The Press Conference

[IDBillzFan]

So you agree with the NYT article that all of his excess spending is going to lower the deficit trajectory not raise it?

Even if that's what the NYT article said, we both know the answer to that question.

[Kelly the Dog]

Even if that's what the NYT article said, we both know the answer to that question.

Well, why on earth would you link an article to defend your position and specifically quote its "stats" when its "stats" said that Obama's spending would make the deficit less large, not more large, even if he was disingenuous about those stats (which he was). That, to me, means you agree with the stats from the article. Otherwise, why link them?

 

That's something a moron would do. Now, I'm not calling you a moron, but...

[Adam]

Its going to be difficult to get anything done if he doesn't eliminate the lobbyist/special interests problems that our government has become subservient to over the last few decades.

[IDBillzFan]

Well, why on earth would you link an article to defend your position and specifically quote its "stats" when its "stats" said that Obama's spending would make the deficit less large, not more large, even if he was disingenuous about those stats (which he was). That, to me, means you agree with the stats from the article. Otherwise, why link them?

 

That's something a moron would do. Now, I'm not calling you a moron, but...

The only thing more confusing than this post is last night's press conference promoting a health care plan that doesn't even exist.

 

My position was that Obama was ridiculously worng about the amount he says he is cutting the deficit. So he was either lying or he proved that his economic team is made up of people who don't really understand the budget.

 

Take your pick.

[Kelly the Dog]

The only thing more confusing than this post is last night's press conference promoting a health care plan that doesn't even exist.

 

My position was that Obama was ridiculously worng about the amount he says he is cutting the deficit. So he was either lying or he proved that his economic team is made up of people who don't really understand the budget.

 

Take your pick.

I can't help you if you cannot understand what your own links say. I can't help you if you don't understand what Obama was saying and doing when he was factually correct, but rather disingenuous, when he referred to the deficit numbers. I can't help you if you can't subtract 1.5 trillion from 2.2 trillion.

 

I was trying to help you understand that even though you have been screaming and screaming and screaming for five months that Obama's insane spending was going to drive the deficit up to unimaginable numbers, you just linked an article that said otherwise. It said that the deficits from the spending were going to be less, not more, than they would be if he made no changes to the budget at all.

 

Now, if you were smart, you would have said that Obama was using figures in his argument last night that may have come from projections than many economists believe are overly rosy. That's a legitimate argument and may turn out to be true. But there is nothing whatsoever in what he said that implies his administration doesn't understand budgets and how they work. They just based their numbers on certain assumptions like all economists do, which were done months ago when he first took office.

[stuckincincy]

Not a single question about Iraq...Afghanistan...N. Korea. I'm dismayed about the filled seats - those that were chosen to ask questions were selected beforehand.

 

It was a nice for those that wring their hands constantly about being a victim though. Or for those in need of a lecture.

 

It's inxorable...

[IDBillzFan]

They just based their numbers on certain assumptions like all economists do, which were done months ago when he first took office.

Assumptions that were so embarrassingly exaggerated that even the NYT was able to debunk them virtually immediately after the press conference (which, unbeknowst to you, was the point of my post). The numbers were a lot of things, but "factually correct" is not one of them. You'd think anyone who knows a cost will end in three years would not carry that cost for another seven years just to make you look like you're doing more than you really are. So he's either lying, or his team doesn't understand what they're doing. Your choice. Neither one would surprise me.

 

But hey, maybe his team is just miscalculating again. Or just using "rhetorical flourish."

[Kelly the Dog]

Assumptions that were so embarrassingly exaggerated that even the NYT was able to debunk them virtually immediately after the press conference (which, unbeknowst to you, was the point of my post). The numbers were a lot of things, but "factually correct" is not one of them. You'd think anyone who knows a cost will end in three years would not carry that cost for another seven years just to make you look like you're doing more than you really are. So he's either lying, or his team doesn't understand what they're doing. Your choice. Neither one would surprise me.

