U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-29-2009, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,267 posts, read 25,139,819 times
Reputation: 7026

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Close enough to right. Ten-year projections are ten-year projections. They let you compare the most likely effects of various options from the standpoint of today. They do not predict what things will look like ten years from today. The original proposal for Social Security was that it would be shifted to funding from general revenues in 1965. Didn't happen because one of a dozen or so revisions to the program over time was to keep it on a dedicated pay-as-you-go basis. No one believes that the a health care system created now will be set in stone as is for the rest of recorded history. Many changes will be made to it as future circumstances may come to warrant, but as for today, the plan is paid for and more for the next ten years.
Hey, Mr. Spinmaster - the true costs;

http://www1.ibdcd.com/image/ISSa1127_2091125_345.png (broken link)

As usual, when you look at the nasty little details and gimmicks hidden in the bills, the truth eventually comes out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...994054014.html

Quote:
As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade.
Quote:
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system.
But none of the rabid obama will admit the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2009, 04:09 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 20,253,359 times
Reputation: 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
And the reality; UE is even worse with the stimulus than obama predicted it would be without the stimulus. Only rabid obama supporters can deny the truth - the stimulus was a complete failure.
Same old same old, and it only decays further with age. There were no predictions. Just your basic everyday garden-variety econometric projections showing that unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus bill than without. Meanwhile, the only preachers of the Gospel of Stimulus Failure are Beckbots and assorted other fried-brain right-wingers. Serious types worth paying attention to are in broad consensus over the positive contributions of ARRA, differing in most cases only at the margin from what the administration itself has been estimating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Why do you think obama is talking about this ridiculous "jobs summit"? They know, even though you don't, that the stimulus has failed to do what intended, namely, create jobs.
The stimulus was intended to save or create about three million jobs by the end of next year. Through the third quarter of CY2009, there were about one million more jobs than there would have been without the stimulus. Unfortunately, the momentum of the freefall that began now well over a year ago was such that it took us faster and farther down than had been anticipated. As it is true that free-market employment growth is at the back end of the links in a chain of recovery and that the recovery itself is just lately beginning to take hold, the jobs summit is designed to look at ways to create jobs in the shorter run. The private sector (once again) simply isn't up to that task.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
We're not talking "projections" and "models", even though they were/are wrong. Talking reality now. Where are the jobs, the spending, the investment that the stimulus was supposed to stimulate? NOWHERE to be found.
No, obviously YOU don't want to talk about projections and models, first because you don't understand them, and second because they lay total waste to all of your faux arguments. You'd rather proclaim failure just by comparing the current situation to...well, nothing. You don't have anything else. You just want to rely on your Beck-beholden, emotion-driven imagination -- the same one that somehow managed to see 1.2 million people marching around at the failed 912DC rally. Meanwhile, the people who actually know what they are talking about are keenly interested in projections and models because these are the tools that serious people use to figure out what's going on. That's why those peop[le can all plainly see the jobs and the growth that the stimulus has produced, and you can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
All of it in residential. Business investment is in the crapper. Can't have growth without investment in the private sector - that is what creates jobs.
Residential is less than a fourth of GDPI, and investment does NOT create jobs. Demand creates jobs. You do realize -- well, probably you don't -- that capacity utilization (which is normally above 80%) was at 70.7% in October? At those levels, demand will push first to put idle resources back into production and only secondarily into creating new resources. And it should be noted that CU has been on a consistent upward march since bottoming out in June at 68.3%. Yet another indicator of how well the stimulus is working.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I haven't seen these analyses, independent of the incredible WH "uniquely qualified" team. Post the links.
As you've often been told before, the links are included in the ARRA report. There is a limit to my willingness to lead you around by the hand like a small child crossing the street. Got Personal Responsibility®??? Try using some of it!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Oh, I don't think so. We have a record of the comments, claims, numbers and statistical tools used to sell the stimulus.
You mean where Obama was warning in early January that we were confronting double-digit unemployment and Republcians were accusing him of using scare tactics over it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
They can't even verify the bogus jobs numbers they've reported....and they admit that. You should listen and stop arguing against obama's people in charge of "calculating" these things, using their own brand of fuzzy math.
The little window on recovery.gov says As Reported by Recipients. If the Board or any other of Obama's people were to have been doing any of the calculating, it would have said As Massaged by the Administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
More spin from the spinmaster. You see, it's very easy to just listen to those like Romer, as she said the stimulus had its greatest impact in 2nd and 3rd of 2009 and will not have any more impact in 2010, at least none that we can see, feel and touch.
Completely wrong again. Romer specifically referred to the effects of the FISCAL stimulus (tax cuts and tax cut equivalents), and then specifically stated that this did NOT mean that the stimulus as a whole would not have effect going forward. You TWICE deny her very words in deliberately seeking to mischaracterize her testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
And guess what saggy; business and individuals will not invest and spend as long as obama's huge taxes are coming down the pike (for cap&tax, HC).
Are your wages in excess of $250,000? Are your annual health care premiums in excess of $23,000? Are you normally out of pocket for medical care expenses of more than 7.5% of AGI? Do you plan on having a lot of cosmetic surgery? If the answer to these questions is no, you are not facing any terrible taxes from the passage of health care reform. CBO meanwhile estimates that the annual cost to the average household of cap-and-trade will be about $165. Is that going to set you back some???

