Of course its an annual expanse.
You don't have the expense of buying a house every year. Most people go years between houses, sometimes decades.
Of course if you put more down your payments are reduced.
Because you put money in up front, not because the house is less expensive.
If it was the Republicans you would NEVER say they were "gaming the system".
No true. If the Republicans where claiming a program saved money because they are only looking at the budget balance change, and not the fact that a tax doesn't reduce expenses (and even imposes its own additional costs, beyond the dollar amount taxed for the spending), I'd call them on it. I'd also call them on saying a major new program reduced the budget deficit, because they count 10 years of taxes against 6 of spending.
"Gaming the system" is one of those "death panel" things that show you don't give a damn about the truth.
Not at all, its pointing out the truth. The way the bill interacts with the CBO rules, gives a distorted and unrealistic score. Almost certainly this was intentional (thus the "gaming the system), but in the minute chance that it wasn't it would still be giving a misleading impression, even if it wasn't "gaming" anything.
And its not a partisan thing, the Republicans do this as well, perhaps not to the same extent as this case, but that might just be because the extent keeps increasing, next time they are in power, if they have a major new policy initiative, it wouldn't surprise me if they game the score to get it passed, perhaps to an even greater extent that we are seeing now (although they would have to be behind something really big for that to be possible). |
