Forbes: US Crumbles under Obamacare

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    "Future generations" are a red herring, not living, breathing people. So, no I don't give a flip about hypthetical people brought up only in a rhetorical sense. Maybe they will be glad of the choices we made in the present, maybe they won't. We have the means to pay for the government we want, so I don't buy at all the present arrangement is inherently unsustainable for us or them. If a crisis comes, we will either a) make the choices/sacrifices needed to keep what we want b) decide we don't want those things. Its really that simple. The main reason people talk about "future generations" is to win policy arguments in the present.
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    That's a compromise position, I suppose. But typically, its still billed by the losers in that situation as a "tax increase" in their rhetorical opposition.
  3. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    By losers, of course, you mean the people that don't pay any?

    That isn't very nice to say...
  4. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,116
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    Even taking your first statement at face value (which is not backed by accompanying numbers), how is it cutting losses to move from $0 deficit to an increase in deficit of $109 Billion?
  5. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,998
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,995
    Don't you know... Obama is not trying to run "a business," called the the American economy, he's trying his Harvard best to bankrupt it, so he and his commie friends can come in saying that Capitalism doesn't work... and he and his commie friends can re-make our system in a more autocratic/dictator like system of enslavement to big government.

    Just look at his friends and look at his upbringing, you'll see the real Obama the commie in his past/present/future.

    He's trying to ruin/bankrupt the U.S.A ... There is no other rational reason why he's been doing everything he can to kill our economy. He's poisoning the system in hopes of killing it.
  6. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    Go tell my generation who will pay 6.2% (employer and employee) our entire working careers on a max taxable that is now more than three times inflation (two year employee 4.2%) its a red herring as we are forced to participate in the communist/socialist program (especially those from my generation living paycheck to paycheck paying more than their elders and being asked to receive less)! Tell my kids generation the same thing!

    I get it stinks that our government did this but lets own up to reality and try to make my generation take the worst of reality so my kids do not have to.
  7. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    We are handing our future generations $16 trillion in debt, broke medicare, SS needing to reduce benefits and tax more etc etc etc and you said that...

    When will people accept we are an arrogant greedy bunch that could give a rip about our future generations...
  8. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    First of all, I'm pretty sure we're in the same generation. And did it ever occur to you that people of our generation may actually want to participate in these "socialist" programs rather than destroy them?
  9. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Probably at the same time when people stop using "future generations" as rhetorical device to achieve their policy aims in the present.
  10. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...te-to-cost-government-10-billion-report-says/

    109/10 is basically the same thing...

    For the second part of your question...Do you really think obamacare is or will be revenue neutral?
  11. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    I have no doubt at the ignorance of many from my generation would have them wanting to participate. I also am sure some are not worried about having their earnings redistributed to others.

    As a whole I doubt an educated person would sign up to have their wealth redistributed under the guise of being part of a retirement program. I am confident they would prefer to have their money go into an account with their name on it...

    Edit/Add: remember we are just now crossing the threshold where those entering SS now will probably break even (get what they paid for). I on the other hand have 34 years until I reach full retirement of 67 and I highly doubt that age will remain 67 for full retirement. It cooks my grits that people take advantage of the youths ignorance...
  12. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    My policy aims are to spend what we can afford on things government is responsible for.

    Unfortunately too many prefer to screw others by disregarding what they are going to do to others...
  13. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Well, as a general statement, I think this is true of everyone. Of course, we disagree about what the government is "responsible for" and who is getting "screwed" or is being "careless."
  14. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,116
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    Yes it is only different by a factor of 11. If they said that there would never be an employer mandate, you might vaguely have a point, but I don't think that is currently under discussion.

    Even under this assumption, which is again not backed by evidence, it would still be slightly better than revenue neutral.

    As far as my opinions, I think that the estimate given by the CBO is probably about the mean of a normal distribution. So I think there is about a 50% chance we will cut the deficit by more than predicted and a 50% chance we will cut the deficit by less. As I am not sure of the standard deviation, all I would feel comfortable saying is that there is between a 50% to 100% chance that the bill will be revenue neutral or improve the deficit.

    Generally, with limited information, I find it best when making predictions to make the prediction that requires the least assumptions, especially those that can't be supported. In this case, that would mean that the economic forecast is our best estimate, and that the real figure will have a probability of being in certain ranges based on a very commonly used continuous distribution, such as the normal.
  15. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    Just can't agree with you. If it was the aim we would not be $16 trillion in debt. We would have taxed to pay for our lifestyle...
  16. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    If government history is any guide this things cost will be off the charts...Medicare anyone? SS anyone? Etc etc etc
  17. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,556
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,626
    http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/6177

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ted-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/07/11/obamacare_to_cost_26_trillion_over_10_years_284495.html

    At least you're disucussing THE issue which Forbes is addressing, not his proposed restructuring of the tax code that has no bearing on THIS issue.

    Props for that, at least.
  18. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,116
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    Specifically chosen anecdotal cases from the dark ages of economic forecasting (prior to computing) are hardly evidence of much of anything.
  19. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,116
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    None of those discuss the CBO. That report is from the Republican Senate Budget Committee. There is a reason that it is important for the CBO to stay non-partisan. I realize that Republican politicians would like to claim it costs more (just as Democratic ones would like to claim it costs less). But that really isn't evidence of anything except where each party falls on the issue.
  20. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    So is a scoring system that only scores based on what is given to them without taking into account future cause and effect issues.

    I will go with history...

Share This Page