Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I'm not. I've said numerous times that we should tax regressively like European/Scandinavian countries. The tax bills currently before Congress fall WAY short of that.
So, we both agree that the current bills suck -- just for different reasons.
Here are times where the CBO had dramatically wrong forecasts. Just a small example and all within the past 10 years. CBO sucks at predictions.
1. Obamacare's enrollment numbers for the exchanges.
2. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.
3. Economic growth under Obamacare. The CBO predicted 2010 to 2016 would see an average real GDP growth of 3.2 percent; in actuality, it was a meager 2.1 percent.
4. Publicly-held debt as a percentage of GDP in a ten-year timeframe. The CBO predicted in 2002 that by 2012, the publicly-held debt would be only 7.4 percent of GDP. The CBO was off by nearly a decimal point – publicly-held debt was 72.8 percent of GDP in 2012.
5. The cost of farm bills. The CBO has a bad habit of claiming that farm bills save money when they actually worsen the country's debt.
6. Projecting a surplus when there was really a deficit.
Here are times where the CBO had dramatically wrong forecasts. Just a small example and all within the past 10 years. CBO sucks at predictions.
1. Obamacare's enrollment numbers for the exchanges.
2. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.
3. Economic growth under Obamacare. The CBO predicted 2010 to 2016 would see an average real GDP growth of 3.2 percent; in actuality, it was a meager 2.1 percent.
4. Publicly-held debt as a percentage of GDP in a ten-year timeframe. The CBO predicted in 2002 that by 2012, the publicly-held debt would be only 7.4 percent of GDP. The CBO was off by nearly a decimal point – publicly-held debt was 72.8 percent of GDP in 2012.
5. The cost of farm bills. The CBO has a bad habit of claiming that farm bills save money when they actually worsen the country's debt.
6. Projecting a surplus when there was really a deficit.
So, was the Congressional Budget Office really “way, way off … in every aspect” of how it predicted that Obamacare would work, as the White House claims? No, it wasn’t.
The CBO actually nailed the overall impact of the law on the uninsured pretty closely. It predicted a big drop in the percentage of people under age 65 who would lack insurance, and that turned out to be the case. CBO projected that in 2016 that nonelderly rate would fall to 11 percent, and the latest figure put the actual rate at 10.3 percent.
It’s true (as Trump administration officials have repeatedly pointed out) that CBO greatly overestimated the number who would get government-subsidized coverage through the new insurance exchanges. But at the same time, CBO underestimated the number who would get coverage through expanding Medicaid.
And whatever the failings of CBO’s predictions, they were closer to the mark than those of the Obama administration and some other prominent forecasters.
...
Here’s how it works: If you point out that the bill hugely favors the wealthy at the expense of ordinary families, Republicans will point to the next few years, when the class-war nature of the plan is obscured by those temporary tax breaks — and claim that whatever the language of the law says, those tax breaks will actually be made permanent by later Congresses.
But if you point out that the bill is fiscally irresponsible, they’ll say that it “only” raises the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade and doesn’t raise deficits at all after that — because, you see, those tax breaks will expire by 2027, so the tax hikes will raise a lot of revenue. By the way, the claim that middle-class taxes will rise is crucial to passing the bill: Only bills that don’t raise deficits after 10 years can bypass the filibuster and be enacted by a simple Senate majority.
The point, of course, is that these claims can’t both be true. Either this bill is a big tax hike on the middle class, or it’s a huge budget-buster. Which is it?
The CBO could not have predicted a Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out Medicaid expansion. Or could it have?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy
Publicly-held debt as a percentage of GDP in a ten-year timeframe. The CBO predicted in 2002 that by 2012, the publicly-held debt would be only 7.4 percent of GDP. The CBO was off by nearly a decimal point – publicly-held debt was 72.8 percent of GDP in 2012.
The CBO could not have predicted a financial meltdown in 2008. Or could it have???
Last edited by BajanYankee; 11-28-2017 at 08:48 AM..
Even at that, the CBO was pretty close. See link on post #214.
I think some people are lost on the concept of a profession. The CBO is full of highly qualified professionals who are nonetheless human beings and sometimes make mistakes. Some people then use those mistakes to dismiss any findings they don't agree with.
It would be like a doctor giving your grandma 6 months to live. He says that 97% of patients die from her condition. Grandma lives 7 more years. You decide doctors are full of crap because granny didn't die within 6 months like the doctor said. It's not until you get cancer that you decide doctors are worth your time again, but you still don't really trust them. You just want them to "fix it" and then "leave you be" because you don't need any stinking "experts" telling you what to do.
Most conservative "experts" are recruited by industry-funded think tanks since they've abandoned all trust in the academy.
To answer the OP’s question, the left (and thinking people) oppose tax cuts on the rich because there is no economic benefit to the country, it increases income inequality and reduces government revenue.
That should be enough reasons.
Correct! And to add to this, it actually hurts the country to cut taxes to the rich, and increase the burden on the middle class and poor. When the rich get more money, they hold onto it. It's documented time and time again. When those living closer to the margins get more money, they spend it on things they need, which stimulates the economy and creates more wealth for all.
While the US Economy has grown tremendously over the past 30+ years, the benefits have not been evenly distributed. WORKING people have contributed to this growth, but have not seen any reward. Why? Because the ultra rich have the power to keep it all for themselves.
Our country is far behind in infrastructure, we are well in debt, and we have problems to solve. Instead of taking more from the working people, we should take some of the growth the rich have enjoyed on the backs of the working people. It's not some buzz-word, it's a documented fact that the growth of the past 30+ years has gone to the rich, and that they have not given back. Nobody's talking about taking anything more from them than the unearned rewards they get.
How can anyone argue that keeping the poor people down is going to help our country. Don't give them handouts, but do pay them for their contributions. They will spend it, and the rich will get richer honestly. They don't HAVE to take it. Just do the right thing, and it will come.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