 

But hey, maybe his team is just miscalculating again. Or just using "rhetorical flourish."

 

No, you're wrong. You don't understand what the NYT, Obama, or I, am saying.

 

I will try to lay it out for you in bullet points:

 

1] There were CBO budget projections that showed deficits into the 9+ trillions before Obama took office.

 

2] The Obama administration took office, started spending programs and put forth a budget based on figures available at the time. It added some and subtracted some from the deficit.

 

3] Some economists thought those projections were a little too rosy because no one really knew what the economy was like at the time (everyone was guessing), and, the budget assumed that the economy would recover at X rate over the next few years.

 

4] Those Obama administration figures way back when put the future deficit into the high 7+ trillions, 2.2 trillion lower than if they didn't do anything to the budget that would add or subtract to the deficit.

 

5] People like yourself have been complaining that this Obama spending has been crazy crazy crazy and this spending is the reason the future deficits are astronomical. That is not true, according to the CBO, it's a small percentage of the problem but Obama took offense to it.

 

6] Last night, he said that his spending won't increase the future deficit according to budget figures like people were accusing him of, it was actually going to lessen the future deficit 2.2 trillion from the budget figures released.

 

7] Remember, there are two budget figures here. The 9+ trillion deficit CBO data before he took office, and his own administrations 7+ trillion data and projections from after he took office.

 

8] This morning, the NYT took him to task for saying what he did, even though it was "factually correct" (in other words, he wasn't lying, or misunderstanding the budget), because the CBO's 9+ trillion figures also including 1.5 trillion to be because of spending on the Iraq war. In other words, since we're now leaving Iraq in three years, the deficit projected is no longer in the 9+ trillion range, but now more like the 8+ trillion range (I arbitraily attributed half a trillion because its still going to be 3 years instead of 10). So the Times was saying he was disingenuous about those figures because it including 1-1.5 trillion that really wasn't there anymore.

 

9] In other words, his administrations projections were actually closer to .5- 1 trillion less, not 2.2 trillion less.

 

10] The "rosy projections" is an entirely different issue, and the numbers were based on the CBO numbers on the economy BEFORE he took office. The CBO didn't know how bad the economy was at that time, and now in retrospect, it was a lot worse than they had projected. So the "rosy projections" may not be met, especially in the short term where for sure they won't be met. But that is 10 years off in the future and no one knows what the economy is going to be like then.

 

In summary, he was factually correct in what he said, he was just being disingenuous and I think he shouldn't have done it. What he is trying to say though, is correct, that the spending he is doing is not the problem, 90% of the deficit problem is Health Care, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. 10% is other government spending.

[IDBillzFan]

No, you're wrong. You don't understand what the NYT, Obama, or I, am saying.

 

I will try to lay it out for you in bullet points:

 

1] There were CBO budget projections that showed deficits into the 9+ trillions before Obama took office.

 

2] The Obama administration took office, started spending programs and put forth a budget based on figures available at the time. It added some and subtracted some from the deficit.

 

3] Some economists thought those projections were a little too rosy because no one really knew what the economy was like at the time (everyone was guessing), and, the budget assumed that the economy would recover at X rate over the next few years.

 

4] Those Obama administration figures way back when put the future deficit into the high 7+ trillions, 2.2 trillion lower than if they didn't do anything to the budget that would add or subtract to the deficit.

 

5] People like yourself have been complaining that this Obama spending has been crazy crazy crazy and this spending is the reason the future deficits are astronomical. That is not true, according to the CBO, it's a small percentage of the problem but Obama took offense to it.

 

6] Last night, he said that his spending won't increase the future deficit according to budget figures like people were accusing him of, it was actually going to lessen the future deficit 2.2 trillion from the budget figures released.

 

7] Remember, there are two budget figures here. The 9+ trillion deficit CBO data before he took office, and his own administrations 7+ trillion data and projections from after he took office.

