CBO set to become massively less reliable.

[Greenman]

So no one has any idea on how accurate the CBO has been up too this point? But we're all sure it's going to be more/less accurate now?

It seems to me that we're arguing assumed trivia, there hasn't been a single fact presented yet.

 

[werepossum]

Dynamic scoring is a potentially good thing but fraught with peril. Done right, it could give us much better cost estimates and help make better decisions. Done wrong, it becomes a political tool instead of a more objective budgeting tool. It also undermines credibility of the CBO (not that there is much anyway) and provides more opportunity for political meddling and interjections into the estimation process.

I also agree that small changes in the model can cause big differences in the projected costs, and that different underlying assumptions can have major impact on such projections.

Note that it is pretty ironic that you (and other lefties) oppose the use of dynamic scoring in CBO forecasting in this context, but are fine with making decisions off similar forecasting when it comes to climate models.

This, exactly, and well said. Although it should apply across the board.

We should all remember that the CBO now scores bills by the included assumptions. Not exactly a reliable metric. Not that this one will likely be any better, for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[werepossum]

When I was in the hospital a $6,250 bill was something you ran up in an afternoon.

Also, how are you paying 30% in taxes if you only make $30k a year? Your effective tax rate should be somewhere in the single digits, maybe slightly more. Do you have the worst accountant in the world?

You are confusing taxes with income tax. If one is self employed, one is hit with 15+% payroll tax off the top. Then there are state taxes as well, and if he had the bad judgement to set himself up a professional services corp he would be really screwed.

I think he is wrong about bankruptcy though. Certainly you'll pay more under the ACA with an individual policy or if like me you have to step down to a worse policy, and that amount can cause bankruptcy, but one thing that Obamacare does right is protect against the truly huge medical bills that virtually no one could ever pay off. That should ultimately lower medical bankruptcies, at a cost of raising everyone's health insurance costs.

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

Amazing, yes, but hardly unexpected. When the Pubbies took the House after 40 years, how many such stories did we see before they even took office? The Mainstream Media is simply the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

 

[fskimospy]

No. Was not confusing taxes with income tax. The average person at that level of the income spectrum often has a net negative federal income tax rate, which can drag their total federal tax liability, payroll taxes included, into the single digits.

Also, nice delusional and insane comment about the media. You truly live in la-la land.

 

[Bitek]

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%?

If it didn't, what would he have to complain about?

Lot less impressive when you are complaining about the horrors of govt oppression when you are paying 5% in taxes, and likely receiving lots of subsidies based on income.

 

[PokerGuy]

So no one has any idea on how accurate the CBO has been up too this point? But we're all sure it's going to be more/less accurate now?

It seems to me that we're arguing assumed trivia, there hasn't been a single fact presented yet.

Well, it was something the gop was pushing, so naturally the left "knows" it will make the CBO less accurate (much like the OP). The evil gop is doing stuff, it must be horrible, the sky is falling!

It could be good or bad, depending on how it's used.

I do agree with OP that it just creates more avenues for political meddling with what should be an accounting-driven activity, which could erode the credibility of the cbo -- not that it had that much anyway.

 

[thraashman]

Well, it was something the gop was pushing, so naturally the left "knows" it will make the CBO less accurate (much like the OP). The evil gop is doing stuff, it must be horrible, the sky is falling!

It could be good or bad, depending on how it's used.

I do agree with OP that it just creates more avenues for political meddling with what should be an accounting-driven activity, which could erode the credibility of the cbo -- not that it had that much anyway.

This has nothing to do with the GOP is pushing it thus it's less accurate. It has to do with history showing that 100% of the time in the past dynamic scoring has been shown to be bullshit in retrospect. It's like if every year for the past 30 years you claimed the Cubs would win the World Series and every year they haven't, so you claim this year the Cubs will win the World Series and that you have a perfect track record of these predictions.

 

[kage69]

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?

For starters, preaching a $80billion price tag for a foreign invasion/occupation, as an example. I could sit here and post dozens of examples, but I think we both know it won't mean anything to you. You spinning my "subvert and/or discredit" into "reject" after just denying putting words in my mouth is pretty funny. What makes it sad is you can't even man up and say "oops," but now the onus is on me to elaborate my views again to help out someone acting like an incredulous prick?

It's not that I don't like watching you piss into the wind while thinking you're winning some pissing contest. I just prefer to avoid investing time in creating a page long post for someone unable to read it without involving their own creative license.

Here's a great idea: ignore my posts. Can I trust you to remember that?

