The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[TheIronSheik]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

This seems like what the cost has always been. There are also revenues and savings to count against it.

Again. They said this thing would pay for itself. That doesn't seem like the same thing.

 

[Fennis]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

They may not be the same. But you were speaking as if the United States must operate with debt?

Yes, it must.

 

[drummer]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

I think you will be proven wrong about this. In the years to come there will be a struggle to move us toward single payer, but I'll bet you Obama will speak out against it. This is his legacy achievement.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

 

[KCitons]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

They may not be the same. But you were speaking as if the United States must operate with debt?

Yes, it must.

Why?

 

[Fennis]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.

But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

you think Obama's master plan was to set up a sucky system that will suck so bad that some time in the future the fix will be single payer?

No I think his plan was to create a system where the only end game will be a single payer system. It's the nature of the beast. I don't mean it as some kind of conspiracy, it's just the way government works. He couldn't get the complete system now - he never was - but he has created one more step to get there. At some point you are going to have so many people covered by or their care and costs controled by the government in the same fashion a single payer system would that eventually someone is going to go, hey why don't we do that and "cut waste, increase efficiencies and make sure everyone has access to the health care they need," or somesuch.

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, but thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I didn't want to think of you with a tin foil hat.

 

[Sand]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Let's highlight the important part here. With the growing role of technology causing many of the low end workers to become unneeded finding the workers that will have a net positive impact rather than a net negative impact will be a significant challenge. This cannot be overstated - simply letting 15m more people into the country does not help.

 

[17seconds]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now.

what in the... ?

please name some left wing extremists who have overtaken the Democratic Party

Democrats have been in the center since Clinton/Gore had success with it in 1992

 

[timschochet]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Let's highlight the important part here. With the growing role of technology causing many of the low end workers to become unneeded finding the workers that will have a net positive impact rather than a net negative impact will be a significant challenge. This cannot be overstated - simply letting 15m more people into the country does not help.

They're already here. And they're already getting benefits. They use the emergency room for health care. They drive without licenses or car insurance. Make them legal and the net financial gain will be enormous.

 

[Henry Ford]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

To be fair, over 1 trillion of the 1.1 trillion will be in the form of subsidies for insurance. Whereas health care for the uninsured which goes un-paid-for is estimated at between 50-75 billion per year currently, the vast majority of that cost being borne by the government.

 

[Fennis]

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Your statement that it wouldn't be a bad thing to miss the debt limit is not the same as this one.

Bet we can start here. The very foundation of our national economy is debt, the servicing of national debt and the promise to pay that debt back coupled with the faith that foreign investors had that we would pay it back. We've done that for over 250 years. The people that think debt is bad because its debt miss the point of national economic realities.

There are lots of things that this country used to do. Doesn't make it right. You make these statements as if the United States would be worse off if they operated within a budget.

No we would be far worse off if we told our creditors that they can't have faith in our economic system anymore.

Really? Cause I wonder what a potential creditor would think of me? Must be mind blowing to see someone without mounds of debt.

Personally debt and personal family budgets are not the equal, equivalent, correspondent, parallel, evenly matched, corresponding, uniform, identic, same or matched monetary systems to the national economic system of the United States. If that you start from the premise that they are even remotely close to being the same thing there is nothing to talk about.

They may not be the same. But you were speaking as if the United States must operate with debt?

Yes, it must.

Why?

One reason is that debt is cheap for a county and an easy way to finance government initiatives like infrastructure, wars, education etc. Every country has some debt. Clearly you want it to be manageable and the fear is that the US debt has or will become unmanageable.

 

[drummer]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

Let's highlight the important part here. With the growing role of technology causing many of the low end workers to become unneeded finding the workers that will have a net positive impact rather than a net negative impact will be a significant challenge. This cannot be overstated - simply letting 15m more people into the country does not help.

The idea should be employing labor from within, not from outside sources. Then their generations of kin also become eligible for employment, who then become tax payers.

