Re: If you believe that. . .blackflame2180October 8 2009, 16:19:28 UTC
For nearly a decade, fiscal conservatives of all stripes, be they Republican, Democrat, or of other parties, have said that Medicare was bloated with wasteful spending, be it through failed programs, unnecessary subsidies, or just plain inefficiency and poor management.
So why is it so hard to believe that a Democratically controlled Senate would be the one to actually curtail that spending, and put it to better use elsewhere?
I mean seriously, this is the CBO. Not two weeks ago Republicans and Libertarians were singing the praises of the nonpartisan CBO for it's fiscal discipline in calculating just what this bill would cost. For months now, fiscally conservative Republicans, Libertarians, and Blue Dog Democrats have complained bitterly about adding to the Federal deficit and expanding Federal spending when we've already spent billions on the stimulus package and TARP.
Now that the Finance Committee has taken those concerns into consideration and produced a plan that actually reduces the deficit, as confirmed by the oh-so-recently much vaunted CBO-- suddenly CBO estimates are no longer reliable?
Re: If you believe that. . .blackflame2180October 8 2009, 19:58:55 UTC
I've never said anything about the CBO, nor used their authority as support in a discussion. Rgardless of their mission statement, the CBO can't possibly be non-partisan when they are employed solely by the house and most of the major positions are filled by appointment. It is all too easy to put pressure on the right people when they work in the same building you do, and it's easy to stack the deck if you are appointing the director.
I have never moved my goal posts. I think I've been pretty consistently pessimistic about the idea of the government reducing the deficit in any way. I could make an economic argument for why the CBO is shortsighted, but it wouldn't make any difference to you so I'm not going to waste my time. Suffice it to say that this optimistic prediction is naive.
Let's make a bet, redeemable in 2019. If this act (or any other national healthcare act also predicted to reduce the federal deficit) passes and actually reduces the deficit by, say, even half of the predicted reduction, I'll give you $100. If it has added to the deficit instead, you give me $100. If it falls in between the two, we call it even.
Re: If you believe that. . .blackflame2180October 8 2009, 20:56:40 UTC
Who, then, would you cite as an accurate, nonpartisan, non-biased reviewer of such legislation? Who do you think is MORE qualified than the CBO? Whose analysis would you pit against that of the CBO?
It seems like your argument is increasingly basic distrust in government, lacking any real evidence or analysis to back it up.
For nearly a decade, fiscal conservatives of all stripes, be they Republican, Democrat, or of other parties, have said that Medicare was bloated with wasteful spending, be it through failed programs, unnecessary subsidies, or just plain inefficiency and poor management.
So why is it so hard to believe that a Democratically controlled Senate would be the one to actually curtail that spending, and put it to better use elsewhere?
I mean seriously, this is the CBO. Not two weeks ago Republicans and Libertarians were singing the praises of the nonpartisan CBO for it's fiscal discipline in calculating just what this bill would cost. For months now, fiscally conservative Republicans, Libertarians, and Blue Dog Democrats have complained bitterly about adding to the Federal deficit and expanding Federal spending when we've already spent billions on the stimulus package and TARP.
Now that the Finance Committee has taken those concerns into consideration and produced a plan that actually reduces the deficit, as confirmed by the oh-so-recently much vaunted CBO-- suddenly CBO estimates are no longer reliable?
That's moving the goal-posts, plain and simple.
Reply
I have never moved my goal posts. I think I've been pretty consistently pessimistic about the idea of the government reducing the deficit in any way. I could make an economic argument for why the CBO is shortsighted, but it wouldn't make any difference to you so I'm not going to waste my time. Suffice it to say that this optimistic prediction is naive.
Let's make a bet, redeemable in 2019. If this act (or any other national healthcare act also predicted to reduce the federal deficit) passes and actually reduces the deficit by, say, even half of the predicted reduction, I'll give you $100. If it has added to the deficit instead, you give me $100. If it falls in between the two, we call it even.
Reply
Who, then, would you cite as an accurate, nonpartisan, non-biased reviewer of such legislation? Who do you think is MORE qualified than the CBO? Whose analysis would you pit against that of the CBO?
It seems like your argument is increasingly basic distrust in government, lacking any real evidence or analysis to back it up.
Reply
Leave a comment