|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 15 2013 10:03 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 10:01 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2013 09:55 Doublemint wrote:On October 15 2013 09:48 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2013 09:45 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2013 09:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2013 09:36 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2013 09:34 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2013 09:31 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Being raised in a Muslim neighborhood for your childhood is a connection with that religion.
not by fault you can't read past what you want to see.
[quote]
Thats not the point. He didn't just genericaly grow up in a country he grew up in a specific part of that country that was almost entirely muslim.
This isn't even me arguing that hes a muslim but that he has a muslim connection. So do you by that logic. You live on a world with Muslims and apparently anything goes. Where are you getting this mad delusion. I said he grew up in a muslim ghetto which is apparently equal to the entire world to you. I grew up in a middle class white area, that means I have a christian connection. You said his dad lived in Kenya so he's got a connection. I specifically said that he grew up in an islamic ghetto in indonesia so hes got a connection. To be fair him being black and having muslim connections has something to do with it. Change is scary to a lot of people and obama did grow up in a poor muslim ghetto. This above is what I said at the start of this. There isn't a mention of his kenyen dad and theres a specific mention to where he grew up. You specifically mentioned his dad as a connection. Alongside and after where I said he grew up yes. Is this factually incorrect or is there some problem now with stating facts to support points given in a post? Do you have a problem with the point I presented and have something to support your argument? And so we're clear the argument is that there is enough information to draw improper conclusions without all the information. What's that even supposed to mean? Is this some semi-elaborate troll? Colbert is that you? What I don't get is that after all this time, the foreign policies, the killing of Bin Laden... it's now his 2nd term for Christ's sake - somehow this still is being discussed. If he overthrows the government and constitution and makes himself Caliphe-4-life people might be on to something. It means that if you ignore simple things like his community activism years in chicago, his 7 years of college or so to get his law degree his governmental service, his birth certificate, and all of his recorded life then you can get enough information to rabble rouse stupid people into believing that somehow hes a islamic socialist person that is totaly going to steal your guns so you should buy ammo from your local sporting goods stores. ...you do realize that it takes 7 years to get a law degree right? 4 years of college and 3 years of law school...
which is why I said his 7 years of college or so to get his law degree.
|
On October 15 2013 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 15 2013 07:28 DoubleReed wrote:On October 15 2013 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 15 2013 06:36 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2013 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:21 Sermokala wrote:
The real problems are going to come after the first of the year when people assume that they filed out the ACA website forms correctly and have health care when they really don't thus getting hit by the individual mandate tax and not having health insurance.
Not to mention whats going to happen after everyone's premiums triple after companies are forced to take people in with pre existing conditions. This is already happening. Yes, US healthcare may even get as expensive as other countries in which a universal healthcare system is in place! + Show Spoiler +Oh.. wait : ( What this is hinting at: There's little correlation between how many people with whatever conditions you take into the healthcare system and the resulting prices. (Wild guess: Government healthcare spending may instead be dependent on how much healthcare costs and how heavy the prices are regulated!) Edit: And before the argument arises "Hey, these are absolute numbers, there are so many people in the US, you can't compare that!" If you break it down on healthcare cost per capita, you come to the same conclusion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita The ACA isn't universal healthcare. Massachusetts already has a version of the ACA and average insurance premiums are the highest in the country ( source). Whoa whoa whoa now. Let's not throw out numbers like this without some context here. Massachusetts had massively increasing healthcare costs for a long time, moreso than the country. Romneycare was largely responsible for bringing down the cost and slowing down the cost of healthcare. The cost is still increasing, but no one who looks at Massachusetts' situation would blame their high premiums on Romneycare. That would be silly. And no one is considering throwing Romneycare out. If anything they just want to tweak it more to bring down costs. But it's been a massive success. On October 15 2013 07:31 farvacola wrote:Sometimes even Jonny can't keep up the veneer of objectivity  Kids, I was responding to the idea that the ACA would put US healthcare costs in line with the rest of the world. I don't think there's any evidence in MA that that's even a remote possibility. Obamacare is basically a form of the Swiss version of healthcare. Switzerland has one of the most expensive healthcare costs in Europe (second to Norway), but it is still way way lower than America's. It does have the possibility that it will put us inline with the rest of world. We may still be the most expensive, but hopefully not such a stupid outlier.
