| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2013 06:58:57 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Don't you think that people whose job is to assess costs and report on same would be constantly reassessing things as fast as possible, with better resources and fewer idealogues than any "outside" politically-oriented group (left- or right-leaning)? |
I think you misunderstand. I think we all think the CBO does as good a job as anybody. It means something to me to quote the CBO (and so I do so). BUT, I don't know the answer to the question of whether they reassess and whether their reassessment has changed.
(I'll add that I did find that the CBO DOES reassess. You can see their assessment of COSTS has changed only a little (CBO Estimate) I haven't tracked down any assessment of SAVINGS.) |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 07:26:46 PM · #77 |
One could go mad trying to interpret government documents, but here's potentially what I found.
In July, 2012, the CBO wrote congress to say the ACA would decrease the deficit by $109 billion between 2013 and 2022. letter In it they quote an expense of $1.1 trillion.
In May, 2013 they did a reassessment of costs and came up with an expense of $1.36 trillion. They do not speak to savings (which I can only assume stays the same?) Now, unless I'm comparing apples to oranges (and I could very well), it seems like a reduction to the deficit is in doubt. If we saved only $109 billion before and we now have a $260 billion increase in spending, then I'd think we'd be losing money.
Still, I could be wrong. I'm open to anything dated 2013 from the CBO saying the ACA will still reduce our deficits. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 08:00:01 PM · #78 |
They revise estimates all the time (it's their job). The CBO estimated in January, 2011 that Republican plans to repeal the ACA law would add $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years. In response, Boehner said, "The CBO is entitled to their opinion." In July 2012, the CBO provided a revised estimate to John Boehner based on the effects of the then-recent Supreme Court decision that put the cost of repeal at $109 billion over 10 years, so efforts to stymie implementation of the original law have already cost us over $100 billion. Cost estimates have risen slightly since then as a result of continued obstruction, but still not enough to make repeal a deficit savings. CBO estimates related to the shutdown debacle:
• Repealing the medical device tax would add $30 billion to the deficit over 10 years.
• Delaying the individual mandate would reduce deficits by roughly $36 billion over ten years (vs $24 billion in two weeks for the shutdown demanding same).
• Amending the ACA provisions for Congressional staff and members of the Executive branch would add $467 million to the deficit over 10 years.
• The provision requiring income verification for subsidies that Republicans "won" would have no budgetary effects relative to baseline projections... because income verification was already in section 1411 of the ACA law.
Message edited by author 2013-10-23 20:05:14. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 08:03:27 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, unless I'm comparing apples to oranges (and I could very well), it seems like a reduction to the deficit is in doubt. |
Nope. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 12:06:13 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, unless I'm comparing apples to oranges (and I could very well), it seems like a reduction to the deficit is in doubt. |
Nope. |
I had read that whole page previously, but it doesn't say anything about what we're talking about. Can you quote me where it talks about deficit reduction on that page? I'd hate to think you'd link a page that doesn't say what you are suggesting...
Edit: actually I found the quote on that page that says they haven't updated their calculations on deficit savings since the letter of July, 2012
"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.)"
So it seems like I am correct. We know costs have risen and we don't know that savings have also risen (doubtful due to the mechanism they are collected, ie taxes) so while we can't be sure we can reasonably assume things have gotten worse.
Message edited by author 2013-10-24 00:10:29. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 01:45:21 PM · #81 |
Saw an interesting shirt...LOL
You can have one too for $14.95 |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 02:09:29 PM · #82 |
Modern Conservatism:
Pigs who have almost everything conspiring to take the rest from those who have almost nothing.
Message edited by author 2013-10-24 15:02:54. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 02:50:57 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Saw an interesting shirt...LOL
You can have one too for $14.95 |
I wouldn't want to bet my shirt on it, but doesn't this company manufacture most of their products in places like Mexico, the Honduras, Haiti and the Honduras.
I wonder what their shirt regarding "Capitalism" say.
Ray
|
|
|
|
10/24/2013 03:15:05 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Saw an interesting shirt...LOL
You can have one too for $14.95 |
I wouldn't want to bet my shirt on it, but doesn't this company manufacture most of their products in places like Mexico, the Honduras, Haiti and the Honduras.
I wonder what their shirt regarding "Capitalism" say.
