How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Oneuli]

Agreed. CBO estimates are a ruse to dupe the uninformed.

By statute, the CBO can only score what Congress gives them.

Congress knows how to front load taxes and backload expenses to make their bullshit look good

Anyone who believes a CBO estimate deserves to be fucked over

Once we play that game, all we have is dueling assertions. I can assert that the CBO estimate badly understated the deficit at the time Obama was taking office, and badly overestimated it at the time he was leaving, and thus that, in fact, Obama reduced the deficit by 90% (or whatever bullshit stat I want to pull out of my ass). But since I'm not a dishonest person, I don't play that game. Instead, I try to come up with the best estimate of what the deficit actually was at each point, and I use that. If you have a better estimate, feel free to provide it.

 

[Oneuli]

You have failed to provide proof of your position.

I've provided arguments and supporting data. If you can find a mistake in my data or an error in my argument, feel free to address them specifically. But, if you're like a typical right winger, you'd prefer to cower behind generic personal insults, rather than getting into the details. Most wingnuts know, deep down, that they're badly out of their depth.

 

[Lightbringer]

I've provided arguments and supporting data. If you can find a mistake in my data or an error in my argument, feel free to address them specifically. But, if you're like a typical right winger, you'd prefer to cower behind generic personal insults, rather than getting into the details. Most wingnuts know, deep down, that they're badly out of their depth.

No, you have done no such thing.

 

[Oneuli]

I posted the REAL GDP growth dumbass.

So did I. I posted what it was for the decade. You posted what it was for the decade if you annualize it. The fact you seem to think I didn't post real GDP growth suggests to me you don't know what the term means. So, what do you think it means?

You're the one attempting to argue that total growth for each decade is a meaningful statistic.

It is, of course, meaningful. It doesn't matter if we report the data in annualized terms, or as an average daily rate, or an average monthly rate, or whether we report it for the decade as a whole. So long as we list it the same way for each, the figures allow for comparisons. So, they're all equally useful for purposes of the comparison being made. This is VERY basic math. You should have had it in grade school.

So, what do you think "real GDP growth" refers to? Be specific, please.

 

[Oneuli]

T
Actually, you're attempts to conflate them into savings for the American taxpayer

What made you think I was trying to conflate them into savings for the American taxpayer? Be specific, please. If you do a search of my posts for the phrase "the American taxpayer," you should be able to spot your error. Good luck.

 

[Oneuli]

How was 3.5% not explosive growth scarecrow?

Where are you getting that 3.5% figure? Have you forgotten what the argument was. Go back and reread. Come back when you're prepared to argue intelligently.

How was 3.1% GDP second worst scarecrow? Here's the data again:

Average REAL GDP by decade.
1900's = 3.9%
1910's = 2.9%
1920's = 3.4%
1930's = 1.0%
1940's = 5.6%
1950's = 4.2%
1960's = 4.5%
1970's = 3.2%
1980's = 3.1%
1990's = 3.2%

I didn't list the 1910s (if you read further up, you'll see I said "at least going back to the 1930s). So, if your data is right, then it would be the third-worst of the century, including those early decades.

 

[Oneuli]

Who has claimed the were the same thing scarecrow? You love constructing strawmen don't you snowflake?

Reread, pumpkin.

 

[Oneuli]

I love that "slower rate" claim. Does it include the costs associated with the massive subsidies the ACA is costing the taxpayers?

Yes, of course it does.

 

[Oneuli]

Costs have risen.

Yes, and at an historically slow pace.

 

[Oneuli]

Wrong; you made a farcical claim and then flailed and stomped your arrogant, pompous little feet when proved to be full of crap. Stomp harder snowflake.

I made a factual claim, which the wingnuts here haven't been able to dispute, which has reduced them to blubbering and cowering behind personal insults and various graphical memes. It's been fun to watch them shit on themselves that way, don't you think?

 

[Lightbringer]

Yes, and at an historically slow pace.

Awesome. Prove it.

 

[Oneuli]

No, you have done no such thing.

As you are well aware, I have. And that's why you are unable to provide any counter argument.

 

[Oneuli]

Awesome. Prove it.

Your mistake was jumping into the thread without reading the top post. Give that a shot. I laid out the data showing how healthcare inflation in the period following Obamacare becoming law has been historically low. I also provided the links so you can confirm for yourself.

 

[Truth Detector]

They're the best thing we have for lining up fiscal years with presidential terms. And they're certainly not a joke when viewed over that short a time-frame. You just want to shove Bush's FY 2009 spending (e.g., the bailouts) into Obama's column. Rejected.

They are laughable fantasies that never come true snowflake. But you cling to them if it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling mkay?

I am not shoving anything onto anyone; the ARA was a Democratic/Obama legislation and had NOTHING to do with Bush snowflake. Flail away snowflake.

 

[Truth Detector]

So did I. I posted what it was for the decade. You posted what it was for the decade if you annualize it. The fact you seem to think I didn't post real GDP growth suggests to me you don't know what the term means. So, what do you think it means?

That fact that you called it REAL GDP and it wasn't is the only thing you can't seem to grasp snowflake. Flail some more.

It is, of course, meaningful.

No it isn't; no matter how much you desperately flail on the subject.

So, what do you think "real GDP growth" refers to? Be specific, please.

Inflation adjusted GDP snowflake. I never see anyone desperately trying to measure the added GDP for a given decade and argue it means something. That's laughably stupid and for morons to attempt.

 

[Truth Detector]

What made you think I was trying to conflate them into savings for the American taxpayer? Be specific, please. If you do a search of my posts for the phrase "the American taxpayer," you should be able to spot your error. Good luck.

You're going to make yourself dizzy with all that spinning scarecrow.

 

[Truth Detector]

Where are you getting that 3.5% figure? Have you forgotten what the argument was. Go back and reread. Come back when you're prepared to argue intelligently.

What would you know about intelligence you arrogant, pompous fool. 3.5% was the average REAL GDP under Reagan you low IQ dullard.

https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president?ref=patrick.net

I didn't list the 1910s (if you read further up, you'll see I said "at least going back to the 1930s). So, if your data is right, then it would be the third-worst of the century, including those early decades.

I am still trying to understand how you think 3.1% is bad scarecrow. Getting dizzy with all that spinning?

 

[Truth Detector]

Reread, pumpkin.

THINK DUMBFUCK.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes, of course it does.

No it did not; lying suits you scarecrow.

 

[Truth Detector]

I made a factual claim, which the wingnuts here haven't been able to dispute, which has reduced them to blubbering and cowering behind personal insults and various graphical memes. It's been fun to watch them shit on themselves that way, don't you think?

No you did not scarecrow; you constructed a strawman and then demanded everyone prove you wrong. It's moronic, but then, you do moron very well as illustrated by this thread.