That's extremely speculative. Using MA as a model costs will continue to rise, just at a slower rate. I don't think that's enough to put us in line with the rest of the world. In MA it's not considered enough and more reforms are underway. I'm not holding my breath for the Federal government to do the same.
|
On October 15 2013 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 08:13 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 08:04 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 07:50 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:26 TheFish7 wrote:On October 15 2013 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:21 Sermokala wrote:
The real problems are going to come after the first of the year when people assume that they filed out the ACA website forms correctly and have health care when they really don't thus getting hit by the individual mandate tax and not having health insurance.
Not to mention whats going to happen after everyone's premiums triple after companies are forced to take people in with pre existing conditions. This is already happening. I keep hearing this but I have yet to see any real evidence that supports this claim. Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? Have you? How about looking at an actual study of the matter instead of an article by a conservative contributor to Forbes (and instead of cherry-picking states)? No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act
The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.
However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.
“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Source So, basically, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Ease up on the bloviating, one study had 13 states the other 10. Did you even look at the two sources? One (mine) is an actual study and one is an article accompanying an "interactive map". Here's the link to the RAND study. Yes, I saw the study. Let me repeat, Show nested quote +So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Maybe you should consider looking at the source of articles and not assuming that it was researched and published in-house. You might learn something.
If you have a point, then make it. So far, all you've done is provide a false equivalence fallacy.
|
On October 15 2013 10:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 08:13 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 08:04 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 07:50 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:26 TheFish7 wrote:On October 15 2013 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:21 Sermokala wrote:
The real problems are going to come after the first of the year when people assume that they filed out the ACA website forms correctly and have health care when they really don't thus getting hit by the individual mandate tax and not having health insurance.
Not to mention whats going to happen after everyone's premiums triple after companies are forced to take people in with pre existing conditions. This is already happening. I keep hearing this but I have yet to see any real evidence that supports this claim. Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? Have you? How about looking at an actual study of the matter instead of an article by a conservative contributor to Forbes (and instead of cherry-picking states)? No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act
The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.
However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.
“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Source So, basically, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Ease up on the bloviating, one study had 13 states the other 10. Did you even look at the two sources? One (mine) is an actual study and one is an article accompanying an "interactive map". Here's the link to the RAND study. Yes, I saw the study. Let me repeat, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Maybe you should consider looking at the source of articles and not assuming that it was researched and published in-house. You might learn something. If you have a point, then make it. So far, all you've done is provide a false equivalence fallacy.
Two think tank reports, two different conclusions. All you've done is attack one, and let the other stand. It's known as ad hominem.
|
On October 15 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 10:17 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 09:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 08:13 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 08:04 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 07:50 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:26 TheFish7 wrote:On October 15 2013 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:21 Sermokala wrote:
The real problems are going to come after the first of the year when people assume that they filed out the ACA website forms correctly and have health care when they really don't thus getting hit by the individual mandate tax and not having health insurance.
Not to mention whats going to happen after everyone's premiums triple after companies are forced to take people in with pre existing conditions. This is already happening. I keep hearing this but I have yet to see any real evidence that supports this claim. Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? Have you? How about looking at an actual study of the matter instead of an article by a conservative contributor to Forbes (and instead of cherry-picking states)? No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act
The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.
However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.
“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Source So, basically, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Ease up on the bloviating, one study had 13 states the other 10. Did you even look at the two sources? One (mine) is an actual study and one is an article accompanying an "interactive map". Here's the link to the RAND study. Yes, I saw the study. Let me repeat, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Maybe you should consider looking at the source of articles and not assuming that it was researched and published in-house. You might learn something. If you have a point, then make it. So far, all you've done is provide a false equivalence fallacy. Two think tank reports, two different conclusions. All you've done is attack one, and let the other stand. It's known as ad hominem.
