CBO set to become massively less reliable.

[BoberFett]

I suppose if you already have contempt for science and consider it subjective, why not math?

There isn't much the GOP won't politicize and attempt to obfuscate if it helps them make some political hay. Kinda smacks of the already established GOP tactic of changing rules when reality has the nerve not to accommodate their views.

Gotta delay the inevitable though, even if it takes stupid, sleazy shit like this.

No, I think you're an idiot for reading that post and trying to twist my words. GOP behavior these last 10 years as well as my mention of their 'subjective' views towards science should have clued you in to what I'm talking about, but it didn't. Yes, lol indeed.

I twisted nothing. You're equating CBO projections with science and math. CBO projections are already subjective, yet decrying the addition of more subjective material on top of them.

If you want to backpedal, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[First]

..

Tmi!

What is up with your post edits? You're just weird.

 

[piasabird]

Was the CBO ever reliable? Didn't they do the numbers for Obama Care?

 

[jhbball]

What is up with your post edits? You're just weird.

He got embarrassed, because he doesn't know how healthcare, or our tax system works apparently.

 

[kage69]

I twisted nothing. You're equating CBO projections with science and math. CBO projections are already subjective, yet decrying the addition of more subjective material on top of them.

If you want to backpedal, that's your problem, not mine.

False, I noted the GOP is adopting a similar view towards math as they have with science.

Why does your comprehension suffer when you hear pubs criticized? I specifically cited their established history of having to resort to rule changes in order to supplement and support their agenda, but somehow it all means I think economics = science, to you. I'm not talking science, I'm talking behavior.

Get over yourself. I'm not responsible for your speculation. If you want to sit there and pretend the GOP hasn't been sneering at inconvenient economic data the way it sneers at inconvenient environmental data - then acting to subvert and/or discredit the numbers of the debate however they can for the sake of politics - that's your problem, not mine.

 

[boomerang]

Day three and the vast right-wing conspiracy is already wreaking havoc on the brains of the walking dead. OMG, they're not doing things the way I feel they should!! LOL!

 

[OverVolt]

He got embarrassed, because he doesn't know how healthcare, or our tax system works apparently.

Lol it's actually not worth my time. My taxes are more complicated than that. I'm trying to simplify it but also beating around the bush and so the more questions ya'll ask the worse it gets.

 

[BoberFett]

False, I noted the GOP is adopting a similar view towards math as they have with science.

Math? Specifically what math are they rejecting?

 

[Fern]

Actually the CBO scored the ACA on the high side and has has to make repeated corrections lowering their estimates.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/obama-health-care-driving-down-deficit/
-snip-

Looks like the lower cost estimate is largely driven by a much smaller expansion of Medicaid. IIRC, approx half the states chose not to participate in the expansion, thus saving a bunch of money for the fed govt who had promised to pick up the cost (or most of it).

Fern

 

[Fern]

Huh? Wasn't that the rationale for ACA? That somehow the crystal ball tells us we'll save money after 10 years, assuming everything goes perfectly to plan, and the tea leaves were correct?

That's how it was sold. But if you'll look at Gruber's paper, the architect of Obamacare, that I linked in my thread, he said cost savings were never intended nor are they expected. He says Obamacare was all about expanding coverage and that later when we realize Obamacare is unaffordable we'll have to accept what is now considered the unacceptable (rationed care, death panels etc.).

Fern

 

[First]

That's how it was sold. But if you'll look at Gruber's paper, the architect of Obamacare, that I linked in my thread, he said cost savings were never intended nor are they expected. He says Obamacare was all about expanding coverage and that later when we realize Obamacare is unaffordable we'll have to accept what is now considered the unacceptable (rationed care, death panels etc.).

Fern

Of course, nothing of the sort was said by Gruber, or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Fern]

I suppose if you already have contempt for science and consider it subjective, why not math?

There isn't much the GOP won't politicize and attempt to obfuscate if it helps them make some political hay. Kinda smacks of the already established GOP tactic of changing rules when reality has the nerve not to accommodate their views.

Gotta delay the inevitable though, even if it takes stupid, sleazy shit like this.

Huh?

They're adding in another layer of "math".

Your point makes no sense. Did you just feel a need to work in some dig about science etc and settle in on this even though it doesn't fit?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Projections are notoriously unreliable. They always have been; it's the 'nature of the beast'. The CBO's are no different.

Aside from the inherent uncertainties, I've been led to believe that Congress already mandates certain parameters for the CBO to use anyway. If so, IMO that just further invalidates the results.

In any case, I think this mostly 'much ado about nothing'. Such economic projections have long been used to sell a bill one side or the other is pushing. Supposed economic benefits or costs savings are always publicly touted (and argued). It seems the only difference is that the 'marketing' will now be actually written in the bill itself. It occurs to me that revisionism will be a little harder since it will be actually written in the bill.

I think it's also important to know how this info will be displayed. I.e., are we gonna get a 'net number' or will the cost and the benefit be broken out and displayed separately? I'm guessing the latter and that's why I don't see any big deal here.

I would imagine that this may increase the work load at the CBO substantially too. Looks like mostly an "Economist Employment Act" to me at this point.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Of course, nothing of the sort was said by Gruber, or anyone else for that matter.

Oh yes. He actually put it into writing.

Fern

 

[kage69]

Math? Specifically what math are they rejecting?

You just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[BoberFett]

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Correction: I can't help you, because you can't help stupid.