Importing poverty does not create a class other than having more people who contribute to a larger poverty class.

 

[The Commish]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

If the gov't is involved, it's almost certain it's going to cost us out the butt.....the healthcare market has already cost 6 times the estimate, but in fairness, I'm pretty sure that estimate was just a number picked out of a hat.

 

[E Street Brat]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.

If only we didn't incur all this debt by starting wars in the middle east all the time.

Hmmm

I have an Idea

 

[KCitons]

This seems more like an excuse instead of a plan. The debt may be cheap, but zero interest is even cheaper. Why couldn't we reverse the process and be the ones making money off loans to other countries? Maybe even reducing taxes for American's and stimulating the economy by putting more spendable cash in everyone's pocket. As it appears now, more and more money is only making the lives better for people in other countries.

 

[Slapdash]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

This seems like what the cost has always been. There are also revenues and savings to count against it.

Again. They said this thing would pay for itself. That doesn't seem like the same thing.

Sorry, I confused myself there. Busy day at the office.

$1.1T is the net cost and it looks like it has been the estimate of it the whole time.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080

 

[KCitons]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

This seems like what the cost has always been. There are also revenues and savings to count against it.

Again. They said this thing would pay for itself. That doesn't seem like the same thing.

Sorry, I confused myself there. Busy day at the office.

$1.1T is the net cost and it looks like it has been the estimate of it the whole time.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080

must be a government worker. It's difficult to adjust after 2 week vacation.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Imagine the trainwreck if kcitons and tim ever start debating the same topic at the same time.

 

[Slapdash]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

This seems like what the cost has always been. There are also revenues and savings to count against it.

Again. They said this thing would pay for itself. That doesn't seem like the same thing.

Sorry, I confused myself there. Busy day at the office.

$1.1T is the net cost and it looks like it has been the estimate of it the whole time.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080

must be a government worker. It's difficult to adjust after 2 week vacation.

Well let's add this to the list of things you don't know #### about.

 

[KCitons]

Imagine the trainwreck if kcitons and tim ever start debating the same topic at the same time.WWe'r

We're the same person. Wouldn't happen

 

[KCitons]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

This seems like what the cost has always been. There are also revenues and savings to count against it.

Again. They said this thing would pay for itself. That doesn't seem like the same thing.

Sorry, I confused myself there. Busy day at the office.

$1.1T is the net cost and it looks like it has been the estimate of it the whole time.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080

must be a government worker. It's difficult to adjust after 2 week vacation.

Well let's add this to the list of things you don't know #### about.

Where are you keeping that list ????

 

[drummer]

Imagine the trainwreck if kcitons and tim ever start debating the same topic at the same time.WWe'r

We're the same person. Wouldn't happen

???

tim argues with tim-selves all the time.

 

[TheIronSheik]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

To be fair, <CharlieBrown'sTeacherVoice> WAAAAAWHAAAAWAAAAAAAAAH WHAAAAAAAAWAHNWAAAAAAAAAA</CharlieBrown'sTeacherVoice>

Oh. OK. Now I understand.

 

[Henry Ford]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

To be fair, <CharlieBrown'sTeacherVoice> WAAAAAWHAAAAWAAAAAAAAAH WHAAAAAAAAWAHNWAAAAAAAAAA</CharlieBrown'sTeacherVoice>

Oh. OK. Now I understand.

Feeding the homeless costs $10 per person, per week. Not feeding the homeless costs an average of $5 per person, per week, in cleanup costs associated with removal of the bodies of dead homeless people, and causes traffic to back up from all the bodies of homeless people.

Just seems like a good idea to pay the extra money and feed the homeless people.

 

[TheIronSheik]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

To be fair, <CharlieBrown'sTeacherVoice> WAAAAAWHAAAAWAAAAAAAAAH WHAAAAAAAAWAHNWAAAAAAAAAA</CharlieBrown'sTeacherVoice>

Oh. OK. Now I understand.

