American Politics mark something something

[awesome possum]

What do you mean out of context? Didn't you just say:

Of course Swordfish... i ... actually agree ... your ... Brilliant!!!

[ThinkerX]

Wild unsubstantiated rumors from the paranoids have it that New York State is looking at furloughing 100,000+ people as soon as next week...and if they don't get their budget situation addressed soon, so is Kentucky...

Good thing these are just wild unsubstantiated rumors from the fringe. Afterall, the recession is over!

[Alcibiades]

So, it turns out this new CBO report was much to do about nothing. The CBO blog has a post clarifying the report, stating that much of the discretionary spending identified in that report was merely a continuation of pre existing policy. That is, spending that would have taken place with our without the Obamacare act:

The potential discretionary costs identified two days ago include many items whose funding would be a continuation of recent funding levels for health-related programs or that were previously authorized and that PPACA would authorize for future years. (For example, those potential costs include $39 billion authorized for Indian health services that already receive appropriations every year.) CBO estimates that the amounts authorized for those items exceed $86 billion over the 10-year period (out of the roughly $105 billion total shown in the table provided yesterday). Thus, CBO’s discretionary baseline, which assumes that 2010 appropriations are extended with adjustments for anticipated inflation, already accounts for much of the potential discretionary spending under PPACA. That is one of the reasons that potential discretionary effects are shown separately from effects on revenues and mandatory spending in CBO’s cost estimates.

To make this point even clearer, Ezra Klein broke down the numbers into a handy bar graph that rams this point home. So, I think I am correct in saying, that this new report only identifies 19 billion dollars in new spending authorized by Obamacare.

[DanteGabriel]

So, I think I am correct in saying, that this new report only identifies 19 billion dollars in new spending authorized by Obamacare.

Far be it from me to call $19 billion chump change, but that puts the expenditures on the order of one or two missing cargo pallets of dollars "lost" in Iraq.

[TrackerNeil]

Far be it from me to call $19 billion chump change, but that puts the expenditures on the order of one or two missing cargo pallets of dollars "lost" in Iraq.

But that money was meant to prevent a mushroom cloud! Or avenge 9-11. Or to defend freedom. Or to liberate Iraqis.

What was it again?

[Swordfish]

So, it turns out this new CBO report was much to do about nothing. The CBO blog has a post clarifying the report, stating that much of the discretionary spending identified in that report was merely a continuation of pre existing policy. That is, spending that would have taken place with our without the Obamacare act:

To make this point even clearer, Ezra Klein broke down the numbers into a handy bar graph that rams this point home. So, I think I am correct in saying, that this new report only identifies 19 billion dollars in new spending authorized by Obamacare.

And as many of us have been saying, the CBO ALWAYS underestimates these things.

Even if it's 'only' 19 billion now, i can guarantee these estimates will go up again, or simply be shown to be way too low.

I honestly don't know how anyone who possesses even a modicum of objectivity can even dispute this.

Unless you believe that 'Well, sure, the last estimates were too low, and all the estimates for major entitlements they've ever made have been way too low, but THIS TIME, they got it right, since they found this extra 19 billion.'

[Lord Mord]

ThinkerX,

Wild unsubstantiated rumors from the paranoids have it that New York State is looking at furloughing 100,000+ people as soon as next week...and if they don't get their budget situation addressed soon, so is Kentucky...

Good thing these are just wild unsubstantiated rumors from the fringe. Afterall, the recession is over!

Are you implying that (recession over) = (governments running surplus) ...?

[BloodRider]

Wild unsubstantiated rumors from the paranoids have it that New York State is looking at furloughing 100,000+ people as soon as next week...and if they don't get their budget situation addressed soon, so is Kentucky...

Good thing these are just wild unsubstantiated rumors from the fringe. Afterall, the recession is over!

Well its over for the Federal gov't as they can use Keynsian theories to pass stimulus packages and get us out of the downturn.

However states like NY & KY have balanced budget requirements, and therefore are forced to use old proven inferior economic models to right the ...

What? Whats that? Thats not what you meant to say? Huh - that totally seems like the point you were trying to make. It did seem odd that you became a Keynsian overnight, but I never underestimate the power of rational thought.

