Fryin' Ryan

[PostmodernProphet]

*Interesting, Damo, I see you much differently than you see yourself. You profess to be a Buddhist, I see what you post here and observe it to be in conflict at times with what I understand of Buddhism, but maybe I just don't get it, like you said, because as you have stated, I am not a Buddhist. It is the same type of response I get from Christians, Jews and Muslims, I just don' "get it"

if everyone thinks you don't get it, perhaps you should take it to heart....

 

[Canceled2]

if everyone thinks you don't get it, perhaps you should take it to heart....

She won't get that

 

[DamnYankee]

You are unquestionably the least interesting poster on JPP.

And you live in Massachusetts.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I never trust the CBO.

Is that why you posted this?

Anyway... If you go just by the Stimulus bill itself...

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/

And that is solely that stimulus, taking a realistic approach that supposed "temporary" spending increases actually won't be temporary, just ask the CBO.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.

 

[Topspin]

apparently CBO bashing the stimulus is right on they know what they are doing

 

[Damocles]

Is that why you posted this?

Can you put that first quote in the context of the entire post? It would be interesting if you were honest like that.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Can you put that first quote in the context of the entire post? It would be interesting if you were honest like that.

How 'bout this?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ed_books_loFmlm5OEIdYuzuJySXBaN#ixzz0XQ43beHU

SENATE Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate's latest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don't kick in until the fifth year of that "10-year" period. The true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 trillion.

The Democrats cite the bills' projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 -- versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first 10 years," only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

And that's even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run "public option" wouldn't cost a cent.

More at link....

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Classic statistical misrepresentation. In reality, the CBO makes abundantly clear that the bill reduces the deficit in both the 10-year and post-10-year windows, with the net effect on the deficit in 2019 alone being an $8 billion reduction in the deficit.

And the $1.8 trillion figure is total horseshit. The author gets to that number by adding the revenues raised under the bill to the outlays included in the bill. In the real world, the cost of the bill is only the outlays.

Except they do not. They make it clear it will cost twice what the "budget neutral" price that is being advertised says it will. From supposed slight savings to massive taxes for increased debt in just one report....

Awesome. The Democrats are outdoing themselves.

.

 

[Damocles]

How 'bout this?

Again, can you put the first quote in the context of the entire post? Is it even possible for you to be honest in that way?

You removed more than half of what was stated, you know the portion that actually tells you what you are supposedly asking here. I put this to the incapacity of Rootbeer to be personally honest, and feel no need to rewrite the portions of the post that you removed.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

That depends. If it were actually popular I'd think they were shutting out the other party in order to take the credit. But it appears as if they know they're going to take a hit in power and are desperate to pass this one thing before they lose a chunk of seats in November, no matter how ugly it is when it finally passes or how it doesn't actually do what the stated goal was....

According to the CBO, in 2019 millions will still be uncovered and there will likely be another candidate running on the "coverage crisis" as DC will likely still be ignoring the actual cost crisis.

.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yeah, it's wonderful that the CBO is warning about the immense debt that we are using to create a whole new debt bubble for the future! We're very excited about it. We like bubbles...

.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/04/05/MNI21COVR1.DTL

With ferocious speed, the financial crisis, recession and efforts to combat the recession have swung the U.S. debt from worrisome to ruinous, promising to handcuff the administration.

Lost amid last month's passage of the new health care law, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing that within this decade, President Obama's own budget sends the U.S. government to a potential tipping point where the debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product.

Economists Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University have recently shown that a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio usually touches off a crisis.

This year, the debt will reach 63 percent of GDP, a ratio that has ignited crises in smaller wealthy nations. Fiscal crises gripped Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland when their debts were below where the United States is shortly headed.

More at link...

.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I never claimed that the heaviest stimulus takes place in 2012, I said that the largest spending takes place in time for 2010 and that it again picks up in time for the 2012 election cycles, both Onceler and I agree to have max benefit that spending would need to take place about 1 year to 1 1/2 years beforehand. Reading the CBOs numbers just about exactly matches with what I have said. Beginning just in time to effect elections in 2010 the spending (according to Onceler) will begin in October of 2009... Amazing.

Your CBO report says that the increases will end and start tapering off about a year before the 2012 election cycle... Things that make you go, "Hmmmm...."

.

Again, as the conversation progressed (please note that there is more than that post) we got more into this and talked about the fact in order to make the stimulus work in 2010 the spending would need to begin about 1 year before the 2010 election, I noted how that is exactly what is happening, as did Onceler.

Either stop pretending that the post is in a vacuum and participate in the conversation, or actually read my answer. It's silly to pretend that conversations don't take place exactly like this or that every post is a piece of perfection that should never be expanded upon or added to by later posts in a conversation.