Feeding the homeless costs $10 per person, per week. Not feeding the homeless costs an average of $5 per person, per week, in cleanup costs associated with removal of the bodies of dead homeless people, and causes traffic to back up from all the bodies of homeless people.

Just seems like a good idea to pay the extra money and feed the homeless people.

Not sure if you've ever heard of my million billion trillion dollar plan to use homeless people to fuel my hybrid vehicle, but I think I this bill may be the push I need to get funding.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This seems more like an excuse instead of a plan. The debt may be cheap, but zero interest is even cheaper. Why couldn't we reverse the process and be the ones making money off loans to other countries? Maybe even reducing taxes for American's and stimulating the economy by putting more spendable cash in everyone's pocket. As it appears now, more and more money is only making the lives better for people in other countries.

We hold about 55% of our own debt at state, city and individual levels; it doesn't all reside in foreign nations. Additionally we hold some $7 trillion in foreign equities and obligations, both short and long term. The reason we have an imbalance with China is because Chinese debt isn't anything we want to hold. We own the most in the UK, France, South Korea and Japan.

China holding a ton of U.S. treasuries doesn't mean what you think it means, this is what everyone in here is trying to explain to you but you just can't grasp the concept.

 

[Dr Oadi]

"The fundamental situation that the debt growth rate significantly outpaces that of fiscal income and gross domestic product remains unchanged....... Hence the government is still approaching the verge of default crisis, a situation that cannot be substantially alleviated in the foreseeable future,"

US credit downgraded anyway.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

CBO's letter to John Boehner on the impact of repealing Obamacare:

What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?

Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

In other words, when you include all of the law's provisions, savings, indirect effects and etc the net cost is roughly zero. People game the costs by including some things and not others.

Even if these estimates are wrong ACA should does not have a big impact on the US budget.

 

[KCitons]

This seems more like an excuse instead of a plan. The debt may be cheap, but zero interest is even cheaper. Why couldn't we reverse the process and be the ones making money off loans to other countries? Maybe even reducing taxes for American's and stimulating the economy by putting more spendable cash in everyone's pocket. As it appears now, more and more money is only making the lives better for people in other countries.

We hold about 55% of our own debt at state, city and individual levels; it doesn't all reside in foreign nations. Additionally we hold some $7 trillion in foreign equities and obligations, both short and long term. The reason we have an imbalance with China is because Chinese debt isn't anything we want to hold. We own the most in the UK, France, South Korea and Japan.

China holding a ton of U.S. treasuries doesn't mean what you think it means, this is what everyone in here is trying to explain to you but you just can't grasp the concept.

Honestly Dr, you and Fennis are the only ones that took more than 2 seconds to explain anything. I appreciate what you are trying to do.

sorry if I don't take someone's comment of "you're wrong" as fact.

 

[dparker713]

Kind of off subject, but is the government still claiming that Obamacare will cost us nothing? I kind of remember either Obama or other people talking about it and saying that it would pay for itself in the long run. Is that still the thinking? Or is the ACA actually going to cost taxpayers money.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

No, it's a collassal **** up of a law.

Are you being serious? Hard to tell with anyone in this thread. And if you are serious, are they still saying it will pay for itself? Or have they just said, "Our bad. This thing is gonna be expensive."

If I tell people specifically when I am being serious and when I am not in this thread then it's like Costanza's world's colliding thing. It's better just to enjoy the ride I think.

But, really, this law sucks the massive suck of suck and did from the beginning and will only get worse, yet the only way to truly fix it will be to change the entire nature of the system to a single payer system which is what the left wanted anyway. It always makes me laugh when people get mad at Obama for not fighting for that part. Like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He may be the Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ who used to do coke and lied on his college apps, but he isn't stupid.

you think Obama's master plan was to set up a sucky system that will suck so bad that some time in the future the fix will be single payer?

He basically copied Hillary's plan.