Where's the second report? What I did was provide an in-depth report and point out that xDaunt's source was a blog article written by a right-wing contributor to Forbes, not an actual report. It's known as being factual.
|
NEW YORK, Oct 14 (Reuters) - Tesoro Logistics LP does not have a specific date for the restart of the North Dakota pipeline that spilled 20,600 barrels of Bakken oil onto farmland in late September, the company said on Monday.
The six-inch pipeline was carrying crude oil from the Bakken shale to a rail facility outside Columbus, North Dakota, when it ruptured, leaking the largest volume of oil on U.S. land since March, when an Exxon Mobil pipeline spilled nearly 7,000 barrels of Canadian crude in Mayflower, Arkansas.
A local farmer, who was harvesting wheat on his farm, discovered oil spouting from the line on Sept. 29.
While investigations into the spill's cause are not yet complete, initial findings point to corrosion on the 20-year old pipeline, state regulators said on Friday.
The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which is in charge of the investigation, could not be reached for comment due to the U.S. government shutdown.
It is not clear if the federal regulator has issued a corrective action order detailing the steps Tesoro Logistics will need to follow before restarting the line.
"We've begun developing plans to restart the pipeline and we will share those plans with PHMSA," Tina Barbee, a Tesoro spokeswoman said.
Source
|
On October 15 2013 10:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 10:17 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 09:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 08:13 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 08:04 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 07:50 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:26 TheFish7 wrote:On October 15 2013 06:22 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This is already happening. I keep hearing this but I have yet to see any real evidence that supports this claim. Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? Have you? How about looking at an actual study of the matter instead of an article by a conservative contributor to Forbes (and instead of cherry-picking states)? No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act
The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.
However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.
“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Source So, basically, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Ease up on the bloviating, one study had 13 states the other 10. Did you even look at the two sources? One (mine) is an actual study and one is an article accompanying an "interactive map". Here's the link to the RAND study. Yes, I saw the study. Let me repeat, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Maybe you should consider looking at the source of articles and not assuming that it was researched and published in-house. You might learn something. If you have a point, then make it. So far, all you've done is provide a false equivalence fallacy. Two think tank reports, two different conclusions. All you've done is attack one, and let the other stand. It's known as ad hominem. Where's the second report? What I did was provide an in-depth report and point out that xDaunt's source was a blog article written by a right-wing contributor to Forbes, not an actual report. It's known as being factual.
The link itself, shows the source and the methodology. I point it out as well, twice. If you categorically refuse to follow any links from a conservative source, I recommend an adjustment in your thinking. You have demonstrated an irrational fear of chart summaries.
I know all good researchers refuse to publish in popularly read publications. It's clear your ad hominem on right wingers precludes them ever having anything of note to write or research.
|
On October 15 2013 10:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 10:17 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 09:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 08:13 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 08:04 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 07:50 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:26 TheFish7 wrote:On October 15 2013 06:22 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This is already happening. I keep hearing this but I have yet to see any real evidence that supports this claim. Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? Have you? How about looking at an actual study of the matter instead of an article by a conservative contributor to Forbes (and instead of cherry-picking states)? No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act
The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.
However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.
“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Source So, basically, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Ease up on the bloviating, one study had 13 states the other 10. Did you even look at the two sources? One (mine) is an actual study and one is an article accompanying an "interactive map". Here's the link to the RAND study. Yes, I saw the study. Let me repeat, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Maybe you should consider looking at the source of articles and not assuming that it was researched and published in-house. You might learn something. If you have a point, then make it. So far, all you've done is provide a false equivalence fallacy. Two think tank reports, two different conclusions. All you've done is attack one, and let the other stand. It's known as ad hominem. Where's the second report? What I did was provide an in-depth report and point out that xDaunt's source was a blog article written by a right-wing contributor to Forbes, not an actual report. It's known as being factual.
No No No! We cannot let facts stand in the way of rabble rousing! How dare you compare (or mention that they cannot be compared seriously a 600 words article to a proper study!
Sarcasm aside could you please stop feeding the troll? He either doesn't read what you are posting or he doesn't understand the point. Stick to discussing things with XDaunt at least he reads your posts and tries to refute the points you raise.
