| | | Really Al, who's being dishonest here? I only highlight the portions of the report that support my argument for the sake of brevity.
You are leaving out the parts of the report that REFUTE your argument. That is patently DISHONEST. You are also blatantly misreading the report in an obvious attempt to support your flawed argument. Let's review some of the crazy shit you've said so far.
You're the one who's desperate to prove to me that there is some sort of SURPLUS, but even you can't give me exact figures.
LOL Al, ObamaCare is still running a deficit of $1.2 trillion over 10 years ($1.7 trillion in costs, $500 billion in revenue). That's straight out of the CBO report which you linked to.
More "brevity" on your part? See below the graph DIRECTLY FROM THE REPORT you claim does not quantify the surplus.
But wait! The CBO claimed that ObamaCare would actually reduce the deficit! Well, not anymore: thefiscaltimes.com
Al, your very graph only shows a difference between two estimates....There IS no "surplus" here.
At the same time, the claim that ObamaCare "reduces the federal deficit" has been dropped. See footnote #3 on page 5:
See Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act (July 24, 2012), www.cbo.gov/publication/ 43471. CBO and JCT can no longer determine exactly how the provisions of the ACA that are not related to the expansion of health insurance coverage have affected their projections of direct spending and revenues. The provisions that expand insurance coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs that can be isolated and reassessed. In contrast, other provisions of the ACA significantly modified existing federal programs and made changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the ACA is not possible.
This footnote has NOTHING to do with estimating surplus of ACA...it has to do with a decline by the CBO to estimate the GOP repeal of ACA. The actual paragraph that continues to say that there is still a surplus, well, that you left out for the sake of "brevity". The paragraph that supports still the estimate in the graph above, well, that you left out, even though it was right there. More dishonesty.
The point is that THERE IS NO SURPLUS. ObamaCare costs are higher than ObamaCare revenues. The "net effects" of ObamaCare on the rest of the federal budget are completely imaginary and cannot be accounted for, except using the fuzzy math that libtards like yourself are fond of.
The program is paid for by new revenue and reduction of services in other programs for which real CASH was being paid out of the federal budget. Together these moneys are greater than the cost of the program. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?
They can no longer quantify the alleged deficit reduction, yet they still hold onto the position that the ACA somehow reduces the deficit.
I guess the graph above directly from the report is what? Imaginary? Or unnecessary for the sake of brevity? LOL...
Al |
|