 

[Sand]

Feeding the homeless costs $10 per person, per week. Not feeding the homeless costs an average of $5 per person, per week, in cleanup costs associated with removal of the bodies of dead homeless people, and causes traffic to back up from all the bodies of homeless people.


Just seems like a good idea to pay the extra money and feed the homeless people.

I'd like to read the study on this one. Done in Detroit, right?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

my million billion trillion dollar plan to use homeless people to fuel my hybrid vehicle

I thought you said you weren't a Republican.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

McConnell says no new shutdown in January 2014 or maybe ever. "One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is 'there's no education in the second kick of a mule'. The first kick of a mule was when we shut the government down in the mid 1990s and the second kick was over the last 16 days."

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

WASHINGTON—After Republican lawmakers reached a last-minute agreement Wednesday night to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, sources confirmed today that the GOP yielded its fight against Obamacare mere moments before the president was about to cave and repeal the entire law.

“Whew! That was a close one,” President Obama told reporters, admitting that literally seconds before he would have put pen to paper on an executive order to fully defund and eliminate the Affordable Care Act, he received a phone call informing him that House Speaker John Boehner had agreed to back down from the shutdown stalemate.

“The GOP really had our backs up against the wall on this one, and to be honest I was definitely about to blink first. I sure as hell didn’t want to be the president who oversaw the first default in our country’s history, and I thought the Republicans knew that. If they would have just held out a little longer—I’m talking two, three seconds—they would have gotten everything they wanted. They seriously held all the cards here.”

The president said that if House Republicans threaten to use the same tactics with the debt ceiling this February, he’ll probably just repeal Obamacare immediately.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

CBO's letter to John Boehner on the impact of repealing Obamacare:

What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?

Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

In other words, when you include all of the law's provisions, savings, indirect effects and etc the net cost is roughly zero. People game the costs by including some things and not others.

Even if these estimates are wrong ACA does not have a big impact on the US budget.

You also need to look at the overall impact of US healthcare costs in general. I've posted this in a few different threads, but the CBO recently made a fairly minor revision to the projected excess growth rate of healthcare costs over the next ten years. The excess growth rate is the amount by which healthcare expenses are anticipated to grow above the general rate of inflation.

The trim was a modest .2 percent reduction in the excess growth rate, and that produced a 1.2 Trillion dollar reduction to the projected expenses for Medicare and Medicaid over that timeframe. Obviously not all, or even most, of the trend in slowing costs is directly attributable to ACA. But it can have a profound affect on the long-term budget beyond just the simple accounting of expenses and revenue directly tied to the program.

It's also worth stating repeatedly, healthcare costs are FAR AND AWAY the biggest long-term budgetary problem we have. Social Security is a distant second, but much more contained and easily addressed. At the risk of over-simplifying, if we can fix healthcare we can fix the budget for the next century at least. Long enough that innovation and challenges we can't foresee probably make everything else moot anyway.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

McConnell says no new shutdown in January 2014 or maybe ever. "One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is 'there's no education in the second kick of a mule'. The first kick of a mule was when we shut the government down in the mid 1990s and the second kick was over the last 16 days."

I find this hard to believe. We should probably be ok in January, but if we aren't in the same spot again in the next 18 months I'll be surprised.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Uh... to be clear... the mule-kicking story is legit. McConnell said that. The other story is The Onion.

And it remains unclear whether Sheik has actually developed a method for rendering homeless people to create vehicle fuel.

 

[drummer]

Soylent Sheik.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

McConnell says no new shutdown in January 2014 or maybe ever. "One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is 'there's no education in the second kick of a mule'. The first kick of a mule was when we shut the government down in the mid 1990s and the second kick was over the last 16 days."

I find this hard to believe. We should probably be ok in January, but if we aren't in the same spot again in the next 18 months I'll be surprised.

Depends on how much power the tea party can potentially wield. If the traditional business friendly GOP can slay the Teabagger Troll then Saint Boehner can get it through.

