So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon 369 Replies latest social current

• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  DG: The quotes you select above obfuscate whether it is the CBO speaking or Republican Senator Sessions being referenced from the Fox article

  Um, I provided a link and the quotes I posted are pretty self-explanatory. Not sure how that amounts to dishonesty. The Fox article also included links (as you noted) to the updated CBO information, so I'm not sure how that amounts to dishonesty either. If you had problems ascertaining who said what in the article perhaps read it again.

  Also, the points in the Fox article are not without merit. When it comes to accounting the government can be very creative in how it juggles numbers. In fact, Chuck Blahous, appointed by President Obama, does not agree with the CBO's method of calculating the cost/revenue figures it published, Re: ACA:

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/10/medicare-trustee-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit-by-as-much-as-527-billion/

  The real truth on this whole matter may be one-sided, in the middle, or no where close to what either side believes to be true. Time will tell. All sides are so polarized that getting a clear picture of anything factual is nearly impossible at best. I'm not in government and have no way to access the real figures. I can only read what is publicly available. If anyone disagrees with any particular article posted here, then take it up with the reporter who wrote the article, not me.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  There is an interesting phenomenon here on this type of dicussion:

  > if someone quotes something from Fox, they are labelled a stupid 'Fox lover'.

  > if someone quotes a Democrat, they are labelled a stupid Democrat and anti-Republican.

  > if someone quotes a Republican, they are labelled a stupid Republican and anti-Democrat.

  > if someone questions the intended goals of ACA, they are labelled a stupid anti-socialist.

  > if somone supports ACA unquestioningly, they are labelled a stupid socialist.

  Must be nice to live in such a black and white world.

  -

  -

  Personally, I think the powers that be are like two big armies battling for real estate, and the only true victims in all this, regardless of how it turns out, will be you and me- the tiny unarmed village right in the middle of it all.

  Unlike many, I don't subscribe to the idea that corporate hospitals, powerful lobbies, and big government players REALLY give a damn about me (or anyone else but themselves) at all.

  So, when some corporate Fat Cat or Big Govt. wheeler-dealer starts clamoring about he only cares about my best interests, I start to get real nervous.

  -

  -

  If you doubt what I say just ask yourself this: who got bailed out in 2008/2009? It wasn't you or me; Joe Average paid (and is still paying) to bail out Wall Street and big banks, and while they are yet again back to making record profits, you and I are left holding the bag and being told we haven't given enough.
• 

  DogGone

  Shirley,

  Apologies if you thought I was calling you dishonest. I believe the Fox article either quoted Sessions out of context or Sessions made a deliberately misleading selective quote from the CBO. That is intellectually dishonest. As I mentioned, it is easy for a reader of the article to think it was talking about the Federal Deficit implications. Nothing you have said so far indicates I was wrong. Do you acknowledge that the CBO actually calculates that the projected deficit will go down because of the ACA?

  The article you link to from Forbes arrives at the numbers by taking the cuts to Medicare that the ACA includes and removing that from the equation as well as by making an assumption that Congress will further increase the law's spending. It says so in the second paragraph. I'm sure you tried to find arguments against this way of adding up the figures to be balanced. Perhaps you came across: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html

  You can do math that way. If a $500B bill came out to replace, say, the CIA and NSA with a new agency, thus cutting $1T in costs, you could argue that we can’t afford the $500B new government spending, you can ignore the $1T in savings. You can say that it is hard to know who to believe with all the funny stuff they do with numbers.

  You can choose to accept Blahouse has better analytical skills than the CBO or the JCT. That is OK. But, please remember, you asked a forum of ex-JWs for “mathematical answers as to how the current situation is sustainable, not speculation and daydreams” I cannot do better than the mathematics offered by the CBO and JCT.

  You quote an article to make a point and I eviscerate the misleading point the article is making, particularly the final quote of Sessions in the article. You than say, take it up with the article’s authors. You then paste another article which doesn’t indicate what you seem to think it does.

  Honestly, are you searching for analysis of the budget impact of the ACA or are you trolling the Internet for anything which agrees with your point of view?

  Your final paragraph really says it:

  All sides are so polarized that getting a clear picture of anything factual is nearly impossible at best. I'm not in government and have no way to access the real figures. I can only read what is publicly available.