Ray |
It's actually a Canadian company, which could have been predicted. It's completely in their interest to spark infighting and divide and conquer the US. This t-shirt-based fire-starter is Phase I. Phase II, the "tar and feather," involves syrup and maple leaves. Sticky business. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 03:19:05 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
It's actually a Canadian company, which could have been predicted. It's completely in their interest to spark infighting and divide and conquer the US. This t-shirt-based fire-starter is Phase I. Phase II, the "tar and feather," involves syrup and maple leaves. Sticky business. |
I actually know that it is a Canadian company. I was only trying to tweak our friend cowboy221977 and see if I could get a reaction from him.
I'm evil... I know. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 03:39:38 PM · #86 |
The notion of liberal and conservative ideologies are an expression of wealth is an attempt by fringe ideologies to create a wedge issue.
Tea Party activists would have you think liberals are moochers living off the hard working.
Liberals will have you think the rich are a bunch of hyper conservatives intent on destroying the state to keep more of their money.
Like most easy answers, they are both wrong.
The two wealthiest men in the US are Democrats and about half of the top 40 areas well.22 of the top 30 WEALTHIEST counties in U.S. are Democratic strongolds. States with the lowest per capita income tend to vote conservative, states with the highest tend to vote liberal. Alaska is the only outlyer in the list, a solid Reupbilcan state with good income, boosted by the $7,500 every Alaskan gets in Federal money and dividend payments from the state’s oil royalty which helps them live their independent frontier lifestyles to clamor against the welfare state. No irony there.
For the rest of us politically, the wealthiest 1% of Americans -- those in households earning $500,000 or more annually -- are somewhat to the right of the remaining 99%, but more in terms of party identification than self-professed ideology. One-third of the nation's "1%" identify themselves as Republicans, 41% as independents, and 26% as Democrats. This is a mirror image of the "99%," a third of whom are Democrats, with 39% independents and a quarter Republicans. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 04:35:53 PM · #87 |
ray
I missed your comment on the shirt. I really had no idea where I was made...And yes I try to buy American but as we all know that is getting pretty difficult..
I still have not figured out the Liberal frame of mind.....It is a robin hood mentality (even though there are rich liberals)....It's about take from the rich give to the poor and the govmt knows best and should control every aspect of peoples lives. Essentially it is taking the power from the people and giving it to the bureaucrats in Washington. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 06:39:48 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I still have not figured out the Liberal frame of mind.....It is a robin hood mentality (even though there are rich liberals)....It's about take from the rich give to the poor and the govmt knows best and should control every aspect of peoples lives. Essentially it is taking the power from the people and giving it to the bureaucrats in Washington. |
As long as you ascribe terms like "taking power from the people" and "take from the rich" as your best understanding of the principles of Liberalism, you will never come close to understanding Liberalism.
Here is Wikipedia's History of Liberalism article. If you really want to know what it is learn where it came from. You might surprise yourself. I would bet that many of the ideas you hold most dearly are purely Liberalist ideas. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 10:11:33 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Saw an interesting shirt...LOL
You can have one too for $14.95 |
This is a photography / photoshop site. You should have at least edit out the "ultra cotton" tag and replaced it with a hemp one. |
|
|
|
10/24/2013 11:42:08 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
As long as you ascribe terms like "taking power from the people" and "take from the rich" as your best understanding of the principles of Liberalism, you will never come close to understanding Liberalism.
|
This does help explain why my "Power from the people!" chants never get much traction. |
|
|
|
10/25/2013 12:36:57 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
It's about take from the rich give to the poor and the govmt knows best and should control every aspect of peoples lives. Essentially it is taking the power from the people and giving it to the bureaucrats in Washington. |
The last few decades have taken from the poor and given to the rich to such an extreme that we now have the greatest wealth inequality in U.S. history, and there are no clearer examples of government controlling every aspect of peoples lives than limiting who can have access to healthcare, restricting which adults are allowed to love or marry, making it more difficult for citizens to vote, and precluding women from control of their own bodies.
If not for willful ignorance and strategic misinformation, the Tea Party types would not exist to express serial dismay over failed ideological bills, lost constitutional challenges, disregarded polls and actual fact checking. Like McCarthyism before it, this wave of fanaticism will burn itself out as the mainstream comes to realize the wild claims and fear mongering have no basis in reality. That day can't come soon enough, and the shutdown debacle was a big step toward the inevitable. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 03:34:17 PM · #92 |
So... Speaking of taking from the poor and giving to the rich...
Let's play a game.
Guess how much the ACA website cost
Guess how many users it took to crash it during load testing
Guess who has the closest connection to the company who won the no-bid contract to do the job
...
Go find the answers for yourselves, since that way you'll use a source that you believe - but really, for that kind of money the website should really have been FAR more amazing, and certainly should never have crashed and burned...