Two think tank reports, two different conclusions. All you've done is attack one, and let the other stand. It's known as ad hominem
Side note: No it is not known as ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if he said "forbes is a piece of XXX and I'll ignore anything written there on principle" (though technically that would be an Ad institutum but never mind that), what he said instead was that one is a study the other is a shortish article who doesn't cite any sources we can look at to verify his content.
|
On October 15 2013 10:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 10:31 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 10:17 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 09:28 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 08:13 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 08:04 Danglars wrote:On October 15 2013 07:50 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2013 06:26 TheFish7 wrote:
[quote]
I keep hearing this but I have yet to see any real evidence that supports this claim. Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? Have you? How about looking at an actual study of the matter instead of an article by a conservative contributor to Forbes (and instead of cherry-picking states)? No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act
The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.
However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors such as an individual's age and whether they smoke, as well as whether they qualify for federal tax credits to help cover the cost.
“Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,” said Christine Eibner, the study's lead author and a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Source So, basically, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Ease up on the bloviating, one study had 13 states the other 10. Did you even look at the two sources? One (mine) is an actual study and one is an article accompanying an "interactive map". Here's the link to the RAND study. Yes, I saw the study. Let me repeat, So the evil, conservative writer for forbes Manhattan Institute for Policy Research says they're going to go up, huh? Well the Rand Corporation says they're going to stay the same! My analyst cherry picks states without cherry picking states, and your analyst just cherry picks states. Maybe you should consider looking at the source of articles and not assuming that it was researched and published in-house. You might learn something. If you have a point, then make it. So far, all you've done is provide a false equivalence fallacy. Two think tank reports, two different conclusions. All you've done is attack one, and let the other stand. It's known as ad hominem. Where's the second report? What I did was provide an in-depth report and point out that xDaunt's source was a blog article written by a right-wing contributor to Forbes, not an actual report. It's known as being factual. The link itself, shows the source and the methodology. I point it out as well, twice. If you categorically refuse to follow any links from a conservative source, I recommend an adjustment in your thinking. You have demonstrated an irrational fear of chart summaries. I know all good researchers refuse to publish in popularly read publications. It's clear your ad hominem on right wingers precludes them ever having anything of note to write or research.
Actually, the article cited by xDaunt links to a report which does not study what the article is about, namely the difference between premium costs with the ACA and what costs would have been without the ACA. The author of the article is the one who provides this content, and he therefore does so in the form of a relatively short blog article, not a report - exactly as I said. Are you sure you even paid attention to what you were talking about?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.
Source
This can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article?
|
On October 15 2013 12:22 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam. SourceThis can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article?
It is actually true, but mainly because of how the budget system works. For the President's opponents it would be more accurate to state that he wanted an increase in spending, but has not been able to get Congress to go along with it. The President's budget proposal for FY 2014, if I recall correctly, was roughly $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. The current post sequestration spending, which will probably be in the same range with a continuing resolution, is somewhere in the $980 billion range.
This also comes into play with the administration's claims about how the deficit has fallen more than under any other administration. They didn't want that to happen, it has happened due to congressional opposition. Granted, the administration gets nailed for deficit growth, so I don't have a huge problem with them getting credit when it falls.
What it really comes down to is that the Federal budget is incredibly complicated and isn't well explained in short and catchy political headlines and advertisements.
|
On October 15 2013 12:52 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 12:22 Mercy13 wrote:Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam. SourceThis can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article? It is actually true, but mainly because of how the budget system works. For the President's opponents it would be more accurate to state that he wanted an increase in spending, but has not been able to get Congress to go along with it. The President's budget proposal for FY 2014, if I recall correctly, was roughly $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. The current post sequestration spending, which will probably be in the same range with a continuing resolution, is somewhere in the $980 billion range. This also comes into play with the administration's claims about how the deficit has fallen more than under any other administration. They didn't want that to happen, it has happened due to congressional opposition. Granted, the administration gets nailed for deficit growth, so I don't have a huge problem with them getting credit when it falls. What it really comes down to is that the Federal budget is incredibly complicated and isn't well explained in short and catchy political headlines and advertisements.