 

[DrJ]

You're better than this. You know darn well there are similarities to personal, corporate, and government debt. For one they all have a cost associated to them. Those costs may be different, but they are real. Typically personal debt can't promote growth, but it could. Personal debt has a much harder cap and penalties associated with that cap, but there is a level that they all become a problem.

No, there is nothing similar. There is money, assets, debt and payments of those things. But the very nature of the budget I operate my house with and the budget of the United States are not even remotely the same thing. Trying to compare them is a useless exercise.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

Obamacare will cost 1.1 trillion over 10 years. There will be (possible significant) Medicare savings to offset some of that cost.

So from "it'll pay for itself" to "it'll cost 1.1 trillion dollars"?!? Who'd they have do the math there? Me?

To be fair, over 1 trillion of the 1.1 trillion will be in the form of subsidies for insurance. Whereas health care for the uninsured which goes un-paid-for is estimated at between 50-75 billion per year currently, the vast majority of that cost being borne by the government.

Actually, the CBO projects it'll be 1.36 trillion.

It starts out slow and then seems to cost about 160-170 billion a year starting in 2017.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Gross costs are 1.798 trillion, but it takes in about 435 billion in offsets. Including 45 billion in penalty payments for people that STILL aren't insured.

Proposed regulations recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Treasury expanded the number of people who will be exempt from paying a penalty for being uninsured relative to our previous expectations. CBO and JCT now expect that, as a result of those regulations, between 500,000 and 1 million fewer people will obtain health insurance coverage each year. In our current projections for 2023, the ACA reduces the number of people without health insurance by 25 million, leaving 31 million uninsured (compared with 30 million in our February estimate). Also as a result of those regulations, penalties collected from individuals for being uninsured are now projected to be $7 billion less over the 2014–2023 period than previously estimated.

 

[Sand]

Actually, the CBO projects it'll be 1.36 trillion.

It starts out slow and then seems to cost about 160-170 billion a year starting in 2017.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Gross costs are 1.798 trillion, but it takes in about 435 billion in offsets. Including 45 billion in penalty payments for people that STILL aren't insured.

It was structured that way to make the numbers look better (since the CBO projections sunset at 10 years out).

McConnell says no new shutdown in January 2014 or maybe ever. "One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is 'there's no education in the second kick of a mule'. The first kick of a mule was when we shut the government down in the mid 1990s and the second kick was over the last 16 days."

McDonnell is wrong. The same thing happens in scientific literature - every 20-30 years the same subjects will come up again as institutional memory is lost and people chase problems that no one remembers were addressed. This fits that timescale.

This was the first kick for most of Congress.

 

[Fennis]

This seems more like an excuse instead of a plan. The debt may be cheap, but zero interest is even cheaper. Why couldn't we reverse the process and be the ones making money off loans to other countries? Maybe even reducing taxes for American's and stimulating the economy by putting more spendable cash in everyone's pocket. As it appears now, more and more money is only making the lives better for people in other countries.

[SIZE=10.5pt]If you think about it in individual terms (which is problematic for a bunch of reasons covered earlier), I think almost everyone agrees good debt is big purchases like a house or a college education. Those are good long term investments. My life and my family’s life is better for me having a house and for going to college. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]But even short term debt is good. I pay off my credit card every month, so I pay no interest, but the fact is everything I put on my VISA card I am financing at a very low rate (0% rates). I take on that debt monthly as it is advantageous to do so.[/SIZE]

 

[Insomniac]

They may not be the same. But you were speaking as if the United States must operate with debt?

How the financial markets would function if the US didn't have any debt was a small concern at the beginning of the GWB administration. True story.

There are also good reasons to have an asset class that is (or at least was) considered both completely safe and liquid.

 

[DrJ]

Actually, the CBO projects it'll be 1.36 trillion.

It starts out slow and then seems to cost about 160-170 billion a year starting in 2017.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Gross costs are 1.798 trillion, but it takes in about 435 billion in offsets. Including 45 billion in penalty payments for people that STILL aren't insured.

