Liar, Liar…

6 Responses to Liar, Liar…

1. Chris says:

   Monday, February 25, 2013 at 1:02 pm

   I can’t speak for the rest of these claims (and I agree that Obama lied when he said this administration would be more transparent–where are the drone memos?), he was telling the truth when he said that Obamacare will reduce the deficit.

   http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/105327/cbo-obamacare-deficit-medicaid-expansion-cost-revenue-exchange
2. Pie Guevara says:

   Monday, February 25, 2013 at 5:59 pm

   I can speak to all of these facts. But I won’t. Instead I offer The Jovers. They beat the living **** out of Obama-Rat-Progressive politics and their sad and demented cheerleaders.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrlKxJ7yQbo
3. Tina says:

   Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:28 pm

   Hmmm. The deficit is the amount of money spent over budget in any given year.

   Wanna bet the CBO PROJECTIONS will be wrong…just like the projections about Medicare were wrong back in the 60’s?

   Forbes:

   Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its revised estimates of what Obamacare will cost, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in. As I read the report, it occurred to me to ask: how have the CBO’s estimates changed over time? It turns out that, even when you compare the years that are common to each CBO report, a clear trend emerges. Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse.

   The article is worth reading if you don’t mind numbers and charts.

   Other voices agree:

   WSJ

   Reason

   The health law’s backers relied on—and are still hiding behind—government budgeting conventions in order to argue that the law will result in lower overall deficits relative to expectations about the current fiscal trajectory. No matter how you run the numbers, the law can be expected to increase both total federal health spending and deficits.

   That’s the conclusion reached by Charles Blahous, a Medicare Public Trustee, in a new paper for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

   Blahous ran the law through three possible futures. The first is an “optimistic scenario” in which all of ObamaCare’s hoped-for cost savings, including both those many suspect are “politically implausible” and even “some additional savings not scored by [the Congressional Budget Office].” The second, intermediate scenario assumes that Congress will weaken the effects of some of the law’s cost-savings. A third and final scenario does not represent the true worst case, but looks at the budgetary effects will play out should Congress decide “to overturn certain savings provisions under the ACA in a manner relatively consistent with historical precedent”—in other words, if Congress behaves exactly as it has in the past.

   In every single scenario—from the most optimistic to the most historically consistent—Blahous finds that health spending increases. So do federal deficits.

   Why are these projections so different from the favorable Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores touted by the administration? Because unlike the CBO, Blahous is not bound to a scoring convention that requires him to participate in the administration’s double counting of the law’s supposed Medicare savings.

   Heritage

   The CS Moniter covers a variety of views.

   I will remind everyone that in 1965 the projected cost of Medicare by 1990 was $90 billion. In fact the cost of Medicare in 1990 was $67 billion.

   About $516 billion was spent providing Medicare benefits in 2010, and the program is projected to grow 7% each year for the next 10 years.

   The Boomers are coming, the Boomers are coming…unless they plan to kill us all off?

   Only the builders of fantasy believe that adding more people to government covered rolls and taxing the rich will create a more efficient and less costly healthcare solution.

   How many of you have seen your premiums rise? How many have already lost a doctor?
4. Tina says:

   Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:36 pm

   Who said the British are stuffy!
5. Chris says:

   Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 6:42 am

   “Why are these projections so different from the favorable Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores touted by the administration? Because unlike the CBO, Blahous is not bound to a scoring convention that requires him to participate in the administration’s double counting of the law’s supposed Medicare savings.”

   For the millionth time, there was no double counting of Medicare savings. If Charles Balhous says he is ignoring the “double counting” in his analysis, then he must actually be ignoring a legitimate factor, making his analysis flawed.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.html

   We’ve discussed the problems in Balhous’ paper before.

   http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/10/medicare-trustee-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit-by-as-much-as-527-billion/
6. J. Soden says:

   Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 7:16 am

   The recently updated Official Obumble Blame & Excuse List is now available! Get your subscription today by calling 1-800-666-LIAR! But if you call right now, we’ll double your order!

Comments are closed.