(no subject)

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Comments

[weswilson]

Wait...

I thought the CBO said that the health care bill wasn't going to increase spending over the ten year projection.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Congress' budget watchdog warned Thursday that Democrats' health care bills would not lower skyrocketing costs and would drive up government spending, undermining one of President Obama's chief arguments for the overhaul.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/17/health-care-reform-said-to-increase-federal-cost/

[i.livejournal.com]

washington times, lol

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Guess you don't like it. Maybe you should read the report yourself.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Obama's does... government can't do anything right... even steamrollers!

[merig00.livejournal.com]

that's government inefficiency for you right there

[capthek.livejournal.com]

I think it is funny how republicans called it "Hillary care" in the 90s because she was unpopular and thus they think connecting the name of "Obama care" will hurt it rather than in fact probably helping it.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

is that why less than 50% of americans approve of his plan?

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Conservatives don't like it because it's soshulizmz and they got their health care so people who can't afford it can go to Hell; Liberals don't like it because it's not single-payer. Not particularly compelling reasons for not having a plan at all, either way.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

remember me saying that Obama is not liberal enough? LOL

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Well. Actually I remember you saying liberals didn't like some program or another because it wasn't liberal enough. I then asked you if you thought Obama was liberal and I think you agreed he's pretty much not.

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

Many Americans oppose Obama's plan because most of us want actual health care (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090719/OPED02/907190321) rather than health insurance.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Baby steps. (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/452493/a_real_win_for_single_payer_advocates)

in a word

[dwer.livejournal.com]

bullshit.

Go ahead and die

[retrofire.livejournal.com]

still my favorite

[merig00.livejournal.com]

to say at least something nice and kiss ass

[i.livejournal.com]

it's supposed to be the CBO calling him on being naked.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Obama exposes himself to children.

[donolectic.livejournal.com]

That's what makes it... funny?

Wait...

[dwer.livejournal.com]

as I said -- utter bullshit.

TARP Inspector General Debunks His Own False $23 Trillion Bailout Estimate

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/22/barofsky-debunk/

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=20741

Yesterday, TARP Inspector General Neil Barosky released a report which crudely tallied up the cost of every economic rescue program proposed during the current crisis — including those that have been discontinued or never even began — to state that the total scope of all financial rescue programs comes to about $23.7 trillion. Cable news hosts ran wild with the report, using it to claim that taxpayers will “ultimately” wind up paying $23 trillion in “bailouts.”

[...]

Barofsky’s report clearly states that “these numbers may have some overlap, and have not been evaluated to provide an estimate of likely net costs to the taxpayer”:

[S]ome of the programs have been discontinued or even, in some cases, not utilized. As such, these total potential support figures do not represent a current total, but the sum total of all support programs announcd since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

So then the total amount could be anywhere between $3 trillion and $23 trillion.

PS: Think Progress needs to do a name spell check on Barofsky.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Just like Ellie Kay, you're a coward too.

As Floyd Norris explained in the New York Times, Barofsky’s estimate “assumes that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless. It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny. And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.”

Do you know how unlikely this is?


It's a BS number. Know it.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

No, Barofsky was giving the range.

So, worst case scenario, yes the bailout could cost $23 trillion. The possibility of the worst case scenario? About the same as a liberal admitting that figure of 50 milllion americans not having insurance is a BS number.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

uh-huh. You go on believing that.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Believing what? That the $23 trillion is a BS number? Or that the 50 million americans w/o insurance is a BS number? Or that both are BS numbers?

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

it's not just how many people don't have insurance, it's how many have insurance that doesn't meet their needs. It doesn't look like the new plan will do much to fix that.