  If you cannot trust the bi-partisan CBO and JCT, you are correct, getting a clear picture is impossible. I am now convinced that no analysis that I can provide will be sufficient to sway you from your point of view.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  DG-

  You made my point. Now I'm not only dishonest but a biased troll.

  Really, we can do this all day: you post a study or quote someone who supports issue A, and I can probably find someone who disagrees with that and proposes explanation B.

  My request for mathematics is in regard to the entire national debt, of which ACA is included. How to pay for a real debt of $217 Trillion while adding more entitlement programs. I'm still waiting for an answer.

  DG: You can choose to accept Blahouse has better analytical skills than the CBO or the JCT

  Obama appointed him. Obviously he must have some credibility and skills. I'm not going to question his character because he disagrees with someone you agree with.
• 

  DogGone

  I didn't question your character, I asked if you are simply trolling to pile up articles which agree with you. Are you? Did you read the CBO pages I linked?

  I also apologized and explained I did not mean to call you dishonest. It is entirely uncharitable to imply that I did when I clarified my comment. I brought you the CBO. You are correct, we can go round and round.

  You are very much a goal post mover, aren't you? You start asking how the current course is sustainable, I provide both debt and budget projections, and now you want a plan to pay off the entire accumulated national debt. To be clear, I am calling you a goal-post mover and questioning whether you are a trolling for confirmation.

  On the trolling, you described the pattern of this exchange beautifully:

  you post a study or quote someone who supports issue A, and I can probably find someone who disagrees with that and proposes explanation B.

  It is not about quoting articles and opinions. It is about engaging the arguments therein.

  Respectfully, I bow out.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  Why are the republicans blamed, when bi partisan support for the house budget passed, and the democrat controlled senate absolutly refuses to even consider it. They recessed during the last days. The house budget was passed with bi partisan votes.

  That said, I wish obama care would just get going, and let us all see, let the public see, what it is all about since it is all so incredibally confusing and unknown as it is. if it is good, it will continue, if not, the supporters will get pushed out of office and the act repealed. It is telling that the public must endure the unknown, when the elite get special passes to opt out.
• 

  tootired2care

  Whatever opinions on the rights and wrongs of ACA is immaterial - it's law, it needs to be respected because it became law through the democratic processes in place.

  Simon, just because something is the law doesn't mean that is the end of the story. If a law is passed and their is no means to pay for it, or problems are encountered implementing it, than negotiations must logically follow. The function of congress is to control the budget. It is their job to parse out the dirty details of a bills that are passed, and figure out how to pay for it, connect it to reality, and implement it.

  So far the only way they can pay for this monstrosity is by raising the debt ceiling. What is the point of having a debt ceiling, if you're just going to raise it? Congress wants to negotiate with the dems on a few key pieces of the bill, however Reid and Obama refuse to negotiate, and therefore this is their shutdown. The house worked through the weekends to pass bills to fund all aspects of government except ACA to buy more time to figure the boondoggle out; meanwhile, Reid and Obama stayed home and/or played golf. Their lack of good work ethic in a time of crisis speaks volumes.
• 

  designs

  Did you miss the memo that the US is producing more oil than #1 Russia and a steady march out of a nasty Recession with more taxes coming into the Treasury, plus there is room to cancel the Bush tax cuts and raise additional revenue if needed.

  Health care is a human right.
• 

  tootired2care

  Did you miss the memo that the US is producing more oil than #1 Russia and a steady march out of a nasty Recession with more taxes coming into the Treasury, plus there is room to cancel the Bush tax cuts and raise additional revenue if needed.

  If there is so much new money available, and that is true, then why is it that the dems are seeking to raise the debt ceiling?
• 

  Simon

  Simon, just because something is the law doesn't mean that is the end of the story. If a law is passed and their is no means to pay for it, or problems are encountered implementing it, than negotiations must logically follow. The function of congress is to control the budget. It is their job to parse out the dirty details of a bills that are passed, and figure out how to pay for it, connect it to reality, and implement it.

  I thought the function of Congress was just to stop progress.

  But it's an important point ... the whole reason for the ACA is that the old system was unsustainable and a burden in the long term. US healthcare cost were way way beyond the rest of the worlds and getting worse.

  Do people honestly imagine that a new system will be *worse* when it's been at least partially thought out? Hard to imagine it would be.

  If it's wrong, then fix what's wrong and then repeat. Pretty simple.

  Republican objection to it seems to be more on ideological grounds and support of big business (that get OUR money) than and real care for ordinary hard working people.