I suppose if you already have contempt for science and consider it subjective, why not math?

Keep backpedaling.

 

[kage69]

Correction: I can't help you, because you can't help stupid.

What I meant by that was you're still bent on putting words in my mouth; who said anything about rejecting math? Foolish of me to assume putting it in bold might clue you in, my apologies.

I've seen this from you before, this refusal to entertain any interpretation of another person's words other than your own. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to hand out corrections to people, the whole imperious prick routine kinda ruins it.

Keep backpedaling.

From what exactly? Is it your impressive use of straw or your post confusion that I need be wary of ? Help me out here, I'm stupid remember.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh, I remember, trust me.

So if they're not rejecting math, what is the end result of this contempt you believe that conservatives have for math? How does that contempt manifest itself?

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually the CBO scored the ACA on the high side and has has to make repeated corrections lowering their estimates.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/obama-health-care-driving-down-deficit/

You must really enjoy that bubble you live in. Every link you push is from a right wing source, every post of yours involves some conspiracy involving the left and you claim to be someone whose knowledge is beyond most. Lol!

Facts don't matter. Only Faith matters. It's like arguing with a Jihadi about Mohammed being God's prophet.

 

[Darwin333]

Lol it's actually not worth my time. My taxes are more complicated than that. I'm trying to simplify it but also beating around the bush and so the more questions ya'll ask the worse it gets.

It was evidently worth your time to delete all the old posts and if your taxes are so complicated why would your "simplified" version of things over-estimate the tax by 500-600%?

 

[Jhhnn]

Projections are notoriously unreliable. They always have been; it's the 'nature of the beast'. The CBO's are no different.

Aside from the inherent uncertainties, I've been led to believe that Congress already mandates certain parameters for the CBO to use anyway. If so, IMO that just further invalidates the results.

In any case, I think this mostly 'much ado about nothing'. Such economic projections have long been used to sell a bill one side or the other is pushing. Supposed economic benefits or costs savings are always publicly touted (and argued). It seems the only difference is that the 'marketing' will now be actually written in the bill itself. It occurs to me that revisionism will be a little harder since it will be actually written in the bill.

I think it's also important to know how this info will be displayed. I.e., are we gonna get a 'net number' or will the cost and the benefit be broken out and displayed separately? I'm guessing the latter and that's why I don't see any big deal here.

I would imagine that this may increase the work load at the CBO substantially too. Looks like mostly an "Economist Employment Act" to me at this point.

Fern

Meh. Repubs set out on fact free politicking w/ top down leadership over 20 years ago. Prior to Gingrich, various HOR committees had research staff. You know, fact finders, compilers of data. He dumped 'em as a "cost cutting measure", relied on ideology as guidance, instead. It's been the same ever since.

Want to know the Repub position? Find it at the Club for Growth, AFP & similar. Data? Don't need no steenking data when ideology serves their purposes.

 

[fskimospy]

Projections are notoriously unreliable. They always have been; it's the 'nature of the beast'. The CBO's are no different.

Aside from the inherent uncertainties, I've been led to believe that Congress already mandates certain parameters for the CBO to use anyway. If so, IMO that just further invalidates the results.

In any case, I think this mostly 'much ado about nothing'. Such economic projections have long been used to sell a bill one side or the other is pushing. Supposed economic benefits or costs savings are always publicly touted (and argued). It seems the only difference is that the 'marketing' will now be actually written in the bill itself. It occurs to me that revisionism will be a little harder since it will be actually written in the bill.

I think it's also important to know how this info will be displayed. I.e., are we gonna get a 'net number' or will the cost and the benefit be broken out and displayed separately? I'm guessing the latter and that's why I don't see any big deal here.

I would imagine that this may increase the work load at the CBO substantially too. Looks like mostly an "Economist Employment Act" to me at this point.

Fern

Oh it's definitely none of those things. It is mandating the CBO do something that it has explicitly eschewed in the past due to the fundamentally problematic nature of such projections. It was also done in explicit response to unfavorable scoring of tax cut proposals floated by republicans and it is designed to let them more favorably score their own proposals while downgrading others.

It's an attack on a historically nonpartisan institution because it didn't twist reality to match conservative ideology.

Acting like this is no big deal is simply being duped again by dishonest people. Why would you want to be duped, yet again?

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, I USED to trust the CBO stats.

I hope every time the Repubs throw down CBO stats that are derived after their takeover, some Dem throws a tantrum and calls out the Repub who uses that CBD infected data for what it really is.

Ahhh, who am I kidding. Obama gave his blessing on the Repub's desire to let their bankster buddies fuck around with taxpayer monies again, and then had the nerve to say he was looking out for the welfare of the Mr. everyday taxpayer joe not a couple of weeks later.

 

[theeedude]

Well, I USED to trust the CBO stats.

I hope every time the Repubs throw down CBO stats that are derived after their takeover, some Dem throws a tantrum and calls out the Repub who uses that CBD infected data for what it really is.

Ahhh, who am I kidding. Obama gave his blessing on the Repub's desire to let their bankster buddies fuck around with taxpayer monies again, and then had the nerve to say he was looking out for the welfare of the Mr. everyday taxpayer joe not a couple of weeks later.

The American people gave Repubs the blessing to let bankers play with taxpayer money. They made no secret of their intent to do so during the campaign. Electing Republicans has consequences.

 

[cubby1223]

It's truly amazing the amount of "THE SKY IS FALLING" news items hitting the internet this week regarding the new congressional session.