And as many of us have been saying, the CBO ALWAYS underestimates these things.

Prove it, or STFU. Alternatively - Prove it and I'll STFU - about CBO estimates at least.

[Swordfish]

Well its over for the Federal gov't as they can use Keynsian theories to pass stimulus packages and get us out of the downturn.

However states like NY & KY have balanced budget requirements, and therefore are forced to use old proven inferior economic models to right the ...

What? Whats that? Thats not what you meant to say? Huh - that totally seems like the point you were trying to make. It did seem odd that you became a Keynsian overnight, but I never underestimate the power of rational thought.

Prove it, or STFU. Alternatively - Prove it and I'll STFU - about CBO estimates at least.

I don't have time to do a lot of digging right now, but here is one example....

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5668&type=0&sequence=1

The recently enacted Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) contains many provisions that affect the Medicare program specifically and the U.S. health sector more generally. This paper focuses on the provisions that establish a new outpatient prescription drug benefit under Medicare and explains the basis for and rationale behind the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) cost estimate of those provisions. CBO estimated that, on net, the Medicare drug benefit would increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period. Those estimates consist of many components and reflect the complex interactions of the law's many provisions (see Summary Table 1). In describing how CBO derived its estimates, this paper also presents the agency's analysis of how the drug benefit is anticipated to operate in practice. Taken as a whole, the MMA's other provisions would reduce outlays by $13 billion and revenues by $7 billion, in CBO's estimation, for a net savings of $6 billion. As a result, the MMA would increase deficits--or reduce surpluses--by $394 billion over the 2004-2013 period (reflecting an increase of $395 billion in federal outlays and an increase of $0.5 billion in federal revenues).

Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.[17] As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act#Costs

Sound familiar?

[ThinkerX]

Well its over for the Federal gov't as they can use Keynsian theories to pass stimulus packages and get us out of the downturn.

However states like NY & KY have balanced budget requirements, and therefore are forced to use old proven inferior economic models to right the ...

What? Whats that? Thats not what you meant to say? Huh - that totally seems like the point you were trying to make. It did seem odd that you became a Keynsian overnight, but I never underestimate the power of rational thought.

What the paranoids are saying...and what I agree with them on... is that what we have had in this country the past several decades has been an 'entitlement mentality' combined with corporatism. The entitlement mentality says, that just because I breathe and am a citizen of the US, I am automatically entitled to pretty much anything I want...and it is part of the governments job to give that to me. The corporatist mentality puts profit first and last, lobbying government for everything from tax breaks to treaties that lets them cut costs by exporting jobs and bail them out if their own shortsightedness does them in (the corporate mentality is incapable of looking more than a few fiscal quarters into the future - anything beyond that isn't worth planning for. The paranoids big message is that the combined bill for all this is coming due, and if it is not dealt with, well then the US will become part of the third world.

[mcbigski]

I really think that all of you arguing that CBO numbers are somehow proof of ObamaCare's fiscal discipline are arguing from an entirely intellectually dishonest position.

The CBO numbers coming under a trillion are predicated on 10 years of tax increases and 5 years or so of expenditures. The true annual cost is obviously so much higher than 100 billion. Just because the CBO doesn't count money spent 10 years and a day from now doesn't mean taxpayers won't be on the hook for it.

[Shryke]

I really think that all of you arguing that CBO numbers are somehow proof of ObamaCare's fiscal discipline are arguing from an entirely intellectually dishonest position.

The CBO numbers coming under a trillion are predicated on 10 years of tax increases and 5 years or so of expenditures. The true annual cost is obviously so much higher than 100 billion. Just because the CBO doesn't count money spent 10 years and a day from now doesn't mean taxpayers won't be on the hook for it.

Actually they do count 10 years and a day from now, as we have pointed out a billion times already, every time some dishonest shill brings this point.

They make 10-20 projections which actually look BETTER then the 0-10 year projections.

[mcbigski]

Actually they do count 10 years and a day from now, as we have pointed out a billion times already, every time some dishonest shill brings this point.