 

8] This morning, the NYT took him to task for saying what he did, even though it was "factually correct" (in other words, he wasn't lying, or misunderstanding the budget), because the CBO's 9+ trillion figures also including 1.5 trillion to be because of spending on the Iraq war. In other words, since we're now leaving Iraq in three years, the deficit projected is no longer in the 9+ trillion range, but now more like the 8+ trillion range (I arbitraily attributed half a trillion because its still going to be 3 years instead of 10). So the Times was saying he was disingenuous about those figures because it including 1-1.5 trillion that really wasn't there anymore.

 

9] In other words, his administrations projections were actually closer to .5- 1 trillion less, not 2.2 trillion less.

 

10] The "rosy projections" is an entirely different issue, and the numbers were based on the CBO numbers on the economy BEFORE he took office. The CBO didn't know how bad the economy was at that time, and now in retrospect, it was a lot worse than they had projected. So the "rosy projections" may not be met, especially in the short term where for sure they won't be met. But that is 10 years off in the future and no one knows what the economy is going to be like then.

 

In summary, he was factually correct in what he said, he was just being disingenuous and I think he shouldn't have done it. What he is trying to say though, is correct, that the spending he is doing is not the problem, 90% of the deficit problem is Health Care, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. 10% is other government spending.

Okay, I'm going to take a shot here. You're gunning for a czar position. C'mon. Admit. You can't possibly work this hard at defending something as simple as Obama giving numbers to America that were absolutely, positively WRONG in an effort to make himself look good.

 

Czar K-Dog. Has a nice ring.

[1billsfan]

In summary, he was factually correct in what he said, he was just being disingenuous and I think he shouldn't have done it. What he is trying to say though, is correct, that the spending he is doing is not the problem, 90% of the deficit problem is Health Care, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. 10% is other government spending.

 

If 90% of the deficit problem are governmental social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, why on earth wouldn't you think your messiah's plan of health insurance for everyone (including illegals aliens) would quadruple the deficit?

[Kelly the Dog]

Okay, I'm going to take a shot here. You're gunning for a czar position. C'mon. Admit. You can't possibly work this hard at defending something as simple as Obama giving numbers to America that were absolutely, positively WRONG in an effort to make himself look good.

 

Czar K-Dog. Has a nice ring.

The ultimate point remains, however, that the non-partisan CBO thinks Health Care and Medicare are 90% of the problem of the future deficits (with a smaller portion being Social Security). They do NOT THINK other government spending, and new Obama spending like stimulus plans, and cap and trade, and energy and education programs is the real problem, nor are they a larger percentage of the GDP than we have seen in the last several decades. You can keep on ignoring that if you want.

[Magox]

Okay, I'm going to take a shot here. You're gunning for a czar position. C'mon. Admit. You can't possibly work this hard at defending something as simple as Obama giving numbers to America that were absolutely, positively WRONG in an effort to make himself look good.

 

Czar K-Dog. Has a nice ring.

no no, I all ready found the post for him, the I.D.O.C Internet Defender of Chief.

[IDBillzFan]

The ultimate point remains, however, that the non-partisan CBO thinks Health Care and Medicare are 90% of the problem of the future deficits (with a smaller portion being Social Security). They do NOT THINK other government spending, and new Obama spending like stimulus plans, and cap and trade, and energy and education programs is the real problem, nor are they a larger percentage of the GDP than we have seen in the last several decades. You can keep on ignoring that if you want.

That's YOUR ultimate point. MY ultimate point in this thread is that Obama either lied about the deficit savings last night, or his staff doesn't understand that when a line item cost is due to end in three years, it does not mean it can be counted for another seven.

[Kelly the Dog]

If 90% of the deficit problem are governmental social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, why on earth wouldn't you think your messiah's plan of health insurance for everyone (including illegals aliens) would quadruple the deficit?

First the plan as is, is not going to cover illegal aliens, despite erroneous reports. As of now, it will cover 97% of all Americans, so 10 million or so people won't be covered and most of the illegal aliens won't be either.