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Even your hero klugman disagrees with you and exactly what was promised and the effects of the failed stimulus. In this case, since HE is a nobel on the subject, I'll stick with his interpretation.
So you agree with him that at $787 billion, the stimulus bill was much too small. Krugman spoke last February of the need to fill a $2 trillion hole. I take it that you now agree with his interpretation that the stimulus bill really should have been about three times the size that it was??? Good...maybe there's some hope for you yet!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 04:17 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 20,253,359 times
Reputation: 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Did you see this spin? Sags evidence that there was 1,000,000 MORE jobs in the THIRD Quarter, was an ARRA Report which came out SIX months before the third quarter, and before the stimulus package was even funded.
Well, excuse you for being that totally out of the loop...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 04:26 PM
 
58,035 posts, read 29,764,833 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Are your wages in excess of $250,000? Are your annual health care premiums in excess of $23,000? Are you normally out of pocket for medical care expenses of more than 7.5% of AGI? Do you plan on having a lot of cosmetic surgery? If the answer to these questions is no, you are not facing any terrible taxes from the passage of health care reform. CBO meanwhile estimates that the annual cost to the average household of cap-and-trade will be about $165. Is that going to set you back some???
Yipee, another first justification for more taxes, but based upon wrong data makes it even worse..
CBO Grossly Underestimates Costs of Cap and Trade » The Foundry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 04:27 PM
 
58,035 posts, read 29,764,833 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Well, excuse you for being that totally out of the loop...
Not all of us can have government jobs.. Well not yet..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 04:48 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 20,253,359 times
Reputation: 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
This is timely; And that is really all it is, a shell game to try and save his a** from the lack of jobs created.
Yes...another tale of how ordinary every day Americans screwed up their reporting, then realized their error, but couldn't manage to get the correction posted before the database closed for the quarter. I guess some ordinary every day Americans just don't want to admit how clumsy some other ordinary every day Americans actually are when it comes to working with numbers. Might like destroy some more of their lame-o arguments or something, I guess...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 05:15 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 20,253,359 times
Reputation: 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Because you cant stop trying to spin reason after reason for failures..
As I've had to note before, "spinning" is just the buzzword you use to try to deflect arguments and evidence that you can't otherwise deal with. There are some who have a more specialized array of Magic Wands that they employ, but you just seem to use the Big Hammer of Spinning for just about everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If the $891B operation, involved ONLY $2B in PUBLIC money being needed from "taxes", (your claim), then there is no need at all to begin taxing EVERYONE YEARS before the plan kicks in.
Play it again, Sam? Okay! The $2 billion is the appropriation included in the House bill for startup costs for the Public Option, a brand new, goverrnment run health insurance company that will market its policies alongside those of private companies to those consumers who are eligible to participate in a health care exchange. The Public Option must repay that $2 billion to the Treasury out of its operating revenues, but it can use those funds first to hire staff, rent office space, and acquire computers, copiers, faxes, and other miscellaneous business equipment and supplies that any startup company would need. The rest of the health care bill will cost some $889 billion to implement over ten years, and that tab is met in part by some $370 billion in new taxes that very likely don't impact on you at all, since you are already among the roughly 47% of American filers who pay no federal income tax. In fact those taxes may be expected to have a direct impact only on a small slice of high income earners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 05:26 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 20,253,359 times
Reputation: 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
The real point is that after 10 years you can't continue to take money in without providing service. More money was taken in at the front for SS too but we see how that worked out. All this does is guarantee, to keep it running, higher taxes on the country.
Social Security has worked out brilliantly. It's the most successful (and popular) social insurance plan in the history of the world. Like everything else, SS has seen its financial situation adversely effected by the economic calamity that eight years of Bush culminated in, but it remains -- even under pessimistic assumptions -- on schedule to pay every penny of scheduled benefits for nearly another three decades. And that's if we do nothing at all to bolster the program by then.

The two health care bills that exist at the moment meanwhile differ in material ways, but each of them provides greatly expanded coverage at what will be declining unit costs. The merged bill ultimately signed into law will not be the end of our health care problems, but it will be a very good beginning of the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 05:39 PM
 
58,035 posts, read 29,764,833 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Play it again, Sam? Okay! The $2 billion is the appropriation included in the House bill for startup costs for the Public Option, a brand new, goverrnment run health insurance company that will market its policies alongside those of private companies to those consumers who are eligible to participate in a health care exchange. The Public Option must repay that $2 billion to the Treasury out of its operating revenues, but it can use those funds first to hire staff, rent office space, and acquire computers, copiers, faxes, and other miscellaneous business equipment and supplies that any startup company would need. The rest of the health care bill will cost some $889 billion to implement over ten years, and that tab is met in part by some $370 billion in new taxes that very likely don't impact on you at all, since you are already among the roughly 47% of American filers who pay no federal income tax. In fact those taxes may be expected to have a direct impact only on a small slice of high income earners.
Wait, just the other day you said the healthcare bill wasnt being funded by new taxes, it was being funded 100% by premiums. I also note that you failed to discuss the other $519 Billion in revenue and its impact upon "americans" is what?

Anotherwords, you admit this is nothing more than an $889B TAX BILL..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 05:42 PM
 
58,035 posts, read 29,764,833 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Social Security has worked out brilliantly. It's the most successful (and popular) social insurance plan in the history of the world. Like everything else, SS has seen its financial situation adversely effected by the economic calamity that eight years of Bush culminated in, but it remains -- even under pessimistic assumptions -- on schedule to pay every penny of scheduled benefits for nearly another three decades. And that's if we do nothing at all to bolster the program by then.

The two health care bills that exist at the moment meanwhile differ in material ways, but each of them provides greatly expanded coverage at what will be declining unit costs. The merged bill ultimately signed into law will not be the end of our health care problems, but it will be a very good beginning of the end.
Brilliantly? Really? Where is all of the money people have paid into the program? Tell me what the $14 TRILLION paid into SS is residing? You know, those unfunded liabilities that many need to retire on?

And dont tell me federal debt because thats completely unacceptable to have it all SPENT..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top