If a good amount of the stimulus was already out it would have happened before the 1 1/2 timeframe, no? The impetus of the stimulus begins during the election cycle year (October to October is the election cycle year).

Your CBO report only strengthens my argument. Thank you.

 

[Canceled1]

She won't get that

There you go again using someone else's picture(s)!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Rubbish again. The CBO numbers fit into my argument nearly perfectly by themselves without having to shift to new facts. You again pretend that further conversation didn't take place and go into inane "this post was in a vacuum" arguments that attempt to make what I have said fit into some box that doesn't exist. It's silly to try this when the rest of the posts exist right here in this thread for everybody to see. I even quoted and parceled the post where Onceler and I agree it would take about a year to a year and a half for that to have the greatest effect... Only you are running around taking one statement of a huge contextual conversation and attempting to make it the whole of the meaning within a conversation.

.

 

[Damocles]

Rootbeer is again attempting to distract from the fact that it has ignored a portion of the post that directly states why people who distrust it mention the CBO to pretend he has "found" something.

I'll state it again, Rtber...

It's like a Secular Humanist quoting the Bible, or Rtber attempting to find Buddhist quotes to attempt to force people into behaving how Rtber or the Secular Humanist believes you should behave.

You use the language of the person to whom you are speaking so that they will first understand clearly, and second so that they won't attack the "source"... because it's the one they use. The reality is, digging into and pointing out issues in what they are using to support their argument is quite fun, and ultimately relaxing.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Rootbeer is again attempting to distract from the fact that it has ignored a portion of the post that directly states why people who distrust it mention the CBO to pretend he has "found" something.

I'll state it again, Rtber...

It's like a Secular Humanist quoting the Bible, or Rtber attempting to find Buddhist quotes to attempt to force people into behaving how Rtber or the Secular Humanist believes you should behave.

You use the language of the person to whom you are speaking so that they will first understand clearly, and second so that they won't attack the "source"... because it's the one they use. The reality is, digging into and pointing out issues in what they are using to support their argument is quite fun, and ultimately relaxing.

Do you find repeating yourself therapeutic?

Yeah, about it. It is notable that the spending is scheduled to increase again that year just at the election cycle then begin to drop out, ending almost exactly at the election year, dropping thereafter.

I will also note that an increase in the GDP projected by the CBO does not equate to spending of the stimulus money on any 1:1 basis, only how it will effect the GDP. In each year it increases the GDP, it shows that the stimulus ends its expansion and begins to contract during that election year (the 2012 election cycle). Again, the numbers fit almost perfectly with what I have stated throughout the thread. It appears to me to be designed to stimulate in a way that benefits incumbents during election cycles.

Of course to be effective all the Rs have to show is that Stimulus begins just in time for the election cycle of 2010... (Again, I think they may just be dumb enough to wait to point this out until 'closer to election time' and will be too late).

When it suits you, you can’t wait to remind everyone that CBO numbers can’t be trusted.

“Garbage in, garbage out” is your situational mantra.



But then, you certainly trusted them well enough when the GOP was citing CBO estimates as proof of the unacceptably high costs of “Obamacare”.



Care to explain why you get to pick and choose which CBO estimates you like?

 

[zappasguitar]

Do you find repeating yourself therapeutic?






When it suits you, you can’t wait to remind everyone that CBO numbers can’t be trusted.

“Garbage in, garbage out” is your situational mantra.



But then, you certainly trusted them well enough when the GOP was citing CBO estimates as proof of the unacceptably high costs of “Obamacare”.



Care to explain why you get to pick and choose which CBO estimates you like?

Cuz he's a partisan hack.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

After examination, he believes what he himself has tested and found to be reasonable, and conforms his conduct thereto.

 

[Damocles]

Do you find repeating yourself therapeutic?






When it suits you, you can’t wait to remind everyone that CBO numbers can’t be trusted.

“Garbage in, garbage out” is your situational mantra.



But then, you certainly trusted them well enough when the GOP was citing CBO estimates as proof of the unacceptably high costs of “Obamacare”.



Care to explain why you get to pick and choose which CBO estimates you like?

I'll explain again. You use the source that they'll most likely accept, usually their own source. Most of the posts you quoted, out of context, when returned to the context are answers using the source of the person to whom I was responding. I use their own "weapon" against them.

I am reminded again of a certain foolish man attempting to force my behavior by presenting what he thought was Buddhist dogma. The poster formerly known as Rootbeer. I am also reminded of how often people quote the Bible at Christians when they don't believe. You use the source you believe that they will most respect.

And no I didn't "trust" it then, I actually pointed out in the thread the quote comes from that even with the advantage of the CBO only being allowed to use the numbers the Congress gives them when working the numbers for legislation, you can still find numbers detrimental and contrary to what people were sold.