The deficit exploded because of the recession (coupled with the fact that the two wars and bush tax cuts meant we had a deficit to start with). The economy has been improving, and with that the deficit has been falling. Better economy means more money from taxes. It really has very little to do with Congress or Obama. Although the fiscal stimulus that was passed for the recession helped considerably, it wasn't large enough for the depth of the recession.
If we had low unemployment, we would have a better outlook. However, it's very easy to scare people with the national debt (like here), even though unemployment is far scarier. Essentially, you have to spend money to make money.
|
On October 15 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 12:52 ey215 wrote:On October 15 2013 12:22 Mercy13 wrote:Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam. SourceThis can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article? It is actually true, but mainly because of how the budget system works. For the President's opponents it would be more accurate to state that he wanted an increase in spending, but has not been able to get Congress to go along with it. The President's budget proposal for FY 2014, if I recall correctly, was roughly $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. The current post sequestration spending, which will probably be in the same range with a continuing resolution, is somewhere in the $980 billion range. This also comes into play with the administration's claims about how the deficit has fallen more than under any other administration. They didn't want that to happen, it has happened due to congressional opposition. Granted, the administration gets nailed for deficit growth, so I don't have a huge problem with them getting credit when it falls. What it really comes down to is that the Federal budget is incredibly complicated and isn't well explained in short and catchy political headlines and advertisements. The deficit exploded because of the recession (coupled with the fact that the two wars and bush tax cuts meant we had a deficit to start with). The economy has been improving, and with that the deficit has been falling. Better economy means more money from taxes. It really has very little to do with Congress or Obama. Although the fiscal stimulus that was passed for the recession helped considerably, it wasn't large enough for the depth of the recession. If we had low unemployment, we would have a better outlook. However, it's very easy to scare people with the national debt ( like here), even though unemployment is far scarier. Essentially, you have to spend money to make money.
No arguments there, but the Republicans have been screaming from the rooftops for five years straight that Obama is the biggest spender in history.
I guess it makes sense that neither side really wants to publish these facts. The GOP for obvious reasons, and the Democrats because they really would prefer to spend more so they can't take credit for the low increases in federal spending.
It seems like a waste of a good chance to educate the public on how the government works, however, and we could certainly use a lot more of that going around.
Edit: lol at that site you linked. It's unreasonably terrifying.
|
On October 15 2013 12:22 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam. SourceThis can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article?
Sounds about right to me. A couple caveats:
A lot of spending under Bush was temporary (ex. wars and homeland security) and so its natural for that spending to go away over time along with a drop-off in stimulus. Very low interest rates have allowed the government to spend less on interest payments.
|
On October 15 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 12:52 ey215 wrote:On October 15 2013 12:22 Mercy13 wrote:Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam. SourceThis can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article? It is actually true, but mainly because of how the budget system works. For the President's opponents it would be more accurate to state that he wanted an increase in spending, but has not been able to get Congress to go along with it. The President's budget proposal for FY 2014, if I recall correctly, was roughly $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. The current post sequestration spending, which will probably be in the same range with a continuing resolution, is somewhere in the $980 billion range. This also comes into play with the administration's claims about how the deficit has fallen more than under any other administration. They didn't want that to happen, it has happened due to congressional opposition. Granted, the administration gets nailed for deficit growth, so I don't have a huge problem with them getting credit when it falls. What it really comes down to is that the Federal budget is incredibly complicated and isn't well explained in short and catchy political headlines and advertisements. The deficit exploded because of the recession (coupled with the fact that the two wars and bush tax cuts meant we had a deficit to start with). The economy has been improving, and with that the deficit has been falling. Better economy means more money from taxes. It really has very little to do with Congress or Obama. Although the fiscal stimulus that was passed for the recession helped considerably, it wasn't large enough for the depth of the recession. If we had low unemployment, we would have a better outlook. However, it's very easy to scare people with the national debt ( like here), even though unemployment is far scarier. Essentially, you have to spend money to make money.
