Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (14676)	3/17/2010 8:06:06 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

So you think the CBO is somehow flawed; that they can't make an independent, fair evaluation? I think it's flawed. But not in the sense of being able to make an independent judgment. I have always had a lot of respect for the CBO, them and GAO. I have first hand experience with GAO but not with CBO. Regardless, I've never seen any reason to question their independence. The flaw is that CBO has parameters in which it operates. It's like the justice system. The cops have rules. They can see evidence through the window but they can't go in to get it without a warrant. The prosecution may have iron-clad evidence against a defendant but if for some reason it's inadmissible, then the jury never sees it. Or think of it like a blackjack dealer, he has rules where he has to take a card or not. In both cases, the bettor or the criminal lawyer can take advantage of those rules. I remember that once upon a time mortgage brokers wouldn't take into account the income of any wife of child-bearing years when qualifying a couple for a mortgage. Then the rules changed and they had to, even if the woman was about to deliver and the broker knew she was going to quit her job and lose that income. One day the couple doesn't qualify; the next day, instant mortgage. So goes it with the CBO. Lawmakers can manipulate the outcome by recognizing the rules and playing to them and around them. For example, if CBO can't count something after x years, then savvy lawmakers time the legislation to back load or front load to take advantage of that. If CBO were free to use it's own judgment, you'd get different readings. Why not give them a little credit for not putting it on the credit card.... I would definitely give them a lot of credit if they weren't putting it on the credit card. But not only are they doing just that, they're deceiving us and perhaps themselves about doing so.

To: Road Walker who wrote (14676)	3/18/2010 12:17:20 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

the CBO said the numbers are a wild guess, hell even Peolsi and Obama have said they don't know what's in the Bill, so how does the CBO ?

To: Road Walker who wrote (14676)	3/18/2010 4:04:07 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

It's like you are saying trying to score a bill for it's effect on the deficit is somehow a horrible sin. The problem is they aren't trying to score a bill for its effect on the deficit, they are trying to get a low CBO score for its effect. The two are not totally disconnected ideas, a lower effect on the deficit, all else being equal, is likely to get a lower CBO score. But they aren't the same thing either. Why not give them a little credit for not putting it on the credit card. 1 - To get credit for something they have to actually do it. 2 - Even if the bill was deficit neutral any large new additional spending would still hurt our fiscal situation.