Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.Follow

#52REDACTED, Posted: Nov 16 2010 at 3:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,
#53 Nov 16 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wow. So I'm not allowed to point out that the CBO score is based on 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of the program?

You can point out whatever you want. Pointing it out to someone who cares is another matter. Again, the CBO is the metric Congress, and most likely the commission, uses. If you want to cry about it, take it up with them.


It's one metric Joph. Scoring only measures the deficit effect of a bill. It does nothing to tell us if the money is well spent. If I put 1 Trillion dollars into a pit and light it on fire, CBO will score it as "paying for itself" as long as I raise taxes by 1 Trillion dollars to pay for it. Hopefully we can all agree that this is not the only measurement of whether a bill is a good idea fiscally.

They got that score by taking 500 Billion dollars out of Medicare, projecting revenues of another 500 Billion to cover the rest, and then amortizing 6 years of costs across 10 years of said revenues. CBO scoring doesn't tell us if something is a monumentally bad idea. It just tells us if the numbers add up over the time frame they are given. Garbage in, garbage out.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Nov 16 2010 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's one metric Joph.

It's the one Congress uses. Which makes it the one the commission is most likely to use which is the point since you're crying about how come they didn't get rid of health care reform. You can send your complaints about it over to them and I'm sure it'll be the first time anyone there ever heard of them and totally rock their world. Let me know how it goes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Nov 16 2010 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:

The list includes stuff both Democrats and Republicans care about Joph, so it's unfair to characterize this as me wanting to cut Democrat stuff while saving Republican stuff. I want to cut "new stuff"


Yes, but only because the Democrats were in power and made the "new stuff".


Yes. And? Are you denying that spending went up massively under the Democrats? Even while Republicans were jumping up and down and warning us all that if we spent that money, we'd have to pay for it with higher taxes down the line? Remember that? Remember when I said the same thing on this forum? Remember when I was shushed by people repeating slogans they heard Obama say "not one dime of taxes". Remember that?

Quote:
When the Republicans fueled the deficit fiasco, gbaji applauded.


Pretty selective memory. First off, the Republicans didn't fuel any deficit fiasco at all. Until 2008 when then mortgage investment market collapsed (something which Republicans had been warning about and trying to fix for years btw), the Bush administration maintained a debt to GDP ratio in the mid 30% range the whole time. There was no debt crisis.

I didn't "applaud". I pointed out over and over that the left was falsely accusing the GOP of overspending and running the country into debt. Not agreeing that there is a problem isn't the same as applauding that the problem is happening.


The debt crisis didn't start until the Dems took control. Which is incredibly ironic. They bashed Bush for 8 years straight for overspending and running deficits. And what did they do the second they took power? They overspent and ran deficits. And not little ones, but big freaking massive ones. During a time when revenues were already down, they upped spending like there was no limit.

And you have the gall to blame the GOP?


Quote:
If a person says A>B and B>A in different threads (or, in the case of gbaji, often in the same thread) arguing A>B or B>A with that person is inappropriate. Telling them their self-inconsistency is unacceptable is. And that is, to preempt gbaji, attacking the person not his "ideas".



That's wonderful. Irrelevant, but wonderful. I've been very very consistent with my economic positions on this board for years now. Lower taxes: Good. Pretty simple really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Nov 16 2010 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's one metric Joph.

It's the one Congress uses.


For what? At the risk of bursting your bubble the CBO doesn't tell Congress if the bill in question is a good idea, or is worth the money they are spending. All it does is predict the deficit effect of said bill.

Quote:
Which makes it the one the commission is most likely to use which is the point since you're crying about how come they didn't get rid of health care reform. You can send your complaints about it over to them and I'm sure it'll be the first time anyone there ever heard of them and totally rock their world. Let me know how it goes.


It is not just about deficit reduction! How many times do I have to keep saying this, year after year? A deficit is just the difference between revenues and spending. "Balancing the budget" is not by itself a noble goal. By itself it tells us nothing about whether our government is being a good steward of our economic resources.


Fiscal Conservatism is about reducing the economic footprint of the government on the people. That means "lower taxes", in case you are confused. I don't care if we run a deficit, if we're doing it by lowering taxes. I *do* care if we run a deficit by increasing spending, because the most likely result will be to balance that by raising taxes at some future point. It is for exactly that reason that I reject completely the idea that it's ok for the DEMs to massively increase spending on their own favorite programs one year, and then make up for it by raising taxes and cutting some spending (but mostly on other things they don't care as much about). That's not really a compromise, is it?


And the net effect is bigger government and higher taxes. No. I disagree! Eliminate the new spending first. Once that's done then assess where we are economically and look at other options. But I reject any idea that raises taxes one penny on anyone in this country until we have reduced every dime of spending the Democrats added in the last two years.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Nov 16 2010 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
For what? At the risk of bursting your bubble the CBO doesn't tell Congress if the bill in question is a good idea, or is worth the money they are spending. All it does is predict the deficit effect of said bill.

Erm... you answered your own question?

Quote:
It is not just about deficit reduction!

Deficit reduction is a major goal of the commission though. Are you having trouble understanding the topic?

The commission to reduce the deficit and national debt did not choose to recommend to eliminate the healthcare reform bill, presumably (since I'm not them) because it (A) is scored to lower the deficit which is their goal anyway and (B) contains provisions which work well with their goals. They decided that there were other places where their goals could be better met even if they didn't fulfill Gbaji's wet dream of making the scary Democratic stuff all go away.