 

Second, the Health Care plan is NOT going to increase the deficit. That is one of two things Obama has insisted on. The House bill people are griping about has already been changed, and I will bet anyone when the FINAL plan finally comes out and the President signs it, the CBO will have graded it pretty much deficit neutral.

 

In short, it will cost the government some money in the short term, it will save it some in the long term, and a combination of provider cuts and the tax payers will pay for the rest. That's the 1 trillion Health Care plan.

 

There are several other things that have to happen whether we get a Health Care plan passed or not. Medicare and Medicaid have to be fixed. If there were no plan at all, 90% of the problem with the deficit would still be the same. There are a TON of things in the plans that are designed to bring the Medicare/Medicare costs down in the long term. Some may work great, some may not help. it's impossible for anyone to grade them with any certainty of how much it will help. A big hurdle was passed two days ago that helps it a lot (people it stops the Congress from making medical decisions).

 

A TON more have to be done to fix the broken system regardless of what the Health Care plan does or doesn't do, exists or doesn't exists. The administration and both Houses and industry experts have been working on that and not getting very far for decades. That's one of the reasons for Obama's urgency.

[murra]

First the plan as is, is not going to cover illegal aliens, despite erroneous reports. As of now, it will cover 97% of all Americans, so 10 million or so people won't be covered and most of the illegal aliens won't be either.

 

Second, the Health Care plan is NOT going to increase the deficit. That is one of two things Obama has insisted on. The House bill people are griping about has already been changed, and I will bet anyone when the FINAL plan finally comes out and the President signs it, the CBO will have graded it pretty much deficit neutral.

 

In short, it will cost the government some money in the short term, it will save it some in the long term, and a combination of provider cuts and the tax payers will pay for the rest. That's the 1 trillion Health Care plan.

 

There are several other things that have to happen whether we get a Health Care plan passed or not. Medicare and Medicaid have to be fixed. If there were no plan at all, 90% of the problem with the deficit would still be the same. There are a TON of things in the plans that are designed to bring the Medicare/Medicare costs down in the long term. Some may work great, some may not help. it's impossible for anyone to grade them with any certainty of how much it will help. A big hurdle was passed two days ago that helps it a lot (people it stops the Congress from making medical decisions).

 

A TON more have to be done to fix the broken system regardless of what the Health Care plan does or doesn't do, exists or doesn't exists. The administration and both Houses and industry experts have been working on that and not getting very far for decades. That's one of the reasons for Obama's urgency.

 

 

I'm sorry... But how are you still trying to spin this? You realize how "stupidly" you sound, right?

[Magox]

A TON more have to be done to fix the broken system regardless of what the Health Care plan does or doesn't do, exists or doesn't exists. The administration and both Houses and industry experts have been working on that and not getting very far for decades. That's one of the reasons for Obama's urgency.

No, his reason for urgency is that he needs to push this bill now before his popularity drops even further, which of course would make it much tougher for him to get it through.

[murra]

No, his reason for urgency is that he needs to push this bill now before his popularity drops even further, which of course would make it much tougher for him to get it through.

 

You got half of it. The other reason for urgency is so that people feel as though there is in fact no other solution then to act immediately on healthcare. Sure it's been a long debated topic for several decades, but it's the current administration's job to make it seem like this is the make or break year for healthcare.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm sorry... But how are you still trying to spin this? You realize how "stupidly" you sound, right?

Do you want to bet me $1000 right now that when the Health Care plan is passed, the CBO is going to grade it, and say it's not deficit neutral, but that it raises the deficit substantially?

[Kelly the Dog]

No, his reason for urgency is that he needs to push this bill now before his popularity drops even further, which of course would make it much tougher for him to get it through.

 

That urgency has ZERO to do with whether or not the deficit problem is really Medicare/Medicaid, which is what we were talking about.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Second, the Health Care plan is NOT going to increase the deficit. That is one of two things Obama has insisted on.

 

Dude, really? REALLY? You're going to add a whole new arm of the Federal government and NOT increase the deficit?

 

Wow, and here I thought unicorns were fake...