They make 10-20 projections which actually look BETTER then the 0-10 year projections.

They're still front loading the taxes and back loading the expenses to game the 10yr CBO score. Either you are willfulling ignoring that because you feel the ends justifies the means, or you're so stuck in the pro-admin media bubble that you're effectively willfully ignorant. There is no third way on this one - the math is just too simple.

If the future numbers are so fucking awesome, why aren't they phasing reform in sooner? Because they know they've tortured the numbers so badly to get the answer they desire.

[Shryke]

They're still front loading the taxes and back loading the expenses to game the 10yr CBO score. Either you are willfulling ignoring that because you feel the ends justifies the means, or you're so stuck in the pro-admin media bubble that you're effectively willfully ignorant. There is no third way on this one - the math is just too simple.

Not simple enough apparently, cause you still don't get it. Why are the 20 year projections even better then?

If the future numbers are so fucking awesome, why aren't they phasing reform in sooner? Because they know they've tortured the numbers so badly to get the answer they desire.

Or because this shit takes time or because they want to gradually introduce these new rules or because they felt like it or a hundred other far more reasonable reasons.

But really, let's not beat around the bush here. You refuse to even acknowledge the 20 year projections and we all know you are just searching for any shred of a blog post that supports the position you've already decided on.

[Commodore]

Swedestan

A very depressing video, no one wants to stand up to these thugs and fight back in the name of free speech, for fear of reprisal. Everyone just sits there and takes it.

At the 8:40 mark in the video is one of the saddest things I've seen.

Edit: I guess this isn't really American but it is political.

[Shryke]

Swedestan

A very depressing video, no one wants to stand up to these thugs and fight back in the name of free speech, for fear of reprisal. Everyone just sits there and takes it.

At the 8:40 mark in the video is one of the saddest things I've seen.

Edit: I guess this isn't really American but it is political.

What's it about?

Damn Youtube won't let me view it because of content inappropriate for some viewers.

[Commodore]

What's it about?

Damn Youtube won't let me view it because of content inappropriate for some viewers.

I linked a different version.

[Tyrellius]

Swedestan

A very depressing video, no one wants to stand up to these thugs and fight back in the name of free speech, for fear of reprisal. Everyone just sits there and takes it.

At the 8:40 mark in the video is one of the saddest things I've seen.

Edit: I guess this isn't really American but it is political.

Bunch of rabid dogs.

Picketing outside to express displeasure would be understandable. That, was shocking and upsetting.

[Shryke]

Swedestan

A very depressing video, no one wants to stand up to these thugs and fight back in the name of free speech, for fear of reprisal. Everyone just sits there and takes it.

At the 8:40 mark in the video is one of the saddest things I've seen.

Edit: I guess this isn't really American but it is political.

Thanks for the re-link.

That's pretty fucked up. Though I think people aren't afraid to stand up so much as they are shocked by the whole situation.

[Shryke]

Getting Tea Party support not always good for your chances at election:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea-party-call-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php?ref=fpa

There are signs that tea party calls to repeal the 17th Amendment -- taking the selection of U.S. Senators out of the hands of voters and putting it in the hands of state governments -- are proving to be a bridge too far for Republican candidates desperate to steal some of the movement's mojo. In the past couple weeks, at least two mainstream Republican candidates have found themselves walking back from pledges to support repealing the amendment, suggesting there's a limit to how much support the tea parties can provide.

The "Repeal The 17th" movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure. Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us "more liberty" in the process.) As their process of "vetting" candidates, some tea party groups have required candidates to weigh in on the idea of repeal in questionnaires. And that's where the trouble starts.

In the case of the tea party though, Trouslow said what he called the group's inevitable decline could take repeal of the 17th Amendment with it.

"I wish it was more than the tea partiers who were talking about it," he told me today. "I'm worried that the idea will get so tied to the tea partiers that as the tea party gets discredited the idea will get discredited too."

Some Republican candidates seem to feel the same way about their own credibility. Their brief flirtation with the repealing the 17th Amendment -- which appears to have been born out of trying to curry favor with the the tea parties -- ended after it threatened to make them look too extreme.