DogGone

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 193 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DogGone

• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Could have saved myself some time. Here is a good explanation of Blahous complete with graphs: http://crfb.org/blogs/affordable-care-act-and-hi-trust-fund
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  I apologize to all for the length of this post. If you aren’t following my conversation just skip it, please.

  AndDon’tCallMeShirley:

  There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge? I anticipate very acerbic responses that ignore what I've just said. What would be appreciated is this: if someone can demonstrate mathematically why I'm wrong, go ahead. I'd appreciate the insight. There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge?

  You have a great Canadian comedian as your avatar, which made me like you off the hop. Therefore, when you said you would appreciate if someone could point out how it was going to be paid for I took you at your word and thought your request was in good faith.

  I don’t know if the ACA is good or bad. Whatever it is, it is nothing like what other countries are doing with healthcare. To me it looks like a giant social experiment and I hope it works out well. But, I get objections to it, I really do.

  However, when you asked for mathematical answers and not “speculation and daydreams” I thought you may not be aware of the CBO projections (which were referenced earlier by another poster). So I provided them thinking, even if you didn’t agree, you would at least acknowledge the CBO is not full of wild speculators and daydreamers.

  In response you stated that there “was no budgetary offset” and that the “ACA will be more expensive than projected”. You then selected some quotes that, even when I read them now, seem to indicate that you understood the federal deficit implications to be what Fox quoted as the “full accounting of the bill ... $2.6 trillion”. I say that because you reiterated that you were asking “how a broke government is in a position to support a program it can’t afford”.

  Did I read you wrong? What did you mean to illustrate by those quotes?

  You see, when I read the Fox article and noted right there in paragraph 13 that it will reduce the deficit, even by $81 billion more than thought the year before, I figured you must have missed the equivocation in the article on the use of “deficit”. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, after all why would you post an article that agrees with me to challenge the CBO report I posted?

  Then there was the strange fact that you brought up that the projections had been revised. Odd, because the Fox article was from March 2012 and the CBO projections I linked were from May 2013. Even more odd when the bold subheading in the CBO article said “The Estimated Budgetary Impact of the ACA’s Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little on a Year-by-Year Basis Since March 2010” Strange to respond to the May 2013 CBO projection with a March 2012 Fox article and then state the “CBO numbers have been revised”. I assumed that maybe you had not read it.

  Did I read you wrong? What was the point of referencing the March 2012 CBO segment as a response to the May 2013 CBO article I referenced?

  Still, I was being charitable, I thought that the Fox article was sly and anyone who wasn’t reading it carefully would think it was saying the federal deficit was going to balloon. I thought you would appreciate having that pointed out. I thought you must not have read the whole article or the CBO projections it is talking about. So, I asked if you had read it. I even quoted the critical paragraphs from the CBO projection.

  Let’s be clear, this is not about a difference of opinion. All of us, Fox and Sessions included, were talking about what the CBO projects. One doesn’t have to fall back on opinion here because the CBO is kind enough to put their projections right there on the web. I thought I would explain how you might have mistaken the Fox news article and how it was deceitful, in my opinion. Since you said you would appreciate seeing how the ACA would not bankrupt the country, I thought you would be, well, appreciative.

  Still, if that wasn’t fulsome enough I provided charts to show what the debt and budget are projected to look like. I think this is really good news. I think the US has made some amazing changes. In 2009 I was VERY worried about you! If you go down the tube, so do we Canucks!

  Then, after all of this, you said the Fox link you posted was pretty self-explanatory and maybe I should read it again... huh? Please, if you are being sincere and not just having sport playing with me, explain what you think the Fox article says?

  You then link to an April 2012 Forbes article which, to your credit, does not agree with the ACA costing in the CBO report I linked earlier. I admit, by this point I was getting a bit exasperated because you did not engage in any of points I had brought to your attention.

  However, the Blahous critique is substantial and deserves a full treatment and not my glib reply. So I go back on my declaration to bow out. If we use the Blahous method the ACA will cost much more, true, but only because government program spending is dramatically cut. In other words, it works out better for the overall deficit and debt picture! Why? Because the ACA will cost more but all the expenses in Medicare will reduce and disappear! Rejoice! If the CBO scenario turns out true you can see that the baseline is healthy. If Blahous is right the deficit will go down even faster! Again, this is not opinion, this is what is stated if you carefully read what is written in what you posted.

