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 (15239)	3/23/2010 3:31:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

All you have is an argument from authority (always week even with the best authorities) from an authority that's been proven to be awful in this area. Suggesting that we at least slightly discount arguments from authority from any source, and heavily discount them from faulty sources, is hardly "a whine". Its suggesting a rational course of action. I could put in place another faulty or biased authority and suggest using that one, but the same criticisms would apply to any authority I proposed. Instead I suggest actually thinking about and discussing the points under consideration, rather than suggesting the opinion of some faulty authority settles things. Maybe we shouldn't try to pay for anything Maybe we should refrain from the spending, so we don't have to pay for it. Maybe we should accurately consider the likely costs rather than find some authority we agree with that says they lower the deficit, pretend the faulty authority settles that issue, and pretend the issue of the deficit, is the same as the issue of cost or the issue of fiscal problems when it isn't. Just like the Republicans. Hardly heard a peep from you then... I remember you saying how low the deficit was and it wasn't a big deal. I believe you heavily miscategorize my posts, but it is true that the highest deficits under Republicans (president and congress) have been far smaller than the highest (and the current) deficits when the Democrats have had control of both the hill and the white house.

To: Road Walker who wrote (15239)	8/27/2010 5:25:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

CBO on the Health Care Bill: More Spending, More Tax Revenue Peter Suderman \| August 26, 2010 Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its summer update, a report that includes some information pertinent to the new health care law—including one data point that we didn’t have before. In the past, when the CBO scored the health care bill, it had always mixed the new revenue and new spending calculations into a single element: the total effect on the deficit. But as Keith Hennessey points out, the new report breaks out the tax and revenue effects for the first time. The result—a lot more entitlement spending, and a big hike in tax revenues—is not exactly surprising. But it is clarifying: Taking into account all of the provisions related to health care and revenues, the two pieces of legislation were estimated to increase mandatory outlays by $401 billion and raise revenues by $525 billion. As Hennessey says, it would have been nice to have had this information months ago: Imagine two scenarios of a lawmaker who was on the fence last March. He or she is a Blue Dog Democrat, or a Democrat from a fiscally conservative red district, and is deeply concerned that the legislation may be fiscally responsible. He is presented with two different statements from CBO: 1. “CBO says these bills will reduce the budget deficit by $124 billion over the next decade.” 2.“CBO says these bills will increase federal entitlement spending by $401 billion over the next decade, and will increase taxes by $525 billion over that same time period, for a net deficit reduction of $124 billion.” These are very different statements. Both are true. CBO said only the first when Members were looking to understand the fiscal impacts of this legislation. Throughout the debate, Democratic legislators and other supporters of the bill told the public that the health care bill would save money. But in the sense that saving money meant spending less, that was never true. The bill increases entitlement spending by quite a bit—$401 billion, we now know. The way it supposedly cuts the deficit is by raising even more new tax revenue than it spends. reason.com