Yes, the recession had something to do with the deficit exploding, but the deficit would be larger in the last few years if it was up to just the administration and not Congress as well. The question and article linked was about the image of the President as a big spender, not what actually caused the deficit. Deficit hawks are able to paint him with that brush due to the budgets that the administration has proposed. Part of the problem with budgets proposed on both sides is that long term the assumption is that the relative cost of debt service will stay low. We've been at historic low interest rates for a while and eventually they will come up, again talking about long term.
While some more government spending may help unemployment, a bigger issue is the regulatory environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about having no regulation or the myth of the totally free market. Those ideas obviously ignore the idea of externalities. However, it has become harder and harder at all levels to start your own business. What will really fix the unemployment issue is the encouragement of entrepreneurship, not the crony capitalism that both parties participate in. You see it even at the local level when cities and states try to protect brick and mortar businesses from new competitors that are innovative and if they succeed will employ more people.
We should be making it easier for people to start their own businesses, not harder. That's what will fix unemployment in the long run. It will also have the additional benefit of giving us a more stable economy instead of this continuing cycle of busts.
I think we can at least all agree (left and right) that the focus on how well the economy is doing because of record levels of the Dow really is misplaced. It's not really doing particularly well.
|
On October 15 2013 13:38 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:On October 15 2013 12:52 ey215 wrote:On October 15 2013 12:22 Mercy13 wrote:Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
. . .
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
. . .
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam. SourceThis can't possibly be true can it? It looks credible to me, but can someone who knows more about this type of thing critique the article? It is actually true, but mainly because of how the budget system works. For the President's opponents it would be more accurate to state that he wanted an increase in spending, but has not been able to get Congress to go along with it. The President's budget proposal for FY 2014, if I recall correctly, was roughly $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. The current post sequestration spending, which will probably be in the same range with a continuing resolution, is somewhere in the $980 billion range. This also comes into play with the administration's claims about how the deficit has fallen more than under any other administration. They didn't want that to happen, it has happened due to congressional opposition. Granted, the administration gets nailed for deficit growth, so I don't have a huge problem with them getting credit when it falls. What it really comes down to is that the Federal budget is incredibly complicated and isn't well explained in short and catchy political headlines and advertisements. The deficit exploded because of the recession (coupled with the fact that the two wars and bush tax cuts meant we had a deficit to start with). The economy has been improving, and with that the deficit has been falling. Better economy means more money from taxes. It really has very little to do with Congress or Obama. Although the fiscal stimulus that was passed for the recession helped considerably, it wasn't large enough for the depth of the recession. If we had low unemployment, we would have a better outlook. However, it's very easy to scare people with the national debt ( like here), even though unemployment is far scarier. Essentially, you have to spend money to make money. Yes, the recession had something to do with the deficit exploding, but the deficit would be larger in the last few years if it was up to just the administration and not Congress as well. The question and article linked was about the image of the President as a big spender, not what actually caused the deficit. Deficit hawks are able to paint him with that brush due to the budgets that the administration has proposed. Part of the problem with budgets proposed on both sides is that long term the assumption is that the relative cost of debt service will stay low. We've been at historic low interest rates for a while and eventually they will come up, again talking about long term. While some more government spending may help unemployment, a bigger issue is the regulatory environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about having no regulation or the myth of the totally free market. Those ideas obviously ignore the idea of externalities. However, it has become harder and harder at all levels to start your own business. What will really fix the unemployment issue is the encouragement of entrepreneurship, not the crony capitalism that both parties participate in. You see it even at the local level when cities and states try to protect brick and mortar businesses from new competitors that are innovative and if they succeed will employee more people. We should be making it easier for people to start their own businesses, not harder. That's what will fix unemployment in the long run. It will also have the additional benefit of giving us a more stable economy instead of this continuing cycle of busts. I think we can at least all agree (left and right) that the focus on how well the economy is doing because of record levels of the Dow really is misplaced. It's not really doing particularly well.
I want to clarify my statement on making it easier to start new businesses. I don't particularly care for tax cuts to encourage business to move to an area or for people to start new businesses. Let's just clean up the regulatory environment so that they can at least operate on a level playing field.
|
|
|
|
|
awful coinkendental. is that the second one this month?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.thinkonthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/healthcarespending1.png)