  How? Because using his accounting you cannot count on Medicare payouts existing after the trust fund cannot cover 100% of the costs. If there is no Medicare than you can’t very well save any money on it, like the ACA promises. True, but then you are not spending any money on Medicare, so the overall effect is a much smaller deficit! Does anyone actually think Congress will just let Medicare die? No, Congress will keep having the American tax payer foot the bill. Blahous’s response is in the article you linked: “It’s the law. Some may not like the fact that Medicare can only spend money to the extent that it has a positive balance in its trust funds, but that’s the law.” Note how he explains it, “The finding that the ACA reduces the deficit depends on the critical assumption that Medicare will always pay out full benefits whether there is anything in its trust fund or not.”

  So he removes the cost savings to Medicare in his mathematics. Law ties Medicare benefits to the trust fund Americans pay into. The CBO assumes Medicare will continue and that Congress will ensure Medicare continues paying out full benefits even if the fund no longer covers 100% (since the taxes into the fund have been less than the money coming out - for some time now). So, we have three scenarios:

  1. CBO is projecting numbers with the ACA and the good old American Tax payer footing the bill for Medicare. It says, comparing a world where Medicare keeps going and there is no ACA to a world where Medicare keeps going and there is the ACA you can see deficit savings projected.
  2. Blahous interpretation #1 is that Medicare discontinues and the ACA exists, thus proving the ACA saving projections on Medicare a lie. (But, an overall smaller deficit!) Comparing a world with Medicare and no ACA to a world with the ACA and no Medicare (or less Medicare) the deficit is smaller but the ACA is more expensive.
  3. Blahous interpretation #2 is that Medicare will be funded, but you need to add that on top of the ACA. He says, comparing a world where there is no Medicare (or less Medicare) and no ACA to a world where there is both and you can see a huge deficit difference. (though the same federal deficit, of course, as #1) - in effect, the savings on Medicare from the ACA go to keeping the Medicare fund solvent. The beans move from one program to another.

  Blahous says since you can’t “double dip” - you can’t count the savings dollars of a program that isn’t funded under current law. You can’t both assume the savings of Medicare without assuming the costs, as it is not going to continue under current law unless the fund is topped up.

  OK, that does make the ACA more expensive if you look at it that way, if you stack the future Medicare dollars on top of the ACA. I can see that. Strange. But OK.

  If you are following the point, though, you will see that #1 and #3 have the SAME budgetary impact. He isn’t arguing with the CBO federal budget projections. He just says that since the ACA assumes Medicare will continue you have to add that program cost to the ACA costing OR you can’t assume those Medicare savings when talking about the ACA.

  I’m not expressing an opinion about whether he is right or wrong, I’m pointing out how he arrives at his numbers.

  Now, to your point, about how all of this can be paid for…. The overall deficit is either the same (#1 and #3) as the CBO projected or it is much better (#2). You can move beans around in jars but you still have the same number of beans.

  You also make another popular mistake, you state that Blahous was appointed by Obama. He was not. He was appointed by Bush and was a hold over for a few months while the new administration was brought in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blahous) Not that it matters to the substance of his argument.

  I understand there are different viewpoints, for sure. But all the articles you have put up point to the same conclusion that I was trying to make to you – the overall solvency of the Government is not threatened by the ACA. They look at different ways of adding up the ACA costs, for sure. And I haven’t disagreed with a single calculation. The Fox article is right about the cost (deficit) side of the ledger (but is not clear about the word deficit). Blauhous has an interesting way of adding up the ACA costs. But, with the exception of Blahous’s concern Congress will not fully enact the bill, there are no differences in what I have noted about the effect on the Federal Deficit in anything you have put up.

  The Federal Budget looks better with the ACA than without it, unless you pull Medicare out of the budget all together, in which case the Budget looks rosy, indeed!

  This is what I mean about engaging an article you link. I have no objection to your posting quotes from articles or links to articles. I object when you do so and then retreat from the discussion about what those articles actually say. What the ideas within them mean.

  As to how the entire debt can be paid off… I’m not your monkey. I answered your original request in good faith.

  It’s ok, because I was at the hockey game tonight and my team won in overtime… I couldn’t possibly be in a better mood!
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  The gap has been closing due to some hard negotiation... this is with current law, the ACA included. Just a little more work and I think the gap can be closed. I think with some tough reform to Social Security, it can happen. This is why I'm a bull on the US economy, long term.

  

  
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Shirely,

  Did you read the entire Fox article you linked to? Did you read the May update I linked to and the July 2102 letter to the Speaker therein? It is at odds with the picture you are painting. From the CBO May 2013:

  In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.

  Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)

  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

  I find it interesting how Fox used a selective clip from the CBO paper in a way that might mislead the reader. The March CBO update was quoted as saying that the “ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion.” Now, the average reader, not knowing the difference between accounting deficits and the Deficit might think the CBO was saying this would increase the Federal Deficit by $1,131 billion. It was talking about adding up the deficits side of the ledger from the act. It also talks about the other side of the ledger! The deficits are more than offset by savings and revenues as a result of the ACA. The CBO and the Fox article you quote say, in no uncertain terms, that the net result is a base-line reduction in the Deficit. Rather than trust Fox why not read the sentence they quote from the update they cite: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf It is on page two. I ask only that you read the sentence before it and the rest of the surrounding paragraph. Would you say the quote from Fox might lead the average reader to think this was a discussion about the effect to the Federal Deficit?

  The quotes you select above obfuscate whether it is the CBO speaking or Republican Senator Sessions being referenced from the Fox article. You might want to consider that it is not intellectually honest to add up the costs of a bill and present that as the only side of the ledger. There are also savings and revenues. That is how budgets work, as I'm sure you are aware.
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Shirley, the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to the Speaker was earlier linked. In all the posts above you may have missed it. The CBO reports that when you add up the costs for the new programs, savings in the act, and new revenues included, the ACA will reduce deficits.

  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

  Two imporant points though

  1. The projections are noted to be "highly uncertain"
  2. If you felt the country was going bankrupt before you might not be comforted to know it will just do it a tiny bit more slowly.

  Personally, I think the US outlook is great given the relative increase in the affordability of labour, the huge expansion of cheap domestic energy, the improvement in the consumer debt load, and the massive changes in spending and revenues that were worked out by the parties before the last election. I'm helping a Canadian company setup a manufacturing plan in the NE right now, precisly because of the energy and labour savings. This shutdown isn't helping things, I might add!

  I was pretty gloom and doom on the USA a few years ago. I actually think it is on a great track for economic expansion over the next decade. But, truly, that is just the guess of an ignorant Canadian. I have to respect the Republicans, with whom I'm not ideologically aligned, for helping improve the fiscal outlook.
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  BizzyBee, great example of how to respectfully respond. Bring up the Great Realignment. It adds context while not negating her point.

  BOTR- you are clearly erudite and well spoken. I appreciate reading your posts a great deal. But, comments like "objective facts trouble the right wing" are exactly what i'm talking about. Frankly, I think you are too smart, too good for low balls like that.
• 
  369

  So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  I'm sure my input is not welcome, but here it is: PLEASE STOP BEING SO NASTY!!

  Nonjwspouce made a typo and/or her autocorrect changed her words. I do this all the time. A charitable reader could clearly see what word was meant and would read it accordingly. To question her ability to teach her children going way too far. I agree with tootired2care, it should be about the substance of your argument. We can disagree and discuss, sharpen our thoughts; this level of personal animosity, though, is unwelcome.

  Nonjwspouce was noting that one poster mentioned how the Democrats are not talking about secession and yet, the story is different looking back in history to the antebellum years. It was very much a Democrat versus Republican issue. In fact, South Carolina immediately seceded BECAUSE the Republican Lincoln was elected President, as they had declared they would. The country was divided and that was reflected on party lines. It was Democrats arguing for a continued balance of slave states versus free states and the Republicans who stood for "free labour". In fact, it was a "radical" element in the party that was calling for emancipation. There are some interesting parallels between this and the current tea party movement.

  It was a valuable addition to the conversation and did not deserve to be ripped apart for a simple error.

  (DogGone steps down from his soap box and tries to look inconspicuous)
• 
  23

  Newly released New World Translation still full of numerous errors and abuses

  by yadda yadda 2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  thought i'd start a thread discussing all the scriptures where the watchtower translation committee has taken liberties and abused verses they've translated in the nwt.. worst of all are the numerous places in the christian greek scriptures where 'jehovah' has been inserted where the tetragrammaton or any equivalent of it does not occur in any extant mss and where the context could just as easily mean, or even more likely mean, the identity being spoken of is jesus christ rather than the father.

  although in many places out of the 237 in the nt where they have done this the identity is clearly or most probably the father (jehovah) as distinct from the son (jesus), there are dozens of occurrences where this is not the case.. here are a whole lot more scriptures abused by the translators of the nwt, copied from the freeminds website (article written j bowman, scholar):.

  adding words.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Fair point. Just maybe the title could have been different. Shrug.