That's not the mathematician in you, that is the honest person in you that is tired of the BS, lies, and mistruths coming from Republicans to distort and subvert the political process. Since they can't win on facts, they try to distort and deceive. Herman Goering would be so proud of Republicans.
-----Original Message----- From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:49 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Limbaugh is voice of GOP majority? Of course Jerry is wrong about the CBO numbers. Given that he gets them from Republican press releases, quell surprise! Here is the actual CBO piece: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Est imates.pdf What Republicans said: They claimed that the original 10 year cost estimate provided by Democrats was $940 billion. Now the 10 year cost is estimated at $1.76 trillion. How Republicans are (predictably) trying to distort reality: In 2010 the estimate for ten years out was $940 billion. That would be the cost through 2020. However, most provisions in the law don't take effect until 2014, so most of the costs (and savings) were in the last 6 years of that prediction range. It is now 2012. The 10 year forecast now stretches through 2022. The provisions still mostly kick in in 2014 meaning that most of the costs (and savings) occur during 8 years of the 10 year forecast cycle. Anyone who is surprised that 8 years of costs is going to be a bigger number than 6 years of costs, raise their hands! Now, the actual question that should be asked (and which Republicans don't want to find out) is: what about the savings? This report was requested by House Republicans so it tends to be tailored to what they want, so of course it is mostly about the costs. Yet, even within that framework, you only have to read the first god damn page of the report to realize that it says: "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 20122021 periodabout $50 billion less than the agencies March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period" Huh...$50 billion dollars lower than previously estimated. That sounds like savings! Or what about page 2, where it says: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 20122021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated." Huh, sounds like it might still reduce budget deficits. House Republicans, however, weren't interested in finding out about deficit reductions. So, to summarize: 8 years costs more than 6 years. Estimates have actually gone down, not up. The overall financial impact on deficits hasn't been recalculated. Now, to be fair, it very well might be that previous deficit reduction estimates aren't born up with the new numbers. I don't know. The CBO has said that the non-insurance provisions of the ACA (this report only dealt with the insurance portion of the law, per House request) can be difficult to wrangle. Obviously they've done it before and I'd love to see an updated view. If it is found that the overall law isn't going to perform as expected then it might be worth seeing what we can tweak. I doubt that it will really be that worthwhile, however, until we actually get into the time period where the main provisions of the law actually kick in, ie, 2014 and later. None the less, this is a case of Republicans commissioning a study that selectively looks at only part of the ACA and then they cherry pick and distort numbers even from that. I'm not surprised, mind you, but still...it would just be nice, for once, to see numbers approached with a bit of intellectual honesty. I'm dreaming, I know. Just the mathematician in me. Ah well. Judah On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "My argument is perfectly reasoned, and your comment below proves my > point exactly. " > > If you say so. > > > "You called the president a liar based on the headline of an opinion > piece about numbers purportedly released by the CBO" > > He is a liar based on the numbers released by the CBO. > > > "None of those sources: the headline, the opinion, or the CBO numbers > are proof of anything, regardless of who is using them." > > Doesn't change the nature of truth. You can tell me 2 + 2 = 5 all day > long, yet it still equals 4. > > He ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348815 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
