on a road? I say the government is spending $1 billion on a road. What do you say...ah, there is the gas tax, ah, the tax on vehicles that use the road, ah, the tax on the restaurants that might be built on the road, and ah, it will all add up to debt reduction????

Or is it simply nothing done by the government has a cost because eventually they can tax or print money to cover the cost - so everything the government does is in fact free - just like Obamacare! Do you really believe Obamacare is free?

 

As long as these Tea Party types keep trying to make an equivalency between house hold budgets and national budgets, they will never get it.

 

The Tea Party types, and conservatives in general, are not big fans of any objective, nonpartisan government reports...unless such reports support their position and ideology.

They like to point to selected findings of CBO reports on ACA and then dismiss the overall conclusions.

They demand the withdrawal of CRS reports that find that tax cuts for the rich do not increase jobs or grow the economy but only add to income inequality.

They dismiss NOAA reports on climate change as junk science.

They block funding to implement the recommendations of a DHS report on growing security threats from right wing anti-government organizations and militias and characterize the report as an attack on patriot Americans.

They legislate against allowing CDC or other agencies to conduct any research on gun related violence.

Their response is consistently to ignore any data that challenges their beliefs and instead attack the messenger.

 

What is not to get? A budget is not complicated. The consequences of spending being greater than income is not complicated? Can you elaborate on your point?
--- merged: Feb 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM ---

Costs are not. The government can do what it wants with fiat money/currency, however, the actual costs to live can not be controlled by government currency policy.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM ---

I am going to keep pointing this out until it sinks in. The President of the US, Democrats who control the Senate, the number of moderate Republicans both in the Senate and in the House - are not being held hostage by a handful of Tea Party elected officials or extreme right-wing conservatives. In order to believe the Tea Party controls the agenda in Washington you have to believe President Obama is the weakest most ineffective President since Andrew Jackson. Is that what you believe?

President Obama needs to one day start acting like he is President and lead.

Show me how the CBO is calculating Obamacare is going to basically be free and actually reduce the federal debt? How does that happen? Oh, I remember taxes = savings, is that what you think? Or, taxes reduce costs. Pure double speak, understand that we all don't buy into to that!

 

First, national polls regarding congressional approval are meaningless. Respondents are basically saying my guy/gal is o.k., yours is not. If I was polled I would respond the same way, I like my Congressman and odds are I don't like yours!

Second, what is the point of going through steps 1-8 if it repeatedly results in failure? How about a better approach? Perhaps starting out by not, I repeat not saying the guy on the other side of the table wants babies to drink polluted water, breath poisoned air, doesn't want them educated and want their grandmothers to eat dog food - or whatever he is actually saying lately. Just because people disagree, doesn't mean their motives are bad.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM ---

There are differences but there are also similarities. In a generic way of looking at a budget - there are components they all share. Just because one is discussing the issue from the perspective of similarities, it does not necessarily follow that the differences are not understood. The explanation is inadequate.

First, the US government is not operating under a real budget. The government is operating under a series of spending initiatives.

Second, I have no issue with the use of debt. Debt can be used productively.

And as usual, your post is littered with straw-man arguments. You are consistently making wild assumptions. I don;t understand why you do this.

 

Baraka_Guru, thank you. Please carry on.

 

My statement is in fact true. Do you have difficulty with truth? You are going in a strange direction, and I am sure everyone thinks it is my fault, why not acknowledge what I wrote was correct and move on?

Demagoguery is the source of my problem.

Read your post that preceded my comment. As I read your post, your assumption appeared to be that a lack of discussion of differences illustrated a lack of understanding those differences. One does not necessarily follow from the other. I wrote that, and now I am repeating myself - was it really not clear the first time?

 

Are we back to your wife's shopping habits again as some inane comparison to federal spending on health care?

 

If you thought my illustrating my wife's shopping habits was a commentary on her, you have a problem that I can not help you with.