It was structured that way to make the numbers look better (since the CBO projections sunset at 10 years out).

Of course, this is pretty much what everyone knew when it was happening but those in favor shamelessly ignored. It's pretty unlikely that costs actually stay that low long term as well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know if anyone's posted this already, but it looks fun:

House Stenographer Dragged Off Floor Yelling About Freemasons And God

 

[3C's]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

I'm thankful. They all but assured the extremist running for Gov of Va won't get elected.

Don't count your chickens. Both of the candidates are fools, but beware of polarization begetting mobilization.

I'm from Maryland, which ain't no haven of political morality. We've had a former governor resign as sitting VPOTUS, had a governor serve a long term in prison, had a recent SOTH who is the child of a Baltimore mafioso that would make Stringer Bell go to church. The county I grew up in has had two country executives go to jail.

That said, the VA governor's race is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. "No! He's broken more laws than I have!".

It's sad. I'm calling it bad vs worse, pile of crap vs a pile of cow ####. The tipping point for me is the social extremism of the GOP candidate at both Gov and Lt Gov (nutcase). Even the AG candidate is a bit of a social extremist. The social platform espoused by the top two should get votes against them out in droves. Polls have been trending more and more to the D option. If it looks pretty certain on election day of a D win I might write in myself.

 

[Boston]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now.

what in the... ?

please name some left wing extremists who have overtaken the Democratic Party

Democrats have been in the center since Clinton/Gore had success with it in 1992

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, **** Durbin, Chuck Shumer, Ted Kennedy before he passed, Barbara Boxer, Wasserman-Shultz, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, John Conyers...these are all prominent dems and you can't honestly say any of them are anywhere near the center...that being said when Mitt Romney and John McCain get painted as extreme conservatives it appears some on the left may define the center a little different than others...and kudos to them because they are making it stick when it works for them...

 

[MaxThreshold]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now.

what in the... ?

please name some left wing extremists who have overtaken the Democratic Party

Democrats have been in the center since Clinton/Gore had success with it in 1992

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, **** Durbin, Chuck Shumer, Ted Kennedy before he passed, Barbara Boxer, Wasserman-Shultz, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, John Conyers...these are all prominent dems and you can't honestly say any of them are anywhere near the center...that being said when Mitt Romney and John McCain get painted as extreme conservatives it appears some on the left may define the center a little different than others...and kudos to them because they are making it stick when it works for them...

Saul Alinsky - the hero of most on that list - would be proud.

 

[T Bell]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

I've said for a few years now that I think the Republican Party is where the Whig party was circa 1860. It's going to fracture and reform itself, and that's a good thing. The country needs a counterbalance, and right now the Republican Party is incapable of providing one beyond simply opposing whatever is being proposed by the Democrats. This is why I re-registered Independent several years ago.

How do you think the split will be made?

Southern GOP will be the religious wing.

Midwest GOP will tea party.

West Coast/ California GOP Goldwater type conservatives.

I think the split will largely be along religious/secular lines, with moderate secular, socially liberal/libertarian and economically (somewhat) conservative voters. That will attract some moderate Dems too. Most importantly, that fits with the outlook of a lot of young voters.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now.

what in the... ?

please name some left wing extremists who have overtaken the Democratic Party

Democrats have been in the center since Clinton/Gore had success with it in 1992

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, **** Durbin, Chuck Shumer, Ted Kennedy before he passed, Barbara Boxer, Wasserman-Shultz, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, John Conyers...these are all prominent dems and you can't honestly say any of them are anywhere near the center...that being said when Mitt Romney and John McCain get painted as extreme conservatives it appears some on the left may define the center a little different than others...and kudos to them because they are making it stick when it works for them...

None of those are extreme in the way that michelle bachmann or risk santrum are.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I don't know if anyone's posted this already, but it looks fun:

House Stenographer Dragged Off Floor Yelling About Freemasons And God

Religious persecution!!!!!