Now, just for fun, let's extrapolate this (rather typical) performance into our expectations for how the entire system should work.... Yeah. :-\ |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 03:38:06 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Now, just for fun, let's extrapolate this (rather typical) performance into our expectations for how the entire system should work... |
Sort of like extrapolating how a problem with online ticket sales reflect the validity of the entire movie industry. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 03:50:40 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Now, just for fun, let's extrapolate this (rather typical) performance into our expectations for how the entire system should work... |
Sort of like extrapolating how a problem with online ticket sales reflect the validity of the entire movie industry. |
Probably a bit more applicable. Since this isn't really a single data point... Budget overrun is a 'feature' our of government, and underperformance often is the companion to budget overrun.
Really, I mean, I could sit here and cite dozens of huge examples, but there's no need to do so, since it's common knowledge. Really, how many government projects/agencies/etc actually come in under budget and out-perform expectations? And, naturally, we reward this behavior - since most funds are granted on a use-it-or-lose-it basis, and if you run out of money at exactly the right time, you can then request a budget increase for the next year.
Why do you expect that anything should be different?
PS: did you actually figure out the VERY interesting answer to the third question?
Message edited by author 2013-10-26 15:54:56. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 04:39:43 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Cory:
did you actually figure out the VERY interesting answer to the third question? |
Are you referring to CGI? The Canadian company that is the primary contractor? Is it interesting that a couple years ago THEY "acquired" Stanley, Inc, one of the US's important defense contractors and also, incidentally, the producer of US Passports?
But I don't know what individual you're referring to...
Message edited by author 2013-10-26 17:12:25. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 05:30:41 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
did you actually figure out the VERY interesting answer to the third question? |
Are you referring to CGI? The Canadian company that is the primary contractor? Is it interesting that a couple years ago THEY "acquired" Stanley, Inc, one of the US's important defense contractors and also, incidentally, the producer of US Passports?
But I don't know what individual you're referring to... |
Nah... Can't really read too much into it, but it would seem that Michelle Obama and the senior VP were classmates at Princeton, and are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.... Certainly a rather interesting coincidence. Wouldn't be a big deal if this was put out to bid, but on a no-bid that sort of close connection does raise eyebrows, and questions. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 06:27:30 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
did you actually figure out the VERY interesting answer to the third question? |
Are you referring to CGI? The Canadian company that is the primary contractor? Is it interesting that a couple years ago THEY "acquired" Stanley, Inc, one of the US's important defense contractors and also, incidentally, the producer of US Passports?
But I don't know what individual you're referring to... |
Nah... Can't really read too much into it, but it would seem that Michelle Obama and the senior VP were classmates at Princeton, and are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.... Certainly a rather interesting coincidence. Wouldn't be a big deal if this was put out to bid, but on a no-bid that sort of close connection does raise eyebrows, and questions. |
At first glance I'd agree with you, but I think it's clear that's a coincidence and not the reason CGI got the project. According to Wikipedia:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
In 2004 CGI purchased the majority of American Management Systems (AMS), acquiring the commercial business and all government business not related to national defense. Since 2009, a subsidiary of CGI Group, CGI Federal, has been awarded over $1.4 billion in U.S. federal contracts, including an over $90 million contract by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for establishment of what would become the software back-end of the federal health insurance marketplace website. |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2013 07:31:17 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Can't really read too much into it, but it would seem that Michelle Obama and the senior VP were classmates at Princeton, and are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.... Certainly a rather interesting coincidence. Wouldn't be a big deal if this was put out to bid, but on a no-bid that sort of close connection does raise eyebrows, and questions. |
No, it doesn't. It's idiot fodder. CGI submitted one of four proposals out of 16 pre-qualified bidders and was already working on the Medicare.gov website. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 07:34:24 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Can't really read too much into it, but it would seem that Michelle Obama and the senior VP were classmates at Princeton, and are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.... Certainly a rather interesting coincidence. Wouldn't be a big deal if this was put out to bid, but on a no-bid that sort of close connection does raise eyebrows, and questions. |
No, it doesn't. It's idiot fodder. CGI submitted one of four proposals out of 16 pre-qualified bidders and was already working on the Medicare.gov website. |
Hey, that's a nice gaffe isn't it?
..
In any case, how the flying hell does a website, yes, a WEBSITE cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and STILL not work? That's just astonishing. |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 11:32:46 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Guess who has the closest connection to the company who won the no-bid contract to do the job
...
Go find the answers for yourselves, since that way you'll use a source that you believe |
Curious what source you were using? Probably not the Daily Caller, I'd wager. |
|