 

[hal2kilo]

This has nothing to do with the GOP is pushing it thus it's less accurate. It has to do with history showing that 100% of the time in the past dynamic scoring has been shown to be bullshit in retrospect. It's like if every year for the past 30 years you claimed the Cubs would win the World Series and every year they haven't, so you claim this year the Cubs will win the World Series and that you have a perfect track record of these predictions.

Bottom line is Republicans whole heartedly believe in the trickle down theory against all facts otherwise. Repubicans BELIEVE in ideas that make them feel morally correct. They are not interseted in what works.

 

[BoberFett]

For starters, preaching a $80billion price tag for a foreign invasion/occupation, as an example. I could sit here and post dozens of examples, but I think we both know it won't mean anything to you. You spinning my "subvert and/or discredit" into "reject" after just denying putting words in my mouth is pretty funny. What makes it sad is you can't even man up and say "oops," but now the onus is on me to elaborate my views again to help out someone acting like an incredulous prick?

It's not that I don't like watching you piss into the wind while thinking you're winning some pissing contest. I just prefer to avoid investing time in creating a page long post for someone unable to read it without involving their own creative license.

Here's a great idea: ignore my posts. Can I trust you to remember that?

You're a clown.

 

[kage69]

You're a clown.

Egads! I've been outed by a piss scented clown hunter!

Well, there goes my evening. Just going to stay and home and stew in my indignant outrage now. Thanks Pissy, I hope you're happy.

 

[kage69]

I do agree with OP that it just creates more avenues for political meddling with what should be an accounting-driven activity, which could erode the credibility of the cbo -- not that it had that much anyway.

*applause*

 

[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?

Explain what's different under this rule.

In the past everyone has trotted out their stats and economic predictions for bills. They've been well publicized. They've been publicly argued. Do you agree?

If you do agree, please explain the significance of this rule. All I see is another statistic/economic projection. So, we'll hear about one more. What's the difference? Honest question.

Fern

 

[trenchfoot]

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.

Don't mind me, I realize Obama and the Dems got some high priority stuff in trade for the Repubs deregulating their way back to those inglorious Bush/Cheney years. I just really don't like the idea that the Repubs are willing to sell the American taxpayer down the road in order to give back to their uber rich buddies free license to gamble with MY tax dollars and lose it all without being held accountable......AGAIN.

 

[ivwshane]

Explain what's different under this rule.

In the past everyone has trotted out their stats and economic predictions for bills. They've been well publicized. They've been publicly argued. Do you agree?

If you do agree, please explain the significance of this rule. All I see is another statistic/economic projection. So, we'll hear about one more. What's the difference? Honest question.

Fern

I'll take one example if you don't mind

 

[Fern]

I'll take one example if you don't mind

An example what? Conflicting economic projections? If that's what you want look at projections for the pipeline (forgetting its name ATM).

Every time we have a bill proposed we have numerous groups touting their projections, whether it be political party or think tank groups.

I'm being honest here: How does ONE more projection added to the discussion significantly change anything? I don't see it.

I don't support the change. Just seems like more unnecessary expense. Projections are just projections. We already have more than enough. Shrug.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Explain what's different under this rule.

In the past everyone has trotted out their stats and economic predictions for bills. They've been well publicized. They've been publicly argued. Do you agree?

If you do agree, please explain the significance of this rule. All I see is another statistic/economic projection. So, we'll hear about one more. What's the difference? Honest question.

Fern

We won't hear the other ones and the "official" CBO score will be one based on assumptions that can wildly swing the 10 year impact of a bill, against the recommendations of the analysts who actually craft the projections.

That good enough?

 

[Jhhnn]

Amazing, yes, but hardly unexpected. When the Pubbies took the House after 40 years, how many such stories did we see before they even took office? The Mainstream Media is simply the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

And the Faithful will nod in agreement whenever that canard is trotted out.

That's quite remarkable given the market share of FoxNews.

They're Libruhl too, I suppose, but only when viewed from Glenbeckistan.

Is it part of your job description to drag out stupid shit like that, or what? Do you enjoy pandering to fools?

 

[ivwshane]

An example what? Conflicting economic projections? If that's what you want look at projections for the pipeline (forgetting its name ATM).

Every time we have a bill proposed we have numerous groups touting their projections, whether it be political party or think tank groups.

I'm being honest here: How does ONE more projection added to the discussion significantly change anything? I don't see it.

I don't support the change. Just seems like more unnecessary expense. Projections are just projections. We already have more than enough. Shrug.

Fern

I'm looking for a specific type of projection used by the left that is consistently wrong and has no factual basis for it to be used in the first place.