Quote:
But I reject any idea that raises taxes one penny on anyone in this country until we have reduced every dime of spending the Democrats added in the last two years.

Very convenient. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.


See? Full circle!

Edited, Nov 16th 2010 4:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Nov 16 2010 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For what? At the risk of bursting your bubble the CBO doesn't tell Congress if the bill in question is a good idea, or is worth the money they are spending. All it does is predict the deficit effect of said bill.

Erm... you answered your own question?


And then followed it up with a statement that deficit reduction alone isn't the whole picture. Try to keep up!

Quote:
Quote:
It is not just about deficit reduction!

Deficit reduction is a major goal of the commission though. Are you having trouble understanding the topic?


Yes. What a coincidence that after ignoring the deficit effects of their spending for 2 years despite near screaming from the Right, *now* they suddenly want to look at deficit reduction!

If only someone had predicted this? Oh wait! That was me. Over a year ago. Shocking...



Let see. Democrats go on massive spending spree. Conservatives (like myself) warn that this will result in higher taxes. We're told that we're lying because the Dems weren't raising taxes at all. They were just spending money on necessary things. That's not the same, right? I attempt to explain that once they are done spending, they'll turn the argument into addressing the deficit and balancing the budget and then use that to increase taxes. See... They wont want to increase taxes, and they didn't intend to, but magically that's what will result.


Are you all stupid? I said this would happen back in the summer of 2009. On this forum. Now that exactly what I predicted would happen is happening, you're still unwilling to lift your heads out of the nice sand it's been buried in?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Nov 16 2010 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And then followed it up with a statement that deficit reduction alone isn't the whole picture. Try to keep up!

Keep up with that? Things that everyone else already knows? Grats on trying to sound smart by stating the obvious.

Quote:
If only someone had predicted this?

The rest is you crying about Democrats. Who could have foreseen that?

Oh wait! I did! Go me!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Nov 16 2010 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And then followed it up with a statement that deficit reduction alone isn't the whole picture. Try to keep up!

Keep up with that? Things that everyone else already knows? Grats on trying to sound smart by stating the obvious.


You're the one who was arguing that the health care bill shouldn't be repealed because the CBO scored it as not increasing the deficit over the next 10 years. I'm the one who's been arguing that CBO scoring isn't the only consideration to use.

The health care bill is also not even remotely the only spending I'm talking about.


My broader point is that it's more than a little bit dishonest for the Dems to pursue a relentless campaign of massive spending programs for 2 years, ignoring and deflecting questions about the effect on the deficit, and then only after they are done turn around and insist that we must now address the deficit, but not by eliminating all the extra spending they did, but by raising taxes and cutting spending on other things instead. The icing on the cake is for anyone to consider this a "compromise". It's not. It's highway robbery of the American people made all the more irritating because so many of us saw right through what they were going to do the whole time and sounded the warning, only to be ignored and dismissed by the very same people who now suddenly have become deficit hawks.


Why didn't any of you oppose that spending on the grounds that it would increase the deficit? It sorta rings false to only suddenly care about it now, doesn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Nov 16 2010 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're the one who was arguing that the health care bill shouldn't be repealed because the CBO scored it as not increasing the deficit over the next 10 years.

Erm, no I said that the CBO score probably played into their decision as well as the fact that aspects of the legislation supports what they're trying to do. And so there's undoubtedly other things that neither lower the deficit nor reduce debt that would make more sense to look at first.

When you can't even follow the basic thread of a conversation, how do you expect people to listen to your incessant whining?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Nov 17 2010 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
When you can't even follow the basic thread of a conversation, how do you expect people to listen to your incessant whining?

Volume.
#63 Nov 17 2010 at 8:07 AM Rating: Default
Joph,

Quote:
making the scary Democratic stuff all go away.


Quote:
- When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe

That scary democrat stuff.


2012 is going to be worse for the Dems than 2010 was. Only 28% of people polled think Obama is going to be re-elected and an even bigger number is only 1 out of 10 think the economy is going in the right direction. Dems will be going into 2012 with a lame duck president and twice the number of seats up for re-election. No amount of creative democrat figuring is going to change any of this.

Good days ahead.



Edited, Nov 17th 2010 9:15am by varusword75
#64 Nov 17 2010 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
reduce the deficit to 2.2% of GDP in five years
Well good luck with that.

Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Hmm, how about we start tarifing the sh*t out of anything China buys, and tax the crap out of any corporation that moves their workforce overseas but still operates in the U.S. to evade U.S. labor costs.
But that's not free trade, etc.



Edited, Nov 17th 2010 4:25pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#66 Nov 17 2010 at 7:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're the one who was arguing that the health care bill shouldn't be repealed because the CBO scored it as not increasing the deficit over the next 10 years.

Erm, no I said that the CBO score probably played into their decision as well as the fact that aspects of the legislation supports what they're trying to do. And so there's undoubtedly other things that neither lower the deficit nor reduce debt that would make more sense to look at first.

When you can't even follow the basic thread of a conversation, how do you expect people to listen to your incessant whining?


Ok. So when I said that we should roll back as much of the "new spending" of the last two years, followed by a list of things which included as one solitary item the health care bill, your response of "But the CBO scored the bill as deficit neutral!" was an example of following the basic thread of the conversation?

Funny! Seemed more like a classic Jophiel sidetrack.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Nov 17 2010 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, comprehension never was your strong suit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Nov 18 2010 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
I think it is clear to all reading this gbaji has totally lost any marbles he might have had. Wait a few days for the meth shakes to ware off and try again with him. Usually he'll be more reasonable.
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 408 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (408)